LCD power consumption
Jeff
saving some space and some watts.
It looks to me that LCD monitors take about a third the power of
their CRT equivalents. Curiously an LCD television might be use more
power than it's CRT cousin.
<URL: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html?tag=nav />
That seems crazy to me. Is it the faster refresh rates on the monitors
causing that?
On another note, anyone have a monitor/tv combo? What's it take to
get televison on a monitor? How about those TV tuner cards? What about
a digital video (US) or NTSC to DVI converter?
And finally, anyone tried the Staples brand 19" monitor?
I may be a little OT with all these questions but it seems like one
LCD for TV and computer is damn frugal!
Jeff
larry
Yes to both issues. I use a 15" LCD for the computer, then
added a $15 TV pci card. The 15" LCD uses 6W, no heat
either, the 15" CRT ran 78 watts and did save heating costs
in the winter ;-) The desktop PC runs around 108 watts. The
CRT TV used 54 watts. So I had a net 126 watts and 440
btu/hr reduction. It adds up over 8-12 hrs a day ;-)
I just bought a 17" LCD but it uses a whopping 25 watts.
Need to pop the cover and find out why its 4 times higher
than the 15". As soon as I find an hdtv usb card (for $25),
I can switch all to the lcd laptop. Sold off all our crt
stuff a year ago.
-- larry / dallas
Anthony Matonak
> It looks to me that LCD monitors take about a third the power of their
> CRT equivalents. Curiously an LCD television might be use more power
> than it's CRT cousin.
>
> causing that?
Newer models of LCD displays use more powerful backlights and these
require more electricity to generate the extra light. Since an LCD
subtracts light to form the picture, turning the brightness down does
not reduce the amount of power used.
Anthony
Michael Black
You've come to a newsgroup about being frugal, yet you expect
people to be able to answer questins that have no relevance
to frugality.
I might as well post "I need some 2N706's but I want to be frugal
so I want to know the cheapest place to get them, so obviously
this fits in a frugal newsgroup".
The only way anyone would know what that's about is if they have
other interests. It's not a frugal question, it belongs elsewhere.
Your questions are technical, and belong elsewhere. At the very
least, they are a consumer issue, not a frugal issue.
Michael
Dennis
wrote:
> "I need some 2N706's but I want to be frugal
>so I want to know the cheapest place to get them, so obviously
>this fits in a frugal newsgroup".
www.americanmicrosemiconductor.com
has them for $4.87, but there is a $39 minimum order.
You're welcome.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
Dennis
> I was thinking of going LCD here for my monitor and television and
>saving some space and some watts.
<snip>
> On another note, anyone have a monitor/tv combo? What's it take to
>get televison on a monitor? How about those TV tuner cards? What about
>a digital video (US) or NTSC to DVI converter?
I have both an LCD computer monitor that I can use to watch TV and an
HD TV connected to a PC via a DVI-to-HDMI cable. Both work fairly
well.
If you want to watch HD TV from a PC, you will need a fairly beefy CPU
and video card, as well as an HD tuner card. For the latter, I've had
good luck with the Hauppauge HVR-1600 and the AverMedia A180. Both
cards come with their own TV watching/recording applications, but I
prefer to use BeyondTV.
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm behind the eight ball, ahead of the curve, riding the wave,
dodging the bullet and pushing the envelope. -George Carlin
Rod Speed
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:04:07 -0400, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of going LCD here for my monitor and television and
>> saving some space and some watts.
>
> <snip>
>
>> On another note, anyone have a monitor/tv combo? What's it take to
>> get televison on a monitor? How about those TV tuner cards? What
>> about a digital video (US) or NTSC to DVI converter?
>
> I have both an LCD computer monitor that I can use to watch TV and an
> HD TV connected to a PC via a DVI-to-HDMI cable. Both work fairly
> well.
>
> If you want to watch HD TV from a PC, you will need a fairly beefy CPU
No you dont, it works fine on my elderly 900MHz celeron.
And records 4 channels simultaneously too with enough tuner cards.
> and video card,
Wrong again.
Don K
news:fedje3$qs9$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> Jeff (dont_...@all.uk) writes:
>> I was thinking of going LCD here for my monitor and television and
>> saving some space and some watts.
>>
>> It looks to me that LCD monitors take about a third the power of
>> their CRT equivalents. Curiously an LCD television might be use more
>> power than it's CRT cousin.
>>
>> <URL: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html?tag=nav />
>>
>> That seems crazy to me. Is it the faster refresh rates on the monitors
>> causing that?
