I want 30"+ LCD monitor. Possible?
- Thread starter stockriderman
- Start date
The prices would be prohibitively exorbitant. The difference between TVs and monitors are the pixel density and timings, to make a great LCD with those qualities at much higher sizes like 30+ inches would probably cost too much for anyone but Bill Gates.
well,all plasma tv's have very good timings,that's why you don't see ghosting. I gues they'd need to improve resolution,but I doubt it's that hard. It's year 2006 after all...
If I were to go big, I would go with this baby:
https://www.westinghousedigital.com/pc-44-7-42-1080p-monitor.aspx
1920x1080 will look pretty decent at this size, even close up.
https://www.westinghousedigital.com/pc-44-7-42-1080p-monitor.aspx
1920x1080 will look pretty decent at this size, even close up.
The Dell 3007WFP is 30" and uses a very high quality 8-bit S-IPS panel (same as Apple Cinema 30").
You could just get a projector, but it's just not the same...
Yeah, the Dell should be good enough
Yeah, the Dell should be good enough
Thinking about this upgrade myself.. I've seen this monitor from a friend, and all I can say is it is amazing..
i am wondering why there are not more 1080p resolution monitors. just like the 42" monitor. its easy enough. there are tv's with that, why not monitors.
Because these monitors have higher resolutions than 1080p.
24" Dell is native 1920x1200 which is more than 1920x1080. 30" is natively 2560x1600 which is considerably more than 1920x1080.
The point to the monitor vs tv, is to have the pixel density, so that resolution scales accordingly with dimensions - 1920x1080 doesn't look as good on 42" as it does on 24" because of the pixel density. A true 42" monitor would be prohibitively priced and also have an ENORMOUS resolution.
They also need the tighter timings that TVs dont have.Originally posted by: Continuity28
Because these monitors have higher resolutions than 1080p.
24" Dell is native 1920x1200 which is more than 1920x1080. 30" is natively 2560x1600 which is considerably more than 1920x1080.
The point to the monitor vs tv, is to have the pixel density, so that resolution scales accordingly with dimensions - 1920x1080 doesn't look as good on 42" as it does on 24" because of the pixel density. A true 42" monitor would be prohibitively priced and also have an ENORMOUS resolution.
I know all about that, but the PC then suddenly becomes a lot more multimedia friendly. It would be nice to have a choice though, wouldent you say. maybee not 42" but lets say 28" or 32" or 38". thouse would be killer.
Originally posted by: Steelski
Originally posted by: Continuity28
Because these monitors have higher resolutions than 1080p.
24" Dell is native 1920x1200 which is more than 1920x1080. 30" is natively 2560x1600 which is considerably more than 1920x1080.
The point to the monitor vs tv, is to have the pixel density, so that resolution scales accordingly with dimensions - 1920x1080 doesn't look as good on 42" as it does on 24" because of the pixel density. A true 42" monitor would be prohibitively priced and also have an ENORMOUS resolution.
I know all about that, but the PC then suddenly becomes a lot more multimedia friendly. It would be nice to have a choice though, wouldent you say. maybee not 42" but lets say 28" or 32" or 38". thouse would be killer.
They have a 37" 1080P monitor at costco. That's about as small as 1080P monitors get.
Powermoloch
Lifer
- Jul 5, 2005
- 10,084
- 4
- 76
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter