Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I've searched Google, but I haven't found an answer to my specific question.
Also, I'm wondering if a product has been developed recently that might not
have been available a while back.  My question is:
Is there any way to use my large-screen rear-projection TV as a *decent* PC
monitor?  I realize this kind of TV is very low-res, but I'm curious as to
why I can play dvds from my computer to my TV which look great, but the
basic Windows desktop looks horrible.  Makes me wonder if some type of
software or hardware exists that will convert desktop/browser images the
same way pc/dvd video can be converted to look good on TV.  I've got a
Matrox G450 g-card, and using their DVDMax feature I can get pc video
quality on my tv that's as good as using my set-top dvd player.  Obviously,
a conversion process is going on that allows the video images to display
properly at the TVs 500 lines or whatever of vertical res.  I understand
that reducing my pc's (and thus the vga signal's) resolution will make it
more legible, but then the screen doesn't size to the TV.
Is there any kind of solution available?
 
Thank you,
 
jakesnake

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"jakesnake66" <jake@lycos.com> wrote in message  
news:s8Sfd.57008$5v2.3760@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> I've searched Google, but I haven't found an answer to my specific  
> question.
> Also, I'm wondering if a product has been developed recently that might  
> not
> have been available a while back.  My question is:
> Is there any way to use my large-screen rear-projection TV as a *decent*  
> PC
> monitor?  I realize this kind of TV is very low-res, but I'm curious as to
> why I can play dvds from my computer to my TV which look great, but the
> basic Windows desktop looks horrible.  Makes me wonder if some type of
> software or hardware exists that will convert desktop/browser images the
> same way pc/dvd video can be converted to look good on TV.  I've got a
> Matrox G450 g-card, and using their DVDMax feature I can get pc video
> quality on my tv that's as good as using my set-top dvd player.  
> Obviously,
> a conversion process is going on that allows the video images to display
> properly at the TVs 500 lines or whatever of vertical res.  I understand
> that reducing my pc's (and thus the vga signal's) resolution will make it
> more legible, but then the screen doesn't size to the TV.
> Is there any kind of solution available?
>
> Thank you,
>
> jakesnake
>
>
>
 
Jake,
Video will look good on a tv because it was originally designed for a tv.
In fact the dvd will look bad on your PC, if it wasn't automatically  
de-interlaced first by the PC DVD playing software.
You would see all the interlace scan lines, it would look bad. But they  
remove them and so it can look good on your PC.
ON a TV the dvd or video file plays with its interlace, odd and even scan  
lines and looks normal.
Unless of course, you have a higher resolution tv monitor that can display  
progressive scan video.
 
OK, So that is why the video looks good on your tv, now why a PC screen  
picture looks bad on your tv is the opposite going on. There isn't enough  
detail or resolution on your tv to handle a pure vga image, so the video  
card tried and converts the PC screen to display properly on a tv by  
interlacing it, however since the graphics on a PC weren't designed for  
that, they just don't look that good. Even when viewed through a scan  
converter.
In short, things look better when viewed in the resolution and device they  
were intended for.
 
Take for instance microsoft's web tv, and his new msn tv device, they are  
intended for use on tv screens so the OS and software are showing images  
designed for that, usually larger graphics with no thin lines etc.. That  
will look better.
 
I hope that helps a bit.
Anthony

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thanks Anthony.  Great explanation.
The only issue left a little bit unresolved is whether there's a product
designed to *force* vga to look decent on tv, or at least a bit improved
over what I get now.  Are you familiar with anything?  My guess is that even
if it were possible technically, it no longer makes financial sense for the
companies involved, given the advancements in tv display technology that are
sure to displace the low-res stuff like I have.  Agreed?
Thank you,
 
jakesnake
 
 
 
 
 
