Using a HDTV LCD TV for a PC monitor...

I prefer LCD much more than plasma. Haven't read any plasma TV that has 1920 x 1080 resolution so I believe LCDs now offer higher HD resolution than plasma.

plasma dims and burns out and the entire TV has to be replaced.

LCD dims from the backlights wearing out, but the backlights can be replaced instead of having to replace the entire TV. In several years, LCDs may switch from current technology CCFL backlights over to LED backlights which offer much longer lifetimes and truer color rendition. Sony is coming out with a premium LCD TV line which uses LED backlights for those willing to pay $$$$$ for truer color rendition.

Also plasma uses lots more electricity and produces much more heat than LCDs. With energy prices climbing higher and higher, the TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP is even more significant. Most people just notice the initial purchase cost, but the operating cost ( electricity/cooling/periodic maintenance, etc.) over the lifetime of usage can be very signficant.

Then try to be a little objective when all I did was ask if you had seen a web page. There was no other meaning behind that than that.

Also, it was obvious to me that people here were trying to help. That's why I said thanks.

Thanks again.

saynomore said:

But still I take advice from objective, sensible and professional
testing. To determine what's objective, sensible and professional
seems to be subjective, though. If you need another reason to
wait, read below about DRM, we're just trying to help.

Hope everything works out.

Click to expand...

There are two plasmas that I know of that do have the 1920X1080 res but they are huge and expensive: LG's 71" & another brand's new 65". (over $25,000).

I actually already pointed out earlier LCD having the upper hand in resolution. I also discussed that many perceptions of plasma have gotten VERY exaggerated stemming from issues that the first generations of plasmas had. Modern plasmas are not perfect but the "issues" are really not issues in ordinary life use. Someone has brought in to question my objectivity on this without asking any direct objective questions but plasmas are very much more robust than the early models.

The difference in how the two technologies come up with their "life" ratings is understood. The cost and cost of ownerships is understood. I understood that already. Thanks and if someone stumbles on this thread who doesn't know that it may help them.

But my points of decision given here were not about these things. I do thank everyone for their concern though. My hinge was about a high-res 45" LCD that apparently (until I can get a store to let me hook up a PC) won't let me use that high-res for the casual occaisions when the living room TV would have computer screen input. Unless it was just carelessly omitted from the Sharp manual, the LCD won't let a PC use the 1920X1080 res. If this is the case then I might as well get a new and much larger plasma for the same price that will offer the same limited res for computing as the smaller LCD. As I pointed out earlier this makes sense because it will be years and years (if at all) before the full 1080p (progressive) resoultion is even close to mainstream. (Broadcasters willing to halve their total stations due to bandwidth, DVD rentals going totally blue-ray, etc.)

For ME I have DECIDED that I am not going to wait YEARS to get a large TV for the living room. Yes a plasma will wear out in 15 to 20 years if I watched TV 8 hours EVERY day of every year but I don't. And if I did I would have been in the market for another TV by then anyway. Yes an LCD could have the light "bulb" replaced in 15 to 20 years IF they still made the lights for it but who cares. In 20 years I would want a better LCD if they still made them.

In October Hitachi's new 55" plasma is coming out for just a bit more than the 45" Sharp LCD's price (online). 10 more inches of screen is not just 10 more inches! That is a massive amount of extra screen space for the same money. Yes LCDs look incredible and are approching the total picture quality of plamsa but it will be quite a LONG time before a new plasma degrades to a level considerably lower than a new LCD. (By the way, we all know that an LCD's light also gets dimmer as time goes on. -- again not willing to wait years for the same price on a Sony LED LCD.)

Bottom line: If Sharp's LCD will only let me use 1280X... for seldom computing in the living room then I PERSONALLY want to much larger screen that displays 1280X... for the same money. After all the MAIN reason for the TV is watching TV and DVDs. And again, it will be YEARS (or more) before EVERYTHING is 1920 X 1080 PROGRESSIVE. For quite some time 720P and 1080i won't even be near the mainstream. In fact DVDs are 480p.

skdpr said:

I prefer LCD much more than plasma. Haven't read any plasma TV
that has 1920 x 1080 resolution so I believe LCDs now offer higher
HD resolution than plasma.

plasma dims and burns out and the entire TV has to be replaced.

LCD dims from the backlights wearing out, but the backlights can be
replaced instead of having to replace the entire TV. In several
years, LCDs may switch from current technology CCFL backlights over
to LED backlights which offer much longer lifetimes and truer color
rendition. Sony is coming out with a premium LCD TV line which
uses LED backlights for those willing to pay $$$$$ for truer color
rendition.

