Why play PS3 X360 on your small monitor?

B

bennetvu

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
456
I don't understand why people buy an expensive console to play on a small monitor (24-30)? Don't you think it's kind of a waste?

Edit: What I mean is that why play on a computer monitor?
 
24-30 is small?

not all of us can afford a 50" plasma :p

and i play my consoles on my 20" diamondtron mitsubishi monitor quite happily thanks :D

(monitors > TV's)
 
I think it's all about work with what you have. Like FLECOM said, not everyone can afford a 50" plasma. ;)
 
Wow my terribly small 24 inch and 20.1 inch LCD's are just aweful for gaming. Why didn't I save up for that nice 51 inch pioneer elite plasma for 10,000 dollars i always wanted.... oh wait a moment i dont make enough money for that :rolleyes:
 
Why save up for 50" plasma when you can get a 36" HD CRT tube for around 500? I just think virtually all LCD monitors are not up to standard for X360 or PS3 and I just thought you guys would want to take advantage of the new graphics but I guess not.
 
Heh, I've always wondered that too.. People spend a few hundred on thier console to play it on some small lcd.
 
CompuDrew said:
I think it's all about work with what you have. Like FLECOM said, not everyone can afford a 50" plasma. ;)
Click to expand...
Couldn't quite justify the cost of a 50" but I do have a nice 42" plasma in the living room. I play my Xbox 360 on my Dell 2007FPW though for 4 reasons:
1. I played quite a bit of Xbox 1 on the plasma without issue but it's not good for it (possible burn-in) and gaming conflicts with tv watching.
2. Having it on a shelf under my computer desk means I can instantly switch from pc to console gaming.
3. I can plug it directly into my router without buying a $100 wireless adapter.
4. It Looks great! :cool:
 
plus monitors look better than TV's...

even a 1080p dosent come close to match my IBM LCD's 2048x1536 resolution :p
 
FLECOM said:
plus monitors look better than TV's...

even a 1080p dosent come close to match my IBM LCD's 2048x1536 resolution :p
Click to expand...

I guess you care about look more than performance and we're talking about gaming on a TV and monitor.
 
bennetvu said:
I guess you care about look more than performance and we're talking about gaming on a TV and monitor.
Click to expand...

i dont understand... look vs performance?

ya, i want it to look real good... thats kind of the point... i dont need it to be mega-uber huge...

i dont understand what performance is... does a bigger monitor overclock the 360 or something? ;)
 
The first thing you're not thinking about here is that most of the people on this board are approximately college aged or just out of school. They don't have the financial resources to buy a larger set. Even if they did, most don't have a room large enough to fit it in. Could you imagine trying to lug around a 50" plasma moving around every year as you play the dorm room shuffle? Its simply not practical.

Now let's do a little math here. In fact, let me draw you a little diagram : http://scott.r.olsen.googlepages.com/0292_001.pdf

Now this is assuming that the standard distance someone sits from their "little" 24" monitor is about 2 feet. On average, a person sits about 8 feet away from their TV in their living room. As you can see when you work the math, the 24" monitor fills more of your field of vision. Even assuming you're only sitting 6 feet away from a 50" plasma, you're not going to have as much of field of vision encompassed as if you were sitting at a desk using a computer monitor. Therefore, using a computer monitor can actually be considered more immersive by this measure.
 
My bad but I don't mean small monitor, I know I stated that on my first post, what I mean is that why play on a low quality LCD monitor? It might be good for computer use but for console? Dont you think that would degrade the quality? If you can afford all those equipments (Dell 2407, 3007 and Benq 24"), I'm sure you can afford a nice 32" or above HD CRT tv to play games with, if not save up. That's just my opinion, I just think it's a waste to play on a computer monitor, to me, it's like people who buys 5.1 speakers and doesn't utilize the benefits of it, which I see a lot on here.
 
Those of us on a budget would love nothing more than to have a huge display to play games on, but apart from the financial budgeting aspect, some of us are also constrained with space as well. Those who elected to use an LCD TV to power their computer and console find it a good compromise, but that's not everyone's cup of tea. I settled on the Dell 2407 as my compromise with the priority on computing over gaming but given the distance that I sit at, gaming on the 24" will more than suffice.

