Starting new monitor research: Why not just get a LCD TV?

[chucky2]

I'm starting to do some monitor research for my brother, who games and surfs the net.

One can get 32" TV's for around $500, why not get something like that over the 24" ones that go for the same amount?

Chuck

 

[ImDonly1]

I think it would have more "ghosting" more than a regular LCD. Maybe someone else can elaborate.

I think the tv will also have different resolutions that might look stretched if using as a monitor.

 

[happy medium]

Mabe one of those 120hz Tv's will do nicley ,but there still a little pricey.

 

[apoppin]

I'm starting to do some monitor research for my brother, who games and surfs the net.

One can get 32" TV's for around $500, why not get something like that over the 24" ones that go for the same amount?

Chuck

OK .. look at it this way .. you have the identical amount of pixels on each screen. The 24" is going to be sharper and you sit closer. With the TV, you sit a lot further away.

Also, you can generally get a really nice 24" 19x12 or 19x10 LCD with great viewing angles and a response time better suited for gaming than on a TV. Realistically, you will spend half of your $500 on a decent 24" PC monitor; i even saw an S-IPS 1080 monitor for $300 - sometimes less.
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=1822007

i recently bought a 24" 1080p LCD with a built in TV tuner (or you can call it a HDTV with PC connectors) when my TV went out. Cheap. It is decent as a 3rd monitor for me.

 

[Dark Shroud]

If you can get an 120hz or true 240hz LED tv and just connect your video card to via HDMI it could work. But there is a sharpness issue there.

If I can raise the money I'm going to try using one of those 3D Plasma TVs, no larger than 32". But that will probably take me 2 years to save the money for the TV & glasses.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

The ghosting on LCD TV's is still really pretty bad (Since most TV and movies is filmed at roughly 24 FPS, a high refresh rate isn't absolutely necessary). The lower pixel density also hurts a bit.

Its a personal preference thing, on the whole. A lot of people can get over it, to a lot of people its a deal breaker. Ymmv.

 

[Apocalypse23]

3 years ago I used to use my Sharp Aquos 46" 60HZ 6-4ms LCD TV as my HTPC. It was the most amazing cinematic PC experience. Until I got tired of sitting at a distance and sitting at the couch everytime I wanted to use my PC. So I use it now as my home theater TV. Nothing, absolutely nothing can compare to LCD TVs when it comes to PC monitors. LCD tvs blow everything away, trust me, no ghosting, just true cinematic immersive experience.

Here's some of my super old screenshots I had saved:

My advice to you is, if you really really want the ultimate experience, invest in a 120hz Sharp 42-52" LCD Tv, they are cheaper now then when I first bought my 46" inch, that was back in early 2007 for about $2700 after discount...now a days you can get one for around $1200.

 

[s44]

It's mostly a workspace layout issue. If you *can* set up 5 feet from a 42" set, you should do so.

 

[Apocalypse23]

It's mostly a workspace layout issue. If you *can* set up 5 feet from a 42" set, you should do so.

I concur.

I also found some old Command and Conquer 3 PC screenshots using my Sharp Aquos 46" (the blacks and contrasts just blow me away every time I look back at these) You can expect your gaming experience to resemble somewhat like this should you choose to go the 42/46/52" route. PS- Once you notice how big 1080p actually is, you won't ever want to bother with 2560x... (not worth it imo):

 

[biostud]

how is text/office work on lcd TVs?

 

[Apocalypse23]

how is text/office work on lcd TVs?

I think it's pretty good, I did find myself, zooming in the text and increased the overall Desktop DPI as well to see better since I was sitting at a distance.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

As others have stated, a 32"+ screen is rather big for desktop use. But if you do have the space... a large screen is pretty darn nice, unless you hate the larger pixel pitch. Which brings me to the next issue.