Also plasma uses lots more electricity and produces much more heat
than LCDs. With energy prices climbing higher and higher, the
TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP is even more significant. Most people just
notice the initial purchase cost, but the operating cost (
electricity/cooling/periodic maintenance, etc.) over the lifetime
of usage can be very signficant.

Click to expand...

Good points and I hadn't considered that, BUT now that I have -- is it REALLY an issue?

HDMI is a digital connection. The HDCP is to prevent perfect digital copies of the original (DVD, whatever) from being made. If Hollywood and the politicians screw up the standard into another evolution that isn't backwards compatible then FOR TODAY'S resolutions of 720p is it really a big deal? A DVD played thorugh an analog component connection will still work. And it looks 95% as good. It's just not as easy to hook up as a single HDMI cable.

In the unlikely event that HDMI was soon phased out and no adapters were made then so what: my 720p TV can STILL play 720p content from WHATEVER new device comes out. I just won't have the digital connector. I PERSONALLY don't see the industry totally neglecting a way to connect to DVI or HDMI in that scenario but either way, big deal. Component input will still be there.

skdpr said:

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=14831

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=14770

DRM issues and implementation haven't been finalized (For example,
US federal court shot down the Broadcast Flag requirement and but
DRM advocates are resorting to Congress to pass DRM legislation).
What DRM equipment, connectors/ports will be allowed to carry
protected DIGITAL HD signals? Because of the DRM issues and
connectivity issues haven't been settled, I've decided to wait
before spending thousands on a nice TV and subsequently discovering
that because the TV didn't have the proper equipment, I am not
allowed to watch the protected signal, and instead end up watching
a blank screen or a lower-resolution version. That's why,
although people are falling in love with and spending $$$$ on these
HD displays, they might be rudely surprised and furious if, in a
couple of years, these expensive displays can't show DRM protected
video because it didn't have the proper DRM equipment and the
attitude of the DRM advocates is "We're so sorry, but hey, we'll
let you watch a blank screen / lower resolution version instead
which pushes you to buy a NEW DRM-enabled TV!!!!!".

So my approach/advice is:
Of course, you can still go ahead and buy that 45" display and
gamble that you won't have to buy another TV in a couple of years
by just buying some add-on device to let you watch DRM-protected
video--but that's a gamble. Unless you really absolutely,
desperately NEED to have that 45" display--
it would be your advantage to save your money and wait for these
DRM issues to be settled. Let others be the guinea pigs and have
to deal with these issues because they bought too early. In the
meantime, technology gets better and prices keep falling. So in
several years, you will most likely afford a much better display at
a cheaper price. (As a perspective, a 20" analog LCD monitor cost

skdpr said:

$5500 USD in year 2000; a Dell 20" digital LCD monitor on sale

Click to expand...

for

Click to expand...

Please pardon me. I read your reply but not in the light of the subject line which I did not read.

I perceived it the wrong way without the subject line (truncated on my screen).

My reply could have been confusing. When I said it could be subjective I meant on my part. What I think is objective testing may or may not be. I just think it is.

It was kind of like a disclaimer to my opinions.

Martin said:

Please pardon me. I read your reply but not in the light of the
subject line which I did not read.

I perceived it the wrong way without the subject line (truncated on
my screen).

Click to expand...

Actually, it wouldn't be limited to 720p, but 480p. That's the resolution all digital HD content will be downconverted to if you don't use HDCP enabled connections And it will be through analog component. Although this will be limited to copy protected content, like blu-ray movies. The issue here is that there are at least two "standards" now, probably HDMI will stick, but there is also displayport, which I don't believe are compatible. Anyway HDTVs for some time now have been coming out with HDCP enabled ports, so my bet (and it's only a bet) is that you wouldn't have any problems with the latest HDMI revision (1.2 I think), which was optimized for use with PC cards.

Martin said:

HDMI is a digital connection. The HDCP is to prevent perfect
digital copies of the original (DVD, whatever) from being made. If
Hollywood and the politicians screw up the standard into another
evolution that isn't backwards compatible then FOR TODAY'S
resolutions of 720p is it really a big deal? A DVD played thorugh
an analog component connection will still work. And it looks 95% as
good. It's just not as easy to hook up as a single HDMI cable.

