em - arn't most PC monitors already HDTV??

greysuit55 · 09-12-2005, 17:51

I have probably missed something here but surely any decent PC monitor with a high resolution 1280x1024 etc - is ALREADY playing HDTV? All that HDTV is, is just a type of high resolution programme or film, whereas at the moment tv and films are broadcast lower than 1280x1024....??

craggers · 09-12-2005, 18:09

yeah, as long as the vertical resolution is more than 720 then its HD i think. Altho the graphics card/connections might not be HD ready

Dino · 09-12-2005, 18:41

I would say that you are correct.

Strictly speaking HDTV specifies only two resolutions and scan types, namely 1280x720, 1920x1080 either interlaced or progressive scan.

I'm sure a lot of monitors and video cards will cater for the lower resolution, so as you say most PC's are capable of displaying HDTV images at the lower res and quite a few high-end systems at the higher res.

Try Quicktime 7 for a demo; there are plenty of movie trailers encoded in HD.

The big problem is that most commercial stuff doesn't cope with HD resolutions. Is 1366x768 HDTV? I'm not sure. A lot of plasma panels out there have that as their native resolution and claim to be HDTV.

Sure, they will do HDTV, but not without scaling the image. That won't give you the sharpest image quality.

Quickbeam · 10-12-2005, 00:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by greysuit55

I have probably missed something here but surely any decent PC monitor with a high resolution 1280x1024 etc - is ALREADY playing HDTV? All that HDTV is, is just a type of high resolution programme or film, whereas at the moment tv and films are broadcast lower than 1280x1024....??

It's only HDTV if you are viewing video material shot or mastered at 1280 x 720p or higher. Playing a DVD on a 1280 x 1024 LCD doesn't count.

The Windows Desktop viewed at 1280 x 1024 may be high resolution but it's not TV!

camaj · 10-12-2005, 04:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by greysuit55

I have probably missed something here but surely any decent PC monitor with a high resolution 1280x1024 etc - is ALREADY playing HDTV?

It's capable of playing HD video, for sure. Not 1080 though you'd need a better monitor.

But a lot of people don't realise they can experience HD NOW but then again there are people who leave their desktops at 800x600!

Jarrak · 10-12-2005, 10:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by camaj

But a lot of people don't realise they can experience HD NOW but then again there are people who leave their desktops at 800x600!

Yeah I think there are many people who do not realise how much of an impact HD will have on TV when they probably on a daily basis have seen the difference increasing PC monitor resolutions have improved the clarity and usefulness of PC displays over the years.

Dino · 10-12-2005, 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by camaj

It's capable of playing HD video, for sure. Not 1080 though you'd need a better monitor.

I've got a 19" monitor at work that'd do 2048x1536 @ 60hz, not a particularly special monitor and it's a CRT. Ok, so there is a black border, but I'd still consider it to be displaying a HD picture @ 1080.

The only problem is, the PC connected to it has a lousy graphics card, so playback on Quicktime 7 is a bit jerky, and to be honest I'm not sure we've downloaded any 1080 Quicktime HD movies (or indeed whether Quicktime supports 1080).

Edit: Quicktime does support 1080 - just checked the Apple site.

late8 · 10-12-2005, 20:31

PC Monitors are HD - Which begs the question - Why didn't we see hdcrt tv's sooner? There very rare, however high resolution CRT's have been around for ages.

stvn758 · 10-12-2005, 20:51

I think it's the reverse with flat screens - the bigger the size the more costly (per inch) they are to make. That's probably why there are so many cheap 17inch LCD PC monitors like mine that can go to 1280 1024. I didn't realise I had a Hi Def screen right under my nose - cool.

Jarrak · 10-12-2005, 20:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by late8

PC Monitors are HD - Which begs the question - Why didn't we see hdcrt tv's sooner? There very rare, however high resolution CRT's have been around for ages.

We would have done if we had HD broadcasts 3 or 4 years ago since flat panel designs were weaker and far more expensive.
The UK however is getting HD at a time when the balance has overwhelmingly shifted in favour of flat panels from modest PC monitors through to 50" plus HD displays.

