time
0
+1 for my money. Are you sure the TV hasn't been refurbished at some stage?
Televisions as monitors: What are you using, and why?
- Thread starter Santilli
- Start date
+1 for my money. Are you sure the TV hasn't been refurbished at some stage?
Looks like borked EDID info. I just did a firmware update on it with no luck. Any other tips?
Chewy509
Wotty wot wot.
Contact Samsung support, and hope they'll actually do something about it.
As a quick test, try hooking up a blu-ray player to it, and see if it'll do 1080p? It'll give more weight that the problem is with the TV and not the video card when talking to Samsung. (You can tel them you've tried multiple video sources and get the same problem).
Stereodude
Not really a
You don't have a checkbox to force 1920x1080? Win7 and Vista allow you to override the EDID from your TV anyhow.
Right now I have it on an HDMI mirror with my ASUS monitor. It is being driven at 1920x1080 to the corners of the screen, but the interpolation is obvious. If I set it from "fit" to "16x9" (which I assume is the "1:1" setting), then it blows off all 4 edges of the screen about equally. Telling it to do 1920x1080 isn't the problem, it just won't.
I just tried setting it to the highest resolution in it's EDID (1600x1200) and it looks perfect at "16x9". The box doesn't say 1080p anywhere, but the manual clearly states "Optimal PC resolution is 1620x1080@60Hz". Looks like that simply isn't the case.
Newegg, just more trouble than it is worth. It will end up with a client I don't like so much who wasn't going to run it at default resolution anyway. It will likely be at 1280x720 knowing them.
Just one more negative thing to say about it; the lag is really bad. I would have blamed it on the PC or not noticed it at all, but having both screens mirrored off the HDMI splitter side-by-side makes it really apparent. Another attribute to look into when buying my next screen.
30" might be a little big this location. Something in the 26-27" range with a native res of 1920x1080 and high image quality would be ideal. I suppose I could consider this Viewsonic 27" TV, but after my experience here I am tempted to go back to monitors.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
I doubt that. It is not a supported definition according to the list you posted above.
Windows 7 allows you to set whatever resolution you like. It will scale and look like crap, but for some reason they never notice or say anything, even if I point it out.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
People like that drive me insane. The 24" monitor in my boss's office is set to 1024x768. I don't even know how she can work like that.
Bozo
0
timwhit
0
There're people at my company that run 800x600 on 19" monitors.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 667
Do note that as one gets older, close up vision gets worse and one way to compensate is to lower the resolution. Another more expensive way is to get glasses dedicated to computer use.
The more expensive way is what I do...get bigger monitors. At work my primary is still a 42".
Bozo
0
My "computer glasses" are so-called reading glasses that you can get almost any where for about $10.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 667
There is a difference between reading glasses and computer glasses. To being with there is a difference in their fixed focal point distances. Most people read at a closer distance than they have their monitor. That being said, you can move your monitor closer ...
Then there is the fact that it is very common that the two eyes need different magnifications which isn't readily available by massed produced reading glasses.
Personally, I found it to be quite useful to get a prescription as opposed to reading glasses. America's best eyeglasses which is a national chain are quite inexpensive at $69 for two pair including the eye exam. As long as both glasses are single vision you can separate them out to a reading pair and a computer pair (which is what I did). Not as inexpensive as a pair of reading glasses (which didn't work well for me) but I believe quite reasonable compared to other alternatives.
Pradeep
0
One of the issues with some of the 30" monitors is the horrible input lag due to the scaler implementation (the Dell 3011 being a prime example).
That said, there's no substitute for pixels on the screen. Is it too much to hope for a 4K res 30" screen I'm the future?
Pradeep
0
Yeah it's the data for a "Maximum Resolution : 1680 X 1050' native panel" At least in the past, the smaller end of the TV series would be less than 1080p native, doing bizzaro panels like that. Are you sure its what you linked to?
Change the HDMI cable? Or is it on DVI? Seems like a massive gimpage to not allow 1080p in in 2011. For myself, I would return, for a client who would run in 720p anyway, prob not a biggie like you say.
Pradeep
0
Sounds like its 1680*1050 native, the box would be plastered with Full HD 1080p logos everywhere if it did support it. Is this the TV you are talking about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBmncC7u0lk
Pradeep
0
As Hammond on Top Gear would say, "I've had a crisis."
Chewy509
Wotty wot wot.
Nothing mainstream will do it. Having a quick look at the top end nVidia Quadro and Quadro NVS, they top out at 2560x1600. AMD in the FireGL series is similar, nothing above 2560x1600 for a single output.
The only one I know that does cards that support that res or higher is Matrox. The MED5MP and Xenia Pro (which does 8MP x2 displays, so in theory a single card could power two of these displays) will be able to handle this display. But alas, don't expect to play games on these cards.
Pradeep
0
Looks like it uses two connections in any combination of DVI/DVI, DVI/DP, DP/DP (with each connector driving half the screen. A DP 1.2 device should be able to handle 4K with just the one DP connection, so this may be a DP 1.1 device.
Edit: I think all the 6000 series ATI/AMD cards support 1.2
Bozo
0
All true. In my case I need 2.5 reading glasses to read ( I have bi-focal glasses), and 1.5 reading glasses for the computer.
Chewy509
Wotty wot wot.
Reading up on it, it's capable of taking 2 separate inputs, and giving each input exactly half the screen, eg 2048x2048. But you still need a card that can drive that resolution.
On the specs page for the AMD HD 6990 card, it says that:
So, it even though it supports DP1.2, it still can't drive the resolution.
Source: http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...6990/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6990-overview.aspx#3
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
I know the FirePro 2460 I sold a month ago for a financial analysis system supported 4x 1920x1080. It's a fairly low-end card.
Stereodude
Not really a
I'd be shocked if you couldn't drive it from any video card with two dual link DVI outputs. We did this years ago at work with the IBM WQUXGA T220/T221. Nvidia cards with dual DVI outputs would drive it regardless of resolution limits they supposedly had. The TMDS is limited by frequency and frequency is a function of resolution and refresh rate. You can drive higher resolutions by lowering the refresh rate.
Stereodude
Not really a
You enable spanning in the video card drivers. Windows sees it as one monitor, but the video card sees it as two.
Just got a Toshiba 42" LED-LCD TV for the back room. Using it as a monitor until the ceiling mount arrives. Very happy with it. Got it for a great price as well.
Howell
0
Will you mount it flush with the ceiling? I can only imagine being continually disoriented experiencing that.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Maybe it's for watching TV in bed or when lying down on the sofa?
No, there will be a pole coming down from the ceiling about 20", with the monitor mounted at a 15-degree down angle from there. The whole thing can rotate.
I would have used an extending wall-mount, but the wall this is going next to isn't a real wall; just two layers of sheetrock dividing a closet.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 667
Lets visualize -- A pole extending from the ceiling to the floor. On the pole, mounted at 15 degrees and about 20 inches from the top of the ceiling is a rotating TV.
All this, so a pole dancer can look up to watch the TV while dancing. lol
All this, so a pole dancer can look up to watch the TV while dancing. lol
The pole terminates behind the TV, 7 feet off the ground. And it is for my mother-in-law, so this is a good thing 