TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

[Logistics]

Just curious which resolution I should be working with on a TV for best picture. I have a 720P TV, but it has a different resolution altogether if I use the VGA port. Which one is the actual native resolution? And why is it that the TV wants to use an alternate resolution when utilizing VGA?

Also, is there any reason I can't run the larger, PC resolution over HDMI, since I will be hooking it up to a PC, anyway?

Matthew

[Curious.George]

Re: TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

Just curious which resolution I should be working with on a TV for best picture. I have a 720P TV, but it has a different resolution altogether if I use the VGA port. Which one is the actual native resolution? And why is it that the TV wants to use an alternate resolution when utilizing VGA?

Also, is there any reason I can't run the larger, PC resolution over HDMI, since I will be hooking it up to a PC, anyway?

720p (widescreen, not "standard 4:3) is nominally 1280 (dots) x 720 (lines) -- the 720 in 720p indicating the number of lines, the p indicating that it is a progressive scan (NOT interlaced)

The bottom line will be the actual resolution of the display elements IN the TV; you can't really see more than there are discrete elements to be displayed.

The different interfaces will be processed by the electronics within the TV to best utilize the display real estate. E.g., a legacy NTSC signal only has ~480 lines of video (and the aspect ratio means much of the sides of the screen have "no content"). The electronics in the TV will try to make this as palatable to the user as possible.

The same has been true of displays in laptops (and LCD monitors). If the display designer takes the easy way out, they map the live video to just a small subset of the display and leave the rest blank (I have an old HP laptop that boots with a shrunken 640x480 display surrounded by blanked space).

Pick a setting that "looks best" to you and ignore the details of the criteria under which it is actually operating.

[Logistics]

Re: TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

This didn't really help me. Let's just cover the first part. Which is the native resolution? The 1360 X 768 or the 720p? I thought LCD's had a specific, native resolution where they take proper advantage of all pixels.

[mariushm]

Re: TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

Your TV's resolution is probably 1366 x 768 and not 1280x720.

You can create custom resolutions from your video card's control panel if you can't set that particular one directly.

Some video cards automatically enable overscan or underscan if they detect a TV connected to the HDMI port - AMD cards I know for sure used to do that. The result would be image on screen that would seem slightly zoomed in or you'd have borders around screen.
Normally you would go in control center and disable scaling, or you'd play with a slider to get the image just right.

On VGA, make sure you set the refresh rate to 60 Hz on your display settings. Setting something higher is possible but LCD monitors and TVs accept higher refresh rates mostly for compatibility reasons with vga devices.
You don't get any benefit with higher refresh rates, in fact it can be worse (because higher refresh rate, more analogue data through cable, more sensitivity to noise and interference etc). The TVs panel will still refresh only 60 times a second.

[brethin]

Re: TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

Ask your TV what's it's native is, then use that as a reference.

[Curious.George]

Re: TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

This didn't really help me. Let's just cover the first part. Which is the native resolution? The 1360 X 768 or the 720p? I thought LCD's had a specific, native resolution where they take proper advantage of all pixels.

Yes, but that depends on your particular panel and the electronics that are driving it.

If you are getting the "1360 x 768" figure from some literature that accompanied your TV, then this is most probably the "native resolution" (1280x720 is the NOMINAL 720p resolution; actual figures will vary -- 1366, 1368, 1360, etc.)

You should be able to visually see a difference between the native settings and any other "resampled" resolution (look at the definition apparent in the edges of objects, text, etc.)

But, unless your "media content" is available in exactly the native resolution, there will be some sort of resampling going on SOMEWHERE in the video chain.

[ratdude747]

Re: TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

Ask your TV what's it's native is, then use that as a reference.

Doesn't always work, at least on crappy old 720P's w/o HDMI (VGA only). I have one that is 1366x768 and will:

• Default to 1024x768 on some cards
• Default to 720P on some cards and "zoom" the signal (cut off edges, common LCD TV peeve of mine)
• Show 1366x768 as a valid resolution on some cards but not others. On the few it would show it, it was finicky to say the least. On any card that I could force the resolution on, the TV would accept it with no distortion.

Ultimately it worked best with an Intel GMA GPU and a custom resolution.

As for the zoom issue, many TV's have a video setting for it (LG calls it "full scan" IIRC), and for the few that don't, Nvidia has an option to black border the output to compensate (my 9800 GT does at least). Yeah, not getting the full 1080i (it was a CRT projection TV) sucked, but at least it was somewhat usable.

Generally TV's make crappy PC monitors, but it's better than nothing. Heck, when I'm in a hotel room, all use the TV for is as a second screen for my laptop- especially when I'm trying to get after-hours work done.