In the unlikely event that HDMI was soon phased out and no adapters
were made then so what: my 720p TV can STILL play 720p content from
WHATEVER new device comes out. I just won't have the digital
connector. I PERSONALLY don't see the industry totally neglecting a
way to connect to DVI or HDMI in that scenario but either way, big
deal. Component input will still be there.

skdpr said:

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=14831

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=14770

DRM issues and implementation haven't been finalized (For example,
US federal court shot down the Broadcast Flag requirement and but
DRM advocates are resorting to Congress to pass DRM legislation).
What DRM equipment, connectors/ports will be allowed to carry
protected DIGITAL HD signals? Because of the DRM issues and
connectivity issues haven't been settled, I've decided to wait
before spending thousands on a nice TV and subsequently discovering
that because the TV didn't have the proper equipment, I am not
allowed to watch the protected signal, and instead end up watching
a blank screen or a lower-resolution version. That's why,
although people are falling in love with and spending $$$$ on these
HD displays, they might be rudely surprised and furious if, in a
couple of years, these expensive displays can't show DRM protected
video because it didn't have the proper DRM equipment and the
attitude of the DRM advocates is "We're so sorry, but hey, we'll
let you watch a blank screen / lower resolution version instead
which pushes you to buy a NEW DRM-enabled TV!!!!!".

So my approach/advice is:
Of course, you can still go ahead and buy that 45" display and
gamble that you won't have to buy another TV in a couple of years
by just buying some add-on device to let you watch DRM-protected
video--but that's a gamble. Unless you really absolutely,
desperately NEED to have that 45" display--
it would be your advantage to save your money and wait for these
DRM issues to be settled. Let others be the guinea pigs and have
to deal with these issues because they bought too early. In the
meantime, technology gets better and prices keep falling. So in
several years, you will most likely afford a much better display at
a cheaper price. (As a perspective, a 20" analog LCD monitor cost

Martin127954 said:

$5500 USD in year 2000; a Dell 20" digital LCD monitor on sale

Click to expand...

for

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It's my bet too that HDMI will stick. Thanks.

saynomore said:

Actually, it wouldn't be limited to 720p, but 480p. That's the
resolution all digital HD content will be downconverted to if you
don't use HDCP enabled connections And it will be through analog
component. Although this will be limited to copy protected content,
like blu-ray movies. The issue here is that there are at least two
"standards" now, probably HDMI will stick, but there is also
displayport, which I don't believe are compatible. Anyway HDTVs for
some time now have been coming out with HDCP enabled ports, so my
bet (and it's only a bet) is that you wouldn't have any problems
with the latest HDMI revision (1.2 I think), which was optimized
for use with PC cards.

Click to expand...

I'm re-opening this discussion to advise that I purchased a Sharp 46D82U (1080p) about two months ago, naively assuming that I would be able to display still photos at 1080.

720p, with some aspect ratio issues, was no problem. But the set rejected the attempt to provide it with a 1080p (and i) signal from a philips dvd player that claimed "hd jpeg" capacities.

Of course, I spoke to folks at philips and at sharp, and surprisingly (I thought) they readily admitted that 720p was the limit of both the DVD player and of the Aquos LCD as far as jpeg still photos are concerned.

I have yet to confirm or disconfirm this unsettling proposition. I'm going to pick up a 1080p video card and take another run at the Sharp.

I don't particularly trust the Sharp person that I spoke with. She appeared to have no idea what she was talking about.

Frustrating. I wonder if there are any LCD TVs that do... for sure... accept a 1080p signal (where the signal is sending a still photo)?

John

I bought the Sceptre 37" 1080P HDTV 1.5 years ago for primarily use as a 37" PC monitor. It and the ATI video card had no problems AUTOMATICALLY recognizing the default 1920 x 1080 resolution.

(The biggest problem was the ATI driver not resuming the display output if I switched AV sources --> e.g. if I switched to watch HD channels and then switched back to DVI input there would be no PC display signal --> I'd have to reboot to get a PC display output. On AVSForum, one of the forum members wrote a small program that would refresh the PC display with a keystroke that solved this problem until ATI updated the videocard driver. Nvidia and Intel chipsets did not have this problem.)

The Sceptre's image quality is okay compared to an analog SDTV. The well known inherent problems with HDTV LCD displays (and the Sceptre is no exception) are the muddy blacks; narrow color gamut, etc. As a PC monitor, LCD displays are fine. I have become spoiled using a 37" LCD display as a PC monitor, and I won't get a smaller display in the future (I can't stand laptop displays anymore -- too puny). The price/value for a Sceptre 1080p HDTV display can't be beat (to me the Sharp Aquos was overpriced). However, since I already am using a 1080p display, I will be waiting 3-4 years for display enhancements such as wide-gamut, LED backlit to become more prevalent and cheaper before replacing my Sceptre 37" 1080p display.

