What's your Monitor Size?

[Enfarious]

Please do show me these over 1920x1080 TVs. I know they've been working on something close to 4k x 2.2k or along those lines, but the few out are enormously expensive. Monitors are the only ones i've seen do 2560x1440 or 2560x1600. with a TV you just normally have no use for those resolutions without video formats that run that high of a res.

Disable the EDID function so the TV stops telling your PC what resolutions it supports. I'm not talking about 8k x 4k resolutions currently reserved for huge TVs w/ prices tags in excess of 10k USD. Eeking out 2.1k x 1.2k, which let's face it is only 120 more lines of resolution, isn't that hard for most TVs.

The blurry line between monitor and TV these days also means that companies like NEC who has a line of TV-Ready monitors, or Monitor-Ready TVs which don't cost much more than the avg. TV, course your paying for the branding too.

On a different note:
Remember back when all you wanted was to be able to game @800x600 and your 3dfx card was the pimpest thing going cause it could knock that outta the park even though you only had a processor w/ a single core crawling along @666 MHz?

[ispano]

Disable the EDID function so the TV stops telling your PC what resolutions it supports. I'm not talking about 8k x 4k resolutions currently reserved for huge TVs w/ prices tags in excess of 10k USD. Eeking out 2.1k x 1.2k, which let's face it is only 120 more lines of resolution, isn't that hard for most TVs.

The blurry line between monitor and TV these days also means that companies like NEC who has a line of TV-Ready monitors, or Monitor-Ready TVs which don't cost much more than the avg. TV, course your paying for the branding too.

On a different note:
Remember back when all you wanted was to be able to game @800x600 and your 3dfx card was the pimpest thing going cause it could knock that outta the park even though you only had a processor w/ a single core crawling along @666 MHz?

Considering the number of pixels in just about any modern display is fixed, I repeat, show these to me. Pushing more pixels to a display that it can't physically display isn't helping you.

Then you get down to TVs not having IPS panels since the price would skyrocket. Among other differences.

Another misconception i've seen here is people saying they use LED monitors. I know the manufacturer loves to slap that label on there, but they're not LED monitors, they're LCD. A true LED monitor would cost many many times more.

[Asgenard]

5760x1080 with ATI HD5870 all max excpet shadow high instead of highest

[Enfarious]

Considering the number of pixels in just about any modern display is fixed, I repeat, show these to me. Pushing more pixels to a display that it can't physically display isn't helping you.

Then you get down to TVs not having IPS panels since the price would skyrocket. Among other differences.

Another misconception i've seen here is people saying they use LED monitors. I know the manufacturer loves to slap that label on there, but they're not LED monitors, they're LCD. A true LED monitor would cost many many times more.

Yes the pixel count is fixed in all LCD devices, that's where the native resolution comes from. But like a laptop with a native resolution below 1080 can still be pushed to 1080 a TV can be pushed past it's native resolution.

The TV/Monitor/TVs floating around that I mentioned earlier aren't crazy expensive, well not when compared to other hardware out there.

The LED technology that is being referred to in most of those monitors and TVs alike are back-lighting, not true LED displays, it can be a little misleading, but it's not wrong. I'm assuming here when you say "real" LED you mean the massive screens like in times square and what have you.

[ispano]

Yes the pixel count is fixed in all LCD devices, that's where the native resolution comes from. But like a laptop with a native resolution below 1080 can still be pushed to 1080 a TV can be pushed past it's native resolution.

The TV/Monitor/TVs floating around that I mentioned earlier aren't crazy expensive, well not when compared to other hardware out there.

The LED technology that is being referred to in most of those monitors and TVs alike are back-lighting, not true LED displays, it can be a little misleading, but it's not wrong. I'm assuming here when you say "real" LED you mean the massive screens like in times square and what have you.

Except you missed the point that the displays are physically incapable of displaying any higher resolution than the native. So "pushing" it higher gives you no better resolution since the panel itself cannot display that many pixels. It just can not happen that way. There is no way to make a TV that has a physical count of 2,073,600 pixels, show more than that, that's all that is there.

And no, by LED monitor, I mean OLED. Like the type found in some smartphones nowadays. They have desktop displays using the tech, just terribly expensive. But the big problem I see is that people let themselves be confused by it, so when real LED based displays start to become mainstream they will become even more confused.