"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:6SWfd.35095$4C.9241870@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "jakesnake66" <jake@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:s8Sfd.57008$5v2.3760@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> > I've searched Google, but I haven't found an answer to my specific
> > question.
> > Also, I'm wondering if a product has been developed recently that might
> > not
> > have been available a while back.  My question is:
> > Is there any way to use my large-screen rear-projection TV as a *decent*
> > PC
> > monitor?  I realize this kind of TV is very low-res, but I'm curious as
to
> > why I can play dvds from my computer to my TV which look great, but the
> > basic Windows desktop looks horrible.  Makes me wonder if some type of
> > software or hardware exists that will convert desktop/browser images the
> > same way pc/dvd video can be converted to look good on TV.  I've got a
> > Matrox G450 g-card, and using their DVDMax feature I can get pc video
> > quality on my tv that's as good as using my set-top dvd player.
> > Obviously,
> > a conversion process is going on that allows the video images to display
> > properly at the TVs 500 lines or whatever of vertical res.  I understand
> > that reducing my pc's (and thus the vga signal's) resolution will make
it
> > more legible, but then the screen doesn't size to the TV.
> > Is there any kind of solution available?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > jakesnake
> >
> >
> >
>
> Jake,
> Video will look good on a tv because it was originally designed for a tv.
> In fact the dvd will look bad on your PC, if it wasn't automatically
> de-interlaced first by the PC DVD playing software.
> You would see all the interlace scan lines, it would look bad. But they
> remove them and so it can look good on your PC.
> ON a TV the dvd or video file plays with its interlace, odd and even scan
> lines and looks normal.
> Unless of course, you have a higher resolution tv monitor that can display
> progressive scan video.
>
> OK, So that is why the video looks good on your tv, now why a PC screen
> picture looks bad on your tv is the opposite going on. There isn't enough
> detail or resolution on your tv to handle a pure vga image, so the video
> card tried and converts the PC screen to display properly on a tv by
> interlacing it, however since the graphics on a PC weren't designed for
> that, they just don't look that good. Even when viewed through a scan
> converter.
> In short, things look better when viewed in the resolution and device they
> were intended for.
>
> Take for instance microsoft's web tv, and his new msn tv device, they are
> intended for use on tv screens so the OS and software are showing images
> designed for that, usually larger graphics with no thin lines etc.. That
> will look better.
>
> I hope that helps a bit.
> Anthony
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Jake,
Well, I don't know if any software could ever make a PC image look better on  
a TV.
See, the tv will always be interlaced ntsc system which will show the scan  
lines and not much detail.
It is possible the other way around because PC monitors have a higher  
resolution than tv, but going
the other way around, you're left with trying to fit a higher resolution  
onto a lower resolution piece of hardware
and expect it to fit and look good. it just can't because the hardware isn't  
there.
 
It's almost like asking someone if it's possible thru a software upgrade to  
allow an older EGA resolution PC monitor to display a VGA image. It couldn't  
be done back then without buying a new higher resolution VGA display  
monitor.
 
That's how I see it. Of course there are very good scan converters that will  
allow you to view a PC screen on your big screen, and I suppose from far  
away, it might look ok, but the retail will just not be there especially  
when you look at it close up cause the tv doesn't have the pixel count it  
needs.
Have you tried any good scan converters to see if it's acceptable for your  
needs?
In trade shows and classes many people demo computer stuff using a PC and  
displaying it on a projection screen using a scan converter, I suppose it's  
a better image than you would get from just going out on a video card.
 
Canopus just came out with a new AD/VC converter that also can convert vga  
into tv signals, I never tried it but seen it on the web site.
http://www.canopus.us/US/products/ [...] C120EX.asp
 
Hey Jake, I was looking for the link to it and realized they might suit you  
just right actually.
 
This is the internal model for $199
http://www.canopus.us/US/products/SSC100/pt_SSC100.asp
 
I wonder if this is what you meant? It should look better than the composite  
out on a dual head video card but not perfect or as good as a high  
resolution monitor, but maybe it will be enough for your needs?
 
I hoped that I helped,
AnthonyR.
 
