Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays Media Television

Turn Your Monitor Into an HDTV 281

Posted by CowboyNeal from the stupid-television-tricks dept.
orangerobot writes "ViewSonic has released an interesting new box that turns any VGA monitor into an HDTV video display with support for standards up to 1080i. At $399 it's a little on the pricey side, but according to the review from EnvyNews, the unit performs pretty well." Like the review, I can't figure out what the target market for this is, but it's still a cool device.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Turn Your Monitor Into an HDTV More

Turn Your Monitor Into an HDTV

Comments Filter:

  • Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blitzoid ( 618964 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:20PM (#5558071) Homepage
    I would imagine that simply buying a HDTV would, in the end, be cheaper. HDTVs are just really big monitors IIRC. That's not to say this isn't cool, I just imagine it would be more economical to buy an HDTV and use it as your monitor :D

    • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sacherjj ( 7595 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:29PM (#5558181) Homepage
      But if you already have a 1024x768 VGA capable LCD projector, this is a really cool option. Now, my only problem would be that I would have to watch TV live again. I haven't done that since November, with the exception of the Shuttle and recent Iraq events. Don't think I'll be spending the big bucks when HD TiVo comes out.
      • You can use a TV input card with the Bt8x8 chipset and run dscaler (http://www.dscaler.com). At least you can tune to analog broadcasts this way, for the cost of maybe $50.

        There are HDTV tuner/decoder cards that you can put in a computer that will scale to most native resolutions. I think one can be had for under $350.

      • Re:Hmm (Score:2)

        by sdo1 ( 213835 )
        But if you already have a 1024x768 VGA capable LCD projector, this is a really cool option

        How many 1024x768 projectors don't already have inputs for composite, s-video, and probably component?

        I think this thing would be redundant for just about all projectors.

        -S

    • Most HDTVs don't do that great at displaying computer video.

      I keep waiting for a video card designed only to do HDTV output, but no one seems to want to do it...

      • Re:True, but... (Score:3, Informative)

        by gatekeep ( 122108 )
        That's not entirely true. Using something like Powerstrip [entechtaiwan.com] you can run your PC at HDTV resolutions. At that point, you're HDTV is really just a BIG, high resolution PC monitor.

        Detailed information can be found on the AVS HTPC Forum [avsforum.com]

      • Re:True, but... (Score:5, Informative)

        by The_Laughing_God ( 253693 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @04:45PM (#5559144)
        Actually, what you need is an HDTV tuner card. There are several on the market, for the price of a top graphics card (that is to say, under $300) The computer I'm on now has a MyHD MDP-100 $260 from the Digital Connection [digitalconnection.com], who also happen to offer the primary US tech support for the card, on bug report/support threads [avsforum.com] on the AVS forum [avsforum.com] (read the entire forum - there have been separate followup threads for each driver revision and they contain other support tips too. Especially check out the v1.55.2 driver thread. That driver allowed DVDs to be displayed in 1080i - something the DVD consortium has since declared to be forbidden. All other cards and DVD players display DVD in 480p)

        The MyHD comes with VGA output with a passthrough cable for dual monitor or simultaneous computer/HDTV use, and a breakout cable that gives Component Video and s-video. it also offers your choice of stereo or Dolby outputs. I don't usually to use it in that mode however. I find that it's usually simpler and equally high quality to simply rout the video through my (decent but nothing special) graphics card.

        I also own a Telemann tuner, but I can't look at the model number and outputs right now. It's in the basement, cabled through the floor to a Toshiba DLP-650 LCD projector (though it's a used 1999 model, I usually can't even imagine what better quality would look like. Maybe a tad blacker blacks -it's only 300:1 contrast ratio, unlike the newer models at 450-3000:1- but that's it!) There is at least a third major manufacturer, whose name eludes me at the moment, but all the model numbers and details are listed in the support thread I linked above, with more info in other threads

