TV as Monitor vs Monitor as TV. Your thoughts?

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › TV as Monitor vs Monitor as TV. Your thoughts?

McNulty

152 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 23

#94347 8-Dec-2011 16:19

I'm comparing a 27" LCD monitor with a 32" LCD TV. Both are full HD etc. The TV has a greater variety of inputs and more bells & whistles. Is there any real benefit to getting the monitor in this situation?

If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got!

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#555559 8-Dec-2011 16:51

Wheres the post? Assume you have your own thoughts to share first?

McNulty

152 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 23

#555562 8-Dec-2011 17:15

Thanks mattwnz, fixed now!

If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got!

beaverusiv

49 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#555832 9-Dec-2011 10:28

I would go with the monitor if they are relativly the same size.

imo monitors have better quality than TVs.

-Nick

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 32

#557489 13-Dec-2011 15:09

I thought there was some issue with refresh rate on a TV, unless the have 'gaming mode'. I can't remember what the trade-off is though - contrast perhaps?

beaverusiv

49 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#557507 13-Dec-2011 15:57

Both TV and monitor have same refresh rate afaik (60Hz).

TVs that I have seen do look different from a monitor, could be contrast, but I think they just are less clear (pixel bleeding or something), makes it harder to read small text, even up close.

-Nick

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#557512 13-Dec-2011 16:20

Some TVs do have technology in them to improve motion, which can cause some ghosting. So aren't as good for computer use where you have more static stuff on the screen.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#557514 13-Dec-2011 16:21

beaverusiv: I would go with the monitor if they are relativly the same size.

imo monitors have better quality than TVs.

They can use different types of LCD panel too. Monitors can be IPS or PVA, and the cheaper ones are using TN. While I think most TVs seem to use TN panels.

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#557545 13-Dec-2011 17:32

TV's are designed for distance viewing rather than text/reading like monitors are. Using a TV close range as a monitor for reading text will probably give you some eyestrain because of the much worse dot pitch.

Same resolution larger physical screen size = larger gap between pixels.

mcraenz

1140 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 222

#558562 16-Dec-2011 08:37

What are you using it for? General desktop computing? At some point adding inches without adding resolution becomes counter-productive. If it's for an HTPC that's a different story. Do you need audio? It doesn't really mater, TVa, TVb or Monitor c. Pick the one which has the best looking picture to you.

Help me build a better way of doing politics in Aotearoa New Zealand

political.nz

richms

29098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10208

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#559484 19-Dec-2011 11:12

TV's seem to get a brain dead default of overscan correction when plugged into an ATI card, monitors do not.

Also there is usually some sharpness applied on TVs even when they are getting their native resolution, they will look aweful till you find the correct setting on the tv that doesn't apply sharpening. Its not always 0 like you would expect. Monitors tend to not have artificial edge enhancement applied making them look softer on video stuff but look good on text so that cleartext etc will actually work.

Richard rich.ms

Phexx

420 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 6

#559504 19-Dec-2011 11:46

Ragnor: TV's are designed for distance viewing rather than text/reading like monitors are. Using a TV close range as a monitor for reading text will probably give you some eyestrain because of the much worse dot pitch.

Same resolution larger physical screen size = larger gap between pixels.

This. I used a 21.5 inch LCD as a second monitor and no matter how hard I tried, text and details looked nowehere near as sharp as my monitor did.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Hammerer

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#559511 19-Dec-2011 11:57

If your computer is a laptop then take it in and test drive both.

Is price an issue for you? TV's have more bang for your buck and often have better specials.

Future options are greater with a TV.

All other things being equal, bigger is better. Over time, the screen size seems to shrink as you get used to it. That's why so many people are upgrading.

Check that the optimum viewing distances for size and resolution fit with your workspace. If you are doing a lot of close-up work (e.g. paperwork) then you may find it difficult having to refocus to a larger screen further away.

TVs are great for moving images in gaming and at FullHD fine with static text. If you're using every bit of FullHD resolution then a monitor will usually be better but may not be an issue if you have resolution to spare.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#559514 19-Dec-2011 12:04

beaverusiv: Both TV and monitor have same refresh rate afaik (60Hz).

Which is really slow. I find watching some of the older type LCD's which are below 100hz somewhat nauseating. And its especially noticable in fast scenes.

beaverusiv

49 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#559539 19-Dec-2011 13:02

richms: TV's seem to get a brain dead default of overscan correction when plugged into an ATI card, monitors do not.

I have an ATi card and a monitor and it underscans... so frustrating, especially with their crappy drivers trying to find the options and making it stick :/

I do agree with you, though. HDTVs should not default to overscan. 1:1 zoom!

-Nick

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#559540 19-Dec-2011 13:04

BraaiGuy:
beaverusiv: Both TV and monitor have same refresh rate afaik (60Hz).

Which is really slow. I find watching some of the older type LCD's which are below 100hz somewhat nauseating. And its especially noticable in fast scenes.

Running at 100Hz or more reduces the picture quality and makes everything look like it was shot on a home video camera. eg The soap opera effect.

The newer LCDs are far better at handling moving images with the motionflow turned off, than the old panels.