[eccerr0r]

Re: TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

Always depends on the TV.

I have an LCD TV that has a 1440x900 odd resolution and thus is only good for "720p". However the native resolution does show up in the DDC data through the VGA15pin - and most modern video card/drivers should be able to read this data back into the OS and show at full resolution.

The DLP TV I have is uglier, though the DLP chip supports 1280x720p, it overscans due to focusing, and the edges get cut off. I just compensate for it by not using the edges so there's no interpolation. Again it does pass this data back through DDC.

VESA standards dictate that all monitors support 1024x768 advertised through DDC, however, how it actually gets displayed nobody cares. Usually it gets interpolated and you get an awful display.

I'd not mind using my 1440x900 TV, it works just fine as a monitor, just as good as any "real" monitor. The DLP TV is not so great due to the overscan, but nevertheless I still use it as a monitor.

However I try to opt for using monitors that have DVI...

[TechGeek]

Re: TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

*snip*
Generally TV's make crappy PC monitors
*snip*

Not exactly the case. I have an old (2008) Toshiba 32AV500U TV. It makes for a heck of a monitor, even though it will only display properly at 1360x768. For some odd reason it says that it supports full 1080p, but it interpolates the signal and it looks awful at that res. Amazing contrast and black levels, and when setup properly, text is as sharp as a knife.

Not trying to derail, just putting a thought or 2 in.

[Curious.George]

Re: TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

Doesn't always work, at least on crappy old 720P's w/o HDMI (VGA only). I have one that is 1366x768 and will:

• Default to 1024x768 on some cards
• Default to 720P on some cards and "zoom" the signal (cut off edges, common LCD TV peeve of mine)
• Show 1366x768 as a valid resolution on some cards but not others. On the few it would show it, it was finicky to say the least. On any card that I could force the resolution on, the TV would accept it with no distortion.

Ultimately it worked best with an Intel GMA GPU and a custom resolution.

Tail wagging the dog (you being forced to adapt to what the vendor is supplying).

Annoyingly, there is a fair bit of second-guessing (by the manufacturer) that goes into the design of products: "What is the consumer likely to WANT?"

I found this incredibly frustrating in my first dealings with pacrim suppliers -- as an engineer, you'd ask for the specs on their products. They'd politely reply "What do you want?"

"I want to know what you HAVE!"

The stalemate would eventually be resolved by you giving them your "requirements". Then, a spec would magically appear -- with all of the parameters EXACTLY in agreement with your reqs!

The Cynic then wonders if these will be REAL parts or just "tell-the-customer-what-he-wants-to-hear" parts... will we have to test every component to be sure that it meets these specifications? Were they just platitudes? Or actual guarantees?!

The Engineer tends to take the opposite approach -- exposing EVERYTHING that the device is capable of directly TO the customer/user. And, as a result, often confusing the sh*t out of him!

As for the zoom issue, many TV's have a video setting for it (LG calls it "full scan" IIRC), and for the few that don't, Nvidia has an option to black border the output to compensate (my 9800 GT does at least). Yeah, not getting the full 1080i (it was a CRT projection TV) sucked, but at least it was somewhat usable.

IMO, this is one of the most annoying aspects of modern televisions. The "media source" is fiddling with the presentation, the broadcaster is fiddling with it, the TV tries to make some sense of it, and the viewer adds yet another "vote" to the mess. I never know if I'm seeing ALL of the signal or some zoomed portion that the TV decided was more appropriate.

And, if I opt to alter the presentation, I don't know if that will be a permanent change -- or, just until the signal changes, again.

[It would be nice if all signals had a circle embedded in them that could be used to examine and tweek aspect ratio]

Generally TV's make crappy PC monitors, but it's better than nothing. Heck, when I'm in a hotel room, all use the TV for is as a second screen for my laptop- especially when I'm trying to get after-hours work done.

Actually, that's a pretty good idea! OTOH, I'd rather avoid traveling altogether and be comfortable seated in front of my own workstations! I find the keyboards on laptops (even some of my aircraft carriers) cramped and clumsy.

[ratdude747]

Re: TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

Tail wagging the dog (you being forced to adapt to what the vendor is supplying).

Annoyingly, there is a fair bit of second-guessing (by the manufacturer) that goes into the design of products: "What is the consumer likely to WANT?"

I found this incredibly frustrating in my first dealings with pacrim suppliers -- as an engineer, you'd ask for the specs on their products. They'd politely reply "What do you want?"

"I want to know what you HAVE!"