 
"jakesnake66" <jake@lycos.com> wrote in message  
news:Rd9gd.59108$5v2.27378@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Thanks Anthony.  Great explanation.
> The only issue left a little bit unresolved is whether there's a product
> designed to *force* vga to look decent on tv, or at least a bit improved
> over what I get now.  Are you familiar with anything?  My guess is that  
> even
> if it were possible technically, it no longer makes financial sense for  
> the
> companies involved, given the advancements in tv display technology that  
> are
> sure to displace the low-res stuff like I have.  Agreed?
> Thank you,
>
> jakesnake
>
>
>
>
>
> "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
> news:6SWfd.35095$4C.9241870@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>
>> "jakesnake66" <jake@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:s8Sfd.57008$5v2.3760@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>> > I've searched Google, but I haven't found an answer to my specific
>> > question.
>> > Also, I'm wondering if a product has been developed recently that might
>> > not
>> > have been available a while back.  My question is:
>> > Is there any way to use my large-screen rear-projection TV as a  
>> > *decent*
>> > PC
>> > monitor?  I realize this kind of TV is very low-res, but I'm curious as
> to
>> > why I can play dvds from my computer to my TV which look great, but the
>> > basic Windows desktop looks horrible.  Makes me wonder if some type of
>> > software or hardware exists that will convert desktop/browser images  
>> > the
>> > same way pc/dvd video can be converted to look good on TV.  I've got a
>> > Matrox G450 g-card, and using their DVDMax feature I can get pc video
>> > quality on my tv that's as good as using my set-top dvd player.
>> > Obviously,
>> > a conversion process is going on that allows the video images to  
>> > display
>> > properly at the TVs 500 lines or whatever of vertical res.  I  
>> > understand
>> > that reducing my pc's (and thus the vga signal's) resolution will make
> it
>> > more legible, but then the screen doesn't size to the TV.
>> > Is there any kind of solution available?
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> >
>> > jakesnake
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Jake,
>> Video will look good on a tv because it was originally designed for a tv.
>> In fact the dvd will look bad on your PC, if it wasn't automatically
>> de-interlaced first by the PC DVD playing software.
>> You would see all the interlace scan lines, it would look bad. But they
>> remove them and so it can look good on your PC.
>> ON a TV the dvd or video file plays with its interlace, odd and even scan
>> lines and looks normal.
>> Unless of course, you have a higher resolution tv monitor that can  
>> display
>> progressive scan video.
>>
>> OK, So that is why the video looks good on your tv, now why a PC screen
>> picture looks bad on your tv is the opposite going on. There isn't enough
>> detail or resolution on your tv to handle a pure vga image, so the video
>> card tried and converts the PC screen to display properly on a tv by
>> interlacing it, however since the graphics on a PC weren't designed for
>> that, they just don't look that good. Even when viewed through a scan
>> converter.
>> In short, things look better when viewed in the resolution and device  
>> they
>> were intended for.
>>
>> Take for instance microsoft's web tv, and his new msn tv device, they are
>> intended for use on tv screens so the OS and software are showing images
>> designed for that, usually larger graphics with no thin lines etc.. That
>> will look better.
>>
>> I hope that helps a bit.
>> Anthony
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I knew if I pressed you a little bit you'd come through )
That looks perfect.  I don't need visual excellence, or really anything like
true 1024x768 vga on a good monitor.  Really, I just want it accetable for
basic web surfing.  My only concern is the way it might render text, for
example on Word docs or PDFs.  I think my tv is 48", which at least gives me
decent size.  My seating is approximately 20' from the tv.  From my video
card out I cannot read text very well, but games or okay, and web surfing is
tolerable in small amounts.  More than 15 minutes leads to considerable
frustration and eye strain.
 
At any rate, I think the Canopus looks very good, and at $199 list it's
certainly worth trying, rather than jumping into an expensive HDTV, when my
big-screen Hitachi is certainly a worthy tv.
 
By the way, are the $1000 HDTVs really much better suited to use as monitors
than typical tvs like I've got?
 
