TV and PC merger
in [Computer]
|
Prev: Download Graphic - Flash - Stock Photo - Template - Vector - Photoshop - Tutorial - Font - Icon - Theme - Wallpaper - All For Share
Next: CPanel Accelerated 2 - Downloading your website?
From: - Bobb - on 25 Jun 2010 22:02 I've been waiting to be able to hook up a PC / disk drive with pictures/video on it to watch on TV. It seems that that day it just about here, and getting fine tuned, but I'm now overwhelmed with ... where is it heading and what is a passing/already outdated "fad" and could use some help. First let me say, I'm NOT your 'typical guy' who wants a 72" TV in the living room hooked up to a $3000 audio system. Not at all. I'm looking for merely what I NEED to be able to view PC stuff ( jpeg's mpeg , QuickTime,Windows media formats) on a TV / maybe record a program on a new DVR/VHS combo ( so I can copy old tapes to DVD). As it is I have a ~3 yr old 27" full screen TV in a bookcase and works great, BUT it has only coax and RGB RCA jacks and no connections for newer devices ( HDMI etc) If I were to go with another TV that 'fits in the space', and has the newer jacks since now they are all widescreen, I'm obviously gonna end up with a smaller visible screen than I have now ( same width but less height). That's why I haven't gotten a new one. But with digital broadcasting I'm now not getting all of the cable channels since some only broadcast in digital. So , what of these connections is a MUST have ? (from a flexibility standpoint - able to hook up different devices) and which are a waste ? ( HDMI, VGA, USB, SD memory, S-video,etc) I looked at a few today and it seems all have HDMI but only some others have other connections. None of my current stuff ( receiver, DVD, etc has HDMI so a new TV with ONLY HDMI is useless to me. The way the TV's are packaged, , might I have to get the bigger screen TV to get connectors other than HDMI. in which case then I'd have to rearrange the living room get new furniture, toss the old stuff etc and I REALLY don't want to do that. What to get, what to ignore etc and could use some pointers ... places online to get educated . Any opinions, ideas ? Thanks
From: JD on 26 Jun 2010 00:51 On 26/06/2010 3:02 AM, - Bobb - wrote: > I've been waiting to be able to hook up a PC / disk drive with > pictures/video on it to watch on TV. > It seems that that day it just about here, and getting fine tuned, but I'm > now overwhelmed with ... where is it heading and what is a passing/already > outdated "fad" and could use some help. > > First let me say, I'm NOT your 'typical guy' who wants a 72" TV in the > living room hooked up to a $3000 audio system. Not at all. I'm looking for > merely what I NEED to be able to view PC stuff ( jpeg's mpeg , > QuickTime,Windows media formats) on a TV / maybe record a program on a new > DVR/VHS combo ( so I can copy old tapes to DVD). > As it is I have a ~3 yr old 27" full screen TV in a bookcase and works > great, BUT it has only coax and RGB RCA jacks and no connections for newer > devices ( HDMI etc) > If I were to go with another TV that 'fits in the space', and has the newer > jacks since now they are all widescreen, I'm obviously gonna end up with a > smaller visible screen than I have now ( same width but less height). That's > why I haven't gotten a new one. But with digital broadcasting I'm now not > getting all of the cable channels since some only broadcast in digital. So > , what of these connections is a MUST have ? (from a flexibility > standpoint - able to hook up different devices) and which are a waste ? ( > HDMI, VGA, USB, SD memory, S-video,etc) > > I looked at a few today and it seems all have HDMI but only some others have > other connections. None of my current stuff ( receiver, DVD, etc has HDMI so > a new TV with ONLY HDMI is useless to me. The way the TV's are packaged, , > might I have to get the bigger screen TV to get connectors other than HDMI. > in which case then I'd have to rearrange the living room get new furniture, > toss the old stuff etc and I REALLY don't want to do that. > > What to get, what to ignore etc and could use some pointers ... places > online to get educated . Any opinions, ideas ? Thanks > > Hi bob As far as must have connectors all you really need is HDMI even a cheap GFX card like the HD4350 ($29 USD) comes with HDMI,the benefit of doing this is that both the video and sound (7.1 sound on the GFX card) are sent across the cable and you do not need to use separate speakers this way, if you want to use an older GFX card SVGA/D-SUB connectors are a must then you ether have to use a separate stereo cable for sound to the TV or use PC speakers. As far as TV's and sizes go I quite like the Wide screen format as opposed to the Old 4:3 format of TV's the usual comparison from a CRT to a LCD/Plasma is that you get more screen for the same amount of inches as a CRT screen, its just the casing is smaller on a LCD, its all personal taste really. I use a media centre PC that I built for the TV computer and a wireless Keysonic keyboard (like a laptop keyboard with a mouse pad built in) running win 7, which is an excellent choice for the MPC as it has media centre etc built in, a dual tuner is also fitted for watching/recording of TV JD
From: Jeff Strickland on 27 Jun 2010 02:14 "- Bobb -" <bobb(a)noemail.123> wrote in message news:i03n47$s60$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > I've been waiting to be able to hook up a PC / disk drive with > pictures/video on it to watch on TV. > It seems that that day it just about here, and getting fine tuned, but I'm > now overwhelmed with ... where is it heading and what is a > passing/already outdated "fad" and could use some help. > > First let me say, I'm NOT your 'typical guy' who wants a 72" TV in the > living room hooked up to a $3000 audio system. Not at all. I'm looking for > merely what I NEED to be able to view PC stuff ( jpeg's mpeg , > QuickTime,Windows media formats) on a TV / maybe record a program on a new > DVR/VHS combo ( so I can copy old tapes to DVD). > As it is I have a ~3 yr old 27" full screen TV in a bookcase and works > great, BUT it has only coax and RGB RCA jacks and no connections for newer > devices ( HDMI etc) > If I were to go with another TV that 'fits in the space', and has the > newer jacks since now they are all widescreen, I'm obviously gonna end up > with a smaller visible screen than I have now ( same width but less > height). That's why I haven't gotten a new one. But with digital > broadcasting I'm now not getting all of the cable channels since some only > broadcast in digital. So , what of these connections is a MUST have ? > (from a flexibility standpoint - able to hook up different devices) and > which are a waste ? ( HDMI, VGA, USB, SD memory, S-video,etc) > > I looked at a few today and it seems all have HDMI but only some others > have other connections. None of my current stuff ( receiver, DVD, etc has > HDMI so a new TV with ONLY HDMI is useless to me. The way the TV's are > packaged, , might I have to get the bigger screen TV to get connectors > other than HDMI. in which case then I'd have to rearrange the living room > get new furniture, toss the old stuff etc and I REALLY don't want to do > that. > > What to get, what to ignore etc and could use some pointers ... places > online to get educated . Any opinions, ideas ? Thanks > > You're mixing apples and oranges. You have two things going on, the Delivery and the Presentation. The delivery covers the stuff line PC-based TV, and Internet TV, which are the same thing, by the way. Included in the delivery is cable, fiber, and satellite. The presentation is the TV itself. If you get a new TV today, odds are very high that you must get a flat panel, which is a wide screen (16:9) format. If you want to put a flat panel into the same space as the existing 4:3 set you have now, then the horizontal dimension will drive the maximum vertical dimension. But if you wanted to hang your new TV on the wall, you can buy a bracket for about $150 that has a motorized control that tilts the screen so you are looking at it straight on from your spot on the sofa, or your recliner. The new TVs are high definition, which is a remarkable improvement in picture quality. The power consumption is also lower than a comparable sized TV from yesteryear. And, if you can do the cost up to an LED-based TV, then the power consumption will go down even more. Basically the new sets cost about half what it costs for your existing TV to operate, and the LED TV will save another 25% or so. And the picture is waaaay better. Way better. The digital broadcast vs. the analog broadcast should be a wash because you need the digital to analog converter to convert the current digital signals to analog. If you plug the cable directly to the TV, then the selection should not change and you can get rid of the converter box. If you get cable, fiber or satellite, then you still need a Set Top Box that the new TV can use, so the selection should not change. If you have a converter box now, you won't need it with a Digital TV, but if you have cable, fiber optic, or satellite then you will still need the same set top box, so you won't see any change from what you have now compared to what you'll have with a new TV, except the new TV will have a remarkably