Another issue is that Displayport (a replacement port for DVI ports in PC displays) may start becoming prevalent. Dell should be releasing PC monitors with Displayport by next year. So for future display and videocard purchases, you may need check whether Displayport is present.

It was fun re-reading this thread. I'd even forgotten that I knew what I wrote!

What's new for me is that now I know HDMI sucks as a standard (no long-run cables, blah blah) and of course HDCP always sucked and always will. Only now (recently, actually) I have found first-hand how buggy and consumer-unfriendly HDCP is, having to swap video cards twice because of this in my newly built HTPC. So the greatest thing probably to happen for HTPCs is AnyDVD.

Prices of LCDs have come down like crazy, and so do plasmas. And NOW, I think plasmas are better, at least for HD video, especially after having had first-hand experience with two LCD monitors (Dell 2407, which I swapped for a NEC 2690 because of poor contrast quality in the dark areas) and an LCD TV (sharp 52" 1080p) and after two years plasmas seem to be just better than ever. And they've got cheap enough, and now they are as high resolution as LCDs too.

And SED? RIP...

Now the promising technology seems to be OLEDs, let's hope they don't screw this up too, but it's gonna be pretty expensive who knows for how long.

skdpr said:

Another issue is that Displayport (a replacement port for DVI ports
in PC displays) may start becoming prevalent. Dell should be
releasing PC monitors with Displayport by next year. So for future
display and videocard purchases, you may need check whether
Displayport is present.

Click to expand...

And yeah, displayport just recently has started to surface, at least in product announcements. But HDMI is the actual replacemet for DVI, not displayport. But what we consumers need the least right now is yet another "format war", especially if it's a hardware (as opposed to software/media) format war.

johnlewisgrant said:

I'm re-opening this discussion to advise that I purchased a Sharp
46D82U (1080p) about two months ago, naively assuming that I would be
able to display still photos at 1080.

Click to expand...

I assume you have it connected to a PC? If so, which graphics card do you have?

johnlewisgrant said:

720p, with some aspect ratio issues, was no problem. But the set
rejected the attempt to provide it with a 1080p (and i) signal from a
philips dvd player that claimed "hd jpeg" capacities.

Click to expand...

This might not be the fault of the TV, but the DVD player, it is what's sending the 720p signal to the TV anyway. I use an Aquos 52" 1080p with my HTPC via HDMI and it works OK.

johnlewisgrant said:

Of course, I spoke to folks at philips and at sharp, and surprisingly
(I thought) they readily admitted that 720p was the limit of both the
DVD player and of the Aquos LCD as far as jpeg still photos are
concerned.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Sharp people know what they're talking about. If your set is native 1080p, it will do 1080p, if the 52" I use is any indication (which I'm very sure it is).

johnlewisgrant said:

I have yet to confirm or disconfirm this unsettling proposition. I'm
going to pick up a 1080p video card and take another run at the Sharp.

Click to expand...

johnlewisgrant said:

I don't particularly trust the Sharp person that I spoke with. She
appeared to have no idea what she was talking about.

Click to expand...

I agree.

johnlewisgrant said:

Frustrating. I wonder if there are any LCD TVs that do... for
sure... accept a 1080p signal (where the signal is sending a still
photo)?

Click to expand...

Believe me, there are. In fact, most if not all of them will accept a 1080p signal from a computer or whatever. They are 1080p for something! The fault is most likely of your dvd player. It is the one that reads the jpegs, processes them to 720p and probably sends a 720p VIDEO signal with them. Which is the model, by the way?

I have hooked up my laptop to my 40" plasma using just a VGA cable (TV has a VGA port as well as every other kind of port you coud want).

Photos look terrific and text is nice and clear even setting 10 feet away.

Robert
--
http://www.streamlinestudio.com

I never ended up buying that Sharp LCD. Great TV but I really also wanted it to be able to display 1080p computer input via the so called PC input. I found the online manual and it only showed 1280X1024 on the PC resolution list but never explicitly talked about a limitation. I then found the answer at avsforum.com.

It does however seem like an HDMI port (that set only had one) would allow 1080p input from a HDCP video card.

I ended up getting a plasma set for the priority of a good TV picture quality. Plasma sure wins in that regard over LCD.

johnlewisgrant said:

I'm re-opening this discussion to advise that I purchased a Sharp
46D82U (1080p) about two months ago, naively assuming that I would be
able to display still photos at 1080.

Click to expand...