[klnbgqr]

I'm kind of jonesing for a new toy, and saw this 42" Sharp Aquos LCD for around $1,500.
It's got 1080p, HDMI, all that noise, but would it work as a PC monitor used for movies and gaming? It should, considering console people use their LCDs for the very same reasons, right?
If I was to get an actual PC LCD display, the biggest I could hope for in this price range is a 30" with monstrous (and to me - unnecessary) 2560x1600 resolution. 1080p is more managable.
So... How's this looking?

http://www.amazon.com/Sharp-Aquos-LC...270002&sr=1-10

PS
I was interested in the 27" Dell until I realized I could have 15 more diagonal inches of viewing space for around $300 more.

[BruceQW]

Well as long as you are willing to sit a few feet away from the screen then a 1080p screen would look pretty good!

[klnbgqr]

Well as long as you are willing to sit a few feet away from the screen then a 1080p screen would look pretty good!

When I lean back in my chair my eyes are like 4 feet from the screen.

[secondmortgagek]

Go for it! It sounds like a great idea. I was wondering about doing the same with a Westinghouse 42" 1080p LCD TV, I've heard of a lot of people who have.

[foodselfdourileka]

I think the color gamut might be weird/off base if you're using photoshop on it.

[Preorbtat]

How would that be?

[viagraman]

How would that be?

Photoshop etc require really good colour accuracy if your seriously into using it for professional tasks etc. Probably doubtful that these big TV's have accuracy matching professional pc panels, but for the average user it would be fine tbh

I'd love to do the same btw, I think you should go for it, kickass huge monitor for watching HD stuff!

[klnbgqr]

Photoshop etc require really good colour accuracy if your seriously into using it for professional tasks etc. Probably doubtful that these big TV's have accuracy matching professional pc panels, but for the average user it would be fine tbh

I'd love to do the same btw, I think you should go for it, kickass huge monitor for watching HD stuff!

I use Photoshop from time to time (used to use it regularly when I had a DSLR), but it doesn't take precedence over gaming or movies.

[Feloascarlelt]

Well I use a 26" screen (1280x768) and served as my primary screen for a few years now.

If the screen is that big though, make sure you sit far away from it, as you won't be able to take in the view fully. You don't want your eyes to strain for trying to view all peripheral vision angles at all times.

[Antelpebabe]

I use one as my primary monitor, even at it's lowly 1366x768 the TV's size more then makes up for it, as for calibration, many TV's have far more accessible options for fine tuning than any monitor I've ever used, had the money been available at the time I'd gone 1080p though.

Only thing is not all support 1:1 pixel mapping though VGA let alone HDMI, make sure your TV does before you buy.

[klnbgqr]

Well I use a 26" screen (1280x768) and served as my primary screen for a few years now.

If the screen is that big though, make sure you sit far away from it, as you won't be able to take in the view fully. You don't want your eyes to strain for trying to view all peripheral vision angles at all times.

Actually, I would.
Spies are trained to make better ue of their peripheral vision. Having it trained could be very helpful.

[klnbgqr]

I use one as my primary monitor, even at it's lowly 1366x768 the TV's size more then makes up for it, as for calibration, many TV's have far more accessible options for fine tuning than any monitor I've ever used, had the money been available at the time I'd gone 1080p though.

Only thing is not all support 1:1 pixel mapping though VGA let alone HDMI, make sure your TV does before you buy.

1:1 pixel mapping?

[casinobonbone]

I use a 37" 1080p lvm-37w3 as my main (and only) monitor.

Looks great at 2-3 feet away- which happens to be the back of my desk. I don't see why you'd have to sit so far away. At 3 feet I still have the whole monitor in my vision. THough it took a little getting used to not moving my neck.

[viagraman]

1:1 pixel mapping?

Basicly means there's 1 actual physical pixel on the panel for every pixel of the resolution (of the source) being put into it

Instead of any sort of scaling being done by hardware, the image is just what leaves the source

Thats how I understand it anyway

[tramdoctorsss]

yep using a 32" Westy LCD as monitor.

was originally planning to use it as just TV, but now its become purely a computer monitor

[Dastyh]

I use a 37" Olevia LCD as a secondary monitor once in a while, it's nice to play games on it, I have to say the color reproduction and accuracy are much much better on that LCD than on the one that is attached to my laptop.

[SappyAppy]

I have a dual monitor setup. I have my 46" HDTV (in sig) and also have my old 17" TFT cloned to the side of me. It means if im watching tv or playing games i can still use the little monitor to the side of me for internet browsing etc.

[klnbgqr]

Basicly means there's 1 actual physical pixel on the panel for every pixel of the resolution (of the source) being put into it

Instead of any sort of scaling being done by hardware, the image is just what leaves the source

Thats how I understand it anyway

How's that any different from what every LCD does?

[Feloascarlelt]

How's that any different from what every LCD does?

I'll try to explain it better.

Let's say you have a screen that's 1280x768 native (my screen). Now, if I wanted to display 1024x768, the screen would stretch the horizontal values to fill up 1280. With 1-1 pixel mapping, it wouldn't stretch the image, rather it would display 1024 pixels and leave the remaining pixels alone. So you'll see a "black border" on the sides where the pixels don't cover it. So you display 1024x768 w/ empty pixels, rather than stretching it out.

[klnbgqr]

I'll try to explain it better.

Let's say you have a screen that's 1280x768 native (my screen). Now, if I wanted to display 1024x768, the screen would stretch the horizontal values to fill up 1280. With 1-1 pixel mapping, it wouldn't stretch the image, rather it would display 1024 pixels and leave the remaining pixels alone. So you'll see a "black border" on the sides where the pixels don't cover it. So you display 1024x768 w/ empty pixels, rather than stretching it out.

Oh. That's preferrable to the alternative.
If I wanted to reduce the resolution from 1080p to 1680x1050 with 1:1, I'd still end up with like a 38" 16:10 viewing area, and I'd rather sacrifice those few inches than have to deal with blurrines caused by non-native resolution.