Economics drives the market and there is more money to be made in flat panel production thanks it has to be said to the demise of the CRT for domestic PC use.

camaj · 11-12-2005, 02:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dino

I've got a 19" monitor at work that'd do 2048x1536 @ 60hz, not a particularly special monitor and it's a CRT. Ok, so there is a black border, but I'd still consider it to be displaying a HD picture @ 1080.

Of course but I quoted someone who had a 1280x1024 display!!

BTW, it's more likely it's your CPU that's the cause of jerkiness. You should be able to select 480p, 720p or 1080p when you download. Try 720p if you're having problems

sbmongoose · 11-12-2005, 18:42

There is also the aspect ratio issue. Most monitors (yes I know not all) are 4:3. There are some 16:10 widescreen monitors fairly easily availabe, but they are not quite wide enough, or all that common yet.

The other problem is HDMI/HDCP. How many monitors have HDCP built into them? Can't be a huge number.

But yes, the FTA HDTV demo channels on Astra look pretty sweet on a monitor.

Simon

woodysdad · 11-12-2005, 20:24

We're all getting hot and bothered here. HDtv is being forced on us by the industry. There was no demand from the public, and the only way to generate demand seems to be to force it on us, just like digital. Digital is great - so many channels to choose fro....wait a minute, didn't the US have about forty channels in the sixties, on analogue?
In the early eighties, I sat in a BBC Control can and watched HDtv from Edinburgh Tattoo. The public were invited to see it, and no-one was that interested. And believe me, the analogue signal in those days was nowhere as good as today.
I could see the point of changes or "improvements" thirty years ago, when it helped our manufacturers. But now we're just supporting Far East economies. A lot of the advantages in media are measurable on instruments, but mean nothing to the human ears and eyes. Even the bog standard CD and FM exceed the range of human hearing. HDtv -what's the point??

Jarrak · 11-12-2005, 21:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by woodysdad

We're all getting hot and bothered here. HDtv is being forced on us by the industry.

HD broadcasting is not replacing any of the current SD broadcasts nor are there any plans by the government or broadcasters to do so in the short term future.
Obviously if you project far enough ahead the current broadcast specs will change as they have done previously a few times from the 1930's onwards.

If you do not want HD then don't have it, you will not lose any of your current viewing.

Dino · 11-12-2005, 22:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by camaj

Of course but I quoted someone who had a 1280x1024 display!!

BTW, it's more likely it's your CPU that's the cause of jerkiness. You should be able to select 480p, 720p or 1080p when you download. Try 720p if you're having problems

More than likely, though I do find that it's usually a blend of problems including hard-drive speed, OS overheads, CPU, graphics card, etc. I'm developing commercial video playback solutions for a company at the moment and you'd be suprised at how low a spec they want high def type images out of. I mean, Celeron with 256mb of Ram and on-motherboard video, running XP.

What were they thinking!

Dan27 · 11-12-2005, 23:05

Most PC monitors dont have component or HDCP compliant DVI or HDMI inputs so they cant really be classified as HD Ready HDTVs

The next version of Windows (Vista) has been programmed to use HDCP copy protection so dont expect your monitor to work fully with HD sources if you upgrade your OS

Also, 1080i requires a monitor with a resolution of 1920 x 1080

And the reason why the development of LCD TVs didnt really start until a couple of years ago is that they had problems making BIG LCD screens (above 21" mostly).

Dino · 11-12-2005, 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanVitale

And the reason why the development of LCD TVs didnt really start until a couple of years ago is that they had problems making BIG LCD screens (above 21" mostly).

It also has a lot to do with market demand.

The company I work for have seen a fantastic Samsung (or it could be LG) 80" Plasma that they will not make because they cannot see any demand for it. They were not prepared to get tooled up to make a monitor that they'd only sell a few thousand of.

camaj · 12-12-2005, 04:13

First of all, it helps if you post in a relevent thread to keep things seperate since I'm sure some people only wanted to read about PC monitors. But since you posted here I'll have to reply here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woodysdad

HDtv is being forced on us by the industry. There was no demand from the public, and the only way to generate demand seems to be to force it on us, just like digital. Digital is great - so many channels to choose fro....wait a minute, didn't the US have about forty channels in the sixties, on analogue?