better picture and lower operating costs. All of the TV sets today come with RCA jacks for video and audio, S-Video and HDMI. They also have Component Video, which is a video supply that is better than RCA but not as good as HDMI. Your cable/fiber/satellite set top box will have all three outputs on the back, your DVD should have RCA at a minimum, and most of the curent models have HDMI also. Do not hesitate to do some serious shopping. I'd suggest a visit to Best Buy for no other reason than to see several different samples all showing the same picture side by side. You can get a feel for the size and price points that best suit your interests. Then shop Costco and WalMart for price on the size and brand that you saw at Best Buy. The idea here is to get a relative value and quality in a place where the picture and lighting is the same, then see if you can beat the price at a store where they sell the same set but don't always display them the same. Costco does a pretty good job displaying the TVs they have, but Walmart does a generally crappy job of this. But if you know the ACME 42-inch is the set for you because it looked good at Best Buy, but WalMart sells it for $100 less but doesn't display it well, who cares? You know it's a good set because you saw for more money at another store, who cares if WalMart doesn't show it well, they sell it at the best price, and that's all that matters. Personally, I bought a 42" Vizio almost two years ago, and it's a very good value for the money. The difference between a $700 Vizio and a $1200 Sony is $500, if you ask me. I could not see the difference in picture quality, so I bought the cheaper TV. It's worked out very well so far.
From: - Bobb - on 27 Jun 2010 11:47 Wow - thanks for all the info Jeff. I have been going to Best Buy, and others and did NOT find that: "All of the TV sets today come with RCA jacks for video and audio, S-Video and HDMI. They also have Component Video, which is a video supply that is better than RCA but not as good as HDMI. " One thing too - since I last bought a TV - all other electronic chains near me have gone out of business. and you're right - 2 issues: Delivery and the Presentation. That's why I asked here. I have a lot of older stuff that has only coax, RCA and most of the current "small TVs" only have HDMI for example or 1 HDMI and one USB. I have basic cable ( coax) and no real desire to get a $130 per month cable plan / no real room for a 42 inch wall mounted .... I just want " a TV" hopefully that fits into same space. I agree that proportions mean that at best I will have same width and less height ( why I bought what I have just prior to 'all widescreens".) and why I haven't yet bought a new TV - it's a downgrade for me. But it's really connectivity driving this for me. I don't care for TV too much but WOULD like to integrate pictures, video on PC with the TV in the living room. So I could watch ... video from ... our trip to Vegas ... Europe etc from the MCE PC without having to burn it to DVD. I tried WDTV and it worked fine except for QuickTime movies ( last few cameras do MOV video). IF WDTV did QT then I'd be fine. I talked to Apple rep ... they don't support it either. He told me you just need to convert to H264 first. I looked at him and said - "if I wanted to do that I don't need your box. I could use the WDTV. You guys wrote QT, you really ought to recommend that Apple TV work with it." Also without cable, I saw DTV antennas with only coax and if newer TV's don't support it ... how to get reception without cable ?? I'll keep looking Thanks for feedback "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:i06qas$a8k$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "- Bobb -" <bobb(a)noemail.123> wrote in message > news:i03n47$s60$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> I've been waiting to be able to hook up a PC / disk drive with >> pictures/video on it to watch on TV. >> It seems that that day it just about here, and getting fine tuned, but >> I'm now overwhelmed with ... where is it heading and what is a >> passing/already outdated "fad" and could use some help. >> >> First let me say, I'm NOT your 'typical guy' who wants a 72" TV in the >> living room hooked up to a $3000 audio system. Not at all. I'm looking >> for merely what I NEED to be able to view PC stuff ( jpeg's mpeg , >> QuickTime,Windows media formats) on a TV / maybe record a program on a >> new DVR/VHS combo ( so I can copy old tapes to DVD). >> As it is I have a ~3 yr old 27" full screen TV in a bookcase and works >> great, BUT it has only coax and RGB RCA jacks and no connections for >> newer devices ( HDMI etc) >> If I