f13.net

Here's the deal. I want to play shit from my PC to my wonderful new HD tv. So I went and bought a DVI -> HDMI cable. So far so good. The only trouble is that the TV decides that it's a good idea to stay in 1920x1080i resolution, instead of the much better choice - 1366x768. So when I put the 1360x768 resolution through the Catalyst Control Center it only fills about half the display with big black lines on the sides and on the bottom and top. So my only options atm are watch things in 1080i and that's it. There are some "force" options through the catalyst but none of them are the right ones.

I hardly understand anything from what I just wrote, but I'm hoping someone can and will help me. please?

What tv is it? It should autodetect the incoming signal, make sure it can handle the one you're outputting.

There may also be a setting on the tv for what kind of signal it's expecting. Can your computer not handle 1920x1080?


And if you're going to kill yourself, can I have your stuff?

It's a Samsung LE-32M61B (the model is only sold in Europe as far as I can tell). The trouble is forcing the damn thing to a 1366 Х 768 resolution. As far as google could tell me the problem is with the DVI->HDMI cable. I can easily run it in 1920x1080 but than 720p stuff looks all wonky - wrong aspect ratio and stuff on the edges doesn't show up on the display. The question has changed to "Is there a way to force my PC to feed a 1366x768 resolution through the DVI-HDMI connection?".

hmm.... room-sized World of Warcraft....

lol I can't think of a game that would look worse made BIGGER.

MTGO.

avsforum.com

I'm confused. It's a 720p set. It shouldn't be able to display 1080p (so I'm just going to assume you meant interlaced in your second post). 1080i might look ok (my tv scales it to 720p). But 720p should look fine except for overscan.

The overscan appears on my set, but it's only a few pixels and doesn't bug me in 99% of games. In fact, the only games it bugs me in are those that don't support 720p, like Civ4.

Use the avsforums to learn about how to set up your native res, but that would also have overscan. What you're talking about is learning how to format the picture to fit the visible pixels in the native resolution. I think it can be done, but I haven't ever felt the need to dick around with it in the three years I've had my 720p set.

Have you created a driver for your set or are you just using the plug-n-play? I used an app called powerstrip to make the driver for my tv. Google it or search the avs archives for my post under username Komoto from years ago.

Not at 32".

WRONG. THERE AREN'T SCREENS BIG ENOUGH.

UO?

I had this problem with a 27inch HD TV I bought just for my PC.

Basically, what I could get out of it is that if you don't send the native resolution signal to your TV that it wants, the display is going to look like absolute and total shit.  Fucked up colors, shimmering test (black fades to blue in the same word, red turns 'blocky', etc).

Sky is a pretty good source of info on all things TV related.  Hit him up.

Ask WUA. I can't answer that.

It's a trick, get an axe.

Not even a Sharp 108" display?

Not even.

It sounds more like you need to fiddle with your TV controls than your PC ones. You want your TV to display in 1:1 pixel mapping mode so that it uses its native resolution rather than having it pretend it's a 1920 x 1080 display.

I could be way wrong here but...

According to wikipedia 720p is 1280x720. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p

If you want your image to fill the entire screen you need to be shooting for that resolution and not 1360x768.  Your TV should be smart enough to give the computer all the compatible resolutions if you boot your PC while hooked up to the TV.  Or at least thats how it works with my 3 year old mitsubishi.

You are (sort of) wrong. The native resolution of LCD "720p" monitors is typically 1366 x 768 for some reason. 1080p LCDs in contrast are 1920 x 1080 as their naming implies. I'm not sure why 720p LCDs differ.

Perhaps it's the difference between 16:10 (computers) and 16:9 (cinema)?

Err, shit I don't know. I know that the closest "standard" resolution to 1080p on computers isn't really 1920x1080. It's 1920x1200. And that's because of 16:10, I think.


Anyhow, does your card and TV have VGA? See if that works better than DVI.

No, 1366 x 768 is 16:9. I.e. 720p LCD TVs are not 16:10 computer monitors pretending to be 16:9 TVs -- they really are 16:9.

Initially I thought so too. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the TV controls that would let me do that. After a while I figured out that the TV is displaying whatever my PC/The Catalyst Control Center is telling it to. Like I said I have no problem setting it to 1366x768, but than the catalyst tells the TV that it has to go on the bigger resolution. 

VGA/VGA would probably work, however it's not an option. My monitor is using the VGA port on my card, so the best I could   do would be use something like DVI/VGA cable, which would probably net the same result. Plus I shelled out something like E20 for this cable and I really want to make it work.

Lost a couple more hours trying to make it work with powerstrip. The problem is that it just won't accept the 1366 resolution or for that matter any resolution between 1280 and 1920. It is apparently a problem with Samsung TVs' HDMI-PC connection and precious few people have managed to get around it.  I'll try returning the cable and going with a more standard DVI/VGA connection.

