PC Monitor/TV's

[AiponGkooja]

Double post, crappy internet, sorry

 

[Fox5]

Imo, using the Nextvison N6 is far superior to the two tv cards + dscaler I've used.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: AiponGkooja
Still looking for more consumer reviews on different TV tuners please. If it helps I am looking at 100-200 for price range and have changed my choice of monitor to this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16824001166

Have you run 16X12 on a 19" CRT yet?

 

[Traire]

Originally posted by: AiponGkooja
Still looking for more consumer reviews on different TV tuners please. If it helps I am looking at 100-200 for price range and have changed my choice of monitor to this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16824001166

The Hauppauge PVR series or any of the Theater550 (ATi based) TV Tuners will provide excellent picture quality. Anandtech did a pretty good comparison a couple months ago, look the review up. You can pick up a Saphire Theater550 card for less than $100.

I myself have a Hauppauge PVR-150 and am completely satisfied with it. If I were to buy a TV card right now though, I would most likely get the Saphire Theater550

 

[So]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: AiponGkooja
Still looking for more consumer reviews on different TV tuners please. If it helps I am looking at 100-200 for price range and have changed my choice of monitor to this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16824001166

Have you run 16X12 on a 19" CRT yet?

Personally, I'd take a 17" LCD over a 19" CRT. Just something to consider, since you said you'd like to save space.

 

[AiponGkooja]

Is there something wrong with 16x12 on a 19" CRT? That would be annoying seeing as how I ordered it yesterday...

 

[Fox5]

BTW, a 17" LCD is about the same screen size as a 19" CRT.

Anyhow, 1600x1200 on a CRT......well not all CRTs can do the resolution well, besides that you need a pretty fast video card to run it well in modern games.

 

[AiponGkooja]

Originally posted by: Fox5
BTW, a 17" LCD is about the same screen size as a 19" CRT.

Anyhow, 1600x1200 on a CRT......well not all CRTs can do the resolution well, besides that you need a pretty fast video card to run it well in modern games.

It says it is the "recommended resolution" for this monitor. Also, I'm getting a 7800gtx, so I'm thinking it'll handle it just fine.

 

[AiponGkooja]

Originally posted by: Traire

Originally posted by: AiponGkooja
Still looking for more consumer reviews on different TV tuners please. If it helps I am looking at 100-200 for price range and have changed my choice of monitor to this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16824001166

The Hauppauge PVR series or any of the Theater550 (ATi based) TV Tuners will provide excellent picture quality. Anandtech did a pretty good comparison a couple months ago, look the review up. You can pick up a Saphire Theater550 card for less than $100.

I myself have a Hauppauge PVR-150 and am completely satisfied with it. If I were to buy a TV card right now though, I would most likely get the Saphire Theater550

The Sapphire Theater 550 is looking pretty good, thank you for the suggestion. Quick question though; will I probably need mce2005 or some other equally expensive software package to get it to work properly?

Edit: Also, what are the advantages/disadvantages of using a pci card instead of an external solution?

Thanks,
Aip

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: AiponGkooja
Is there something wrong with 16x12 on a 19" CRT? That would be annoying seeing as how I ordered it yesterday...

1600x1200 will be fine during gaming but *might* be to high for desktop usage ,but as long as you can read text without straining then it'l be fine, I've been running 1600x1200@85hz desktop res on my 21" CRT (19.8" viewable) for 2 years and it feels 'just right' ,the recommended res is 1880 x 1440 @ 85Hz but its a bit to much even tho it looks sharp & clear.

 

[AiponGkooja]

Originally posted by: JRW

Originally posted by: AiponGkooja
Is there something wrong with 16x12 on a 19" CRT? That would be annoying seeing as how I ordered it yesterday...

1600x1200 will be fine during gaming but *might* be to high for desktop usage ,but as long as you can read text without straining then it'l be fine, I've been running 1600x1200@85hz desktop res on my 21" CRT (19.8" viewable) for 2 years and it feels 'just right' ,the recommended res is 1880 x 1440 @ 85Hz but its a bit to much even tho it looks sharp & clear.

Can always edit the desktop icons/text/etc and web browsing text as well, so it shouldn't be a big deal

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: AiponGkooja
Is there something wrong with 16x12 on a 19" CRT? That would be annoying seeing as how I ordered it yesterday...

No, not necessarily. There are two issues I had, one I personally didn't care for it, it seemed to small. Two, my monitor's (Viewsonic A90f+) native res is 1280 X 1024 and it doesn't scale 1600 X 1200 correctly. It may be perfectly fine for you on both accounts.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: AiponGkooja
Is there something wrong with 16x12 on a 19" CRT? That would be annoying seeing as how I ordered it yesterday...

No, not necessarily. There are two issues I had, one I personally didn't care for it, it seemed to small. Two, my monitor's (Viewsonic A90f+) native res is 1280 X 1024 and it doesn't scale 1600 X 1200 correctly. It may be perfectly fine for you on both accounts.

(scratches head) ..did you say native res is 1280x1024 on your A90F+? ..Isnt that a CRT? ..They dont scale like LCDs so it should look fine @ 1600x1200..other than maybe being to small.