The stalemate would eventually be resolved by you giving them your "requirements". Then, a spec would magically appear -- with all of the parameters EXACTLY in agreement with your reqs!

The Cynic then wonders if these will be REAL parts or just "tell-the-customer-what-he-wants-to-hear" parts... will we have to test every component to be sure that it meets these specifications? Were they just platitudes? Or actual guarantees?!

The Engineer tends to take the opposite approach -- exposing EVERYTHING that the device is capable of directly TO the customer/user. And, as a result, often confusing the sh*t out of him!

It was a crappy low end POS from 2007... so I doubt a whole lot of "what do they want" thought went into it. More like "how can we slash the costs" thought went into it (it was full of bloated capxons, how I got it for free years ago).

IMO, this is one of the most annoying aspects of modern televisions. The "media source" is fiddling with the presentation, the broadcaster is fiddling with it, the TV tries to make some sense of it, and the viewer adds yet another "vote" to the mess. I never know if I'm seeing ALL of the signal or some zoomed portion that the TV decided was more appropriate.

And, if I opt to alter the presentation, I don't know if that will be a permanent change -- or, just until the signal changes, again.

[It would be nice if all signals had a circle embedded in them that could be used to examine and tweek aspect ratio]

It sucks... the chromecast I use at home has this issue with my current TV (Another 1080i projection CRT)... no good way to readjust the edges, and it makes some youtube videos hard to read (especially if there is text at the edge of the screen).

Actually, that's a pretty good idea! OTOH, I'd rather avoid traveling altogether and be comfortable seated in front of my own workstations! I find the keyboards on laptops (even some of my aircraft carriers) cramped and clumsy.

In my job I'd say 15-30% of my work is on the road... between tool shops (All over the midwest for me lately, Japan for other engineers) and Satellite plants (Ontario, Tennessee, and Texas), having a hotel strategy is mandatory.

Off-topic: Usually on a work trip, I bring the following laptops with me:

• Work laptop (one of two Dell Precision CAD masters)- sometimes stays at the plant/shop if I don't need to do off-hour work
• Personal main laptop (Dell Latutude E6430)- for play and personal use.
• 12" 2-in-1 Tablet (Asus T200TA)- my "truck" laptop that says in my truck/travel bag. Compact yet effective; good for use on travel stops and what I'm posting from.

[TechGeek]

Re: TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

(even some of my aircraft carriers)

you own aircraft carriers?

[Curious.George]

Re: TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

In my job I'd say 15-30% of my work is on the road... between tool shops (All over the midwest for me lately, Japan for other engineers) and Satellite plants (Ontario, Tennessee, and Texas), having a hotel strategy is mandatory.

I had a job with lots of travel (a few thousand miles per week -- EVERY week) many years ago. My goal was always to get "done" and back home, ASAP. I'd often go to the job site, do whatever needed to be done (taking as many hours as it took), then check into a hotel just long enough to take a shower and change clothes -- and back to the airport. The idea of being away from home just wasn't very appealing to me (all my "stuff" is back there!).

Only had one job that required me to spend multiple days (weeks!), at a time, in a particular place. Again, put in long days, go out for dinner, get suits drycleaned, run out to airport to pick up anything that had been air-expressed in for me, and then back to hotel to sleep.

Off-topic: Usually on a work trip, I bring the following laptops with me:

• Work laptop (one of two Dell Precision CAD masters)- sometimes stays at the plant/shop if I don't need to do off-hour work
• Personal main laptop (Dell Latutude E6430)- for play and personal use.
• 12" 2-in-1 Tablet (Asus T200TA)- my "truck" laptop that says in my truck/travel bag. Compact yet effective; good for use on travel stops and what I'm posting from.

For me, it was usually a DSO. Too big to put in a carryon; too fragile to throw in as checked luggage. But, easier to bring with than to rely on finding something comparable, locally. Add to that clothing, garment bag of suits, and briefcase and it was a real hassle to go anywhere (nowadays, they'd never let you take that much cruft onto the aircraft).

When I (rarely!) travel, now, I carry a tiny VAIO laptop (didn't even have an optical drive!). I'm not keen on tablets as I often have to do a lot of typing so I want the keyboard to tag along with it... If it's just a day trip (often a jaunt to Vegas for a meeting IN the airport, then home), then I can typically get by without a "computer" (relying on paper, instead).

(I once tried one of those "invisible" keyboards but found it too weird for any significant use)

[brethin]

Re: TV Resolution vs. PC resolution.

you own aircraft carriers?

I spent 15 years on Aircraft Carriers, the luxury of the US Naval Fleet.