OT: TV as monitor for CAD

I just measured 32" to the centre. Also, I misremembered, it's a 43" screen, not 46". (Just measured that too.) I'm short-sighted (-8 or so), but find with the right correction I can accommodate the centre and edges. In any event, the more important things would tend to be central.

Both are used, but inches are much more common for screen sizes. Don't know why, probably tradition and inertia.

Cheers

--
Clive

On a sunny day (Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:27:03 +0100) it happened Clive Arthur wrote in :

Oh, then it depends a lot on how and where you are When I look past this laptop I see a huge room, 4 monitors... other things, windows...

From the opposite view there is a lot on the table.. I agree with the other poster that the eye adjustment is a problem that you do not have with a smaller size. It is a very relative thing, for example I have a headmounted FPV set for my drone... bit top heavy though, with HUD.

There are more important things, for this laptop for example I had to look quite a bit for a really non-reflective screen, it is a limited edition made by Samsung on a group request, really neat from them:

easy to take a picture of it... Try it with your TV. See the 9 squares pager top right on the screen? See the rxvt this program runs in?

Hey, I worked in a TV studio for many years, racks full of monitors, cameras, VTR, film scanners, but there was ONE TV receiver, and watched that 'transmission'. THAT was the output (feedback!).

What your attention has, needs.

And I mean I can program no problem in 640x480, edit a movie too. Or audio. My big Samsung TV is 3D capable, but no 3D transmission here I know about... It is smart too, can do internet, but no cable connected... I only play from harddisk. things I recorded from satellite on a PC. If I want to watch TV in real time I have TV / sat tuners on USB and PCI, security cams in a virtual desktop from external digitizer, what not. And, I remember that Tesla presentation of his space capsule, it had (has) 2 huge screens, vibration can shatter those... no real redundancy, no more instruments.. having a few small monitors is a plus over one big one.

It all depends.

This laptop is not good at movies, its OK, but the viewing angle is limited and the colors are not very real, it is a programmers laptop :-) In contrast to what sales claims i find the hold fluorescent backlight produce better colors than LED backlights.... The lifetime is incredible too, other monitor with fluorescent tube backlight has been on for 10 years 12 hours a day, still no visible change, The LCD is burned in tough.

Now how about LCD burn in on your super big TV panel made for ever moving vague faces and scenes? I mean have your text in an xterm on it for half a day OK?

4K program material is not commonplace anywhere... yet.

For watching shows I don't think 4K is a big improvement over regular HD myself. I remember when HD came out and it allowed you to see the pores on the faces of performers. Do I need to see the mites living in the pores?

For computers a higher resolution makes most things on the screen smaller. In theory you can boost that back up in size with an OS wide control, but under Windows I find that works very poorly.

I have a 17 inch laptop that I use in my lap. I would use a large (60 inches) TV as my monitor, but everything would look smaller since it would be 10 feet away. I don't have enough wall space to buy a TV that is big enough to enlarge the view of the screen. I could hang a TV closer, but it would need to be a mount that lets the screen swing up out of the way and I've yet to find one that isn't horribly expensive.

BTW, for the most part a TV is used with the HDMI inputs. Monitors have HDMI inputs. So unless you have some unusual equipment that needs the RGB, VGA or antenna inputs, a monitor will do everything the TV will do and you don't need to pay for the tuner (not that this automatically saves you money). Just make sure it has plenty of HDMI inputs, at least 3.

--

Rick C

snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com wrote on 6/6/2017 5:43 AM:

The price of 4K TVs has come down significantly. Added resolution in larger displays is not so expensive. The price of displays are pretty much set by the area of the panel plus whatever markup they can get from the market. I'm only seeing a 20-25% markup for 4K sets in the 50 inch range.

--

Rick C

Yes, this a relict from the (digitized) wave forms containing the synch pulses. In addition the sum of luma+chroma of composite video might overshot the official analog range.

Absolutely for this reason, curved displays are used.

The problem is the reflections, which can be handled in a very dark room.

I don't think resolution in pixels is the only reason behind the increase in sharpness and detail. It has a lot to do with video bandwidth and refinements in driver circuitry.

I agree with that. Which is why I never made use of the higher resolutions on my now-deceased Sony GDM-FW900, a 24-inch 16:10 CRT that's claimed by some people to be the best monitor *ever* made.

Going into that could open a whole new can of worms. If the

17-inch laptop screen is, say, 17" from your eyes, logic says that a 60" screen would subtend the same angle at 5 ft, not 10', because 60" is about 3.5 times 17". But human sensory organs don't always follow mathematical logic. I bet 60" at 5 ft will feel bigger. Whether it will be more comfortable, easier to see detail, depends on the user's eyesight.

I'm not sure that is true. The entire circuit up to the pixels is digital. How would the driver circuitry reduce the resolution?

