Need Advice on flat panel and tv tuner.
I am looking into getting a lcd monitor that will replace my tv and give me an extra monitor. I want to get either an eyegonomic W22 or the new apple 23inch Cinema Display with a tv tuner. Does any one know any good tv tuners and any problems they pose? I looked at the eyebox. Is it good? I have never dealt with tv tuners so I need all the info I can get. Thanks everyone!
Comments
Don't be distracted by the diagonal measurement when comparing to 4:3 standard TVs to HD 16:9 TVs. You will want the -vertical- measurement of your new widescreen to be -as big- or bigger than the -vertical- height of your old standard 4:3 TV. Otherwise, yes it'll be wider than you are used to but also shorter, which sucks because then all the 4:3 shows you watch (a million of them) will be physically smaller than what you are coming from.
Take your time researching it. The stores always show best quality sources, not the 4:3 crappy signal you'll likely have to contend with until getting better cable.
As far as quality:
Don't for a second think that the quality at fullscreen is going to be at all pleasant to watch short of an HD signal.
If you mean merely having TV in little window, while you work on otherstuff in the OS, it'll be ok...
also, ahve you heard anything about the eyegonomic monitors, which include pc, avi, and regular cable tv connections?
Originally posted by andreyday2001
so if i get a firewire tv tuner which goes through my mac, the quality at full screen won't be as good as a regular tv?
also, ahve you heard anything about the eyegonomic monitors, which include pc, avi, and regular cable tv connections?
FW will only pump the signal into the computer faster. It won't give you more signal. The problem is not with the monitor, it is with the TV signal. Standard TV pumps out something on the order of 320 x 480. and I think S-video is 480 x 640. HD is something on the order of 720 x 1028. Don't hold me to those numbers because I have forgotten the exact figures. The point is that resolution of TV signals is ridiculously low compared to what we are used to seeing on computers. A typical small LCD drives many times more pixels that what is coming in from the TV signal. Therefore, the pixels coming in are a lot fewer than what the monitor can show. The solution is to show only the TV signal and enclose it in a small window of the screen. That small picture will be quite clear because it is the TV signal and nothing but. Still, it is only a small portion of the monitor. The alternative is to blow the picture up to full-screen. The problem is you don't get any more pixels from the signal so you have to use bigger pixels by grouping ten pixels of the monitor to make one pixel of TV signal. something like that. If you simply spread the pixels out over the screen, the picture would look fuzzy or pixelated. In other words, it is a bad thing to have too good of a monitor to watch TV on. TVs are cheap monitors. Think of the TV signal as an extremely low end video card that can only push so many pixels. You don't want a monitor with more pixels than the signal you can send to it. A video card is far more sophisticated than any broadcast signal and can push a lot more signal. Therefore, we need high-res monitors to be able to take advantage of what video cards can produce. That is why mixing TV signals and computer monitors are a pretty bad idea. If you want a flat screen TV, just buy a flat screen TV. It is not the same as buying a computer monitor. Hope that helps.
If you blow up the image and sit at normal computer using distances the picture is a little off. However, if you sit that close to any TV the picture is not clear. If you sit back a meter or two it looks fine. If you display it in a smaller window it looks great.
Personally, I don't watch much TV anymore. It seems ironic, as the technology has gotten better and better the content is getting worse and worse.