were to go with another TV that 'fits in the space', and has the >> newer jacks since now they are all widescreen, I'm obviously gonna end >> up with a smaller visible screen than I have now ( same width but less >> height). That's why I haven't gotten a new one. But with digital >> broadcasting I'm now not getting all of the cable channels since some >> only broadcast in digital. So , what of these connections is a MUST have >> ? (from a flexibility standpoint - able to hook up different devices) and >> which are a waste ? ( HDMI, VGA, USB, SD memory, S-video,etc) >> >> I looked at a few today and it seems all have HDMI but only some others >> have other connections. None of my current stuff ( receiver, DVD, etc has >> HDMI so a new TV with ONLY HDMI is useless to me. The way the TV's are >> packaged, , might I have to get the bigger screen TV to get connectors >> other than HDMI. in which case then I'd have to rearrange the living room >> get new furniture, toss the old stuff etc and I REALLY don't want to do >> that. >> >> What to get, what to ignore etc and could use some pointers ... places >> online to get educated . Any opinions, ideas ? Thanks >> >> > > You're mixing apples and oranges. > > You have two things going on, the Delivery and the Presentation. > > The delivery covers the stuff line PC-based TV, and Internet TV, which are > the same thing, by the way. Included in the delivery is cable, fiber, and > satellite. > > The presentation is the TV itself. > > If you get a new TV today, odds are very high that you must get a flat > panel, which is a wide screen (16:9) format. If you want to put a flat > panel into the same space as the existing 4:3 set you have now, then the > horizontal dimension will drive the maximum vertical dimension. But if you > wanted to hang your new TV on the wall, you can buy a bracket for about > $150 that has a motorized control that tilts the screen so you are looking > at it straight on from your spot on the sofa, or your recliner. > > The new TVs are high definition, which is a remarkable improvement in > picture quality. > > The power consumption is also lower than a comparable sized TV from > yesteryear. And, if you can do the cost up to an LED-based TV, then the > power consumption will go down even more. Basically the new sets cost > about half what it costs for your existing TV to operate, and the LED TV > will save another 25% or so. And the picture is waaaay better. Way better. > > The digital broadcast vs. the analog broadcast should be a wash because > you need the digital to analog converter to convert the current digital > signals to analog. If you plug the cable directly to the TV, then the > selection should not change and you can get rid of the converter box. If > you get cable, fiber or satellite, then you still need a Set Top Box that > the new TV can use, so the selection should not change. > > If you have a converter box now, you won't need it with a Digital TV, but > if you have cable, fiber optic, or satellite then you will still need the > same set top box, so you won't see any change from what you have now > compared to what you'll have with a new TV, except the new TV will have a > remarkably better picture and lower operating costs. > > All of the TV sets today come with RCA jacks for video and audio, S-Video > and HDMI. They also have Component Video, which is a video supply that is > better than RCA but not as good as HDMI. Your cable/fiber/satellite set > top box will have all three outputs on the back, your DVD should have RCA > at a minimum, and most of the curent models have HDMI also. > > Do not hesitate to do some serious shopping. I'd suggest a visit to Best > Buy for no other reason than to see several different samples all showing > the same picture side by side. You can get a feel for the size and price > points that best suit your interests. Then shop Costco and WalMart for > price on the size and brand that you saw at Best Buy. The idea here is to > get a relative value and quality in a place where the picture and lighting > is the same, then see if you can beat the price at a store where they sell > the same set but don't always display them the same. Costco does a pretty > good job displaying the TVs they have, but Walmart does a generally crappy > job of this. But if you know the ACME 42-inch is the set for you because > it looked good at Best Buy, but WalMart sells it for $100 less but doesn't > display it well, who cares? You know it's a good set because you saw for > more money at another store, who cares if WalMart doesn't show it well, > they sell it at the best price, and that's all that matters. > > Personally, I bought a 42" Vizio almost two years ago, and it's a very > good value for the money. The difference between a $700 Vizio and a $1200 > Sony is $500, if you ask me. I could not see the difference in picture > quality, so I bought the cheaper TV. It's worked out very well so far. > > > > > > > >
