Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Comparing Monitor's to Tv's - Impossible

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
September 8, 2011 9:51:36 PM

I'm trying to compare computer monitors to tv's, however, this seems impossible due to the products descriptions.

Monitor shows the Maximum brightness (cd/m2-maximum nit) --- a TV does not.

Monitor shows the native (static) contrast ratio ---- a TV does not (only shows dynamic).

Monitor shows the dot pitch/pixel pitch ------ a TV does not.

Monitor shows the maximum display colors --- a TV does not.

Monitor shows the response time ---- a TV does not.


About the only thing you can compare between a monitor and TV is the native resolutions, and refresh rates.

Just for example, I tried comparing a Samsung LED Large Format Display (LFD-Monitors) - model 550EX to Samsung's Led TV - model UN55D7900XF.

Links to the two models:
Monitor - http://www.samsunglfd.com/product/spec.do?modelCd=550EX...
TV - http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN55D7900XFXZA

So for me, or anyone who is considering using a TV as an external monitor, you can't make a decision of which is better (monitor or TV) due to the lack of product descriptions.

What are your thoughts on this?
a b x TV
a b C Monitor
September 9, 2011 4:49:22 AM

For a computer, a monitor will work better than a TV because of the improved resolutions.
Score
0
September 9, 2011 8:07:25 AM

Ubrales said:
For a computer, a monitor will work better than a TV because of the improved resolutions.


Right, but monitors that are capable of higher resolutions then 1920x1080 are limited in size (30 inch max). The average monitor is still using 1920x1080 max resolutions.

Most TV's which are way bigger then 30inch have native resolutions of 1920x1080, which is average for most TV's and monitors alike, so I think it's good enough.

The issue is with the other details. The TV descriptions lack these other details in my first post, so there is no way to accurately compare it to a monitor.

As I mentioned in the first post, TV descriptions don't show the native (static/typ) contrast ratio, they don't show the cd/m2 (maximum brightness), nor the dot/pixel pitch, and only some show the response times.

The only details that the TV descriptions show is the native resolution (1920x1080) and the refresh rate 120hz/240.

The refresh rate on the more high/expensive end TV's (240hz) is actually higher then the monitor refresh rates which are at 120hz.
Score
0
Related resources
September 9, 2011 8:37:41 PM

Yes you are right about the refresh rates, but have you thought about the graphic card? It takes a lot of graphical power to produce 120 hz worth of frames... for 240hz...dude we're not there yet. So you may want to reconsider taking a TV over a monitor.
Score
0
September 14, 2011 9:13:42 AM

psyxix said:
Yes you are right about the refresh rates, but have you thought about the graphic card? It takes a lot of graphical power to produce 120 hz worth of frames... for 240hz...dude we're not there yet. So you may want to reconsider taking a TV over a monitor.


EVGA Geforce GTX 590 graphic card.
Resolution & Refresh - 240Hz Max Refresh Rate
Score
0

Best solution

a b x TV
a c 108 C Monitor
September 14, 2011 1:35:53 PM

Monitor shows the Maximum brightness (cd/m2-maximum nit) --- you will never ever ever have the screen on maximum brightness unless you want to hurt your eyes. pretty much any tv or monitor you buy should be bright enough

Monitor shows the native (static) contrast ratio ---- while this may be true, you can still get a feel for a tv by looking at it while it is displaying black on white or white on black.

Monitor shows the dot pitch/pixel pitch ------ the bigger the screen while staying at a static resolution the larger the pixels. what more do you need to know?

Monitor shows the maximum display colors --- true, tv manufacturers do not list panel type. read: http://guide2lcdtv.com/2010/07/lcd-tv-panel-technology-...

Monitor shows the response time ---- and with most monitors listing response times you arent sure exactly what they are measuring. unless you are planning on running 120hz then it doesnt much matter. i doubt you will see ghosting nowdays anyways unless you buy something really really cheap.

----

60hz, 120hz, 240hz

in what game are you getting 240 frames per second? in what game are you getting 120 frames per second? chances are if its a brand new game you are lucky to get 60! that said, 120hz pc monitors require a dual-dvi (two cable) link up. this makes me question how 240hz would even work.

---

LFD compared to TV

large format displays often run at resolutions greater than 1920x1080 while tvs are 1920x1080 (well unless you buy a cheap 720p tv). even if the two were the same size physically (lets say 30") the LFT will always look sharper because of the difference in pixel pitch provided that the native resolution of the source video/image (like from games) is the same/similar to its resolution. for blueray movies and other 1080p content the tv might look better because lcds running at native resolution have an advantage. the bad thing about LFDs is that they take alot of processing power in new games to run at that sort of resolution. check out the toms hardware charts and you will see just how drastically framerates drop at huge resolutions.