I don't believe so, no. getting 5 or 6 channels on analogue is a squeeze. 40 would be next to impossible unless the quality was awful. I don't believe you can get 40 FM stations, but certainly not 40 TV stations. If you could we wouldn't bother going digital. The BBC would save themselves the effort!

To say there's no great demand from the public is wrong and also misleading. For a start a lot of the public aren't aware of HDTV and a smaller number have actually experienced it. Those who have seen a proper demo are almost always impressed to say the least. I believe that there's a small but growing demand and it's misleading to say otherwise if the people who would demand it don't know about it yet.

Quote:

In the early eighties, I sat in a BBC Control can and watched HDtv from Edinburgh Tattoo. The public were invited to see it, and no-one was that interested.

Maybe because they didn't know what it was? I don't think most people would go out of their way to watch it for a few minutes anyway. You can't take that as an indication of enthusiasm as having something in your home is a different prospect.

Quote:

A lot of the advantages in media are measurable First of all, congrats on picking the wrong thread to post in. It helps to keep things seperate since I'm sure some people only wanted to read about PC monitors. But since you posted here I'll have to reply here.on instruments, but mean nothing to the human ears and eyes. Even the bog standard CD and FM exceed the range of human hearing. HDtv -what's the point??

Your point seems to be that HD isn't measuarble the the human eye, you don't really say it explicitly so I'll have to assume. HD is EASILY noticeable and you don't need a machine to tell you it's better, that's for sure.

I'm sure FM isn't the pinicle of sound quality but I'd have a hard time spotting the improvements. That's because humans are visual creatures and our eyes are more sensitive than our ears.

09-12-2005, 17:51	#1
greysuit55 Inactive Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 214	em - arn't most PC monitors already HDTV?? I have probably missed something here but surely any decent PC monitor with a high resolution 1280x1024 etc - is ALREADY playing HDTV? All that HDTV is, is just a type of high resolution programme or film, whereas at the moment tv and films are broadcast lower than 1280x1024....??

09-12-2005, 18:09	#2
craggers Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Preston Posts: 3,605	yeah, as long as the vertical resolution is more than 720 then its HD i think. Altho the graphics card/connections might not be HD ready

09-12-2005, 18:41	#3
Dino Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: South Manchester Posts: 1,990	I would say that you are correct. Strictly speaking HDTV specifies only two resolutions and scan types, namely 1280x720, 1920x1080 either interlaced or progressive scan. I'm sure a lot of monitors and video cards will cater for the lower resolution, so as you say most PC's are capable of displaying HDTV images at the lower res and quite a few high-end systems at the higher res. Try Quicktime 7 for a demo; there are plenty of movie trailers encoded in HD. The big problem is that most commercial stuff doesn't cope with HD resolutions. Is 1366x768 HDTV? I'm not sure. A lot of plasma panels out there have that as their native resolution and claim to be HDTV. Sure, they will do HDTV, but not without scaling the image. That won't give you the sharpest image quality.

10-12-2005, 00:05	#4
Quickbeam Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 143	Quote: Originally Posted by greysuit55 I have probably missed something here but surely any decent PC monitor with a high resolution 1280x1024 etc - is ALREADY playing HDTV? All that HDTV is, is just a type of high resolution programme or film, whereas at the moment tv and films are broadcast lower than 1280x1024....?? It's only HDTV if you are viewing video material shot or mastered at 1280 x 720p or higher. Playing a DVD on a 1280 x 1024 LCD doesn't count. The Windows Desktop viewed at 1280 x 1024 may be high resolution but it's not TV!

10-12-2005, 04:32	#5
camaj Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 813	Quote: Originally Posted by greysuit55 I have probably missed something here but surely any decent PC monitor with a high resolution 1280x1024 etc - is ALREADY playing HDTV? It's capable of playing HD video, for sure. Not 1080 though you'd need a better monitor. But a lot of people don't realise they can experience HD NOW but then again there are people who leave their desktops at 800x600!