>>
>> On another note, anyone have a monitor/tv combo? What's it take to
>> get televison on a monitor? How about those TV tuner cards? What about
>> a digital video (US) or NTSC to DVI converter?
>>
>> And finally, anyone tried the Staples brand 19" monitor?
>>
>> I may be a little OT with all these questions but it seems like one
>> LCD for TV and computer is damn frugal!
>>
> But this is a classic example of the state of this newsgroup.
>
> You've come to a newsgroup about being frugal, yet you expect
> people to be able to answer questins that have no relevance
> to frugality.
There are lots of people here who can intelligently answer and
discuss the question. And it's certainly on-topic with frugality
since it's an attempt to understand which parameters affect power
consumption so that power usage can be minimized.
>
> I might as well post "I need some 2N706's but I want to be frugal
> so I want to know the cheapest place to get them, so obviously
> this fits in a frugal newsgroup".
>
> The only way anyone would know what that's about is if they have
> other interests. It's not a frugal question, it belongs elsewhere.
>
The only way anyone knows the answer to anything is if they have
knowledge. This is not the frugal-living-know-nothing group, ya know.
Accurate information is always appropriate.
> Your questions are technical, and belong elsewhere. At the very
> least, they are a consumer issue, not a frugal issue.
>
You mean consumer, as in misc.consumers.frugal-living?
Don
Ron Peterson
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:04:07 -0400, Jeff <dont_bug...@all.uk> wrote:
> > I was thinking of going LCD here for my monitor and television and
> >saving some space and some watts.
> > On another note, anyone have a monitor/tv combo? What's it take to
> >get televison on a monitor? How about those TV tuner cards? What about
> >a digital video (US) or NTSC to DVI converter?
> I have both an LCD computer monitor that I can use to watch TV and an
> HD TV connected to a PC via a DVI-to-HDMI cable. Both work fairly
> well.
> If you want to watch HD TV from a PC, you will need a fairly beefy CPU
> and video card, as well as an HD tuner card. For the latter, I've had
> good luck with the Hauppauge HVR-1600 and the AverMedia A180. Both
> cards come with their own TV watching/recording applications, but I
> prefer to use BeyondTV.
I use a Miglia HD tuner connected throught the USB port on my iMac. It
records like a TIVO without a monthly charge.
--
Ron
Jeff
> Jeff (dont_...@all.uk) writes:
>
>> I was thinking of going LCD here for my monitor and television and
>>saving some space and some watts.
>>
>> It looks to me that LCD monitors take about a third the power of
>>their CRT equivalents. Curiously an LCD television might be use more
>>power than it's CRT cousin.
>>
>><URL: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html?tag=nav />
>>
>> That seems crazy to me. Is it the faster refresh rates on the monitors
>>causing that?
>>
>> On another note, anyone have a monitor/tv combo? What's it take to
>>get televison on a monitor? How about those TV tuner cards? What about
>>a digital video (US) or NTSC to DVI converter?
>>
>> And finally, anyone tried the Staples brand 19" monitor?
>>
>> I may be a little OT with all these questions but it seems like one
>>LCD for TV and computer is damn frugal!
>>
>
> But this is a classic example of the state of this newsgroup.
Well, I'm sorry to have offended you.
>
> You've come to a newsgroup about being frugal, yet you expect
> people to be able to answer questins that have no relevance
> to frugality.
But it does relate to consumer misc. And I've always thought that
watching your watts and buying fewer appliances was frugal-living.
I've been reading this group for a couple of years off and on and
have found readers here to be knowledgeable on consumer electronics. And
to prove that point I've found the answers I've recieved to be
enlightening. I suppose I could have posted in one of these groups:
<URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?lnk=nhpsfg&q=LCD+monitor+TV&qt_s=Search+for+a+group
/>
But I would have been trapped in a group with either too few readers
or asking a too general question in a too specific group.
>
> I might as well post "I need some 2N706's but I want to be frugal
> so I want to know the cheapest place to get them, so obviously
> this fits in a frugal newsgroup".
Well I would replace it with the cheapest transistor I had laying around
rather than try to dig up such a relic.
>
> The only way anyone would know what that's about is if they have
> other interests. It's not a frugal question, it belongs elsewhere.
Frankly I didn't think it was such a technical question. Certainly
not one that had to be in a dedicated group to what exactly?
Maybe you should read more SPAM... It has natural mellowing agents.