A 24" screen at 1920x1080 won't technically be any sharper than a 32"+ 1920x1080 screen, but the 24" will appear "cleaner" due to the smaller pixel pitch, hence giving the impression of greater sharpness. However, if you sit at the right distance, the difference should become mostly neglible <- this is not always a possibility of course.

It seems like so many of those nicer 1920x1080/1200 monitors have one or numerous glaring issues. Some of the newer one's seem alright though, so it's getting better.

If a 32" screen is what your brother is after, gotta recommend Samsung based on my experience with using one as PC monitor. This one would probably be great:

http://www.buyersedge.com/product.php?id=7470&ref=Buyersedge_Froogle

The motion resolution of a TV may not be as good as a monitor. My TV's MR isn't quite as good as my 20WMGX2, but it's acceptable. And I wouldn't worry about ghosting (though my TV does sometimes ghost slightly in darker scenes). The issues with my TV may be attributed to the fact that it's a 2008 model and is part of the cheaper 4 series.

 

[Zap]

When using an HDTV as a monitor, do some research on any particular units you are looking at. Some of them will always want to scale the image so that you don't get 1:1 pixel display. Some also have EDID problems which don't let you specify the correct resolution. Narrow down your choices and then take a peek at AVforums.

 

[Apocalypse23]

When using an HDTV as a monitor, do some research on any particular units you are looking at. Some of them will always want to scale the image so that you don't get 1:1 pixel display. Some also have EDID problems which don't let you specify the correct resolution. Narrow down your choices and then take a peek at AVforums.

Yeah, the OP should be careful when picking an LCD Tv, don't just buy any brandless or cheap tv, research will pay off, the AVforums are a great place to go and check out user reviews. I browsed there for a few months before making my decision. The Sharp Aquos from personal experience will give you the deepests blacks, sharpest images, and they also have a huge range of menu options, i.e you can tweak your display settings like you've never seen before and actually feel the contrast. I suggest you play with some menu settings when you goto the store as the default colors don't do the screen justice.

Also, note that some screens may not give you dot for dot resolution, but the Sharps do. They have a Dot by Dot pixel option which makes it as sharp as an PC monitor.

Cheers.

 

[Fox5]

I use a 1080p 32" sceptre tv as a monitor. Works pretty well. More blurring than my 22" samsung, but that's not a problem in most games that I play. Brightness was a little eye and caused eye strain so I had to turn that down, and the tv loses a lot more contrast at low brightness levels than the monitor. Colors are sometimes better or worse than the monitor, I think the monitor is a 6 bit panel while the tv is 8 bit, but it's not always superior.

 

[T2k]

3 years ago I used to use my Sharp Aquos 46" 60HZ 6-4ms LCD TV as my HTPC. It was the most amazing cinematic PC experience. Until I got tired of sitting at a distance and sitting at the couch everytime I wanted to use my PC. So I use it now as my home theater TV. Nothing, absolutely nothing can compare to LCD TVs when it comes to PC monitors. LCD tvs blow everything away, trust me, no ghosting, just true cinematic immersive experience.

If you are only watching movies on your PC then you are correct sans the fact that any projector throwing out a 100"+ picture is far more immersive experience than any monitor or that a decent plasma has better colors than a decent LCD TV (for movies.)

I also found some old Command and Conquer 3 PC screenshots using my Sharp Aquos 46" (the blacks and contrasts just blow me away every time I look back at these)

FYI any half-decent plasma blows your LCD out of the water when it comes to blacks and color reproduction... of course, for CG like a game it doesn't matter that much. OTOH I hate DNR features on TVs, it makes PC graphics a bit 'mushy' so I always turn them off on TVs.

You can expect your gaming experience to resemble somewhat like this should you choose to go the 42/46/52" route.
PS- Once you notice how big 1080p actually is, you won't ever want to bother with 2560x... (not worth it imo):

A 30" LCD monitor will have far more detail than your TV so it's a bit hard to say 'not worth it'...