        In short, the card you want is out there. I've run the LCD projector off the MyHD a junkbox celeron 466 and ATI Rage-something card, running Win98 and projecting onto a bare wall (that was my test rig) and the results were outstanding: a crystal clear 120"+ image for a total equipment cost much less than a hinky 60" rear projection screen on sale at Best Buy. I did later upgrade to a better machine (Athlon 1700XP, but it worked with a P-III 800, too), so I could do HDTV recording. HTDV VCRs, like D-VHS, cost several thousand by themselves, but with a card, all you need is a moderately powerful CPu and a decent sized HDD to sotre them on (I saw a 200GB for $160 after rebate on Fatwallet Hot Deals forum this week) You can compress/record the transport stream to DVD-R for archival storage, and still get DVD quality or better. (I compress to DVD the next day. I haven't tried doing it in real-time yet, but it should be possible)

        As much as I hate to say it, if you're building your own Home Theater PC, I'd recommend an Intel processor over a AMD. Maybe the newer or better Athlon boards are rock stable for HTPC use, and set and forget for at least a week at a stretch, but this wasn't the case for myself or others on the AVS forum a year ago (As a workaround, I have it reboot at 5 am every day. ) In general, I readfewer Atlon complaints for HTPC, I almost never heard Intel problems - and the drop in Atlon issues may be due to a shift to Intel, which is the general advice of that board.

    • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)

      by The Clockwork Troll ( 655321 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:35PM (#5558248) Journal
      The best CRT-based consumer HDTV's are far less sophisticated than the best consumer monitors.

      Consider that the best purpose-built HDTV's can only display 720 lines of video non-interlaced and 1080 lines interlaced, and even then only at a refresh rate of 60Hz.

      What's on your desktop is a far better display device, it's just smaller, and mostly what you're paying for with HDTV's is size.

      • Not True (Score:3, Insightful)

        by flimflam ( 21332 )
        The thing is that you can't judge these things based on the specs alone.

        A few differences are that the phosphors on a TV (HD or otherwise) are different than those on a computer monitor. They will display the colors of a video image properly (if it's a decent monitor), plus the decay rate is slower so that a TV monitor at 60 Hz is watchable, whereas a computer monitor at 60 Hz will give you a headache fast.

        And yes, you do pay for size as well.

        It's funny, but I deal with production-grade (as in film/video
    • At first I thought this was an HDTV capture device, which certainly would be useful. But reading the web page, I can't tell. It seems there may be no way to get the video stream into the computer itself, which make is sort of like a KVM switch without K or M.

    • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)

      by at_kernel_99 ( 659988 )

      I would imagine that simply buying a HDTV would, in the end, be cheaper. HDTVs are just really big monitors IIRC. That's not to say this isn't cool, I just imagine it would be more economical to buy an HDTV and use it as your monitor :D

      Maybe I'm the guy that's missing something, but the cheapest HDTVs I saw at best buy [bestbuy.com] are above $1300 US. Meanwhile, I bought a used 19" monitor a month ago for $55. If I must have HDTV, $455 seems cheap.

  • Use with a projector? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slimsam1 ( 591962 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:21PM (#5558080)
    Could you potentially use this device with a projector? Might make a great (much cheaper) alternative to a giant HDTV.

    • Re:Use with a projector? (Score:4, Informative)

      by questionlp ( 58365 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:32PM (#5558209) Homepage
      A lot of projectors in the market now have DVI input, so you should be able to connect an HDTV "tuner" to the projector via DVI and have it project the image. The only problem is that most projectors use the 4:3 aspect ratio (there are some projectors that are native 16:9 or 16:10).
    • You'd want to have a projector capable of displaying appropriately high resolutions. At that point, you may as well just get an HD Projector.

      Taking a high def image and displaying it at 1024x768 wouldn't make much sense.
      • Actually 1024x768 is as good or better than the resolution that consumer level HDTVs can resolve. Sure, they are scanning all the information for an HDTV broadcast, but the tube can't resolve all of that into a picture as of yet. To actually get full resolution, you need to spend serious money. So a 1024x768 projector will get you very close.
        • A 1024x768 image and a full 1080i 1920x1080 image are pretty far apart.. Granted, this is an inexpensive solution that will get you better than standard definition quality, but it's not quite HDTV quality.

          You can get a pretty good 34" HDTV set that'll show the full res for about $2000. And also, it's 16:9 aspect ratio. Much better bang for my buck in my mind that this thing for $400, and still having to buy a monitor (call it $200) for a total of $600 for what, a 19" 4:3 less than HDTV quality image? O
          • You can get a pretty good 34" HDTV set that'll show the full res for about $2000.

