Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

TV or monitor

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 14, 2012 8:03:05 AM

so im planning to buy a new monitor, but the 26 and 27` are pretty expensive (300-400$) while i can get a LCD TV the same size or even more for $200-250... and so im wondering if i could use a LCD TV as a monitor and im wondering if it would have the same quality as a monitor..

More about : monitor

a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2012 8:22:05 AM

Tv's tend to be much lower quality especially when close up. Some people like them for gaming from the couch but I would never recommend them for use as a close up monitor as the static image is awful for viewing the web or desktop.
November 14, 2012 10:44:02 AM

yea thats what i expected
guess im gonna have to buy one of those expensive things
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2012 10:48:46 AM

Surely there are cheaper screens? a dell u2412m cost £170 in the uk which must be roughly $250-$300 and that is a higher than average price screen.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 14, 2012 11:16:26 AM

darth pravus said:
Surely there are cheaper screens? a dell u2412m cost £170 in the uk which must be roughly $250-$300 and that is a higher than average price screen.


Gotta agree on your choice. I love my Dell monitor as a computer screen, gaming screen, and as movie screen.
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2012 11:26:27 AM

How much can you pick up a dell screen for in your area?

As Envy said they really are great all round screens and generally not too pricey.

They will outdo a TV anyway :) 
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 14, 2012 11:40:37 AM

darth pravus said:
How much can you pick up a dell screen for in your area?

As Envy said they really are great all round screens and generally not too pricey.

They will outdo a TV anyway :) 


I could use my Dell as a tv too. I would just need to buy a tv tuner and stick in on my board. Done.

My model is great, but I know that Dell has improved the calibrations on their screens. Out of the box it's
great, and even better when you have a device (Spyder Express 4) to improve the accuracy.
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2012 11:41:33 AM

darth pravus said:
Tv's tend to be much lower quality especially when close up. Some people like them for gaming from the couch but I would never recommend them for use as a close up monitor as the static image is awful for viewing the web or desktop.


I think this is only partially true. From my expirience:

Tvs need a lot of Tunning Work to get the exact image you want. I took me personally over 1 month to get the settings right.

If you get a TV, it has to have at least a few technical specs or then its 100% worse than a monitor.

For example: You want full HD, 5ms input lag or less, real 100Hz or better, good color spectrum, good Static Contrast.

If all those are good, normally Tv will look slightly worse than a monitor (since your monitor will be smaller, so pixel density is higher, making it look better).

As long as i was using the TV, a few times games would look a bit Jaggy on the edges, and then id ad a 5% blur effect from the TV, and it almost looked like AA :D .

Normally, the bigger the TV, the more AA you need to add up (i suggest SweetFx for that), since it keeps making the pixels bigger and bigger.

Note that 30 Inch monitors come in resolutions over full HD to compensate the size, so imagine how a 40 inch tv with 1900x1080 will look like.

It is hard for me to say there is any other issues with picking a Tv over a Monitor, since i did not expirience any myself.
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2012 11:46:57 AM

Also note that there is a limit in size to what your mind considers acceptable at a certain distance before it gets tired from the actual gaming. This means that if the screen is too big and you sit too close, your brain will "force" your eyes to get tired in order to protect them fro excesive light.

For example, i have a 32 inch tv at about 50 Cm from my face, and i get quite tired at gaming sessions over 2 hours.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 14, 2012 12:02:16 PM

plasmas are soo underated :( 

Had a discussion on a similar topic last night and i can’t stress enough just how much the quality of a plasma tv display can compete with monitors @ 60hz when compared to a larger scale window @ 1080p.

Image retention is or was the only issue with them but nowadays with gaming modes and such, newer plasmas are worth looking into as they’re around about the same price as an lcd at equivalent sizes, have next to nothing response times and don’t have any ghosting which appear to be blocky outlining paced figurements on lcd tvs.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 14, 2012 12:18:58 PM

I think it depends entirely on what you typically do on your computer - I currently have my 46" Samsung LCD attached to my computer due to space constraints. It definitely does the job and the quality is more than enough for gaming and day to day web browsing/video streaming but it definitely isn't my ideal setup. I would much rather get (2) 24" monitors for multitasking benefits.

If you do go with a monitor, I would consider Samsung/LG - they make pretty good panels and they have some LED monitors in the 26/27" market that won't break your budget.
November 14, 2012 12:37:42 PM

Some of those cheaper $200 to $300 TV's are only 720P resolution.

Beware of that as it is usually in small print if it is printed at all !!!

jer :) 
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 14, 2012 12:42:26 PM

Latvietis96 said:
so im planning to buy a new monitor, but the 26 and 27` are pretty expensive (300-400$) while i can get a LCD TV the same size or even more for $200-250... and so im wondering if i could use a LCD TV as a monitor and im wondering if it would have the same quality as a monitor..


For that amount of money, no. Any lcd tv you purchase for that price will be of very poor quality throughout the entire construction from connection capabilities to adjustable viewing performance. 300-400$ monitor will out class any of the tvs you would have viewed at 250$ price range by a large margin.

a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2012 12:49:51 PM

boju said:
For that amount of money, no. Any lcd tv you purchase for that price will be of very poor quality throughout the entire construction from connection capabilities to adjustable viewing performance. 300-400$ monitor will out class any of the tvs you would have viewed at 250$ price range by a large margin.


