Quality on my Monitor vs. TV

So when microsoft announced that they were finally supporting 1680x1050 for the 360 I was SOO pumped. I went out and bought a VGA cable and everything so I could play on my 22'' monitor. I thought it looked alright, but it seemed to show a lot of jaggies in my games. Now I hooked the 360 back up to my Sony 1080i tv, I ran the games at 720p and to my surprise the games look SO MUCH better. There are way less jaggies, and everything just looks smoother. Shouldn't it look better on my monitor since it's a higher resolution?

All 360 games are developed for 720p, though there are some games that natively support 1080i/p. For games that don't natively support your chosen resolution, the 360 upscales to your resolution setting.

the tv will always be better. tv's have internal video processors and scalers. they also apply pst processing such as "sharpening". pc monitors do not have video processors and most don't have scalers. they really on your computers video card for those. monitors only have signal processors, which tell the monitor what is the resolution of the incoming image and how to display it with what colors.

the tv will always be better. tv's have internal video processors and scalers. they also apply pst processing such as "sharpening". pc monitors do not have video processors and most don't have scalers. they really on your computers video card for those. monitors only have signal processors, which tell the monitor what is the resolution of the incoming image and how to display it with what colors.

cowgriller

the tv will always be better. tv's have internal video processors and scalers. they also apply pst processing such as "sharpening". pc monitors do not have video processors and most don't have scalers. they really on your computers video card for those. monitors only have signal processors, which tell the monitor what is the resolution of the incoming image and how to display it with what colors.

cowgriller

Sarcastic post?

What you said is what makes TV's have inferior PQ.

Less post processing the better.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

the tv will always be better. tv's have internal video processors and scalers. they also apply pst processing such as "sharpening". pc monitors do not have video processors and most don't have scalers. they really on your computers video card for those. monitors only have signal processors, which tell the monitor what is the resolution of the incoming image and how to display it with what colors.

swazidoughman

Sarcastic post?

What you said is what makes TV's have inferior PQ.

Less post processing the better.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

the tv will always be better. tv's have internal video processors and scalers. they also apply pst processing such as "sharpening". pc monitors do not have video processors and most don't have scalers. they really on your computers video card for those. monitors only have signal processors, which tell the monitor what is the resolution of the incoming image and how to display it with what colors.

swazidoughman

Sarcastic post?

What you said is what makes TV's have inferior PQ.

Less post processing the better.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

the tv will always be better. tv's have internal video processors and scalers. they also apply pst processing such as "sharpening". pc monitors do not have video processors and most don't have scalers. they really on your computers video card for those. monitors only have signal processors, which tell the monitor what is the resolution of the incoming image and how to display it with what colors.

swazidoughman

Sarcastic post?

What you said is what makes TV's have inferior PQ.

Less post processing the better.

i would have responded to this earlier but vista has been giving me crap and i needed to reinstall it.

anyway, it's not a sarcastic post, it's honest and truthful.

tv's don't have inferior quality than pc monitors. it's the contrary, actually. because of the video processors in the tv's, and the scalers, tv's offer a better picture quality than pc monitors. you have to keep in mind that the larger the tv is, the larger the individual pixels, hence you have to sit further away from the tv or you can make out all of the artifacting from the video source. pc monitors have smaller pixels but with the same pixel density (the space between individual pixels) that tv's have, but the smaller pixels require you to sit closer to the monitor, otherwise it would be hard to make out anything on the screen. pc monitors do have the luxury of of having higher resolutions, but that's only because it's necessity driven. many industries such as engineering, architecture, media creation, etc require higher resolutions because the engineer/ architect, artists needs to be precise with their work. this is also the reason for IPS panels which provide better color reproduction and accuracy over the standard TN panels used in consumer grade pc monitors and tv's or PVA/MVA panels used for higher-end consumers. the downside to the IPS panel is the higher refresh rate of the pixels, 12ms or higher, and narrower viewing distance (cannot be viewed that well form the side). PVA panels offer better pixel response times and good color accuracy and reproduction (though not as well as IPS panels) and TN panels offer the best pixel response times (as low as 2ms) which is why they are almost exclusively used in tv's. the lower the response times, the faster the image can be produced/painted on the screen, the less "ghosting" appears on the screen in fast action sequences like sports, video games, and action movies.