            The best direct-view HDTV on the market is Sony's; I don't recall the model number, but I have the slightly older KD34-XBR2. It has the highest actual resolution of any direct-view tube in the consumer market. It resolves about 800 lines of vertical resolution. That's not too shabby: 800 lines out of 1080. Pro tubes in studio monitors can resolve 1000 lines, but they're ten times more expensive.

            So you can get a really good 3
            • It sounds like you're talking about the 34XBR800. List is $2499, but it can be found for much lower. I realize what you're saying, but it's still a heck of a lot better than a normal monitor will show, plus it's larger, and 16:9. To me, that's worth the price, and to those for whom it isn't, prices are dropping QUICKLY.
              • Yes, that's what I was talking about. Thanks for the clarification.

                Don't misunderstand my point, though. I bought my KD34XB2 for $3,000 last summer, and I wouldn't go back for all the tea in China. Anybody who has any interest in watching sports or drama programming in HD and who has the wherewithal should make the investment.
    • I had the same thought - I really want to get a projector that works well with computers and A/V input like HDTV.

      First of all, I was thinking that since it had a tuner built in it could process over the air HDTV signals. Nope! The article claimed it was silly to think so, but the that would have been a great feature.

      But that's not even that bad, you can still buy a tuner... no, thing thing that did it for me was darkening of scenes, and much much worse a "slight blue think on all output that could not b
      • I forgot to mention that if all you wanted to do was convert HDTV inputs for use with a monitor, another cheaper device called the XBlaster [keydigital.com] does that (the review mentioned it, I've not used it myself).

        Given that you're still downgrading the highest HDTV resolutions, I think an HDTV projector would still be better. Anyone know where you can get a good quality, "cheap" ($2k) HDTV projector that can also accept VGA input?
        • Are you dead set on a projector? At $2000 you could get a really nice direct view tube, something like Sony's 34XBR800, and use a VGA->Component video transcoder for the PC stuff.
    • Uh, it's not needed. Most LCD and DLP projectors made in the last five years automatically take 1080i, 720p, 480p in component format, as well as a lot of computer resolutions. Just about all projectors now sold accept it HD scan rates.

      The only caveat is that it would be scaled to the display's native resolution. My projector only has the standard 15 pin D-subs but I can input RGB or YUV color spaces.

  • HDTV? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Little Grey ( 571460 )
    I was under the impression that HDTV was much higher than 1280x1024. Closer actually to ~1920x1280 (or something along those lines) And how exactly will this work with ANY monitor? I have a VGA monitor in my basement that I'd be very surprised to see display 1280x1024 with the aid of this device

    • Re:HDTV? (Score:4, Informative)

      by The Salamander ( 56587 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:25PM (#5558133)
      1920 x 1080i (or 1280x720p if you go that way).

      Pretty low, actually. And most current TVs don't display anywhere near 1920, more like 1440 or 1280.

      • Re:HDTV? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:34PM (#5558231)
        And most current TVs don't display anywhere near 1920, more like 1440 or 1280.

        That's not quite accurate, at least when it comes to direct-view HDTV's. Some HDTV's down-sample a 1080i signal to a 720p signal, but most of them actually display the full 1080i picture. The thing, though, is that the picture tube isn't capable of resolving a picture that fine. The best consumer picture tubes on the market can resolve about 800 lines of resolution; these sets cost $2,000-$4,000. The best professional tubes can resolve about 1,000 lines, but they cost, literally, ten times more.

        So the TV tries to display the full 1920x1080 picture-- it scans all the pixels-- but the tube isn't capable of resolving it.
  • This makes sense for ViewSonic. They make good monitors, and they might want to expand into HDTV units.

    But why not 1080p support?

    "Reverse 3/2 pulldown" - yuck. Movies originated as 24FPS film, when encoded as HDTV, should be in 24FPS 1080p.

    • "Reverse 3/2 pulldown" - yuck. Movies originated as 24FPS film, when encoded as HDTV, should be in 24FPS 1080p.

      Once you pass a 1080/30i signal through reverse 3:2 pulldown, it is a 1080/24p signal. Once you remove the extra frames that 3:2 adds, and resuffle the fields back into their original order, you end up with precisely what the camera recorded.

