granted your coming off one of the top of the line monitors that is not CRT, but that sounds like some other issue it should not look as bad as you describe. You got the rig to support that resolution. It is pretty strange I second looking at your zoom settings, although if you set just scan it should override that.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that Zoom was another option in the options that also had Just Scan. The others, I believe, were Full and 4:3. There might have been a couple of others. But if I had Just set as the option, then Zoom wouldn’t be set, right?
I can’t solve your technical issues, but I have to ask - why would you prefer the bigger TV?
In general, high end TVs are significantly worse than high end monitors in pretty much every respect. They’re less crisp, they have lower resolutions, they have less even coloring and brighter black levels, their reactivity is often significantly worse (sometimes the signal processing delay on TVs is crazy), etc.
You’re trying to make fewer pixels of information cover a larger area - even ignoring all the issues I mentioned above, that’s a downgrade in visual quality. And it doesn’t have any offsetting benefits. People always think bigger is better when it comes to viewing devices - and all else being equal it is - but all else isn’t equal. My 24" monitor at 1.5 feet from me looks way better than any 52" TV across the room could. The only advantage having a bigger screen is that you can have more people view it (from more places) at once - since that’s not the case here, why are you even trying to get this to work? Your Apple display (I’m assuming Apple makes quality monitors, haven’t heard anything bad about them) is better.
Those apple cinema displays are delicious Ips panels. Top notch $1000 displays. I’m getting one if I ever win the lottery.
Yeah, I’m beginning to come to the conclusion that I jumped the gun a bit on the TV. I’ve gone back to the monitor now and things look so much better. Fortunately, while I can still return the TV, I’ve got another use for it so I’ll probably just do that and stick with my monitor.
I wonder if they’ll ever come out with something larger that looks as good, or if that’s just a market that’s so small as to not be economically viable.
Well as you know that 30" High resolution IPS panel runs a thousand bucks. I’ve seen larger higher rez panels go for a LOT of money, and I’ve only seen them being used in a professional setting - panels at hospitals used in high tech surgeries for example.
As Kinthalis alludes, the issue is that TVs (even the very best ones with non-muddy pixels and high refresh/recovery times) simply don’t have the same pixels per square inch density that monitors do, and pixel count is a big driver of price within the same general screen area category.
~0.9 million pixels 32" LCD TV at 720p (1280x720) ~= $300
~2.1 million pixels 32" LCD TV at 1080p (1920x1080) ~= $600
~4.1 million pixels 30" Monitor at 2560x1600 ~= $1100
Wow, that’s a lot closer to proportional than I thought it’d be when I started doing the math. Anyway, then you correlate screen size:
37" LCD TV from the same brand at 1080p = $700
46" LCD TV from the same brand at 1080p = $800
52" LCD TV from the same brand at 1080p = $1200
55" LCD TV from the same brand at 1080p = $2000
So you can extrapolate that a 42" TV with the same resolution as your cinema display would run you a minimum of $1400. And it’ll still not look as sharp, since it will have proportionally larger pixels. I’m not even going to do the math on pixels per square inch.
And after writing all of that, I have another theory.
Your TV is at 16:9. Your monitor is at 16:10. The monitor proportionately has around 10% more vertical space than the TV does, which can make a huge difference in UI appearance. I’d like to take this time to bemoan the death of 4:3 and 16:10 in computer monitors.
was the switch to 16:9 due to tvs or something. Glad I still got a 16:10 and CRT to boot!
Pretty much, aspect ratios are being driven by the needs of HD resolutions and odd monitor geometries are theoretically being taken care of by the ability of newer video cards to multiplex up to six outputs.
Also, did you seriously just brag about having a CRT? Have you not used a quality LCD monitor since 2002?
CRTs are amazing, dude. LCDs are just barely catching up.
Agreed, CRTs are better than LCDs in every way except size. I was pretty angry when my monitor died and you simply couldn’t find a new CRT anywhere to buy. I got some off craigslist but everything had been 5+ old and had various age-related problems so I finally caved in in 2007 or so.
During what I call “the troubles” an anonymous Doper (at least I think it was a Doper) gifted me with the ProScan Dual HDMI . Viewable area is 23"x13".
I LOVE it!
Q
Apparently I’m a weirdo–I had a $700 Trinitron CRT tube for ages, and I never looked back once I saw the Samsung 172X.
Admittedly, the vast majority of LCD monitors are inferior, but the Samsungs I’ve been buying haven’t given me any reason to regret the switch.
CRTs have better black levels. They can’t compare to LCDs in size, weight, sharpness/clarity, color accuracy, brightness, or geometry.
And that’s only top-of-the-line CRTs, which most people never had (and which only became attainable by average people when the prices dropped because LCDs took over).
The average CRT when they were the main technology had a miserable refresh rate at any decent resolution, making it painful to even look at. I was slow to switch to LCD even though my CRT hurt my eyes, but when I finally did it was light years better than the CRT. The only issue is black levels, and even then only in a dark room. I have a tv for watching movies, so LCD wins in every way.
To answer the OP: You really need to research using a specific tv as a computer monitor before you buy it. Look at forums where people have tried it. Not every tv can do it right, and you can’t tell by the basic specs.
Size and weight obviously I give you. Color accuracy on CRTs is better almost across the line than LCDs. CRTs can be as bright as any LCD. Geometry requires proper configuration, but can be practically perfect.
Bad CRTs are bad, agreed, but good CRTs stomped LCDs in every visual quality.
I’ve got a 32" 1080p Panny hooked up as a tertiary monitor, and the damn thing has no option to display an input signal pixel for pixel. It absolutely insists on doing its image massage on everything, with the result that the computer input looks like it’s being displayed at a non-native resolution even though it isn’t. Fortunately it’s mostly a tv and occasionally displays video output off the computer. If I’d bought it to use for actual computer output I’d have returned it.
On the positive side, it does a really superb job of scaling standard-def tv signals.
Yeah,but it ain’t just any CRT it is a Sony FW900 which cost around $2000 when new. I think it was the only widescreen PC CRT ever made. Aside from the weight I have yet to see comparable image quality on any lcd yet. Oh don’t get me wrong they are getting there but not quite yet. I got 2 of these new old stock from some old drafting place that closed down for $250 check out the specs.
http://www.superwarehouse.com/Sony_FW900_FD_24_CRT_Monitor/GDM-FW900/ps/118823
max rez : 2304 x 1440 @ 80 Hz
right now I run it at 1600 x 1000 at 120 hz
This monitor is so badass it has its own 300 plus page thread on another forum I visit
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952788
Until Oled comes out if it ever does Ima stick with these beasts, lol
i forgot no native resolution which if you play older games is a plus