jakesnake
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
newsZjgd.181694$4h7.34678524@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Jake,
> Well, I don't know if any software could ever make a PC image look better
on
> a TV.
> See, the tv will always be interlaced ntsc system which will show the scan
> lines and not much detail.
> It is possible the other way around because PC monitors have a higher
> resolution than tv, but going
> the other way around, you're left with trying to fit a higher resolution
> onto a lower resolution piece of hardware
> and expect it to fit and look good. it just can't because the hardware
isn't
> there.
>
> It's almost like asking someone if it's possible thru a software upgrade
to
> allow an older EGA resolution PC monitor to display a VGA image. It
couldn't
> be done back then without buying a new higher resolution VGA display
> monitor.
>
> That's how I see it. Of course there are very good scan converters that
will
> allow you to view a PC screen on your big screen, and I suppose from far
> away, it might look ok, but the retail will just not be there especially
> when you look at it close up cause the tv doesn't have the pixel count it
> needs.
> Have you tried any good scan converters to see if it's acceptable for your
> needs?
> In trade shows and classes many people demo computer stuff using a PC and
> displaying it on a projection screen using a scan converter, I suppose
it's
> a better image than you would get from just going out on a video card.
>
> Canopus just came out with a new AD/VC converter that also can convert vga
> into tv signals, I never tried it but seen it on the web site.
> http://www.canopus.us/US/products/ [...] C120EX.asp
>
> Hey Jake, I was looking for the link to it and realized they might suit
you
> just right actually.
>
> This is the internal model for $199
> http://www.canopus.us/US/products/SSC100/pt_SSC100.asp
>
> I wonder if this is what you meant? It should look better than the
composite
> out on a dual head video card but not perfect or as good as a high
> resolution monitor, but maybe it will be enough for your needs?
>
> I hoped that I helped,
> AnthonyR.
>
>
> "jakesnake66" <jake@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:Rd9gd.59108$5v2.27378@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> > Thanks Anthony.  Great explanation.
> > The only issue left a little bit unresolved is whether there's a product
> > designed to *force* vga to look decent on tv, or at least a bit improved
> > over what I get now.  Are you familiar with anything?  My guess is that
> > even
> > if it were possible technically, it no longer makes financial sense for
> > the
> > companies involved, given the advancements in tv display technology that
> > are
> > sure to displace the low-res stuff like I have.  Agreed?
> > Thank you,
> >
> > jakesnake
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
> > news:6SWfd.35095$4C.9241870@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >>
> >> "jakesnake66" <jake@lycos.com> wrote in message
> >> news:s8Sfd.57008$5v2.3760@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> >> > I've searched Google, but I haven't found an answer to my specific
> >> > question.
> >> > Also, I'm wondering if a product has been developed recently that
might
> >> > not
> >> > have been available a while back.  My question is:
> >> > Is there any way to use my large-screen rear-projection TV as a
> >> > *decent*
> >> > PC
> >> > monitor?  I realize this kind of TV is very low-res, but I'm curious
as
> > to
> >> > why I can play dvds from my computer to my TV which look great, but
the
> >> > basic Windows desktop looks horrible.  Makes me wonder if some type
of
> >> > software or hardware exists that will convert desktop/browser images
> >> > the
> >> > same way pc/dvd video can be converted to look good on TV.  I've got
a
> >> > Matrox G450 g-card, and using their DVDMax feature I can get pc video
> >> > quality on my tv that's as good as using my set-top dvd player.
> >> > Obviously,
> >> > a conversion process is going on that allows the video images to
> >> > display
> >> > properly at the TVs 500 lines or whatever of vertical res.  I
> >> > understand
> >> > that reducing my pc's (and thus the vga signal's) resolution will
make
> > it
> >> > more legible, but then the screen doesn't size to the TV.
> >> > Is there any kind of solution available?
> >> >
> >> > Thank you,
> >> >
> >> > jakesnake
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Jake,
> >> Video will look good on a tv because it was originally designed for a
tv.
> >> In fact the dvd will look bad on your PC, if it wasn't automatically
> >> de-interlaced first by the PC DVD playing software.
> >> You would see all the interlace scan lines, it would look bad. But they
> >> remove them and so it can look good on your PC.
> >> ON a TV the dvd or video file plays with its interlace, odd and even
scan
> >> lines and looks normal.
> >> Unless of course, you have a higher resolution tv monitor that can
> >> display
> >> progressive scan video.
> >>
> >> OK, So that is why the video looks good on your tv, now why a PC screen
> >> picture looks bad on your tv is the opposite going on. There isn't
enough
> >> detail or resolution on your tv to handle a pure vga image, so the
video
> >> card tried and converts the PC screen to display properly on a tv by
> >> interlacing it, however since the graphics on a PC weren't designed for
> >> that, they just don't look that good. Even when viewed through a scan
> >> converter.
> >> In short, things look better when viewed in the resolution and device
> >> they
> >> were intended for.
> >>
> >> Take for instance microsoft's web tv, and his new msn tv device, they
are
> >> intended for use on tv screens so the OS and software are showing
images
> >> designed for that, usually larger graphics with no thin lines etc..
That
> >> will look better.
> >>
> >> I hope that helps a bit.
> >> Anthony
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <3Nugd.63359$5v2.28559@fe2.columbus.rr.com>, jake@lycos.com  
says...
> Subject: Re: PC desktop to TV - any way to improve?
> From: "jakesnake66" <jake@lycos.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
>  
> I knew if I pressed you a little bit you'd come through )
> That looks perfect.  I don't need visual excellence, or really anything like
> true 1024x768 vga on a good monitor.  Really, I just want it accetable for
> basic web surfing.  My only concern is the way it might render text, for
> example on Word docs or PDFs.  I think my tv is 48", which at least gives me
> decent size.  My seating is approximately 20' from the tv.  From my video
> card out I cannot read text very well, but games or okay, and web surfing is
> tolerable in small amounts.  More than 15 minutes leads to considerable
> frustration and eye strain.
>  
> At any rate, I think the Canopus looks very good, and at $199 list it's
> certainly worth trying, rather than jumping into an expensive HDTV, when my
> big-screen Hitachi is certainly a worthy tv.
>  
> By the way, are the $1000 HDTVs really much better suited to use as monitors
> than typical tvs like I've got?
>  
> jakesnake
>  
>  
 