      • Re:Makes sense (Score:2, Interesting)

        by captaineo ( 87164 )
        When filmed content is broadcast in HD, does the MPEG stream actually take advantage of the "repeat field" flags to encode only 24 frames per second, like DVDs do? Or are the extra fields simply "burned in" to a regular 60 field per second MPEG stream?

        One complication with these "inverse telecine" systems is that the field ordering might not be consistent between cuts. It will be consistent for a movie that is edited at 24fps and then telecine'd all at once, but lots of things are now shot on film, telecin
    • And what 1080p content do you think you're going to find, anywhere on the planet? The only thing I know of is the original digital source for the new Star Wars movies, and there's nothing _released_ in that format - there certainly aren't any plans for broadcasting at that rate that I've heard of. Many are talking about broadcasting in 720p instead of 1080i (which is a good idea - a progressive pic is _much_ nicer than an interlaced one, even with a 'higher' resolution for the interlaced).

      • Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Informative)

        by Babbster ( 107076 )
        Actually, 1080p/24fps is the resolution that new digital masters of both new and older movies are using. For DVD, that master is then being downconverted into 480p MPEG2 video (for a while, and maybe even now but I don't look as close now, you could find the words "from high-definition digital master" on some DVDs). Take a look at this D-VHS site [dvhsmovieguide.com] to see some movies that have been released at 1080i on D-VHS tapes - these movies are produced from 1080p masters, mainly because going directly from film to an
        • Too bad they're not releasing them at 720p, but oh well.

          The point is - there's no content available at 1080p, and likely won't be for the foreseeable future, so there's little point in people getting all worked-up over not having a 1080p-capable display, unless you work in video editing, that is.

          Hopefully the new blu-ray DVD discs will allow a nice 1080p 24/30fps HD-DVD format.

  • Why convergence? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Blaine Hilton ( 626259 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:26PM (#5558140) Homepage
    I think I'm the only one on the whole planet that is not too excited over combing TV and computers. I think they are different and serve different purposes, and should stay different! I'm not a big TV person though and if I miss a show, OH WELL! Does anyone think the same way?

    • Students? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fastolfe ( 1470 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:43PM (#5558339)
      Dorm rooms can be tiny. It's not unreasonable at all to consider using your computer monitor as your television in this situation.

      For kids too.

      But no, now that I'm out of school, I much prefer them separate.
    • I don't mean to sound snobby, but a few months ago I simply stopped watching TV.

      I was very busy for a week, working almost all the time, so I couldn't watch any TV. At the end of the week I was surprised to find I didn't want to watch anymore.

      Now I can't sit in front of the TV for more than five minutes or so of news without getting bored and thinking what a waste of time.
    • How about if you have multiple computers and multiple monitors? One is your work station, you hack up your code, write your documents, and do all your e-mailing and slashdot posting.

      The second is your media-computer, you have Winamp, XMMS, Windows Media player or whatever you want there. Your vast array of digital media can't be matched, but you're so tired of downloading poor quality Simpsons, Futurama, Dilbert, and dare I say it - VIP - episodes. Slap a tuner card in this bad boy (and did I mention it
    • I think I'm the only one on the whole planet that is not too excited over combing TV and computers. I think they are different and serve different purposes, and should stay different! I'm not a big TV person though and if I miss a show, OH WELL! Does anyone think the same way?

      I used to think the same thing. Wouldn't buy a $50 card to even try it. Then I FOUND an old Pinnacle TV card in one of our random piles of cards, and installed it. Since I have cable modem at the home office, it was easy to setup.
    • Your monitor is not your computer. It is merely the device to which it outputs video. In a similar manner what you look at when you think of watching TV is only the output device for the television signal.

      There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of truely seperating the functions of a TV and using a seperate output device for display. Many flat panel and projection units do this already.

      If you already *own* a high quality output display device and don't inherently need another why *pay* for another

  • What a Waste (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Sack ( 660286 )
    Yeah that's exactly what I want...a 19" HDTV. If I'm spending $400 on a TV (not including tuner) then it damn well isn't going to be 19". Take that $400, and the cost of the tuner, and you're well on your way to a real HDTV that would actually provide some quality entertainment. That said, it is cool of course that this can be done. Synopsis - cool, yes; worthwile, hell no!

