# Need an upgrade



## tweeksound (Jul 31, 2007)

Hello,

I've got to admit...

I have a 13" TV  

I have a 17" LCD computer screen that I want to replace it with.
I'm looking at something like this http://www.svideo.com/video2vga.html

Are there any cautions I should take or is there a cheaper way?
Will I get the full resolution of my VGA monitor?

Any help is appreciated.


----------



## Mike P. (Apr 6, 2007)

They get the job done. Use the S-Video input if you can.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Are you sitting right at the TV/Computer all day long?


----------



## tweeksound (Jul 31, 2007)

I do most of my work from home so I'm on the computer a lot, but that's my laptop not the 17" LCD.
I don't watch TV but my GF and I watch DVDs and VHS at night a lot.

Another big reason I want to use the LCD as a TV is, I use video for visual contact at my studio instead of glass. I set my digital camera up in the live room and send the signal to my TV.

I'd rather use my flat screen which is in front of me than my TV which is behind me, for the studio visual.

Why do you ask?


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I was mainly curious as to how you survived with a 13" TV all day and thought maybe it's because you are sitting right at it all day. Although that still seems awfully small for anything other than occasional viewing. It seems like I'd be missing a lot of the movie on a 13"... but that may just be me.

I wouldn't see any issues using the 17" LCD and at least you get a little more screen for you and your gf to share. :bigsmile:


----------



## tweeksound (Jul 31, 2007)

I know. An upgrade is overdue.

We both lived alone and both had small 13" TVs that suited us fine.

Then when we moved in together we had such a small place that we watched TV on the bed and it was very close to the bed.

Now we have a big living room and need something better.
Her sister plans on getting us a big screen TV for our wedding but that's 12 months away so in the mean time we need something better.

We still watch TV mostly in the bedroom but it'd be nice to have a better living room TV.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

What's your source? Will there be a computer hooked up to this screen as well?


----------



## tweeksound (Jul 31, 2007)

My sources will be S-Video and RCA type video.
There will be no computer involved.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I'd say you're on the right track then. I'd go with a 20" wide screen. Give yourself some real estate and they can be had for <$200 on sale. That's only about $50 more than what you'll see a 17" for. Be aware that the viewing angles on cheap LCDs can be not so hot. Check out monoprice for an articulating arm the get the angle right for your viewing, as the stand the comes with the monitor probably won't get the job done.


----------



## tweeksound (Jul 31, 2007)

Thanks for the advice, eugovector.

I should probably clarify though.
I already have a 17" Samsung LCD and the viewing angle is wide.

My fiancé's sister plans on getting us a big screen for our wedding next year so buying a TV now is superfluous.

The LCD can jump back and forth from my studio workstation to the entertainment center to act as both the TV and a monitor for the video feed from my studio live room (aka. bedroom).
To do both of these I need a converter of some type and I don't really know what to expect in terms of performance and economy for the converter.

Once we get the big screen the LCD can stay on the workstation and be a full time computer monitor and camera feed from the live room.

I wondered if anyone has done this conversion and if it is of full LCD resolution from the DVD and NTC/PAL digital video camera.
I don't want to spend $90 on the converter to find that only 8" of the LCD screen is used by that source.

Will I get the full 17"? 

Will it look as good as pictures from my PC?

Thanks for any info!


----------



## cynical2 (Jul 18, 2007)

tweeksound said:


> Thanks for the advice, eugovector.
> 
> I should probably clarify though.
> I already have a 17" Samsung LCD and the viewing angle is wide.
> ...


The device you're looking at supports a conversion of S-video to the following resolutions:

640x480 (VGA), 800x600 (SVGA) and 1024x768 (XGA)

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that your LCD will use only the # of pixels that it receives from the converter box...so how much of your screen is used will depend on the resolution of your monitor. For instance, if your monitor's resolution is 1280x1024, then you'd want to select "XGA" on the converter. If it only displays the 1024x768 that are fed from the box, tt will then use about 75% of the screen vertically and about 75% horizontally. Taken together, that would be <60% of the screen area. If your monitor resolution is 1024x768, you'd be fine...set the box to "XGA" and the screen would be filled.
<EDIT: note that eugovector, in the next post, points out that I am incorrect on this.>

But, if by saying "the viewing angle is wide" you mean that it's a widescreen aspect ratio, then that will also be a mismatch with the converted signal. The VGA, SVGA, and XGA are all 4:3 ratios (like your current 13" TV), so you also have that issue. If you actually meant the viewing angle is wide, e.g. the picture remains bright as you move your viewing location off-axis, then ignore the aspect ratio issue I've described.

And, converting from S-video to VGA will NOT give a picture anywhere near as clear as the picture from your PC. The PC is set up (or should be) to output the same resolution as your monitor. So, if your monitor's resolution is 1280x1024, then your PC resolution is set to the same values and is feeding out video information for over a million pixels (i.e. the ratio of output to display pixels is 1:1). With that set-up, your picture will be clear. An S-video signal is much lower resolution than the monitor, and therefore the converter box will have to interpolate information that's missing (i.e. it will "predict what the missing data...or pixels...should look like, and display that prediction). The picture will look much softer than from the PC...more like a typical standard def TV (and that's if the converter does a good job).

I'd highly recommend considering a television that can double as a monitor...it won't be a whole lot more than the box (which is approaching a benjamin), and you'll be a **** of a lot happier over the next year...while you wait for the big screen to arrive. :dancebanana:


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

The TV picture should fill the entire screen even if it is a lower resolution than your monitor's native resolution. Drop the resolution on your computer down to 800x600, and you'll see that it still fills the monitor.


----------



## cynical2 (Jul 18, 2007)

eugovector said:


> The TV picture should fill the entire screen even if it is a lower resolution than your monitor's native resolution. Drop the resolution on your computer down to 800x600, and you'll see that it still fills the monitor.


Thanks, this is the one I wasn't sure of. If I drop my resolution on my home PC, it fills the screen. On my PC at work, it only fills the center of the screen with the number of used pixels. I don't know if it's a difference in hardware or a Windows setting that is making the difference.


----------



## tweeksound (Jul 31, 2007)

eugovector said:


> The TV picture should fill the entire screen even if it is a lower resolution than your monitor's native resolution. Drop the resolution on your computer down to 800x600, and you'll see that it still fills the monitor.


Great, thank you!

I did some research on the Grandtec GVC-1000 Video Console to VGA Converter  and found a great price and there are great reviews by many users.

I should have it in a few days. I'll post a review up here for anyone interested.


----------