 

[Patrick Wolf]

If you are only watching movies on your PC then you are correct sans the fact that any projector throwing out a 100"+ picture is far more immersive experience than any monitor or that a decent plasma has better colors than a decent LCD TV (for movies.)

True, but how many people can just throw up a projector setup.

FYI any half-decent plasma blows your LCD out of the water when it comes to blacks and color reproduction... of course, for CG like a game it doesn't matter that much. OTOH I hate DNR features on TVs, it makes PC graphics a bit 'mushy' so I always turn them off on TVs.

They may blow his LCD out of the water, but the better LCD's of today have great blacks and great color. Plasma's may still take the edge, but it's certainly not a blow-out (unless you're talking about the extinct Kuro's). Many monitors have DNR too (course it shouldn't be used).

A 30" LCD monitor will have far more detail than your TV so it's a bit hard to say 'not worth it'...

In this case you're talking about detail vs magnitude as you can get a very nice 40-46" LCD (or Panasonic Plasma) for around the same price. Going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 for example is 50&#37; more detail. That's pretty significant, so yeah for some people it's worth it.

 

[KIAman]

I occasionally use my 55" 1080P LCD as a gaming monitor and it works wonders, especially with the sound routing through my Denon receiver out to 5.1 surrounds. But I sit 10 feet from the screen and don't have a custom setup for my keyboard and mouse so it gets uncomfortable very fast.

I have noticed no ghosting yet, but I don't play many FPS shooters.

 

[Danube]

I use a 32" Dynex HDTV as a third monitor for movies and games. I got it for 350 and for the price its been a lot better than I expected as a monitor.

 

[x3sphere]

I have a 42" LH90 (one of the highest rated LED HDTV sets) and still prefer playing PC games on my Dell 3008WFP. Don't get me wrong, the picture on both sets is gorgeous but my monitor is in another league. The sharpness and sheer detail at 2560x1600 is unbelievable, that I still say "wow" sometimes even after owning it for over a year. After playing at such a res it's simply hard to go back, especially with games like Crysis and Metro 2033. Only downside is the amount of $$ you need to spend on GPU grunt. 1080p lets you max everything out without delving into multi GPU configurations.

Anyway, it all comes down to personal preference I suppose.

I concur.

I also found some old Command and Conquer 3 PC screenshots using my Sharp Aquos 46" (the blacks and contrasts just blow me away every time I look back at these) You can expect your gaming experience to resemble somewhat like this should you choose to go the 42/46/52" route. PS- Once you notice how big 1080p actually is, you won't ever want to bother with 2560x... (not worth it imo):

 

[Rebel_L]

I think the biggest considerations when thinking about using TV as a monitor has to be the setup vs your vision.

I sit roughly two feet from my screen since I have the monitor on my desk as well as the keyboard and such. I would be sitting way to close to make use of a TV, I think my 24" monitor is about as big as I want to get. For me using a computer I need to be able to have the whole monitor in view with one glance, having to turn my head to see from one side to another gets very annoying. I find it awkward when say reading text that spans the whole screen. Even gaming I prefer to be able to see everything at a glance. Your setup will likely dictate how far away from the monitor you will end up being so the consideration is how big a screen you can be comfortable with at that distance, and will likely be based on your peripheral vision as well as what you are used to. If you can go to a store with lots of TVs on display and see how close you can be comfortable with it, that should give you some idea on how big a screen you can have in your setup.

The other important thing to watch for is the pixel pitch. For my 24" at 2 feet I dont see individual pixels, but if I lean to only 1 foot away I do. I never want to be able to see pixels when Im using a monitor so screen size and distance from it dictates the resolution that Im looking for. My monitor is a 1920x1200 and that works well for me, what works well for the next person is of course up to their own preferences and vision, note however that a 32" TV dosnt have anywhere near the pitch of 30" monitor running at 2560x1600.