Jeff
Jeff
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:04:07 -0400, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> I was thinking of going LCD here for my monitor and television and
>>saving some space and some watts.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> On another note, anyone have a monitor/tv combo? What's it take to
>>get televison on a monitor? How about those TV tuner cards? What about
>>a digital video (US) or NTSC to DVI converter?
>
>
> I have both an LCD computer monitor that I can use to watch TV and an
> HD TV connected to a PC via a DVI-to-HDMI cable. Both work fairly
> well.
>
> If you want to watch HD TV from a PC, you will need a fairly beefy CPU
> and video card, as well as an HD tuner card.
I've got an old old P4 3GHZ and an old 128 MB card. 3/4 gig of DDR. I
wouldn't mind getting a new video card as the fan on the old card needs
a nudge to get spinning!
For the latter, I've had
> good luck with the Hauppauge HVR-1600 and the AverMedia A180.
I'm running win2000. Will they run with that or do I need XP? At one
time I did a lot of video capture so I have a rudimentary knowledge and
a lot of patience. Do you have a preference betwen the two cards as they
are about the same price. The Hauppage looks nicer to my untrained eyes.
Both
> cards come with their own TV watching/recording applications, but I
> prefer to use BeyondTV.
That looks pretty nice. It looks to me like I'll need XP to view HDTV
with BeyondTV. I suppose since I have a 7 year old OS on the PC (Mac is
OSX) I should get Vista but all I really want is a stable OS that will
run the drivers.
Jeff
>
> Dennis (evil)
Anthony Matonak
> Dennis wrote:
> For the latter, I've had
>> good luck with the Hauppauge HVR-1600 and the AverMedia A180.
>
> I'm running win2000. Will they run with that or do I need XP?
> Both
>> cards come with their own TV watching/recording applications, but I
>> prefer to use BeyondTV.
>
> That looks pretty nice. It looks to me like I'll need XP to view HDTV
> with BeyondTV. I suppose since I have a 7 year old OS on the PC (Mac is
> OSX) I should get Vista but all I really want is a stable OS that will
> run the drivers.
You might try looking into Linux. The AverMedia has linux drivers
according to this page...
http://www.diy-pvr-dvr-htpc.com/index.php/Avermedia_A180
Anthony
Jordan Hazen
Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
> I was thinking of going LCD here for my monitor and television and
>saving some space and some watts.
>
> It looks to me that LCD monitors take about a third the power of
>their CRT equivalents. Curiously an LCD television might be use more
>power than it's CRT cousin.
>
><URL: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html?tag=nav />
>
> That seems crazy to me. Is it the faster refresh rates on the monitors
>causing that?
There are several different LCD panel types. Most computer monitors
up through and including the 22-inch size, use "TN" panels, which have
the lowest power consumption, but also a very narrow viewing angle--
their image quality degrades when viewed from a position other than
dead center. This often doesn't matter for a computer workstation
tahts' used by one person seated directly in front, but would be more
bothersome in a TV, where multiple people may be watching from around
the room.
LCD TVs, along with the larger monitors (23" and up; a few small ones
also) favor MVA, PVA, or IPS panels, all of which perform much better
for off-center viewing. Besides being more expensive, though, a
these more advanced panel types also consume more power.
Also, brightness of the backlighting makes a huge difference. For
instance, the Samsung 216BW monitor I'm using now (a 21.6" TN) pulls
41W at 100%, but only 18W at minimum brightness. Its minimum setting
is more than bright enough for text work in a dimly-lit room; 100% is
blindingly bright.
Some TVs include brighter backlights than the typical monitor.
>On another note, anyone have a monitor/tv combo? What's it take to
>get televison on a monitor?
Higher-end computer monitors may include S-video, Component, and
Composite inputs (alongside DVI & VGA) with built-in upscalers,
allowing direct connection to an NTSC or PAL video source without the
PC having to be on.
Standalone HDTV tuner boxes sometimes have VGA outputs, also, with
quality equal to component Y/Pr/Pb. HDMI can be adapted to DVI (but
look for a monitor supporting the silly HDCP copy protection scheme if
you plan to do this; those labeled "Vista Ready" usually do).
--
Jordan.
rick++
events.
And have low contrast and washed out color. Otheres are very good,
but you
pay a lot for them. Watch one in "tv mode" beforeyou buy it.
Dennis
>Dennis wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:04:07 -0400, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I was thinking of going LCD here for my monitor and television and
>>>saving some space and some watts.