I'd work over avsforums first. It's nice people think I know alot about hd and pc gaming, but I did a lot of research before I bought a set so I didn't have to mess around with it. Also, my knowledge was gained three years ago :) Also, the only thing I used powerstrip for was making the driver, then I uninstalled it. There's a lot more you can do with it, I just don't like dicking around with it.

But I think it's worth some more research to try to get hdmi working (mine is dvi to dvi), because the sharpness and clarity of the pixels is noticeably different between the analog and digital signals. I can walk up close to my tv and see individual pixels, perfectly synced to my set's physical pixels. As I said, I also have the overscan issue, but it's not a big deal imo.

I use nvidia now, but I used ati for a long time. I always had better luck with omega drivers and some tool that went along with them. Might look into that as well.

Did I mention working over the avsforums? Those guys rock.

Picked up a DVI-VGA cable, worked like a charm in less than 5 minutes. I still have the hdmi and will try to make it work at some point, just don't have the nerves to do it now :)

I'm pretty sure if you look closely, the end of satan's tail is hdmi.

Not if you want audio and video in one convenient little thing-a-majig.

In his case though, DVI/VGA is all he should need. May as well take the hdmi shit back if you can.

It really is convenience unless you're going to play HD audio content (DTS-HD, TrueHD) found on Blur-ray or HD-DVD.

If you are watching non-HD sources co-ax or digital audio connections are going to be equivalent and you won't get HDMI rage.  [for example, I use component connections since my TV doesn't support 4:3 aspect ratio through HDMI - not such a pain unless you have young children who like to watch DVDs with 4:3 video - Maisy looks obese in adjusted views]

Why would you want audio through your tv? Digital to the receiver for DTS or DD5.1, man. Can you even hook a sound card to HDMI?

Also, as I mentioned, there is a very noticeable difference between an analog (VGA) and digital (DVI/HDMI) signal. I was originally going to use VGA because my older set only has one DVI input and DVI cables used to be hard to find. VGA is all you need if you like blurry text and pixels, I guess.

Nah, with computers, hdmi ain't no thing. I'm just talking about other setups.

Wouldn't it be better to run a dedicated audio cable (i.e. digital optical) instead of both audio/video in one? 

Optical can't even process the newer codecs, so no, it's not better. Convenience/multiple interface issue aside.

It can't because of HDCP, maybe. It can pass most signals fine, I was using DD5.1 and I'm using DTS now.

We are talking about computers. Also, HDMI makes no sense because if you have an hdtv you should also have a surround sound system hooked to it.

I know we are talking about computers. I've been trying to just say, merely on a sidenote, that hdmi is a good thing for home theater setups... For a computer monitor, it's just best using VGA or DVI for your TV. I said that in my first post in this thread, and keep on saying it.

As for DD or DTS, I'm not talking about that at all. I said new codecs. New as in Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD. It is a technical and commercial impossibility to process them through optical.  Further, they are here to say, and so is hdmi.

Eh, let's not disagree about something we don't disagree about. Until there is a pc solution for HDMI audio, those codecs are a moot point in this discussion.

We do disagree about VGA connections. I do not find that acceptable for a connection to an hdtv from a pc. The resolutions of hdtvs are too low and are fixed-pixel. Need the clarity of a digital connection, DVI or HDMI.

Dude! I've been trying to "not" disagree about anything.  :uhrr:

Like I said, I told him to just use VGA and take the hdmi cable back. That shit is over and done with. My comment about hdmi was merely on the side, when someone said it was "satan's tail". I said, well.. Hey, it's convenient. Then snakecharmer asked something along the lines of why hdmi is good for audio specifically. The moment of relevance for me to even bothering to mention hd codecs came right there. It has nothing to do with you.

Satan's tail. I said it. Unless you think HDCP is a good idea. How is audio and video in one cable convenient? You still need two cables unless you listen to sound through your tv, and if you can afford an hdtv, you should also have surround. If you don't have surround, you don't need the new codecs because stereo is all you've got.

Read again what I said about analog connections, because your advice about taking back the digital cable is bad advice.

I'm more confused than I was when I asked the question...

HDMI to receiver

Receiver to speakers

Done.

Unfortunately, my receiver doesn't have HDMI input - I don't think - it's about 6-7 years old. 

Right now, the set up is:
DVD video to TV via HDMI
DVD audio to receiver via digital optical
Cable box video to TV via HDMI
Cable box audio to receiver via digital optical

It took FOREVER to set up the audio/video signals correctly, but it sounds good.

:shrug:

That sounds right.

Sky, I told him to just take back the hdmi cable because it isn't working out for him, and new the DVI is. Don't get all hung up because I said "DVI/VGA" and then start rambling about the disadvantages of analog, as if I meant only VGA. I was just telling him to go with an alternative. You know -- get something that works. Duh.

I will commit heresy by saying I find surround/5.1/et all to be largely pointless.

Do they sound better than the cans on my TV?  Yup.

Do they sound enough better to justify the hassles?  Not for me.

(I could further blaspheme by declaring my disdain for the home theatre concept in general, but I don't want to make anyone's head explode)

I use Stereo for everything.