^This
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2012 12:54:53 PM

PLasma TV is a terrible, terrible , TERRIBLE idea for a Monitor.
Plasmas suffer greatly from static images, so its a no go!
Not to mention most still get burn in images (the gas inside the bubbles will stay at a certain color if same image is displayed for too long, creating awfull images).
November 14, 2012 1:00:50 PM

darth pravus said:
Tv's tend to be much lower quality especially when close up. Some people like them for gaming from the couch but I would never recommend them for use as a close up monitor as the static image is awful for viewing the web or desktop.



I couldn't disagree more. I'm looking at a TV right now and would buy it again.
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2012 1:07:21 PM

ram1009 said:
I couldn't disagree more. I'm looking at a TV right now and would buy it again.


How close are you to said TV?

Not my preference but if you've got one looking good for you I won't bash it :ange: 
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 14, 2012 1:20:57 PM

cats_Paw said:
PLasma TV is a terrible, terrible , TERRIBLE idea for a Monitor.
Plasmas suffer greatly from static images, so its a no go!
Not to mention most still get burn in images (the gas inside the bubbles will stay at a certain color if same image is displayed for too long, creating awfull images).



Each to his own i guess.

Plasmas for some time now have had consoles in mind and static images are impossible because the gaming mode implementation shifts and rotates pixels to prevent burn and retention. People are concerned because of history, but isn’t the case now, and are ignorant to the superiority these displays now have.

The tv i have has had all sorts of games thrown at it with long periods of play with huds and idled images with no image problems afterwards and this is with a tv made couple years after i bought it, imagine what’s available now..

I'm lucky enough to witness it and love it. Don’t care the negatives :) 
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2012 1:47:04 PM

boju said:
Each to his own i guess.

Plasmas for some time now have had consoles in mind and static images are impossible because the gaming mode implementation shifts and rotates pixels to prevent burn and retention. People are concerned because of history, but isn’t the case now, and are ignorant to the superiority these displays now have.

The tv i have has had all sorts of games thrown at it with long periods of play with huds and idled images with no image problems afterwards and this is with a tv made couple years after i bought it, imagine what’s available now..

I'm lucky enough to witness it and love it. Don’t care the negatives :) 



I read extensivly about the theory of new technology been used in plasmas hat prevent burn in. Then i read that the models that have this technology have special tools inplemented to remove burn ins.

You dont have to be a genius to realize that if they give a tol for that, then it happens.
About static images: You pause a game and go take a piss, and you have a static image. You read somehting in the menu, you are in static. You use the Plasma for a PC, you will get static images even more.

If a Plasma tv works well however, and those issues do not exist, they are the est option no doubt, but it does seem far feched.
November 14, 2012 3:42:48 PM

darth pravus said:
How close are you to said TV?

Not my preference but if you've got one looking good for you I won't bash it :ange: 



I am approximately 24" from my 27" screen. Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to your opinion however this is a largely subjective topic. There is a point of diminishing returns where the screen is so big that the pixels are too far apart for good viewing but it doesn't matter if you call that a "monitor" or a "TV". It's simple physics either way. Now, there are some TVs that have resolutions less than 1080p which would be very hard to look at.
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2012 3:52:43 PM

I will be short...a monitor. Why because TVs have much larger dot pitch than monitors. Plus you would buy a cheap TV which is the worst of all things that you could possibly do. If money are issue than get smaller monitor a 24"
November 14, 2012 3:52:48 PM

darth pravus said:
Surely there are cheaper screens? a dell u2412m cost £170 in the uk which must be roughly $250-$300 and that is a higher than average price screen.

the cheapest 27`monitor i can find here is a benq g2750 $280, while most peoples earnings are approx $300 per month... thats how we roll, eastern europe style >_>
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2012 8:12:45 PM

Latvietis96 said:
the cheapest 27`monitor i can find here is a benq g2750 $280, while most peoples earnings are approx $300 per month... thats how we roll, eastern europe style >_>


Woah. That slightly inflated. I would still recommend a monitor over a cheap tv. The cheaper monitor will be better than the cheap tv.

Let us know how you get on.
November 14, 2012 8:45:42 PM

darth pravus said:
Woah. That slightly inflated. I would still recommend a monitor over a cheap tv. The cheaper monitor will be better than the cheap tv.

Let us know how you get on.



Again, I disagree completely.
a b U Graphics card
November 15, 2012 6:00:50 AM

ram1009 said:
Again, I disagree completely.


No to cause an argument but on what basis?

Admittedly expensive TV's are better at static images but on the lower end you end up with an uncomfortable browsing experience. TV's were never meant for static work.

What benefits are there of a cheaper TV vs monitor?
November 15, 2012 11:39:56 AM

It]s simple. In spite of all your theories I can't tell the difference and I get a "free" TV. Making broad statements like yours is not in the best interest of people like myself who should try it before they decide.
!