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> On another note, anyone have a monitor/tv combo? What's it take to
>>>get televison on a monitor? How about those TV tuner cards? What about
>>>a digital video (US) or NTSC to DVI converter?
>>
>>
>> I have both an LCD computer monitor that I can use to watch TV and an
>> HD TV connected to a PC via a DVI-to-HDMI cable. Both work fairly
>> well.
>>
>> If you want to watch HD TV from a PC, you will need a fairly beefy CPU
>> and video card, as well as an HD tuner card.
>
>I've got an old old P4 3GHZ and an old 128 MB card. 3/4 gig of DDR. I
>wouldn't mind getting a new video card as the fan on the old card needs
>a nudge to get spinning!
CPU should be sufficient (mfg. recommends min P4 2.4 for viewing HD).
The video card may or may not be. I use an MSI 6200 128MB video card
to display HD, but from what I've read, some have had problems with
similar configurations. I did have to do a lot of tweaking of
settings and driver versions and video decoders to get a stable HD
picture.
BTW, you may want a fanless card for a home theater setup to cut down
on background noise. I use a Radeon X1300 Pro 256MB card in another
HD-capable PC which works great but is quite noisy.
> For the latter, I've had
>> good luck with the Hauppauge HVR-1600 and the AverMedia A180.
>
>I'm running win2000. Will they run with that or do I need XP? At one
>time I did a lot of video capture so I have a rudimentary knowledge and
>a lot of patience. Do you have a preference betwen the two cards as they
>are about the same price. The Hauppage looks nicer to my untrained eyes.
I run XP, but I've read that there may be problems with the HVR-1600
on W2000. The HVR-1600 has both ATSC (HD) and NTSC (analog)
tuners/capture, so you can get both digital HD over-the-air broadcasts
and analog cable/satellite feeds. Also, it includes a remote and an
IR blaster (for controlling the cable/satellite box). I've been
pretty happy with mine.
> Both
>> cards come with their own TV watching/recording applications, but I
>> prefer to use BeyondTV.
>
> That looks pretty nice. It looks to me like I'll need XP to view HDTV
>with BeyondTV. I suppose since I have a 7 year old OS on the PC (Mac is
>OSX) I should get Vista but all I really want is a stable OS that will
>run the drivers.
Personally, I would go with XP over Vista. IMO, Vista is not quite
ready for prime time yet. I see that MS recently pushed out the cut
off date for sales of new XP licenses from Jan 08 to June 08.
Warren Block
>
> On another note, anyone have a monitor/tv combo? What's it take to
> get televison on a monitor? How about those TV tuner cards? What about
> a digital video (US) or NTSC to DVI converter?
There are standalone tuner/video boxes that will drive a VGA monitor
without a computer, and also act as a switch so you can still use the
monitor with the computer.
I've used a couple of these. They are nice in that they don't depend on
software and are instant-on. My experience is that the computer video
quality doesn't suffer significantly, but TV/video quality is not great.
At $50-$100, they can be frugal, depending.
The one I'm using right now is a SIIG, which is similar to this but
without the USB:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815167001
Here's a cheaper one I haven't tried:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815260001R
--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA
Dennis
wrote:
>Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On another note, anyone have a monitor/tv combo? What's it take to
>> get televison on a monitor? How about those TV tuner cards? What about
>> a digital video (US) or NTSC to DVI converter?
>
>There are standalone tuner/video boxes that will drive a VGA monitor
>without a computer, and also act as a switch so you can still use the
>monitor with the computer.
Or another alternative is a monitor with composite and/or Svideo
inputs, in conjuction with a cable/satellite box or a VCR/ DVD
recorder (for tuning OTA NTSC channels). My Dell widescreen LCD
monitor has these inputs, in addition to VGA and DVI..
You also need something to deliver the audio in all these scenarios.
Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.
Warren Block
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:03:48 -0000, Warren Block <wbl...@wonkity.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>There are standalone tuner/video boxes that will drive a VGA monitor
>>without a computer, and also act as a switch so you can still use the
>>monitor with the computer.
>
> Or another alternative is a monitor with composite and/or Svideo
> inputs, in conjuction with a cable/satellite box or a VCR/ DVD
> recorder (for tuning OTA NTSC channels). My Dell widescreen LCD
> monitor has these inputs, in addition to VGA and DVI..
>
> You also need something to deliver the audio in all these scenarios.
The KWorld box looks like it has a built-in speaker. Of course, some
monitors also have built-in speakers, and the TV tuner boxes also switch
that signal depending on whether you're viewing the TV or computer.