I'm all for the home theater thing, but the amount of effort it seems to take to set one up and use it isn't worth it to me. I can build a new computer in the time that it takes to setup a modern home theater, and said computer won't require three remotes when I want to turn it on. It seems to me the receiver should be the equivalent of a PC, with the TV as a monitor, and all the various inputs the equivalents of USB devices. Don't make me guess which input my Wii is on, just list the freaking inputs that have interesting data on them. TV shouldn't be this hard. Thank God everything seems to be moving to HDMI.

Color me surprised.  I figured you would have had your gaming room house completely rigged.

Run cable around the corners, plug in speakers. What the hell are you people talking about, hassles? Sheesh.

And it's zarking frood.

But hey, don't listen to me. A few years ago I was the odd guy gaming on my hdtv and that was overkill. You guys just didn't realize it's overkill of AWESOME.

It's not alot of effort, considering the return.

It took me three weeks to install the wall speakers in my house for my home theater; just so I could have everything just right.  That was.....7 years ago? I think.  7 years of enjoyment is a pretty good return on that investment of effort.

Get a fish tape and it makes things much much easier.

You must not watch many DVDs. I have a 7.1 setup now, and I don't even have a next gen HD-DVD/BR player yet. Sounds is just as important, if not more, as the HDTV imo.

Agreed.

Movies really come to life with a good surround sound.

I'd say that games benefit even moreso.

I pretty much only watch DVDs, actually.  Very little OTA or cable.

If I want the "theatre experience", I go to a theatre.

At home, I do *not* want that; my desires and expectations are entirely different. I don't want to sit in the "man-cave" and watch movies in the dark, trying to suspend my disbelief.  Much of the time I'm not even really "watching" the movie any more, I'm skipping around to the points that interest me...with "The Matrix", I'm down to viewing maybe 10% of the actual film.  King Kong?  Fuck everything but monkey vs. dino.  You get the idea.

I want a well-lit room, video in the dark bothers the hell out my eyes.  I want a room free of cable clutter; my house was built in 1927 and is a pain to add in-wall wiring to, and cables strung all over look like hell (for the record I work in a video production facility, and if I could replace every set of stereo audio/composite/s-video/component/whatever cables with single cables, I'd do it in a heartbeat, but the equipment won't support it.)

I want to not piss off a wife who doesn't want to deal with another box instead of just turning on the TV and watching the picture (although with HDMI handshaking between the devices, that might not be an issue).  I want to not present more "toys" for my four-year-old to mess with.

Stereo sound isn't mana from heaven.  But it's all I need and want for my video-watching tastes--I'm not trying to "bring it to life", I just want to hear the damn thing.  Except on those occasions when I turn off the sound altogether and just watch the subtitles  :ye_gods:

I hate movie theaters.  I hate spending ~$30 to have people yammering on celphones or hearing them ring whilst I'm trying to watch a flick.  I hate people getting up in front of me.  I hate that some freak with an abnormally large head is going to sit right in front of me, theater seating be damned.  I hate my feet sticking to the floor.  Or sitting in some nasty mess left by the nasty motherfucker that sat there before me.  I hate paying ~$3 for a candy bar I can buy for 75 cents. 

I love my man cave (in progress).  I love being able to pause it and go take a hudge if need be.  I love being able to buy the damn movie for less than I would spend at the theater.  I love being able to watch the movie in my boxers.  Or commando if I damn well feel like it.  If I want to fall asleep in my recliner, I can do so.  And noone is going to wake me up and tell me to leave.  I love not having to worry if my wife is cold.  Or if I am too hot. 

In short, movie theaters SUCK, I hate them with a passion, and the investment I have made and will make in my own little home theater is well worth it.  I swear, the older I get, the more agoraphobic I become.  Or rather, the more and more I really start to hate people/the general public.

The people are a large part of the reason i go see some movies in theaters.  I like going to see movies with zombies or explosions or exploding zombies or what-have-you with a crapload of people.  I don't care if they're talking or cheering or whatever--as often as not, it's me and my buddies joking to each other during the show (we keep it low).  Cellphones have never been a problem.

Maybe you have shitty theatres, but around here they're always pretty clean, and except for the Lord of the Rings movies I haven't been to a movie in years where I couldn't find plenty of seats that didn't bug me.

I don't see everything there due to the cost (and having a small child)--the wife and I will see a preview and look at each other and just say "no" or "rental" for the stuff we can't be bothered to shell out theatre prices for.

The stuff you like about seeing a movie at home?  I got no issue with that, it's all good--except I don't feel any urge to make it anything more than a show on the TV.  Your opinion is different, that's fine, we just don't feel the same way about it.

Maybe it's just mechanic syndrome--y'know, how the mechanic can't be bothered to fix his own car, or the plumber has an unfixed leak in his house.  I get tired of wiring events up for audio.  We usually even wind up with the freakin' audience applause separated out into the individual channels.

I like movie theaters. I like the experience. It's no either/or situation to me though. One can have both. They both exist.