If only the Dell 3007 had the applicable inputs, that would have been the ideal display.
 
My main reason is space, second is cost..... I like the idea of the ps3 next to my computer and switch between the 2....

Still looking for a decent monitor though. Narrowed it down to the Gateway 2275 or the LG226wt...2275 has 1:1 pixel mapping...226wt has a higher contrast ratio and prolly better image quailty. Trying to stay around 400.00 or so. I have 300.00 in BB gift cards so I am kinda stuck going there for a new monitor.

I cant go much bigger, my computer couldnt handle it..(x2 4400 x800xl vid card 2gig ram)
 
32"? I have a 9 foot 720p image with my projector, but my 24" 2407 has the better picture, so i use that for gaming now, and the pj for movies. I also prefer my hardware to be mobile. Ever try hauling a 27" - 32" tv to a lan in someones apartment? not the most fun of times.
 
cameltoe1009 said:
My main reason is space, second is cost..... I like the idea of the ps3 next to my computer and switch between the 2....

Still looking for a decent monitor though. Narrowed it down to the Gateway 2275 or the LG226wt...2275 has 1:1 pixel mapping...226wt has a higher contrast ratio and prolly better image quailty. Trying to stay around 400.00 or so. I have 300.00 in BB gift cards so I am kinda stuck going there for a new monitor.

I cant go much bigger, my computer couldnt handle it..(x2 4400 x800xl vid card 2gig ram)
Click to expand...

get the 21-inch gateway if you can. it has a better panel in it. I thiiiiink its an S-PVA, but i'm not positive, check their website.

I have the 2275 though, and love it. but if I'd done a little research first, and not bought on a whim, I'd have gotten the 21-inch.

gaming on a monitor its much better bang for your buck. and it saves a lot of space if you have an lcd. I live in an airforce dorm room without any good spots for a 30-inch+ CRT.
 
bennetvu said:
I'm sure you can afford a nice 32" or above HD CRT tv to play games with, if not save up. That's just my opinion, I just think it's a waste to play on a computer monitor, to me, it's like people who buys 5.1 speakers and doesn't utilize the benefits of it, which I see a lot on here.
Click to expand...
You seemed to miss the point about being in college and having to move around. Finding a place to put a 200+ lbs monster CRT, much less having to move it on a semi-annual basis is completely ludicris.

If you're using a PS3 with HDMI output, more inane is the idea that using an analog display to view content that was created digitally, stored digitally, and output digitally will somehow get you a better picture. I understand the arguement when you're dealing with "real life" subject matter like photos or video because the "real world" is analog. To gather that material, at some point, a digital device had to take an approximation of the analog world. Assuming you can perfectly reverse this approximation with an analog display, a CRT could provide you a more accurate representation than the digital display. This isn't the case in most video games. Everything there is synthesized from scratch using 1's and 0's. None of the material starts as analog. It would not be wrong to say that viewing such material on a CRT is less accurate than viewing it on a digital display (assuming 1:1 pixel mapping).
 
bennetvu said:
My bad but I don't mean small monitor, I know I stated that on my first post, what I mean is that why play on a low quality LCD monitor? It might be good for computer use but for console? Dont you think that would degrade the quality? If you can afford all those equipments (Dell 2407, 3007 and Benq 24"), I'm sure you can afford a nice 32" or above HD CRT tv to play games with, if not save up. That's just my opinion, I just think it's a waste to play on a computer monitor, to me, it's like people who buys 5.1 speakers and doesn't utilize the benefits of it, which I see a lot on here.
Click to expand...

You're not making any sense. 24"+ LCD monitors are capable of 1080P and more.
This is not the same for TV. Currently there are no 1080P TVs at 32". You will have to go to at least 37" to get 1080P and even then the quality will vary depending on brand, etc.

You do realize most low budget LCD TVs are only 720P resolution right? Even some high end 40"+ models are only 720P.

