Outline ·
[ Standard ] ·
Linear+
Technical LCD TV, its time to get one.seriously....
|
stringfellow
|
 Aug 13 2006, 07:26 PM
|
|
Which is why i picked my LCd Proj. as well, based on the specs the TV has during its release circa 2003/04, having a 1080i/720p into the image processing algorithm at that time was unheard off. And it is a Samsung as well. While others were patiently waiting for familiar brands like Sony and Toshiba to come up with their answer for affordable HDTVs at that time (they were both pushing the Plasma and CRT HDTVs as their solution at that time, which both are neither satisfactory since Plasma are so goddamn expensive price/screen size ratio, while CRT HDTVs at that time (2003/04) was sporting 480p as their main resolution and 525p ad thbe alternative other, weird resolution I know....), Samsung had their plans in place with RPTVs, which at that time was second generation over the first-gen big-a$$ RPTVs with huge bottoms. Mind you, these arent full-fledged DLPs, they bridge the gap between the below-par RPTVs, and the next-gen (at that time) DLPs.
Fast forward to year 2006, and you now see even CRTs supporting the elusive 720p, which shows that general consumers have finally embraced the technology as it should, although it takes a while to get to them the importance of higher resolution image as we go bigger in screen size. True, the price range is not helping too either, as bigger screened TVs are always in the 5 digit figure.
The smaller sub 20 and mid 30 incher LCd TVs are affordable enough for average consumer to buy now, so it's all good.
Next to look forward to are, for me at least, the emergence of SED TV sets and 1080p capable HDTVs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:28 PM
|
|
|
DAidz, cant help you there dude, im not well versed enough to comment on that. A lot of forum members here go for Dell for the value for money and the spec/price ratio as well. Maybe we can get others who know more about this to comment further,.....Redbull perhaps?  |
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:30 PM
|
|
|
Quantum, i think there is a similar thread in the Computer Hardware section of this forum. What i think Daidz's meant in this thread is LCD TVs, NOT LCd monitors. You may want to try and direct your queries to the relevant section so that you would get a better response there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:47 PM
|
|
|
Yup, LCd monitors is a great way to start experiencing High Definition gaming on your console. They are affordable and can be used on your PCs as well. One of the DEll models comes with multitude of inputs, which means you can connect it to PC and your 360, and your DVD players and simply switch between the source inputs easily, or do Picture-In-Picture between them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:49 PM
|
|
|
Slower response time results in ghosting, IIANM. Fast moving scenes such as FPSes and to certain extent, racing games, will be affected by this. Some users have come to terms to this and have accepted this and got on with their gaming lives. Others might be bug annoyed by this though.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 08:07 PM
|
|
|
I would happy too if i could get that 65incher 1080p full HD panel currently on display at Best DEnki into my living room!  The thing is, the Xbox 360 plus original games are already putting a huge dent on the wallet, so people go budget first before planning full-blown HDTV. Microsoft knows that , which is why you see them supporting this via VGA connection, and holding LAN sessions, sometimes with use of LCD monitors. |
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 08:11 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE If you've been shopping for a monitor in recent months, you may have noticed a lot of attention being given to one spec in particular: response time. Also referred to as response rate or latency, an LCD's response time supposedly indicates how fast it can display moving images. Most of last year's LCDs came with 16-millisecond (ms) response times--fast enough for decent-looking DVD playback, though with some ghosting and distortion. But response times are falling, and with Samsung and ViewSonic debuting LCDs with 3ms and 4ms response times earlier this year, LCDs would appear to be nearing the performance offered by CRTs. But what do response time numbers really mean?
A faster response time is better--it indicates how quickly the screen can refresh a video image. If an LCD's response time is too slow, the display's pixels won't be able to keep up with the information sent from the computer's graphics card, and you'll see ghosting and digital noise as a result. But just because a vendor advertises a fast response time doesn't mean that its LCD will handle moving images better.
Response time is defined as the time required for an LCD pixel to change from fully active (black) to fully inactive (white), then back to fully active again. Many manufacturers, on the other hand, report their LCDs' gray-to-gray response times. Pixels are rarely completely on or off--instead they cycle between gray states, that is colors--and, in general, switching between gray states is much slower than switching between black and white. However, some also argue that measuring gray-to-gray response time is pointless, since the manufacturers rarely tell where in the cycle they start and end their measurements. To alleviate this confusion, the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) plans to introduce a spec standardizing response time measurement sometime in 2006.
In the present, however, manufacturers still report the "fastest possible" response time, instead of the average or typical response time that you and I would see in daily use. And, sometimes manufacturers can't even decide how fast their own products are, as with ViewSonic's September 2005 announcement that its ViewSonic VX924 LCD actually had a 3ms response rate rather than the previously announced 4ms rate.
In any case, while response time specs may help when looking for a monitor for viewing DVDs or playing video games, we recommend testing a monitor yourself before buying. CNET does not officially test response times, but we judge gaming and DVD performance with our own eyes, and we urge you to do the same.
Taken from a CNET article. |
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 09:04 PM
|
|
|
Your LCD monitors can go up to higher resolutions than 1024x768 or 1280 x 1024 or 1360 x 768, that most LCd TV/HDTV supports. LCD monitors are used mainly with your PCs , with 30 inch monitors from Dell and Apple having the ability go up to crazier resolutions like 1600 x 1200 and beyond. LCD TVs cannot go beyong 1280x1024 or 1360x768, mainly because these LCD TVs are used for watching content from consoles, or HDTV signals which are restricted to 720p/1080i feed at this point in time.
So to answer your question:-
1. LCd TV = comes in sizes , more often larger than 30 inch, but restricted in resolution up to HDTV standards. Mainly used for watching TV, or DVDs or with videogame console nowadays.
LCD monitors = comes in sizes, but more often in smaller sizes, 30 inch and below, but can display resolutions higher than HDTV standards, the larger sizes even support better resolutions provided by uber-graphic cards out there. Mainly used as PC monitors.
2. If you use LCd TV as PC monitor, you will be restricted to the resolution supported by the LCd TV, which in most cases , inferior to LCD monitors. This is usually up to 1024x768 or 1280x1024. If you had never used other higher resolutions than this, it should be fine for you, but for those who had tried these higher resolutions, your screen would look super crisp, although text and icons would look tiny. You CAN use LCd TV as your Pc monitor, but you would be wasting the graphic card power and capability when your card can go resolutions like 1600x1200 easily but your LCd TV doesnt support it.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote
0.0159sec
0.27
6 queries
GZIP Disabled