    • Re:What a Waste (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb&gmail,com> on Thursday March 20, 2003 @04:03PM (#5558577) Homepage
      Having just purchased one of the cheapest HDTVs possible, you're just dead wrong. I paid $700 for a 27" direct-view HDTV (a Samsung) and I will still have to buy an HDTV tumor that will run me between $300 (for a PC HDTV tuner card) and $800 (for one of the nicer HDTV set-top boxes with satellite HDTV capability and all the outputs including DVI). If I had gone with something like the Viewsonic deal, I would have paid $300 less for the display and with a $500 set-top box I would have only been $100 over the cost of my (again, cheap) HDTV.

      At the VERY least, this box gives you the ability to connect your Xbox or Gamecube to your monitor and get the true 480p signals (for most Xbox games and many Gamecube games), and I'm sure there are gamers out there who would like to get that capability for $400 instead of spending $700 or more on an HDTV.

      Now, all that being said, if you just want to use your computer monitor to watch HDTV, I recommend checking out the myHD card which you can put right into your current box (assuming it's over 400MHz) and start watching HDTV right off the bat. That card is running at $300 (as low as $250). Note that the following isn't an ad for this particular retailer (you can google and see if there are more - it's the cheapest I've found), but you can find this card at Digital Connection [digitalconnection.com]. It even has S-video and composite inputs with scaling to several resolutions allowing you to connect other sources. Frankly, it's a much better deal than the Viewsonic.

  • Uhm, do the math... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The cheapest 19" monitor is about $150. Add the $399 to do this, and you're looking at $549 for a 19" TV. Add to that the fact that at that size, you wouldn't even notice a benefit from HDTV, and you start asking, WHY?!?!?!?!?!

    • Re:Uhm, do the math... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ergo98 ( 9391 )
      Obviously this product isn't intending to supplant living room HDTV sets, but rather is a niche product for a niche purpose. Your contention that a 19" monitor is "too small" to show the differences between HDTV and NTSC seems flawed: You seem to presume that someone would put their 19" monitor in the middle of their living room and sit 12 feet away, rather than the more likely "guy sitting at his home office/computer desk watching HDTV". At close proximity there most certainly would be a difference between

  • HD (Score:5, Informative)

    by 14ghz ( 633777 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:32PM (#5558214) Homepage
    Actually, many HDTV recievers output VGA D-sub anyway. My $315 Samsung SIR-T150 has a VGA output that I've watched on a PC LCD monitor. And if you are interested in recording HD, check out the MDP-100 card. http://www.cellarcinemas.com/cgi-bin/store/HTDV-MY HD.html It only works with over-the-air, but you can record data streams right to your HDD with it. bob

  • Err? (Score:2)

    by foxtrot ( 14140 )
    How do they do 1080i if they only support monitors up to 1280x1024? They're short 56 rows, by my count. And given that the HD footage I've seen that's 1080 lines tall is 1920 pixels wide, it's even worse off that direction.

    Come on, folks, for $400, how hard would it have been to support a reasonable resolution?
    • 1) "True" HDTV is any resolution 1280x720p (progressive) or above, *including* 1920x1080i (interlaced).

      2) Most OTA signals aren't reaching the full 1920x1080i, often settling for 1440x1080i (still considered HD).

      3) Considering the number of scaling options this device is providing, $400 is a VERY reasonable price - much cheaper than the scalers the high-end home theater people are using to provide the output of similar resolutions.

  • Seems like ViewSonic would release a box that turns only ViewSonic monitors into HDTVs. Boggle. That's like Msft releasing software that runs on Linux. Come on ViewSonic! Get with the vendor lock-in program. Give KDS, Samtron, etc a kick in the shins like any smart business would do, consumer convience be damned.
  • Oh, I know a target market: digital video editors.

    Trust me, I know some folks who will be very excited about this.

  • Well, this has got to be the worst review... (Score:3, Informative)

    by MukiSamaEX ( 660562 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:37PM (#5558274)
    This has got to be the worst review I've ever seen in my life. Let's run it down.