The only thing going for LCD TVs are size and this means you have to sit far away.
 
Some of us can't afford nice tv's, so we buy a decent monitor that we can use with both our computers and our consoles. HD CRT's are not as common as all the LCD tv's and plasmas out there, and most of the flat planels don't have 1080p native resolution unless you pay a huge price, much higher than 24" lcd monitors. And as someone said before me, you sit a lot closer to a monitor than you would with a tv, so a monitor fills your field of vision more.
 
consoleboi said:
You're not making any sense. 24"+ LCD monitors are capable of 1080P and more.
This is not the same for TV. Currently there are no 1080P TVs at 32". You will have to go to at least 37" to get 1080P and even then the quality will vary depending on brand, etc.

You do realize most low budget LCD TVs are only 720P resolution right? Even some high end 40"+ models are only 720P.

The only thing going for LCD TVs are size and this means you have to sit far away.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the only difference between a LCD monitor and an LCD TV is an RF tuner, right?
 
I understand some of you guys live in a dorm but it's not like you move every year. Some of you claimed that you can't afford a TV for gaming, well, if you bought a ps3, 24" monitor, and a nice rig, I don't see why you can't save up and do the same if you're into game that much.
Ok, so I don't know anything about 1080p and I apologize for stating incorrect info.

Well this is the end for me, I just don't get why you guys spent a chunk load of money on a console and lack on the next most or most important which is the display.
 
bennetvu said:
I understand some of you guys live in a dorm and I understand but it's not like you move every year. Some of you claimed that you can't afford a TV for gaming, well, if you bought a ps3, 24" monitor, and a nice rig, I don't see why you can't save up and do the same if you're into game that much.
Ok, so I don't know anything about 1080p and I apologize for stating incorrect info.

Well this is the end for me, I just don't get why you guys spent a chunk load of money on a console and lack on the next most or most important which is the display.
Click to expand...

Actually I have moved every year. Some students live closer to home than I do, so they actually move back home during summer too, so they move twice a year. A decent 1080p tv is pretty much twice as expensive as a decent 24" monitor. A 1080p tv is just not practical enough to justify the purchase for students.
 
dmanrevived said:
Actually LCD TV's have much lower resolution than LCD monitors at the same size.
Click to expand...

That's not a defining trait. By definition a monitor is a video display device. By definition, a TV is a video monitor with an RF demod built in. Period. Resolution alone does not classify a display as a TV or a monitor. Your statement is only a current trend in the marketplace.
 
bennetvu said:
I understand some of you guys live in a dorm and I understand but it's not like you move every year.
Click to expand...
Actually, I had to move almost every semister. I didn't know of any college that allowed students to reside in a dorm room 12 month out of the year. Almost everyone had to move out of their current digs at the end of spring semister even if they were returning to that room in the fall.
 
theacoustician said:
That's not a defining trait. By definition a monitor is a video display device. By definition, a TV is a video monitor with an RF demod built in. Period. Resolution alone does not classify a display as a TV or a monitor. Your statement is only a current trend in the marketplace.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, we were talking about the current trend in the marketplace.
 
theacoustician said:
You do realize that the only difference between a LCD monitor and an LCD TV is an RF tuner, right?
Click to expand...

We are discussing console outputs to TVs/monitors. RF tuner, OTA tuners are irrevelant. In this instance, we are concerned about resolution/quality/size.

IF we were discussing outputting TV signals, PVRs, and the like to TV/monitor then yes your point is valid.
 
The OP's question has already been answered perfectly: Its not small if you sit close. If your 24" monitor is on your desk, and you're sitting 2 feet away, as many computer users do, then your field of vision is filled. If you've got a 50" plasma, yet you are sitting 8 feet away, you've got a smaller picture than the person using the 24".
 
I have a 37" LCD HDTV in my room and a 24" LCD monitor, when my wife hogs the TV I need something solid to game on.
 