TC, tv's offer the better picture quality over pc monitors, not to mention the larger size allowing you to further away than a monitor. this is OT but the best picture quality among tv's would be plasma tv's but they are dying a slow death.

[QUOTE="swazidoughman"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

the tv will always be better. tv's have internal video processors and scalers. they also apply pst processing such as "sharpening". pc monitors do not have video processors and most don't have scalers. they really on your computers video card for those. monitors only have signal processors, which tell the monitor what is the resolution of the incoming image and how to display it with what colors.

cowgriller

Sarcastic post?

What you said is what makes TV's have inferior PQ.

Less post processing the better.

i would have responded to this earlier but vista has been giving me crap and i needed to reinstall it.

anyway, it's not a sarcastic post, it's honest and truthful.

tv's don't have inferior quality than pc monitors. it's the contrary, actually. because of the video processors in the tv's, and the scalers, tv's offer a better picture quality than pc monitors. you have to keep in mind that the larger the tv is, the larger the individual pixels, hence you have to sit further away from the tv or you can make out all of the artifacting from the video source. pc monitors have smaller pixels but with the same pixel density (the space between individual pixels) that tv's have, but the smaller pixels require you to sit closer to the monitor, otherwise it would be hard to make out anything on the screen. pc monitors do have the luxury of of having higher resolutions, but that's only because it's necessity driven. many industries such as engineering, architecture, media creation, etc require higher resolutions because the engineer/ architect, artists needs to be precise with their work. this is also the reason for IPS panels which provide better color reproduction and accuracy over the standard TN panels used in consumer grade pc monitors and tv's or PVA/MVA panels used for higher-end consumers. the downside to the IPS panel is the higher refresh rate of the pixels, 12ms or higher, and narrower viewing distance (cannot be viewed that well form the side). PVA panels offer better pixel response times and good color accuracy and reproduction (though not as well as IPS panels) and TN panels offer the best pixel response times (as low as 2ms) which is why they are almost exclusively used in tv's. the lower the response times, the faster the image can be produced/painted on the screen, the less "ghosting" appears on the screen in fast action sequences like sports, video games, and action movies.

TC, tv's offer the better picture quality over pc monitors, not to mention the larger size allowing you to further away than a monitor. this is OT but the best picture quality among tv's would be plasma tv's but they are dying a slow death.

The higher accuracy of monitors is exactly what makes them superor.

You sound like the type of person who cranks the saturation, sharpness, and contrast to max, and then turns on all the image "enhancing" features.

Although the real key to good PQ is good source material.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="swazidoughman"]

Sarcastic post?

What you said is what makes TV's have inferior PQ.

Less post processing the better.

swazidoughman

i would have responded to this earlier but vista has been giving me crap and i needed to reinstall it.

anyway, it's not a sarcastic post, it's honest and truthful.

tv's don't have inferior quality than pc monitors. it's the contrary, actually. because of the video processors in the tv's, and the scalers, tv's offer a better picture quality than pc monitors. you have to keep in mind that the larger the tv is, the larger the individual pixels, hence you have to sit further away from the tv or you can make out all of the artifacting from the video source. pc monitors have smaller pixels but with the same pixel density (the space between individual pixels) that tv's have, but the smaller pixels require you to sit closer to the monitor, otherwise it would be hard to make out anything on the screen. pc monitors do have the luxury of of having higher resolutions, but that's only because it's necessity driven. many industries such as engineering, architecture, media creation, etc require higher resolutions because the engineer/ architect, artists needs to be precise with their work. this is also the reason for IPS panels which provide better color reproduction and accuracy over the standard TN panels used in consumer grade pc monitors and tv's or PVA/MVA panels used for higher-end consumers. the downside to the IPS panel is the higher refresh rate of the pixels, 12ms or higher, and narrower viewing distance (cannot be viewed that well form the side). PVA panels offer better pixel response times and good color accuracy and reproduction (though not as well as IPS panels) and TN panels offer the best pixel response times (as low as 2ms) which is why they are almost exclusively used in tv's. the lower the response times, the faster the image can be produced/painted on the screen, the less "ghosting" appears on the screen in fast action sequences like sports, video games, and action movies.