10-12-2005, 10:23	#6
Jarrak Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ilkeston Posts: 18,075	Quote: Originally Posted by camaj But a lot of people don't realise they can experience HD NOW but then again there are people who leave their desktops at 800x600! Yeah I think there are many people who do not realise how much of an impact HD will have on TV when they probably on a daily basis have seen the difference increasing PC monitor resolutions have improved the clarity and usefulness of PC displays over the years.

10-12-2005, 19:58	#7
Dino Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: South Manchester Posts: 1,990	Quote: Originally Posted by camaj It's capable of playing HD video, for sure. Not 1080 though you'd need a better monitor. I've got a 19" monitor at work that'd do 2048x1536 @ 60hz, not a particularly special monitor and it's a CRT. Ok, so there is a black border, but I'd still consider it to be displaying a HD picture @ 1080. The only problem is, the PC connected to it has a lousy graphics card, so playback on Quicktime 7 is a bit jerky, and to be honest I'm not sure we've downloaded any 1080 Quicktime HD movies (or indeed whether Quicktime supports 1080). Edit: Quicktime does support 1080 - just checked the Apple site.

10-12-2005, 20:31	#8
late8 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 7,052	PC Monitors are HD - Which begs the question - Why didn't we see hdcrt tv's sooner? There very rare, however high resolution CRT's have been around for ages.

10-12-2005, 20:51	#9
stvn758 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 17,338	I think it's the reverse with flat screens - the bigger the size the more costly (per inch) they are to make. That's probably why there are so many cheap 17inch LCD PC monitors like mine that can go to 1280 1024. I didn't realise I had a Hi Def screen right under my nose - cool.

10-12-2005, 20:52	#10
Jarrak Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ilkeston Posts: 18,075	Quote: Originally Posted by late8 PC Monitors are HD - Which begs the question - Why didn't we see hdcrt tv's sooner? There very rare, however high resolution CRT's have been around for ages. We would have done if we had HD broadcasts 3 or 4 years ago since flat panel designs were weaker and far more expensive. The UK however is getting HD at a time when the balance has overwhelmingly shifted in favour of flat panels from modest PC monitors through to 50" plus HD displays. Economics drives the market and there is more money to be made in flat panel production thanks it has to be said to the demise of the CRT for domestic PC use.

11-12-2005, 02:38	#11
camaj Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 813	Quote: Originally Posted by Dino I've got a 19" monitor at work that'd do 2048x1536 @ 60hz, not a particularly special monitor and it's a CRT. Ok, so there is a black border, but I'd still consider it to be displaying a HD picture @ 1080. Of course but I quoted someone who had a 1280x1024 display!! BTW, it's more likely it's your CPU that's the cause of jerkiness. You should be able to select 480p, 720p or 1080p when you download. Try 720p if you're having problems

11-12-2005, 18:42	#12
sbmongoose Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 20	There is also the aspect ratio issue. Most monitors (yes I know not all) are 4:3. There are some 16:10 widescreen monitors fairly easily availabe, but they are not quite wide enough, or all that common yet. The other problem is HDMI/HDCP. How many monitors have HDCP built into them? Can't be a huge number. But yes, the FTA HDTV demo channels on Astra look pretty sweet on a monitor. Simon

11-12-2005, 20:24	#13
woodysdad Inactive Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: West Lothian Posts: 2,263	We're all getting hot and bothered here. HDtv is being forced on us by the industry. There was no demand from the public, and the only way to generate demand seems to be to force it on us, just like digital. Digital is great - so many channels to choose fro....wait a minute, didn't the US have about forty channels in the sixties, on analogue? In the early eighties, I sat in a BBC Control can and watched HDtv from Edinburgh Tattoo. The public were invited to see it, and no-one was that interested. And believe me, the analogue signal in those days was nowhere as good as today. I could see the point of changes or "improvements" thirty years ago, when it helped our manufacturers. But now we're just supporting Far East economies. A lot of the advantages in media are measurable on instruments, but mean nothing to the human ears and eyes. Even the bog standard CD and FM exceed the range of human hearing. HDtv -what's the point??