It's times like this I gain an appreciation for the "ignore" feature. OPs who bail out when they get what they deserve go right on that list. :D

I have a 19" widescreen LCD I use for my PC and my 360. It looks great, was inexpensive, serves a dual purpose and is nice and light. It does exactly what I need it to do. Even if I had the money for a much larger monitor I wouldn't want one because it would not fit my workspace at all.

Guess the OP would then move on to why I have a small apartment when I should just buy a big house!
 
I think the OP is either a troll or is just completely ignorant. He thinks LCD TVs automatically give a better picture than LCD monitors, when in fact the opposite of this is often true. Many LCD TVs (especially at the size he is talking about) are 1366x768, which isn't 720p or 1080p, which means scaling is going to take place. At least with a high res LCD monitor and 1:1 mapping you can get a true image.

This, combined with things like thinking students remain in the same dorm for over a year, etc just make this whole thread ridiculous. His whole argument just has no basis.
 
LOL, look at all the noobies gaining up. But my point was that, I think it's a waste to buy an expensive console and playing on a computer monitor but if you think that justify the cost you pay for the console then I have nothing else to say.
 
I'd prefer to be playing on a 1080p LCD monitor at a desk in a comfortable desk chair than playing on a 1366x768 LCD TV or plasma that looks smaller when it's 6-8ft away. Oh, and the monitor would cost less and be functional when I want more workspace on my computer.

TV's are bigger and "better" because they're meant for an entire room to watch. I wouldn't want a huge group of people crowded at my desk playing 360 over a 24" monitor. Some of us don't need to have a big flat panel nailed to the wall to think that we're getting a better experience when we're seeing a smaller screen in our field of vision and a smaller resolution.
 
This guy has to be troll, looking for a reaction. He can't be serious? Can he? Can he really be so uneducated? Most people I know saved up for ages to buy the xbox360 and a few games. they play it on whatever they have at home. And computer monitors have much better displays then most TV's. The picture will be way better on a computer monitor, unless you have the money to buy a 1080p LCD TV.

And most of the people I know would love to play their console on something as big as a 24 inch monitor. They bought it for the games, anything else (like getting a huge TV) is a bonus, but for most not really required.

What an ignorant statement by this guy.
 
reaper12 said:
This guy has to be troll, looking for a reaction. He can't be serious? Can he? Can he really be so uneducated? Most people I know saved up for ages to buy the xbox360 and a few games. they play it on whatever they have at home. And computer monitors have much better displays then most TV's. The picture will be way better on a computer monitor, unless you have the money to buy a 1080p LCD TV.

And most of the people I know would love to play their console on something as big as a 24 inch monitor. They bought it for the games, anything else (like getting a huge TV) is a bonus, but for most not really required.

What an ignorant statement by this guy.
Click to expand...

I'm a troll and ignorant because I asked questions? That statement of yours just showed how ignorant you are.
 
Not everyone considers the Xbox 360 and PS3 "expensive". Hell many users have PC video cards that cost as much as or more than a 360 or PS3.
 
dmanrevived said:
Actually LCD TV's have much lower resolution than LCD monitors at the same size.
Click to expand...

Not only that but most of the time LCD TV's sold in stores have much lower specs as well.

Less pixel pitch , less backlight life, also some have horrible input lag (which only effects a few well known LCD monitors commonly seen on our forums) and if you think backlight bleeding is a issue on a 22 inch monitor ? wait til you see it on a 37 inch or greater TV, its like having giant sign that says "look at me" each time you watch. You also cant return a 37 Inch TV as easily as a 20+ inch monitor, i feel bad for someone that gets a 50 inch Plasma or LCD tv in there home to find out its faulty or DOA.

Right now 42 Inch HDTV's are just not worth the extra money to me atleast, LCD technology is on the verge of changing over from backlight (which has been this way for a long time now) to many different types of true contrast displays ( OLED has the biggest promise) not only that but in the next 10 years a 42 Inch LCD or Plasma will likely be a fraction of its current cost , probably at 400-500 dollars for a really good one.

So while my LCD monitor is smaller , its likely to look alot sharper and when i replace it i wont have to save for a few years to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top