TC, tv's offer the better picture quality over pc monitors, not to mention the larger size allowing you to further away than a monitor. this is OT but the best picture quality among tv's would be plasma tv's but they are dying a slow death.

The higher accuracy of monitors is exactly what makes them superor.

You sound like the type of person who cranks the saturation, sharpness, and contrast to max, and then turns on all the image "enhancing" features.

Although the real key to good PQ is good source material.

actually i'm the type of person how spends hours adjusting the settings to get the proper color accuracy, gray scale, and color temperature.

IPS panels and PVA/MVA panels do have higher color accuracy and reproduction, but they come at a huge cost. a 20" ips panel with a 1600 x 1200 resolution from Lacie would cost you over $800. at that price you could buy a 37" lcd tv or a 42" plasma from panasonic. that ips panel also has a 16ms response time, meaning there would be a ton of ghosting. ips panels were not meant for gaming or watching video, which is why they have higher refresh rates. they were meant for graphics arts, ie photo editing and creation where color accuracy is requirement.

there is more to good PQ than just good source material. there is also the matter having the proper connection (hdmi 1.3b), proper video decoding/scaling (Realta HQV or Reon chips), and a decent or better panel with at least 75% NTSC color reproduction. there is also the matter of the backlight technology and technique that is used. whether it's fluorescent lighting, cold cathode fluorescent light (CCFL, most lcd tv's use this; gives upto 92% NTSC color), light emitting diode backlighting (misrepresented as LED tv's for marketing purposes) and local dimming led backlighting (gives deep/darker black levels and a more realistic reproduction of contrast.)

you sir, sound like a person who doesn't want to admit when he is wrong.

[QUOTE="swazidoughman"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

i would have responded to this earlier but vista has been giving me crap and i needed to reinstall it.

anyway, it's not a sarcastic post, it's honest and truthful.

tv's don't have inferior quality than pc monitors. it's the contrary, actually. because of the video processors in the tv's, and the scalers, tv's offer a better picture quality than pc monitors. you have to keep in mind that the larger the tv is, the larger the individual pixels, hence you have to sit further away from the tv or you can make out all of the artifacting from the video source. pc monitors have smaller pixels but with the same pixel density (the space between individual pixels) that tv's have, but the smaller pixels require you to sit closer to the monitor, otherwise it would be hard to make out anything on the screen. pc monitors do have the luxury of of having higher resolutions, but that's only because it's necessity driven. many industries such as engineering, architecture, media creation, etc require higher resolutions because the engineer/ architect, artists needs to be precise with their work. this is also the reason for IPS panels which provide better color reproduction and accuracy over the standard TN panels used in consumer grade pc monitors and tv's or PVA/MVA panels used for higher-end consumers. the downside to the IPS panel is the higher refresh rate of the pixels, 12ms or higher, and narrower viewing distance (cannot be viewed that well form the side). PVA panels offer better pixel response times and good color accuracy and reproduction (though not as well as IPS panels) and TN panels offer the best pixel response times (as low as 2ms) which is why they are almost exclusively used in tv's. the lower the response times, the faster the image can be produced/painted on the screen, the less "ghosting" appears on the screen in fast action sequences like sports, video games, and action movies.

TC, tv's offer the better picture quality over pc monitors, not to mention the larger size allowing you to further away than a monitor. this is OT but the best picture quality among tv's would be plasma tv's but they are dying a slow death.

cowgriller

The higher accuracy of monitors is exactly what makes them superor.