Jeff
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:03:48 -0000, Warren Block <wbl...@wonkity.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On another note, anyone have a monitor/tv combo? What's it take to
>>>get televison on a monitor? How about those TV tuner cards? What about
>>>a digital video (US) or NTSC to DVI converter?
>>
>>There are standalone tuner/video boxes that will drive a VGA monitor
>>without a computer, and also act as a switch so you can still use the
>>monitor with the computer.
>
>
> Or another alternative is a monitor with composite and/or Svideo
> inputs, in conjuction with a cable/satellite box or a VCR/ DVD
> recorder (for tuning OTA NTSC channels). My Dell widescreen LCD
> monitor has these inputs, in addition to VGA and DVI..
>
I like that idea. Most of what I've seen advertised have DVI and USB
but but not composite. I'll look some more and think about updating to
XP here. Funny how when XP came out that many of the high end video
devices (Pinnacle for one) couldn't get XP drivers out the door.
> You also need something to deliver the audio in all these scenarios.
OK. As long as I don't need two remotes!
Jeff
>
> Dennis (evil)
m...@privacy.net
>monitors also have built-in speakers, and the TV tuner boxes also switch
>that signal depending on whether you're viewing the TV or computer.
Wouldn't it be better to use a LCD HDTV as a computer
monitor than a computer monitor as a TV?
Dennis
Depends on the resolution capabilities of the HDTV. A large screen
with 720p isn't great for working with text on a PC. HDTVs capable of
1080p are more generally expensive.
Also, a given HDTV may or may not have input connectors that are
compatible with your PC's video card.
Seerialmom
The Staple's brand is most likely an LG or Westinghouse. I just
replaced our main PC's CRT with a 19in LCD Westinghouse for the same
reason you mentioned. The other PC in the house got a 15in LCD TV/
Monitor (Hannspree) that I picked up rather frugally at Tuesday
Morning (has some basketball team theme on the borders...who
cares...it was cheap).
As for the tuners and cards....I could see using those if you wanted
to get HDTV signals on your PC, mostly.
m...@privacy.net
>with 720p isn't great for working with text on a PC. HDTVs capable of
>1080p are more generally expensive.
I see
So typically LCD HDTV's do NOT have enough resolution
capability to make a decent external monitor...say for
a laptop or something?
I ask this question for myself as I'm wanting to buy
14" laptop but would occasionally also like to use an
external monitor with it. And since I'm in market for a
TV (don't own one right now) have considered using an
LCD TV as the external monitor.
So are you telling me I might be better served getting
a decent size computer monitor (24") and an external TV
tuner?
Jeff
Not necessarily. Note the post on viewing angle of monitors. Also
note the bit about televisions generally being brighter.
Typically monitors had higher resolutions (good for text) and
televisions had that sexy low pass filtering that was good for motion.
Now, technology has changed quite a bit but it still appears that most
televisions don't make good monitors.
Does a 1080 television have 1080 pixels, what happens when this is
rescanned down, or vice versa? LCDs have native resolutions, unlike CRTs
that are limited to what their flybacks can swing.
It's still a little confusing but I've learned a great deal here...
Jeff
m...@privacy.net
>note the bit about televisions generally being brighter.
OK
> Typically monitors had higher resolutions (good for text) and
>televisions had that sexy low pass filtering that was good for motion.
>Now, technology has changed quite a bit but it still appears that most
>televisions don't make good monitors.
OK
> It's still a little confusing but I've learned a great deal here...
Me too
You would think it would be possible to make one kind
of display that is good for BOTH computer use and TV
use...so that people could only own one device
Dennis
Or, you could just get a USB TV tuner and watch TV right on the
notebook. Get one with decent screen resolution and graphics
hardware, and even HD video looks pretty good. My Dell 15" widescreen
notebook has 1680x1050 resolution and Intel GMA 950 video -- it
displays SD and HD video fine (but I wish it was a little brighter).
Dennis (evil)
--
My output is down, my income is up, I take a short position on the long bond and
my revenue stream has its own cash flow. -George Carlin
Rod Speed
Yes its possible, but technically more difficult and since most
dont use the same screen for both, its not much of a market.
The other problem is that most want to sit further
away from the TV than they do from the monitor.
Ron Peterson
> You would think it would be possible to make one kind
> of display that is good for BOTH computer use and TV
> use...so that people could only own one device
A newer LCD computer monitor is superior for TV use but it usually
costs more because of its higher resolution.