 
The cheaper solution is to use the accessability options for sight  
imparied people and jack up the size of the fonts and buttons.  In XP  
it's under the control panel.
--  
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"jakesnake66" <jake@lycos.com> wrote in message  
news:3Nugd.63359$5v2.28559@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>I knew if I pressed you a little bit you'd come through )
> That looks perfect.  I don't need visual excellence, or really anything  
> like
> true 1024x768 vga on a good monitor.  Really, I just want it accetable for
> basic web surfing.  My only concern is the way it might render text, for
> example on Word docs or PDFs.  I think my tv is 48", which at least gives  
> me
> decent size.  My seating is approximately 20' from the tv.  From my video
> card out I cannot read text very well, but games or okay, and web surfing  
> is
> tolerable in small amounts.  More than 15 minutes leads to considerable
> frustration and eye strain.
>
> At any rate, I think the Canopus looks very good, and at $199 list it's
> certainly worth trying, rather than jumping into an expensive HDTV, when  
> my
> big-screen Hitachi is certainly a worthy tv.
>
> By the way, are the $1000 HDTVs really much better suited to use as  
> monitors
> than typical tvs like I've got?
>
> jakesnake
>
>
..
Hi Jake,
In answering your last question about whether a $1000 HDTV is better suited  
than say your current tv, It's hard to tell, first what $1000 HDTV are you  
referring to? any model number to see? cause most the larger hdtv's cost  
much more I believe.
There are $1000 smaller sized lcd type hdtv's, like 17 " widescreen, are you  
referring to those?
 
A friend just bought a 48" Panasonic HDTV Rear LCD type, he uses it with a  
tivo, so he's only feeding it regular ntsc signals, low quality one's  
actually but look ok. NO worse than they did on his old set which was  
smaller.
OK Point being, it has a digital connector on the back, I believe a vga  
computer input. I've been trying to convince him to move his computer to the  
livingroom and hook it up cause I'm curious how good the picture would look.
If he ever tries it, I'll let you know. Maybe if I borrow a laptop and go  
there with it I can try this one day.
He is happy with his tv picture which comes off satellite onto his tivo and  
then to tv. I would be more curious having spent $2500 on a tv set, exactly  
how clear a picture it can display. I'm sure you would be too!
 
AnthonyR.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

If this link is hot, take a look here.
http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/cat [...] +TV+Stands
 
I was at Sears the other night, and they had many very ordinary-looking TVs
there labeled "HDTV Monitor," such as the Sony listed in the upper left.
The architecture looked like a regular TV, but all of them had "HDTV" on
them.  I was in a hurry, so I didn't look at the specs closely.  I will say
that the images that were running on them looked very good, but that doesn't
mean anything, and to my knowledge none of them were being fed by a pc.
Mind you, none of them were flat-panel or plasma or LCD/digital, per se.  I
can only assume they offer higher resolutions than typical tvs, which I
guess they think justifies the "hdtv monitor" designation.  My reason for
asking about something like this is it's time to replace the 32" tv in our
bedroom, and if something like this will produce decent vga images it makes
a lot of sense.  I plan on building a modest HTPC for that room in
particular.
Thanks for all your input.
 