You sound like the type of person who cranks the saturation, sharpness, and contrast to max, and then turns on all the image "enhancing" features.

Although the real key to good PQ is good source material.

actually i'm the type of person how spends hours adjusting the settings to get the proper color accuracy, gray scale, and color temperature.

IPS panels and PVA/MVA panels do have higher color accuracy and reproduction, but they come at a huge cost. a 20" ips panel with a 1600 x 1200 resolution from Lacie would cost you over $800. at that price you could buy a 37" lcd tv or a 42" plasma from panasonic. that ips panel also has a 16ms response time, meaning there would be a ton of ghosting. ips panels were not meant for gaming or watching video, which is why they have higher refresh rates. they were meant for graphics arts, ie photo editing and creation where color accuracy is requirement.

there is more to good PQ than just good source material. there is also the matter having the proper connection (hdmi 1.3b), proper video decoding/scaling (Realta HQV or Reon chips), and a decent or better panel with at least 75% NTSC color reproduction. there is also the matter of the backlight technology and technique that is used. whether it's fluorescent lighting, cold cathode fluorescent light (CCFL, most lcd tv's use this; gives upto 92% NTSC color), light emitting diode backlighting (misrepresented as LED tv's for marketing purposes) and local dimming led backlighting (gives deep/darker black levels and a more realistic reproduction of contrast.)

you sir, sound like a person who doesn't want to admit when he is wrong.

So when microsoft announced that they were finally supporting 1680x1050 for the 360 I was SOO pumped. I went out and bought a VGA cable and everything so I could play on my 22'' monitor. I thought it looked alright, but it seemed to show a lot of jaggies in my games. Now I hooked the 360 back up to my Sony 1080i tv, I ran the games at 720p and to my surprise the games look SO MUCH better. There are way less jaggies, and everything just looks smoother. Shouldn't it look better on my monitor since it's a higher resolution?

Evz0rz

Your monitor is only stretching the picture because most games only go up 720p and then upscaled to fit the higher resolution/screen, and since its 16:10 and not 16:9 it's being ruined even more. Jaggies will be present. Your monitor could also be...pretty crappy. My Samsung 2343BWX is amazing with PS3, 360, and sometimes Wii games but most end up being total ass because of how stretched the picture is getting to fit the whole screen. I prefer using my monitor for everything because I find it has a better picture than my 32" Samsung LCD and 32" Scott LCD (Some old rebranded Samsung TV from what I've dug up.)

The Sony natively supports 720p so the picture is going to look "correct" in a way, how it's supposed to be displayed since no upscaling or stretching is occuring to distort it.

[QUOTE="Evz0rz"]

So when microsoft announced that they were finally supporting 1680x1050 for the 360 I was SOO pumped. I went out and bought a VGA cable and everything so I could play on my 22'' monitor. I thought it looked alright, but it seemed to show a lot of jaggies in my games. Now I hooked the 360 back up to my Sony 1080i tv, I ran the games at 720p and to my surprise the games look SO MUCH better. There are way less jaggies, and everything just looks smoother. Shouldn't it look better on my monitor since it's a higher resolution?

ChubbyGuy40

Your monitor is only stretching the picture because most games only go up 720p and then upscaled to fit the higher resolution/screen, and since its 16:10 and not 16:9 it's being ruined even more. Jaggies will be present. Your monitor could also be...pretty crappy. My Samsung 2343BWX is amazing with PS3, 360, and sometimes Wii games but most end up being total ass because of how stretched the picture is getting to fit the whole screen. I prefer using my monitor for everything because I find it has a better picture than my 32" Samsung LCD and 32" Scott LCD (Some old rebranded Samsung TV from what I've dug up.)

The Sony natively supports 720p so the picture is going to look "correct" in a way, how it's supposed to be displayed since no upscaling or stretching is occuring to distort it.