Anyone using a TV for sequencing

[Timfonie]

What about this 40" monitor with 4k (3840 x 2160 pixels) resolution? Although it can be used for tv-purposes it has been designed as monitor, including a low input lag (3ms).

I can't imagine myself sitting in front 40" monitor comfortably. And I'm afraid it will be great eye-killer.

Why do you think it will be an eye-killer?

[UltraJv]

What about this 40" monitor with 4k (3840 x 2160 pixels) resolution? Although it can be used for tv-purposes it has been designed as monitor, including a low input lag (3ms).

I can't imagine myself sitting in front 40" monitor comfortably. And I'm afraid it will be great eye-killer.

Why do you think it will be an eye-killer?

I think what he was getting at was it will be too much to take in. When you use a common sized (22") monitor , you sit a comfortable distance so that you arnt too close. Im roughly 0.5 metre from my 23". Try putting your face six inches from the monitor, youre having to move your head to see the whole screen. That's how it will be using a huge TV as monitor close up. TVs are generally set for a brighter picture than monitors. Combine these two and youll see why its an eye killer. If you can get the balance right on those two elements, you might get away with it but 40" is too big to sit close to, five feet is optimum.

[camsr]

Someone told me that using a DVI-to-HDMI adapter will make the TV function as a normal monitor? I mean if it is in "game mode" or low lag mode anyway. Going DVI out and HDMI in somehow prevents the HDMI handshake from being successful, no idea what the implications are though.

[UltraJv]

Someone told me that using a DVI-to-HDMI adapter will make the TV function as a normal monitor? I mean if it is in "game mode" or low lag mode anyway. Going DVI out and HDMI in somehow prevents the HDMI handshake from being successful, no idea what the implications are though.

DVI to HDMI is video only. It dosnt have any bearing on how the TV sees HDMI other than that. Low lag (3ms) is video and not audio. low Audio latency is not a spec of HDMI.

[T-CM11]

I think what he was getting at was it will be too much to take in. When you use a common sized (22") monitor , you sit a comfortable distance so that you arnt too close. Im roughly 0.5 metre from my 23". Try putting your face six inches from the monitor, youre having to move your head to see the whole screen. That's how it will be using a huge TV as monitor close up. TVs are generally set for a brighter picture than monitors. Combine these two and youll see why its an eye killer.

That sounds more like a "neck-killer".
And most TVs allow you to turn the brightness down.

[UltraJv]

I think what he was getting at was it will be too much to take in. When you use a common sized (22") monitor , you sit a comfortable distance so that you arnt too close. Im roughly 0.5 metre from my 23". Try putting your face six inches from the monitor, youre having to move your head to see the whole screen. That's how it will be using a huge TV as monitor close up. TVs are generally set for a brighter picture than monitors. Combine these two and youll see why its an eye killer.

That sounds more like a "neck-killer".
And most TVs allow you to turn the brightness down.

Sure, I can turn my monitor up for TV use too - I thought id get it in the neck from someone about that

[VariKusBrainZ]

Er, sit further away...just a suggestion :p

You dont have to go fullscreen, you could essentially use a large hi-def TV as you would use 2 separate monitors

[camsr]

Someone told me that using a DVI-to-HDMI adapter will make the TV function as a normal monitor? I mean if it is in "game mode" or low lag mode anyway. Going DVI out and HDMI in somehow prevents the HDMI handshake from being successful, no idea what the implications are though.

DVI to HDMI is video only. It dosnt have any bearing on how the TV sees HDMI other than that. Low lag (3ms) is video and not audio. low Audio latency is not a spec of HDMI.

Right, which is why I mentioned it. Do you need to use the TV's audio?

[camsr]

What about this 40" monitor with 4k (3840 x 2160 pixels) resolution? Although it can be used for tv-purposes it has been designed as monitor, including a low input lag (3ms).



The only concern to me is how will a screen this size and resolution affect the sound from the monitor speakers? Because of the resolution one has to sit quite close to it otherwise a HD-screen would suffice.

The solution is the same thing Apple does with the Retina displays, provide higher detail graphics at the same size. Or you could even run the monitor at half of native resolution so DPI-unaware programs are scaled back to 1080p.

[sprnva]

I used to have my Amiga 1200 hooked up to a TV when I used ProTracker.

But that was a long time ago

[Loki Fuego]

Ok, if anyone is interested, here's how I have it set up (sorry for quality):

For me it works great.

[T-CM11]

Not getting neck cramps from looking up?

Reading the display on the Novation SL looks... impractical. But maybe it's just hard to imagine the spacial dimensions from that picture.

[T-CM11]

And there's room for one more piece of hardware to the right of the Push. Any plans yet?

[Loki Fuego]

Not getting neck cramps from looking up?

No, it's fine Actually, it's feels better, because you are not staring constantly at one screen and moving a bit.

Reading the display on the Novation SL looks... impractical. But maybe it's just hard to imagine the spacial dimensions from that picture.

If I'm standing or sitting in front of Push, I can see SL's screen.

And there's room for one more piece of hardware to the right of the Push. Any plans yet?

You're right There used to be a digital mixer, which I didn't like. Now as I have free space I'm thinking what would improve my workflow.

[T-CM11]

Perfect spot for a Sunsyn.
http://www.vintagesynth.com/misc/sunsyn.php