The older LCD monitors had slower pixel switching times which would
cause blurring of moving images but pixel switching times have been
improved because of the demands of those playing computer games.
--
Ron
Bob F
"Dennis" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:82hng3lmofg4bj1pr...@4ax.com...
> I run XP, but I've read that there may be problems with the HVR-1600
> on W2000. The HVR-1600 has both ATSC (HD) and NTSC (analog)
> tuners/capture, so you can get both digital HD over-the-air broadcasts
> and analog cable/satellite feeds.
Can it do HD and analog at the same time? Record 2 programs simutaneously?
Have you seen any cards that can handle Cable HDTV?
Bob
Dennis
wrote:
>"Dennis" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:82hng3lmofg4bj1pr...@4ax.com...
>
>> I run XP, but I've read that there may be problems with the HVR-1600
>> on W2000. The HVR-1600 has both ATSC (HD) and NTSC (analog)
>> tuners/capture, so you can get both digital HD over-the-air broadcasts
>> and analog cable/satellite feeds.
>
>Can it do HD and analog at the same time? Record 2 programs simutaneously?
Yes, with BeyondTV. I have the digital input connected to an antenna
(to receive OTA HD broadcasts) and the analog input connected to a
satellite receiver. I can record an HD program and the analog
(Svideo) output of the satellite box simultaneously (or watch one and
record the other).
>Have you seen any cards that can handle Cable HDTV?
The specs for the HVR-1600 say that it can handle clear QAM
(unencrypted cable HDTV), but BeyondTV doesn't support it on that card
at this time. Maybe other software does, I don't know.
Not a PC card, but the HDHomerun networked dual HD tuner supports
clear QAM. A number of TV applications (including BeyondTV) support
it.
Bob F
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:48:52 -0700, "Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Dennis" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:82hng3lmofg4bj1pr...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I run XP, but I've read that there may be problems with the HVR-1600
>>> on W2000. The HVR-1600 has both ATSC (HD) and NTSC (analog)
>>> tuners/capture, so you can get both digital HD over-the-air broadcasts
>>> and analog cable/satellite feeds.
>>
>>Can it do HD and analog at the same time? Record 2 programs simutaneously?
>
> Yes, with BeyondTV. I have the digital input connected to an antenna
> (to receive OTA HD broadcasts) and the analog input connected to a
> satellite receiver. I can record an HD program and the analog
> (Svideo) output of the satellite box simultaneously (or watch one and
> record the other).
>
>>Have you seen any cards that can handle Cable HDTV?
>
> The specs for the HVR-1600 say that it can handle clear QAM
> (unencrypted cable HDTV), but BeyondTV doesn't support it on that card
> at this time. Maybe other software does, I don't know.
>
I saw that there is a new update to BeyondTV released recently. Have you chosen
to update yet?
> Not a PC card, but the HDHomerun networked dual HD tuner supports
> clear QAM. A number of TV applications (including BeyondTV) support
> it.
I'll have to look at that.
Bob
Dennis
wrote:
>
>"Dennis" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ep30h3lv87oeacgfg...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:48:52 -0700, "Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Dennis" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:82hng3lmofg4bj1pr...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> I run XP, but I've read that there may be problems with the HVR-1600
>>>> on W2000. The HVR-1600 has both ATSC (HD) and NTSC (analog)
>>>> tuners/capture, so you can get both digital HD over-the-air broadcasts
>>>> and analog cable/satellite feeds.
>>>
>>>Can it do HD and analog at the same time? Record 2 programs simutaneously?
>>
>> Yes, with BeyondTV. I have the digital input connected to an antenna
>> (to receive OTA HD broadcasts) and the analog input connected to a
>> satellite receiver. I can record an HD program and the analog
>> (Svideo) output of the satellite box simultaneously (or watch one and
>> record the other).
>>
>>>Have you seen any cards that can handle Cable HDTV?
>>
>> The specs for the HVR-1600 say that it can handle clear QAM
>> (unencrypted cable HDTV), but BeyondTV doesn't support it on that card
>> at this time. Maybe other software does, I don't know.
>>
>
>I saw that there is a new update to BeyondTV released recently. Have you chosen
>to update yet?
Not yet. My installation (4.6) is (mostly) working fine and I've read
of several people who had problems after installing the newest update
(4.7). I'm not really interested in the new features (mostly support
for video on an iPod) and I'd rather let others work out the problems
before jumping to fix something that ain't broke. ;-)
>> Not a PC card, but the HDHomerun networked dual HD tuner supports
>> clear QAM. A number of TV applications (including BeyondTV) support
>> it.