    1. They're reviewing an HDTV converter. You might want to mention to folks that 1080i is a lot wider (19xx) than 1280 across.
    2. The product got a decent review. What's wrong with this? Check out 3 'n 4.
    3. It has a blue tint over the picture. No matter how subtle it is, tints over the picture is generally a pretty crappy problem on a $400 converter.
    4. In the quality section, they not ONCE spoke about component quality. They went into S-Video and Composite ONLY (maybe RF too, I forget). Now who in the HELL would spend $400 on a converter and give a rat's patoot about component and s-video quality? Ati sells crap that converts those just fine for around $100.

    That is all.

  • One of the sure signs you are a nerd (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kasmiur ( 464127 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:37PM (#5558277)
    Your computer monitor is larger than your TV. I imagine there are quite a few people here who have a 21 inch monitor and only a little 13 inch tv. Probably even a 5.1 sound system there too.

  • what?? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by updog ( 608318 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:37PM (#5558285) Homepage
    That headline is very misleading. This box does not turn your TV or monitor into an HDTV as it implies. Look at the input and output capability:

    TV/Video input compatibility
    480i, 480p, 576p, 720p, 1080i

    RGB output capability
    640x480, 800x600, 852x480, 1024x768, 1280x720, 1280s768, 1280x1024

    Clearly, This takes up to a 1080i HD input and displays up to 1280x1024.

    • I'll say it again because so many seem to be out of the loop on this: 1280x720 (progressive) is HDTV. Often, home theater people even prefer viewing their 1080i signals at 720p for the more film-like picture.

  • Target audience (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nougatmachine ( 445974 ) <johndagen@@@netscape...net> on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:39PM (#5558298) Homepage
    The target audience would seem to be people who have Xbox or Gamecube consoles and want to play games in progressive scan format, which is rather superior to plain ole TV, but don't have an expensive HDTV. Of course, it is still expensive - but not quite as much so as a huge TV.
  • After investing in a reciever, antenna and subscriptions for HD content, I've decided to give up on HD for now and sell it all. 1080i on a 32" 4x3 TV was just underwhelming.

    I can't even imagine why I'd want to use my 15" or 21" VGA monitors.

    -Chris

  • Nothing new. (Score:3, Informative)

    by SageMadHatter ( 546701 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:42PM (#5558337)
    They are called up-converters and they have existed for years now. Here is a listing of them:

    http://www.dvdirect.com/Prods/TVO/default.htm

    Mad Hatter

  • HDTV w/ PCs.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by gatekeep ( 122108 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:49PM (#5558412)
    The real reason to involve your PC in an HDTV setup is so you can use an HDTV decoder card like MyHD [digitalconnection.com] or HiPix [digitalconnection.com]

    Either one of these cards will allow you to view HDTV streams on your monitor, and record them to the hard drive. You can even output it to a regular HDTV monitor and/or surround sound setup.

    For those interested in this sort of thing, the AVS [avsforum.com] HTPC forum [avsforum.com] is probably the best resource on the web. There's even a Linux HTPC Forum [avsforum.com] Though, linux is a little behind windows on the HTPC front.

  • Is anyone doing the following... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Asprin ( 545477 ) <(moc.oohay) (ta) (dlonrasg)> on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:52PM (#5558442) Homepage Journal

    How about instead of getting a traditional large screen TV, I buy one of those ever-less-expensive LCD computer projectors (which has full A/V in/out ports)? Are any of you using a setup like this at home instead of a normal large screen TV? Whaddayathinkofit?

    We use one (a Viewsonic LCD projector) at our church to watch movies with our youth group, and the picture quality is pretty amazing. We can make that thing 12 feet diagonal and it's like being in the theater. Combine one of those with this gadget, and HDTV is still way overpriced, but now it's overpriced and HUGE!

    • the two drawbacks (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hollins ( 83264 )

      I want to do the same. You could get a big, high resolution display from a small box. I find there are two drawbacks to this scheme:

      1. Brightness. Projectors have come a long way, but don't expect to be able to watch football on a Sunday afternoon without drawing the shades.
      2. Bulb life. The bulbs in these things only last for a thousand hours or so, then cost hundreds of dollars to replace. I don't know of any that can be user-serviced, but I might be mistaken. This is fine if they're used for a few powerpoi
      • I suppose if you're gonna have drawbacks, then you might as well do it on the cheap side...at least for those of us who don't feel like spending a hundred bucks on new bulbs every other month...