11-12-2005, 21:07	#14
Jarrak Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ilkeston Posts: 18,075	Quote: Originally Posted by woodysdad We're all getting hot and bothered here. HDtv is being forced on us by the industry. HD broadcasting is not replacing any of the current SD broadcasts nor are there any plans by the government or broadcasters to do so in the short term future. Obviously if you project far enough ahead the current broadcast specs will change as they have done previously a few times from the 1930's onwards. If you do not want HD then don't have it, you will not lose any of your current viewing.

11-12-2005, 22:59	#15
Dino Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: South Manchester Posts: 1,990	Quote: Originally Posted by camaj Of course but I quoted someone who had a 1280x1024 display!! BTW, it's more likely it's your CPU that's the cause of jerkiness. You should be able to select 480p, 720p or 1080p when you download. Try 720p if you're having problems More than likely, though I do find that it's usually a blend of problems including hard-drive speed, OS overheads, CPU, graphics card, etc. I'm developing commercial video playback solutions for a company at the moment and you'd be suprised at how low a spec they want high def type images out of. I mean, Celeron with 256mb of Ram and on-motherboard video, running XP. What were they thinking!

11-12-2005, 23:05	#16
Dan27 Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: By The Sea Posts: 9,574	Most PC monitors dont have component or HDCP compliant DVI or HDMI inputs so they cant really be classified as HD Ready HDTVs The next version of Windows (Vista) has been programmed to use HDCP copy protection so dont expect your monitor to work fully with HD sources if you upgrade your OS Also, 1080i requires a monitor with a resolution of 1920 x 1080 And the reason why the development of LCD TVs didnt really start until a couple of years ago is that they had problems making BIG LCD screens (above 21" mostly).

11-12-2005, 23:15	#17
Dino Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: South Manchester Posts: 1,990	Quote: Originally Posted by DanVitale And the reason why the development of LCD TVs didnt really start until a couple of years ago is that they had problems making BIG LCD screens (above 21" mostly). It also has a lot to do with market demand. The company I work for have seen a fantastic Samsung (or it could be LG) 80" Plasma that they will not make because they cannot see any demand for it. They were not prepared to get tooled up to make a monitor that they'd only sell a few thousand of.

12-12-2005, 04:13	#18
camaj Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 813	First of all, it helps if you post in a relevent thread to keep things seperate since I'm sure some people only wanted to read about PC monitors. But since you posted here I'll have to reply here. Quote: Originally Posted by woodysdad HDtv is being forced on us by the industry. There was no demand from the public, and the only way to generate demand seems to be to force it on us, just like digital. Digital is great - so many channels to choose fro....wait a minute, didn't the US have about forty channels in the sixties, on analogue? I don't believe so, no. getting 5 or 6 channels on analogue is a squeeze. 40 would be next to impossible unless the quality was awful. I don't believe you can get 40 FM stations, but certainly not 40 TV stations. If you could we wouldn't bother going digital. The BBC would save themselves the effort! To say there's no great demand from the public is wrong and also misleading. For a start a lot of the public aren't aware of HDTV and a smaller number have actually experienced it. Those who have seen a proper demo are almost always impressed to say the least. I believe that there's a small but growing demand and it's misleading to say otherwise if the people who would demand it don't know about it yet. Quote: In the early eighties, I sat in a BBC Control can and watched HDtv from Edinburgh Tattoo. The public were invited to see it, and no-one was that interested. Maybe because they didn't know what it was? I don't think most people would go out of their way to watch it for a few minutes anyway. You can't take that as an indication of enthusiasm as having something in your home is a different prospect. Quote: A lot of the advantages in media are measurable First of all, congrats on picking the wrong thread to post in. It helps to keep things seperate since I'm sure some people only wanted to read about PC monitors. But since you posted here I'll have to reply here.on instruments, but mean nothing to the human ears and eyes. Even the bog standard CD and FM exceed the range of human hearing. HDtv -what's the point?? Your point seems to be that HD isn't measuarble the the human eye, you don't really say it explicitly so I'll have to assume. HD is EASILY noticeable and you don't need a machine to tell you it's better, that's for sure. I'm sure FM isn't the pinicle of sound quality but I'd have a hard time spotting the improvements. That's because humans are visual creatures and our eyes are more sensitive than our ears.

DS Forums

em - arn't most PC monitors already HDTV??