From: Jeff Strickland on 27 Jun 2010 13:56
"- Bobb -" <bobb(a)noemail.123> wrote in message news:i07rr3$19o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Wow - thanks for all the info Jeff. > > I have been going to Best Buy, and others and did NOT find that: > "All of the TV sets today come with RCA jacks for video and audio, S-Video > and HDMI. They also have Component Video, which is a video supply that is > better than RCA but not as good as HDMI. " > > One thing too - since I last bought a TV - all other electronic chains > near me have gone out of business. > > and you're right - 2 issues: Delivery and the Presentation. That's why I > asked here. > I have a lot of older stuff that has only coax, RCA and most of the > current "small TVs" only have HDMI for example or 1 HDMI and one USB. I > have basic cable ( coax) and no real desire to get a $130 per month cable > plan / no real room for a 42 inch wall mounted .... I just want " a TV" > hopefully that fits into same space. I agree that proportions mean that at > best I will have same width and less height ( why I bought what I have > just prior to 'all widescreens".) and why I haven't yet bought a new TV - > it's a downgrade for me. But it's really connectivity driving this for me. > I don't care for TV too much but WOULD like to integrate pictures, video > on PC with the TV in the living room. So I could watch ... video from ... > our trip to Vegas ... Europe etc from the MCE PC without having to burn it > to DVD. I tried WDTV and it worked fine except for QuickTime movies ( last > few cameras do MOV video). IF WDTV did QT then I'd be fine. I talked to > Apple rep ... they don't support it either. He told me you just need to > convert to H264 first. I looked at him and said - "if I wanted to do that > I don't need your box. I could use the WDTV. You guys wrote QT, you really > ought to recommend that Apple TV work with it." > > Also without cable, I saw DTV antennas with only coax and if newer TV's > don't support it ... how to get reception without cable ?? > I'll keep looking > Thanks for feedback > > I've never seen a TV set that does not have a coax connector. I've not seen a flat panel that does not have at least RCA, and most have HDMI, S-Video, and Component along with the coax. Coax is the primary means of bringing TV to most homes in America, so a TV without coax is counter intuitive. I would not say that there is no such thing, but as long as broadcasting is delivered by cable, TVs will have a coax connector on the back or a huge percentage of the market place will be excluded from buying the set that lacks coax. If you're finding a set without coax, you should look to see if it also lacks a tuner. All TV tuners available today are digital, so they don't need the converter box, you simply plug your digital antenna lead into the back. All TV sets don't have a tuner though, and these would not have a coax connector because they can't do anything with the information that's delivered in that format. You _might_ find a few sets that have limited connections, but you should be able to find any combination of connections on any size TV set. If there is one that hasn't got the connection combination you want, then you have to check that one off of your list and select another model. Higher priced units might have more connections than the cheaper sets, but the comparison has to be held to the same size. If you want a 42" TV, then you compare the price and features of the other 42" TVs, lower priced uints wold reasonably have fewer options for connecting different things, but the basics of all flat panels that I've seen are a coax, an HDMI, or two, if the TV is rated as High Definition, two sets of auxiliary connections (RCA). Most have Component Video, and lots of them have S-Video. Frankly, I've never connected or used any component that makes use of S-Video, and my instinct is that this format didn't take off very well. I could be wrong, but I don't think S-Video is used by very many people, and I suspect it is the least used connection. I have no specific data to support my thesis. Picture quality for an HDTV in the range of basic, good, better, best is coax, RCA, Component, HDMI. Game console inputs are typically RCA which are called Auxiliary inputs, and most sets today have Aux1 and Aux2. Component inputs are also available in multiples. |