I use an old Sony TV from around 2008 as my monitor, I can turn on the TV and via my laptop screen shut the laptop down then manually boot again and it’ll be fully booted before the TV is ready and showing the desktop.
Got it from my neighbours when they tried to throw it out, it’s not amazing but I’m very happy to have it as I wouldn’t have anything other than the even more shitty 720p laptop screen otherwise.
Yup, my Sony Bravia is great for movies except some quirks:
takes over 10 seconds to sync to HDMI
panel is 1366×768 but only 1360×768 is accessible over HDMI (it can be shifted up to 3 pixels left/right though)
its LUT for color brightness is all messed up with RGB HDMI signals, the lowest 30 or so brightness steps map to full black and then the brightness takes off steeply. A YCbCr-capable GPU is needed to correct this (an inverse LUT is techniclly possible but will not compensate for the awfully giant steps in dark areas unless the GPU also adds dithering).
Nah, just 1080i. And this will fill the screen (in fact, with slight overscan) but obviously native resolution is better.
Some Bravia models had 6 analog inputs (not counting VGA+3.5mm), at least one of which was a full-featured SCART port with RGB support and AV output to the VCR. And interlaced content worked seamlessly, and probably looked better than on modern TVs.
panel is 1366×768 but only 1360×768 is accessible over HDMI
Weird. Did they decide that resolution wasn’t cursed enough to begin with?!
I wonder if HDMI requires resolutions to be evenly divisible by 8. 1366 was always strange. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it on an external monitor, mostly just cheap laptops.
1366 is 768 divided by 9 times 16, to get an image with 16:9 (widescreen) aspect ratio. The 768 part comes from 1024x768, which was a very common screen resolution back when.
We have several crusty 1366x768 monitors kicking around my workplace, and none of them in regular use because they’re awful. I am reasonably certain part of why they’re so awful is because they are indeed repurposed cheap laptop panels slapped into even cheaper shells. Supporting evidence here is that they’re all significantly and suspiciously lighter than our other monitors. At least this helps with their usual use case, which is carting around to be portable temporary setups for diagnosis and troubleshooting. Every time we need a spare monitor the boss inevitably winds up ordering whatever the first option is on Amazon when sorting by price, and that’s how we wind up with these.
I notice several of them also run off of wall warts with really weird voltages. I think one of them we have is 8.5 volts.
I use an old Sony TV from around 2008 as my monitor, I can turn on the TV and via my laptop screen shut the laptop down then manually boot again and it’ll be fully booted before the TV is ready and showing the desktop. Got it from my neighbours when they tried to throw it out, it’s not amazing but I’m very happy to have it as I wouldn’t have anything other than the even more shitty 720p laptop screen otherwise.
Now hang on, 2008 ain’t that old…
Realizes it was 17 years ago
Slowly walks into the sea.
I updated my resume recently and…yeah.
yeah.
Yup, my Sony Bravia is great for movies except some quirks:
And it accepts 1080p, but downsamples it to the resolution you mentioned.
Nah, just 1080i. And this will fill the screen (in fact, with slight overscan) but obviously native resolution is better.
Some Bravia models had 6 analog inputs (not counting VGA+3.5mm), at least one of which was a full-featured SCART port with RGB support and AV output to the VCR. And interlaced content worked seamlessly, and probably looked better than on modern TVs.
I believe my Bravia was showing 1080p when connected to PS3 via HDMI, but I might be misremembering. But yes, it had inputs galore on the back.
I believe that, it is a wide range of LCD TVs from pocket models to projection monsters.
Weird. Did they decide that resolution wasn’t cursed enough to begin with?!
I wonder if HDMI requires resolutions to be evenly divisible by 8. 1366 was always strange. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it on an external monitor, mostly just cheap laptops.
1366 is 768 divided by 9 times 16, to get an image with 16:9 (widescreen) aspect ratio. The 768 part comes from 1024x768, which was a very common screen resolution back when.
We have several crusty 1366x768 monitors kicking around my workplace, and none of them in regular use because they’re awful. I am reasonably certain part of why they’re so awful is because they are indeed repurposed cheap laptop panels slapped into even cheaper shells. Supporting evidence here is that they’re all significantly and suspiciously lighter than our other monitors. At least this helps with their usual use case, which is carting around to be portable temporary setups for diagnosis and troubleshooting. Every time we need a spare monitor the boss inevitably winds up ordering whatever the first option is on Amazon when sorting by price, and that’s how we wind up with these.
I notice several of them also run off of wall warts with really weird voltages. I think one of them we have is 8.5 volts.
I used to have a 1366x768 monitor. They’re actually pretty common, at least here in Brazil