>
>I'll have to look at that.
Yeah, if I didn't alread have two HD tuner cards, I'd probably pick up
an HDHomerun. It looks like an elegant solution. You can keep it and
all your antenna/cable connections and hardware in a wiring closet and
just run a network cable to your HTPC.
m...@privacy.net
>costs more because of its higher resolution.
OK but a BIG LCD computer monitor..... one big enough
for TV watching form a distance.... is very expensive.
No?
Ron Peterson
The Apple 23" monitor lists for $900 and the 30" lists for $1800.
It would be less expensive to buy a Sony HD LCD TV. But, if you need
a computer anyway, why not forget the TV and just buy a HD tuner?
--
Ron
m...@privacy.net
Well I WOULD just buy an HD tuner for a PC.... but need
a screen big enough to set back say 8 feet from. Given
that it appears a 30" computer monitor ONLY screen far
out costs a dedicated LCD HDTV. See what I mean?
I'd LOVE to have a computer only in my front room and
as a TV.....but the high monitor costs (in size I need)
keep me form doing it1
Am I missing something here?
Like I said..... I can buy a 32" Vizio LCD HDTV for abt
$500 from Costco..... but the 30" Apple monitor only
costs $1800!! How come??
Rod Speed
Essentially because a computer monitor is harder to do
than a TV, the volume is much lower with 30" monitors,
and you are comparing apples and oranges brand wise too.
Dennis
>>On Oct 17, 1:18 pm, m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>> >A newer LCD computer monitor is superior for TV use but it usually
>>> >costs more because of its higher resolution.
>>
>>> OK but a BIG LCD computer monitor..... one big enough
>>> for TV watching form a distance.... is very expensive.
>>
>>The Apple 23" monitor lists for $900 and the 30" lists for $1800.
>>
>>It would be less expensive to buy a Sony HD LCD TV. But, if you need
>>a computer anyway, why not forget the TV and just buy a HD tuner?
>
>Well I WOULD just buy an HD tuner for a PC.... but need
>a screen big enough to set back say 8 feet from. Given
>that it appears a 30" computer monitor ONLY screen far
>out costs a dedicated LCD HDTV. See what I mean?
>
>I'd LOVE to have a computer only in my front room and
>as a TV.....but the high monitor costs (in size I need)
>keep me form doing it1
IMO, a 20" screen is perfectly comfortable for watching TV at 8 feet.
Why do you think you need a bigger screen? Or is it that you just
_want_ a bigger screen?
>Am I missing something here?
>
>Like I said..... I can buy a 32" Vizio LCD HDTV for abt
>$500 from Costco..... but the 30" Apple monitor only
>costs $1800!! How come??
Higher resolution on the Apple, plus a premium for the brand name.
m...@privacy.net
>Why do you think you need a bigger screen? Or is it that you just
>_want_ a bigger screen?
Could be.... that I just assumed I needed bigger
Rod Speed
You dont need it, but I havent regretted the 35" widescreen HDTV at that distance.
I'd never return to those smaller screens again and I did have a 20" previously.
Ron Peterson
> Well I WOULD just buy an HD tuner for a PC.... but need
> a screen big enough to set back say 8 feet from. Given
> that it appears a 30" computer monitor ONLY screen far
> out costs a dedicated LCD HDTV. See what I mean?
> I'd LOVE to have a computer only in my front room and
> as a TV.....but the high monitor costs (in size I need)
> keep me form doing it1
Some LCD TVs can be used as computer monitors.
> Am I missing something here?
It depends on your needs. My sister has a full scale home theatre,
which is nice with its full surround sound and 8' rear projection
screen. The setup needs its own room. But I don't think that most of
us would find it frugal.
> Like I said..... I can buy a 32" Vizio LCD HDTV for abt
> $500 from Costco..... but the 30" Apple monitor only
> costs $1800!! How come??
The Vizio only has 1366 x 768 resolution which is less than the HD TV
standard. The Sharp 37" LCD TV has the full 1920 x 1080 resolution but
runs about $1600.
The advantage of using a computer is that you can gain TIVO
functionality without having to pay $20 /month.
--
Ron
Gary Heston
Keep in mind that "large" console TVs used to be 25", so a 32" or 37"
screen should be fine for television viewing at eight feet.