EDIT: Just checked Viewsonics site, a90f+ only runs 68hz refresh @ 1600x1200... that alone would be hell on your eyeballs lol.

 

[AiponGkooja]

I thought anything over 60 is fine. My current monitor can only do 1280x1024 max res at 60hz, haha.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: AiponGkooja
I thought anything over 60 is fine. My current monitor can only do 1280x1024 max res at 60hz, haha.

I just dropped my monitor to 70hz and can definately see some flicker (not real bad but any noticable flicker can strain your eyes) but at 85hz there is no noticable flicker at all.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: AiponGkooja

Originally posted by: Traire

Originally posted by: AiponGkooja
Still looking for more consumer reviews on different TV tuners please. If it helps I am looking at 100-200 for price range and have changed my choice of monitor to this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16824001166

The Hauppauge PVR series or any of the Theater550 (ATi based) TV Tuners will provide excellent picture quality. Anandtech did a pretty good comparison a couple months ago, look the review up. You can pick up a Saphire Theater550 card for less than $100.

I myself have a Hauppauge PVR-150 and am completely satisfied with it. If I were to buy a TV card right now though, I would most likely get the Saphire Theater550

The Sapphire Theater 550 is looking pretty good, thank you for the suggestion. Quick question though; will I probably need mce2005 or some other equally expensive software package to get it to work properly?

Edit: Also, what are the advantages/disadvantages of using a pci card instead of an external solution?

Thanks,
Aip

What do you mean by external solution? If you mean like USB, then PCI is definetely superior in every way, if you mean like a Nextvision N6, well the N6 won't have slow down, won't heat up the computer(video processing really taxes the cpu, more than games I'd say), won't crash, and well generally have superior quality + more inputs. The PCI solution is cheaper, can have superior quality in the right situations and with a powerful enough pc(though in my experience this hasn't been so), and video can be captured and stored on your pc.
Oh, and PCI can go to any resolution, whereas the N6 maxes out a 1280x1024@60hz, and will have problems watching an external source and running the PC at the same time(not enough bandwidth), whereas a PCI card won't.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: JRW

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: AiponGkooja
Is there something wrong with 16x12 on a 19" CRT? That would be annoying seeing as how I ordered it yesterday...

No, not necessarily. There are two issues I had, one I personally didn't care for it, it seemed to small. Two, my monitor's (Viewsonic A90f+) native res is 1280 X 1024 and it doesn't scale 1600 X 1200 correctly. It may be perfectly fine for you on both accounts.

(scratches head) ..did you say native res is 1280x1024 on your A90F+? ..Isnt that a CRT? ..They dont scale like LCDs so it should look fine @ 1600x1200..other than maybe being to small.

EDIT: Just checked Viewsonics site, a90f+ only runs 68hz refresh @ 1600x1200... that alone would be hell on your eyeballs lol.

Yes it is a CRT, and no they don't scale like LCD's but they still scale, and I don't like the larger black border when running 16 X 12. Sure it's adjustable by stretching, but it does not look natural at all.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: JRW

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: AiponGkooja
Is there something wrong with 16x12 on a 19" CRT? That would be annoying seeing as how I ordered it yesterday...

No, not necessarily. There are two issues I had, one I personally didn't care for it, it seemed to small. Two, my monitor's (Viewsonic A90f+) native res is 1280 X 1024 and it doesn't scale 1600 X 1200 correctly. It may be perfectly fine for you on both accounts.

(scratches head) ..did you say native res is 1280x1024 on your A90F+? ..Isnt that a CRT? ..They dont scale like LCDs so it should look fine @ 1600x1200..other than maybe being to small.

EDIT: Just checked Viewsonics site, a90f+ only runs 68hz refresh @ 1600x1200... that alone would be hell on your eyeballs lol.

Yes it is a CRT, and no they don't scale like LCD's but they still scale, and I don't like the larger black border when running 16 X 12. Sure it's adjustable by stretching, but it does not look natural at all.

I was a bit confused by the "does not look natural at all" comment being 1600x1200 is a proper 4:3 aspect resolution ... but after some google searching.....

(copy / paste):
"1600x1200: aspect is 4:3 (1.333... to 1)
1280x960: aspect is 4:3 (1.333... to 1)
1152x864: aspect is 4:3 (1.333... to 1)
1024x768: aspect is 4:3 (1.333... to 1)
800x600: aspect is 4:3 (1.333... to 1)
640x480: aspect is 4:3 (1.333.... to 1)

That all makes sense, since most monitors are 4:3

However:

1280x1024: aspect is 5:4 (1.25 to 1)

If you use that resolution on a conventional monitor, your images and
icons will be 'squashed': particularly, look at some photos of faces,
and you'll see it's not right.

The correct resoltion is 1280x960." (/end paste)"

The article mentions that some CRT's actualy come with a 5:4 aspect screen rather than 4:3, wich may be the case for the Viewsonic a90f+ wich would explain why its recommended res is 1280x1024 and also explains why 1600x1200 doesnt look right on it.

The majority of CRT's are 4:3 aspect.. 1280x1024 actualy doesnt look right on this one yet 1280x960 looks fine.

 

[dnuggett]

Correct, 1280 X 1024 is native res for the A90f+.