Regardless, that is not my point. I am saying I don't think the human eye will perceive much more image resolution going from HD to 4K unless you are standing pretty close to a large screen. A smaller screen or further away and the pixels get very small.

The best CRT monitor perhaps.

Exactly!

For computer use I don't care how it "feels". I care about seeing the damn icons in SeaMonkey. Right now I get eyestrain trying to pick out the tiny details that indicate new posts in a group. Making that icon 2/3 the size won't help that in *any* way. The limitation is in my eyes.

--

Rick C

I used a 55" TV as my monitor for some time. In the end, I just couldn't h andle it and now use 2 28" monitors. The image looked great, the problem i s my eyes. With the monitors on my desk right in front of me I see them as clearly as the other objects around me that I use while I do layouts and w hatnot. With the 55" TV, it had to be much further away...constantly chang ing focus between the objects on my desk and the TV was annoying at first, then quickly led to eye strain and headaches.

There was also a noticeable delay between moving the mouse and having the c ursor on the screen move. This I could never get used to, I almost seemed to notice it more the longer I used it. We have this same problem with our conference room PC/screen, but only the people who are mouse-jockies seem to notice, so YMMV.

Most 3D CAD is done in the Application memory and not the graphics card and certainly not the monitor.

If you understand Retina screen resolutions of iPads and mobile phones you will understand you want as many pixels as possible. 4k refurb units are a vail at Tiger and others for 350$us. I would use a 3 or 4 port Matrox card and NOTHING ELSE avoid wasting money on high end >>1GB GPU's that don't get utilized by most CAD software( unless you know for certain otherwise) You just need low memory high speed.and 3 or more ports. Probably one in verti cal mode for text and web browsing and 2 for 3D CAD.

Then get free DPT.exe to calibrate your video cards gamma , brightness and contrast for EACH colour RGB or at least make Black = black and full,satu ration linear across the scale. It has over 20 test patterns and also reco vers stuck trapped charges in old LCD's that are dead .. by exercising that region with complementary contrast flashing. Really old LCD's have a mem ory effort and that was actually what started flash memory.

To make and CCFL type backlight monitor last the longest, reduce the monito r power consuming backlight to the dimmest possible level and your eyes wil l,thank you every day without eye strain. Your electricity consumption wil l go down too.

I use 1080 p monitors to suit my needs. The best here for sharpness is the

32" LG, then 56" Hitachi at 1m distance then a 43" TV last, all running on decent video cards with wasted memory. But I loved my old Matrix 3 port car d and 3 CRT's when I had Win98.

EBAY practically gives away old 64k MATROX video cards which easily handle triple buffering 3D mapped into 2D memory. but I haven't looked for years

Netflix has a fair amount of 4K content. Many movies are 4K and I think all new Netflix original content is 4K. Amazon prime content likely is, too.

I disagree, though I remember when HD came out and one could tell how two-dimensional TV sets were (desks on news and late-night shows weren't much more than cardboard showroom props). That's changed a lot since.

I don't watch headshots of, um, head shots, so I wouldn't know about mites in the actor's pores.

Yes, it could be a lot better. I was muchly disappointed by win's handling of high resolution displays. I've (mostly) tweaked things to look good at high resolutions but I was surprised how badly win handles high resolution displays.

I just happen to have both in front of me at the time. My 14" laptop is almost the same apparent size as the 60" TV.

I find the opposite, though I was concerned about it when we bought the curved TV. When we had a flat TV (Panasonic plasma) we'd see reflections from the window and the pendant lights in the kitchen. We don't see them with the curved TV. It *seems* the reflections are more diffuse, across the entire screen rather than in one spot.

No, they just move a few inches.

Even 4K displays are cheap now. The expensive displays are those with odd aspect ratios.

I wear "no-line bifocals" so I don't change (eye) focus for things on my desk vs. screen. It's done by the glasses. I do prefer two displays because I find it easier to keep two organized. Switching a monitor to full screen doesn't change what I have on the other screens. OTOH, I have a single 28"(?) 4K display (plus the 2K laptop display) at home and it works well enough for what I do at home.

Why would there be a difference in mouse movement?

not pixel perfect would probably be really bad, I think most use cleartype which exploits the usual rgb layout to enhance the look of text

I have wondered about this. PC monitors take latency seriously while in TVs latency doesn't matter. The typical TV image (through a tuner) has decoding and other processing with various delays. They would have little incentive to minimize latency in other modes. I know for a fact that latency messes up hand-eye coordination. I see this clearly using SeaMonkey for newsgroups. It gets into modes where there are noticeable delays between typing and the characters showing on the screen. When that happens my typing accuracy goes all to hell. Likewise when there are even small delays in displaying mouse movements I can feel it as if the mouse got heavy or is "slipping". I guess the brain tries to turn it into something mechanical since that is what our bodies evolved to understand.

--

Rick C

Where would (what physical property) there be significant latency that wouldn't affect watchability?