Target lists a number of models between $500 and $999 in that size range
which include computer video inputs. Digging through the specs is a bit
tedious, and a few are missing (refresh rate, response time). But you
can probably find something suitable.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Yoko Onos' former driver tried to extort $2M from her, threating to
"release embarassing recordings...". What, he has a copy of her album?
Ron Peterson
> Target lists a number of models between $500 and $999 in that size range
> which include computer video inputs. Digging through the specs is a bit
> tedious, and a few are missing (refresh rate, response time). But you
> can probably find something suitable.
http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/compare-lcd-models.php lists a number
of LCD TVs sortable on size, contrast ratio, brightness, and
resolution.
--
Ron
Jeff
> In article <dfffh39gsj93e8ffa...@4ax.com>,
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>>IMO, a 20" screen is perfectly comfortable for watching TV at 8 feet.
>>>Why do you think you need a bigger screen? Or is it that you just
>>>_want_ a bigger screen?
>
>
>>Could be.... that I just assumed I needed bigger
>
>
> Keep in mind that "large" console TVs used to be 25", so a 32" or 37"
> screen should be fine for television viewing at eight feet.
>
I went down to computer row in my hometown and visited my favorite
used computer store.
Here's what they told me. They have monitors with TVs for about the
same price as regular monitors, but they said the performance as monitor
suffered. I wound up with a LG1970HR (19" 2 msec) for about $160. Lots
of PCI video/fm cards in the $30 to $40 range but did not see a digital
TV card.
I've got a 21" TV here and it is fine by me. I guess if you have a
"family" room, you may wish something bigger.
Here it is on resolution:
<URL:
http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/Tv-viewing-distance.html />
For regular-size standard definition TVs ranging from 37-inch to 40-inch
diagonal, the optimum TV viewing distance range within which most
viewers will feel comfortable with, is a minimum of 7.5 feet and a
maximum of 14 feet. For HDTV sets, these minimum and maximum distances
would get down to approx. 5.5 feet to 10 feet respectively - thus
allowing for a more immersive viewing experience. Though TV sets within
the 29-inch to 34-inch range are often listed under the 'big screen'
category, yet their pictures are not just big enough to qualify for Home
Theater.
Frankly I usually don't want TV to be such a dominating experience and
prefer it smaller. You may want the full experience!
Now, I guess monitors fall into roughly the HD rules and at 3' that 19"
or 20" is all you want. Of course the monitor resolution is higher but
too much is too much! I have a friend with a 24" and you need to back
off of it.
Jeff
ra...@vt.edu
> In article <dfffh39gsj93e8ffa...@4ax.com>,
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>IMO, a 20" screen is perfectly comfortable for watching TV at 8 feet.
> >>Why do you think you need a bigger screen? Or is it that you just
> >>_want_ a bigger screen?
> >Could be.... that I just assumed I needed bigger
> Keep in mind that "large" console TVs used to be 25", so a 32" or 37"
> screen should be fine for television viewing at eight feet.
But, with HD sets the aspect ratio is different. The width is much
wider than the height, and the size of screens is always measured
on the diagonal. So, to get the equivilent height of a 25" standard
4:3 TV you'd need something like 32" or more.
A 20" HD set would be tiny. Of course, there are 4:3 sets that are HD,
but you will still get a shorter picture height for true HD sources.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Don K
>
> For regular-size standard definition TVs ranging from 37-inch to 40-inch diagonal, the
> optimum TV viewing distance range within which most viewers will feel comfortable with,
> is a minimum of 7.5 feet and a maximum of 14 feet. For HDTV sets, these minimum and
> maximum distances would get down to approx. 5.5 feet to 10 feet respectively - thus
> allowing for a more immersive viewing experience.
FWIW, I have a 55 inch diagonal HD wide-screen, and for me the optimal distance
is when my knees are located about 6 feet from the screen. I started out with the
couch at 15 feet, then 10 feet, and ended up at 6 feet.
Yeah, I can watch the TV easily from the next room, but it's a much nicer
experience when I'm at the optimal distance.
Don
m...@privacy.net
OK I'm thinking on 32" LCD HDTV
m...@privacy.net
>or 20" is all you want. Of course the monitor resolution is higher but
>too much is too much! I have a friend with a 24" and you need to back
>off of it.
Hmm interesting
I would have never thought a 24" computer monitor would
be so big for TV watching that you'd need to back off a
bit!
Ron Peterson
> Hmm interesting
The fovea of the high where high resolution vision occurs only has a
diameter of 5 degrees. If you want to view the screen completely
within the fovea, you would need to be back 20 feet.
--
Ron