---

to sum it up:

you can compare the two, you just have to think outside the box and not rely on just numbers. also consider that the numbers given on boxes are usually tweaked to improve perception.

think about what you really want in a screen, what you want to do with it, your budget, and read up on some posts here in the forums. once you know exactly what you want you are then ready to start looking at products.
Share
September 15, 2011 4:43:57 AM

ssddx said:
Monitor shows the Maximum brightness (cd/m2-maximum nit) --- you will never ever ever have the screen on maximum brightness unless you want to hurt your eyes. pretty much any tv or monitor you buy should be bright enough


If you take a look at the plasma specifications, they have brightness levels ranging from 1300-1500 nit.
Led LCD's, from what I noticed, range between 250-500 nit. That's a really big difference in brightness levels. Particularly important for text reading, so the question is, is 250-500 nit of brightness good enough. I'm sure that brightness levels are less of a problem in a dark room, but what about day light, or house light interference?

ssddx said:
Monitor shows the dot pitch/pixel pitch ------ the bigger the screen while staying at a static resolution the larger the pixels. what more do you need to know?


Right, but the smaller the distance from each pixel, the more accurate representation of image quality you will get. TV's don't tell you this, so you can't compare it to a monitor.

ssddx said:
large format displays often run at resolutions greater than 1920x1080 while tvs are 1920x1080 (well unless you buy a cheap 720p tv). even if the two were the same size physically (lets say 30") the LFT will always look sharper because of the difference in pixel pitch provided that the native resolution of the source video/image (like from games) is the same/similar to its resolution. for blueray movies and other 1080p content the tv might look better because lcds running at native resolution have an advantage. the bad thing about LFDs is that they take alot of processing power in new games to run at that sort of resolution. check out the toms hardware charts and you will see just how drastically framerates drop at huge resolutions.


Why will the LFD look sharper then the TV if both devices are plugged in using native 1080p resolutions?
Also, from most of the LFD's that I checked out, there maximums native resolution is 1080p.

Alright, so here is what I was able to dig up after talking with tech support.

[LED Computer Monitor (LFD) - Large Format Display]
Samsung - 550EX [Specifications]
Native Resolution: 1920x1080
Dot/Pixel Pitch: 0.21(H) x 0.63(W)
Native Contrast Ratio (Static/Typical) - 6000:1
CD/M2 (Brightness) - 450 nit
Response Time: 6ms
Refresh Rate: 120Hz
Colors support: 10bit Dithering - 1.07Billion Colors

[PLASMA Computer Monitor (LFD) - Large Format Display]
Samsung P50FP [Specifications]
Native Resolution: 1920x1080
Dot/Pixel Pitch: 0.576 x 0.576
Native Contrast Ratio (Static/Typical) - 30,000:1
CD/M2 (Brightness) - 1300 nit
Response Time: 0.001ms
Color Support: 13bit - 548.9 Billion Colors

[PLASMA TV]
Samsung - PN51D8000FF[Specifications]
Native Resolution: 1920x1080
Dot/Pixel Pitch: 0.21 x 0.21
Native Contrast Ratio (Static/Typical) - 40,000:1
CD/M2 (Brightness) - 1500 nit
Response Time: 0.001ms
Color Support:Wouldn't tell me, I'll try again.

[LED TV]
Sony - XBR-55HX929
Native Resolution: 1920x1080
Dot/Pixel Pitch: Wouldn't tell me.
Native Contrast Ratio (Static/Typical) - 600,000:1
CD/M2 (Brightness) - Wouldn't tell me.
Response Time: 5ms
Refresh Rate: 240hz
Colors support: 16bit color

So based on these specs, the plasma pretty much dominates every specification category accept in static contrast ratio and color support which sony beats by a long shot. Although I couldn't find out the dot pitch and cd/m2 for the sony.

It looks like sony is the best out of the other three.
Score
0
a b x TV
a c 108 C Monitor
September 15, 2011 12:43:31 PM

Plasma tvs also have had a horrible maintenance record. I knew someone in tv repair. Rechwrging the screens is hundreds.

Yes even normal lcd tvs have a brightness that is blinding

Pixel pitch... you just reitterated what i said. Unless comparing two equal sized panels.

No with 1080p content 1920x1080 looks better. By LFD i was thinking more of the dell 2560x1600 monitors.

Plasmas always dominate on contrast. Not worth their pitfalls though.

Panel type matters. I know high end sonys use s-ips. I use a sony tv as a monitor.

As i said you need to not focus on numbers so much. I dont care if the specs say a screen has support for a trilion colors at 240hz etc it still might look like crap. Perception is everything.

Score
0
September 15, 2011 5:51:54 PM

ssddx said:
Panel type matters. I know high end sonys use s-ips. I use a sony tv as a monitor.


On the 2011 Sony Bravia XBR-55HX929 (high end), the picture deteriorates more noticeably than usual when seen from off-angle, so I doubt it's a S-IPS panel. It also still has some blooming effect which I thought would be ancient history.

Score
0
September 15, 2011 11:57:53 PM

Best answer selected by ezy.
Score
0
a b C Monitor
January 28, 2012 9:37:38 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!