        Wish I could find the direct link to it, but this is appropriate anyway...There's a site (free) giving plans and general specs for building your own projector out of a small tv or computer monitor...It basically consists of 2 cardboard/wooden boxes overlapped to allow focusing, with a monitor at one side, and a fres
    • I've got an InFocus LP330 XGA DLP projector that does VGA up to 1024x768 and S-Video, composite (NTSC and PAL).

      I've been looking for something that will support higher resolutions in the future. But for now, the image quality from a panasonic DVD audio/video player is good enough for me. I live in a 2bd apartment, and project my image onto a bare wall. At night, with dolby digital surround, it's just like being in a theater. With a good pair of headphones on, it's a private screening room.

      It's rated
    • I do and I'll tell you one thing.... It's blocky.
      Data projectors have poor line doublers and video circuitry. they do NTSC only very marginally.

      this "might" make it better, but I suggest buying a real projector and never getting a HDTV.

      I'm going projector only except for the 9 inch in the kitchen, the 19 in the bedroom and the 19 hanging over the bar in the basement.

    • How about instead of getting a traditional large screen TV, I buy one of those ever-less-expensive LCD computer projectors (which has full A/V in/out ports)? Are any of you using a setup like this at home instead of a normal large screen TV?

      My dad did this, a few years after I got a projection TV. The TV is several years behind technologically (and it was several important years) so it's much dimmer and slightly lower-res than the computer projector. In my mind they are comparable, but the one that'

  • $50 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Suppafly ( 179830 ) <slashdot@s[ ]afly.net ['upp' in gap]> on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:58PM (#5558515)
    These will be great when they cost $50 or so. Until then, it is more of a novelty, I can't really see anyone wanting to cough up the money for one of these. Use with a projector seems like a decent idea, but even then, most projectors don't support the same aspect ratios. You can by a hdtv that is bigger than your monitor (unless you have a huge monitor) for less than you can by this converter.

  • That's not to say that the N6 doesn't have some problems of its own. Most notable among them was that, try as I might, I could not activate the PIP function. When I attempted to change the PIP settings in the menus, the cursor would not allow me to select them. The terse user manual proved to be no help, and the ViewSonic Web site was sorely lacking in information. However, I've hit upon a possible explanation. It appears that the N6 shares the same form factor and remote as its little brother, the NextVisi

  • Almost perfect. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anderlan ( 17286 )
    If this had a tuner in it, it would be a great way to buy a hdtv thats cheaper, and *higher real resolution* than most HDTVs, albeit in most cases smaller. I wonder how huge monitor prices compare to HDTVs at the same size and same res...

    But, since this doesnt include a tuner, it might be cheaper just to have a pc and a tuner. I don't know.

  • Or use DScaler and Brooktree based card (Score:5, Informative)

    by sdo1 ( 213835 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @04:54PM (#5559252) Journal
    Or you can download the open source GPL'd DScaler [sourceforge.net] and use (according to the FAQ [sourceforge.net]) "Almost any card (and that means A LOT) based of former Brooktree (now Conexant) chips including bt848/878/879".

    There is also a section in the FAQ called "Can I use any vga card as a display device?" which answers the other half of the question.

    I do this in my computer room and it works quite nicely...

    -S


    • The worst winmodem I ever had the misfortune to use was based on a Conexant chipset. (I really shouldn't have expected much from a 56K modem that cost $7 after rebate.)

      If their video chipsets are of similar quality, I'll be running in the opposite direction of any product that uses them.
  • The website for the device mentions watching TV and DVD on your monitor with this device. That seems illogical for 2 reasons. First, DVD only has 480 lines of resolution, not 1080 so you are really not getting anything more out of your DVD with this device. Second, you still need a HDTV decoder for the HDTV signal. These boxes run about $1000 right now. I don't think anyone is willing to pay that much money just to watch HDTV on their monitor. Chances are, if they are going to spend that kind of money
  • Several people have claimed that you need an external digital tuner with this box, but it in fact INCLUDES a built in ATSC tuner. Which means that you don't need anything else other than the monitor and a pair of good rabit ears to get local digital TV transmissions on the monitor. These could include high def transmissions as well (DTV != HDTV).

    Most external Digital Receivers cost in the area of $400 and up, so the cost off this unit is actually pretty reasonable. A perfect match for my 24" 16:10 Sony Tr
  • what is the best solution for using the full HDTV resolution of an Apple Cinema display? An HDTV tuner with DVI output? Are there any cards available with OSX support for this?