jakesnake
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:Z2ygd.181725$4h7.34811712@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "jakesnake66" <jake@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:3Nugd.63359$5v2.28559@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> >I knew if I pressed you a little bit you'd come through )
> > That looks perfect.  I don't need visual excellence, or really anything
> > like
> > true 1024x768 vga on a good monitor.  Really, I just want it accetable
for
> > basic web surfing.  My only concern is the way it might render text, for
> > example on Word docs or PDFs.  I think my tv is 48", which at least
gives
> > me
> > decent size.  My seating is approximately 20' from the tv.  From my
video
> > card out I cannot read text very well, but games or okay, and web
surfing
> > is
> > tolerable in small amounts.  More than 15 minutes leads to considerable
> > frustration and eye strain.
> >
> > At any rate, I think the Canopus looks very good, and at $199 list it's
> > certainly worth trying, rather than jumping into an expensive HDTV, when
> > my
> > big-screen Hitachi is certainly a worthy tv.
> >
> > By the way, are the $1000 HDTVs really much better suited to use as
> > monitors
> > than typical tvs like I've got?
> >
> > jakesnake
> >
> >
> .
> Hi Jake,
> In answering your last question about whether a $1000 HDTV is better
suited
> than say your current tv, It's hard to tell, first what $1000 HDTV are you
> referring to? any model number to see? cause most the larger hdtv's cost
> much more I believe.
> There are $1000 smaller sized lcd type hdtv's, like 17 " widescreen, are
you
> referring to those?
>
> A friend just bought a 48" Panasonic HDTV Rear LCD type, he uses it with a
> tivo, so he's only feeding it regular ntsc signals, low quality one's
> actually but look ok. NO worse than they did on his old set which was
> smaller.
> OK Point being, it has a digital connector on the back, I believe a vga
> computer input. I've been trying to convince him to move his computer to
the
> livingroom and hook it up cause I'm curious how good the picture would
look.
> If he ever tries it, I'll let you know. Maybe if I borrow a laptop and go
> there with it I can try this one day.
> He is happy with his tv picture which comes off satellite onto his tivo
and
> then to tv. I would be more curious having spent $2500 on a tv set,
exactly
> how clear a picture it can display. I'm sure you would be too!
>
> AnthonyR.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"jakesnake66" <jake@lycos.com> wrote in message  
newsyEgd.1945$vH5.1333@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> If this link is hot, take a look here.
> http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/cat [...] +TV+Stands
>
> I was at Sears the other night, and they had many very ordinary-looking  
> TVs
> there labeled "HDTV Monitor," such as the Sony listed in the upper left.
> The architecture looked like a regular TV, but all of them had "HDTV" on
> them.  I was in a hurry, so I didn't look at the specs closely.  I will  
> say
> that the images that were running on them looked very good, but that  
> doesn't
> mean anything, and to my knowledge none of them were being fed by a pc.
> Mind you, none of them were flat-panel or plasma or LCD/digital, per se.  
> I
> can only assume they offer higher resolutions than typical tvs, which I
> guess they think justifies the "hdtv monitor" designation.
 
I would assume that "HDTV" means that it has the appropriate inputs,
signal handling, sweep rates, etc.  I would *NOT* make any assumptions
about how it actually looks on the screen.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"jakesnake66" <jake@lycos.com> wrote in message  
newsyEgd.1945$vH5.1333@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> If this link is hot, take a look here.
> http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/cat [...] +TV+Stands
>
> I was at Sears the other night, and they had many very ordinary-looking  
> TVs
> there labeled "HDTV Monitor," such as the Sony listed in the upper left.
> The architecture looked like a regular TV, but all of them had "HDTV" on
> them.  I was in a hurry, so I didn't look at the specs closely.  I will  
> say
> that the images that were running on them looked very good, but that  
> doesn't
> mean anything, and to my knowledge none of them were being fed by a pc.
> Mind you, none of them were flat-panel or plasma or LCD/digital, per se.  
> I
> can only assume they offer higher resolutions than typical tvs, which I
> guess they think justifies the "hdtv monitor" designation.  My reason for
> asking about something like this is it's time to replace the 32" tv in our
> bedroom, and if something like this will produce decent vga images it  
> makes
> a lot of sense.  I plan on building a modest HTPC for that room in
> particular.
> Thanks for all your input.
>
> jakesnake
>
>
Jake,
all the specs on those sets basically say 1080i, 720p and 480p resolution  
but none of the come with a DVI input that I seen which would make a PC easy  
to hook up, a lot of sets do come with a DVI input so look for that and  
besides the tv standards specs look for the PC resolution because those  
little 20" LCD sets for $899 only had 640x480 resolution listed in the specs  
and the $1100 one had 1024x768 listed. So the resolution on the real big  
one's like the sony, I don't know about, didn't see it cause I think it  
isn't made for PC input. Like I had said earlier the LCD thin 48" Panasonic  
my friend bought had a PC connection in the back, i think it was either DVI  
or VGA connector, so they do come with it but check the resolution cause  
just saying HDTV doesn't really tell you what a PC input will look like or  
if it accepts that at all.
Remember that 1080i HDTV is still an interlaced video signal and PC is not,  
but they do handle 720p which is better than most tv's can so it might look  
better on it.
But also just thinking if there is no PC connection then you probably would  
need a scan converter that outputs to a 720p signal and not a regular 480i  
of regular tv sets, do more research on it before you buy.
 
AnthonyR.