Once you are past the size and resolution that you need I would start worrying about ghosting and 1:1 pixel mapping and other such features, you have to figure out size and resolution before you can worry about one model vs another. If I cant comfortably see the overall screen from where I am sitting without seeing pixels I dont care how good the colors are or if the screen is a blur

 

[apoppin]

I think the biggest considerations when thinking about using TV as a monitor has to be the setup vs your vision.

I sit roughly two feet from my screen since I have the monitor on my desk as well as the keyboard and such. I would be sitting way to close to make use of a TV, I think my 24" monitor is about as big as I want to get. . . .

i felt exactly like you did, actually preferring my 22" LCD (overall comfort) to my 24"
- that was until i got my HP LP3065. i found the perfect distance to sit and overall it is the best experience i have had to date with a LCD (except for my notebook's 15.4' screen; it is also "comfortable" - but then i am SO close i can take my reading glasses off (either way).

But gaming on a 2560x1600 screen is cool; i never use my notebook for that - nor anything important for Photoshop.

 

[Apocalypse23]

If you are only watching movies on your PC then you are correct sans the fact that any projector throwing out a 100"+ picture is far more immersive experience than any monitor or that a decent plasma has better colors than a decent LCD TV (for movies.)

FYI any half-decent plasma blows your LCD out of the water when it comes to blacks and color reproduction... of course, for CG like a game it doesn't matter that much. OTOH I hate DNR features on TVs, it makes PC graphics a bit 'mushy' so I always turn them off on TVs.

A 30" LCD monitor will have far more detail than your TV so it's a bit hard to say 'not worth it'...

Projectors are a joke to me, they may give you a huge screen, however are of little practical use, and require dimming of the lights every often a usage exists. The Plasma's may look better than LCD's but the difference is still debatable as LCDs have caught up and offer great contrasts and blacks. Another con about Plasma's is the massive power usage they generate, and also heat. When you compare this to an LCD, you save money on your electricity bill and also have a cooler running setup overall. Also, Plasma's aren't as fast as 4-6ms response times I think, which many LCD Tv's do come with now a days.

 

[SSChevy2001]

I think the biggest considerations when thinking about using TV as a monitor has to be the setup vs your vision.

I sit roughly two feet from my screen since I have the monitor on my desk as well as the keyboard and such. I would be sitting way to close to make use of a TV, I think my 24" monitor is about as big as I want to get.

Well I agree you should distance yourself from the monitor depending on the size. If you sitting 2ft away then I wouldn't suggest using a HDTV. Currently my desk allows me to sit about 3.5 ft away from my 37" monitor which IMO is fine. I have no problems having to view the whole screen in one glance. Sometimes you make a sacrifice to get the best of both worlds. I gave up higher resolutions and more work space for a bigger all in one gaming / pc / tv monitor, but also I keep my budget low as my 37" 3yrs ago only cost me $560. Having PIP is also a nice added bonus.

That said my 1st laptop had a very small pixel pitch, it was a 15" 1600x1200. IMO the pixel pitch was too small for the screen.

 

[Sentry2]

I'm still running the older 40" Samsung LED TV in my signature(got it for $1,100 on clearance from crutchfield when ultimate electronics still wanted $2,500 for it...). It's nice but I think I'd take the LG 42LH90 over it any day(probably quite a bit less input lag than my S-PVA). I think 40"(+) is really borderline on the pixel pitch side of things unless you mount it on the wall and move the desk back a bit. I'd say a 32" or 37" 1080p LCD(LED Backlit) would be a really nice overall balance... Just make sure you stick with a decent company such as LG with their S-IPS panels. I'm currently in the market for a 37" 1080p LED backlit set with an S-IPS panel. I think LG has new models coming out but it looks like most of them are edgelit... not too sure if I want an edgelit set or not.

I think you'd be perfectly happy with a standard CCFL backlit LG in the 32" 1080p flavor...

I would imagine that most reputable brands offer "1:1 pixel mapping these days as well.