    Please help :)

  • Spend a little more, get one that really works (Score:3, Informative)

    by presearch ( 214913 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @05:32PM (#5559753)
    If you really want what this article implies, but doesn't deliver, get a Samsung SIR-T165.
    It'll receive both traditional and HD over-the-air broadcasts, has S-video, component,
    DB15 VGA, DVI, and FireWire out. You can find 'em on eBay for a little over $500.
    It's got some quirks, but at least it can turn your computer monitor into a real HDTV.
  • My Sony HDTV tuner ALREADY does this. and has done it for 2 years....

    Almost ALL HDTV tuners have a VGA connection in the back, most HDTV projectors use this.

    Oh and my tuner cost $399.00 back in Feb of 2002.

    so what is the news again?
  • "Like the review, I can't figure out what the target market for this is, but it's still a cool device. "

    I'd like to watch some stuff on HDTV, Law and Order, Enterprise, etc. But HDTV's still run >$1.000. If, for $400, I can turn my spare computer into an HDTV, I think it'd be worth it until HDTV is more wide-spread.

    Is it a mass market item? No. But those of us that are short on money and space and don't want to replace our existing system would find it quite useful. If I can make a home-brew PVR
  • Settle down. It's just a video scaler with a built in tuner. If you wanted your monitor to display component HDTV signals you could just buy a Component to VGA transcoder for $150.

    I'm not sure exactly what the purpose of it is. You still need a Digital TV turner. A PC digital TV turner already has all the features this thing has. At best I could see it as a good utility box for hooking up large scale VGA monitors to Set Top Boxes that don't have VGA out. Many of the boxes the cable company rents do n
  • So this is today's hidden advertisement?

  • What this will come down to... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ndnet ( 3243 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @08:29PM (#5561385)
    With the advent of HDTV, with truly decent resolution, everything that needs a screen will go to one box.

    Think about it. The Dreamcast had the ability, with a simple box, to output VGA. TV tuners make cable/antenna TV on your PC viable. On the other hand, WebTV and Tivo have interfaces that would benefit from HDTV resolution.

    What we really need is a ETHERNET-STYLE Video bus. Choose a device (no matter what room), choose a screen, and go.

  • Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @09:52PM (#5561957) Journal
    Most multi-sync monitors will already sync to HDTV. My 5 year old, 15", $99 KDS monitor will sync to 720p just fine. It takes a bit of fiddling to get the aspect ratio correct (vertical size against the lower stop), but I get a 16:9 picture and it looks pretty darned good. It just requires a cable to feed the component signal to the rgb lines of the HD15 input connector.

    The advantage to this box is that it will transcode component to RGBHV, as well as tune NTSC and allow source switching via remote. Not something I'd pay $400 for. Of course, I did turn my "free" 15" Dell LCD into a TV with their less expensive NTSC unit (~$80) so I could have a TV in my bookcase.

  • Computer video not equal to TV video (Score:4, Informative)

    by ChrisCampbell47 ( 181542 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @10:54PM (#5562293)
    Three points:
    • The specs for the Viewsonic box mention:
      Resolution Refresh Rate (Integrated or progressive scan)
      Uh, the "i" stands for interlaced. Getting that wrong betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how "real" video (not PC video) works; hopefully this is a tech writer goof and not exposing basic video incompetence on the part of the designers.

      Here's a [tortured] analogy:

      computer video is to "TV" video
      as
      a 64 kbps MP3 is to vinyl played on a high-end analog audio system.

    • Don't fall into the trap of thinking that your computer monitor (ostensibly higher resolution) can display video better than your TV. There are color gamut [hamradio.si] issues, as well as screen phosphor differences [lcavwww.epfl.ch].
    • Just to give you a healthy respect for the sheer magnitude of information bandwidth carried in a high-quality (SD, not HD) video signal, the uncompressed digital video standard (601) is 270 Mbps, and that's only using 10 bit quantization (digital audio uses 16-24 bit).
    "Real" video guys cringe at computer video. Gamut, color accuracy and aberrations, frame interlacing, human optical models, it's all a whole lot more complicated than pixel grids and color bit depth.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close