monitors/tv

so.. i'm thinking of getting a bigger screen for my (oldish.. core2duo e6750) pc than my current 22". seeing as i've never bought one standalone before, i'm bound to need some explanations.

is there any point in getting a normal tv instead of a monitor? (bigger/possibly cheaper?)

any particular thing to look out for in specs?

---

current monitor has a max resolution of 1680x1050.. but i only set it to 1280x800 because I sit like 1/2 meter away and the text is small enough as it is.

93,886 views 18 replies
Reply #1 Top

I use a 32" TV for my monitor... resolution 1440 x 900, crisp clear screen.... cost me $275 AUD.

A PC monitor of a similar size is going to cost more than that. :)

Reply #2 Top

Quoting starkers, reply 1
A PC monitor of a similar size is going to cost more than that.

Because it'll be at ;least HD by then....1080

Like digital zoom in a camera....bigger isn't always better....;)

Reply #3 Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 2
bigger isn't always better...

No, not always, but in this case it is... because it is perfect for my needs... and yes, the TV is HD and more than capable of displaying what my PC transmits to it

Reply #4 Top

1440x900?  At 32" the pixels must be the size of pennies...;)

My 21" runs at its native res...one pixel per pixel [as it were] - 1680x1050 - the way to get true clarity with LCDs ....they don't fudge resolutions as well as CRTs did...;)

Reply #5 Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 4
1440x900? At 32" the pixels must be the size of pennies..

Like I said, it suits my needs and is quite comfortable to use.  I can sit back from the screen [2 plus metres] and still see everything clearly without squinting or straining my eyes. 

Different horses for different courses, Right? :sun:

Reply #6 Top

I use a Samsung 27" for my main monitor and a 42" Toshiba HDTV as a secondary monitor. The TV looks just as good as the Samsung. Both are running at 1920x1080. I use the Toshiba mostly for playing games and watching videos.

Reply #7 Top

thanks.

what about the other stuff like ips, seeking time, contrast, etc?

Reply #8 Top

Since I have been doing a lot of research into monitors in April, I can offer a few pointers.

First and foremost, be very careful about backlight PWM-induced flicker, especially on LED LCD monitors. Read more here:

https://forums.elementalgame.com/420071

It really depends on how sensitive your eyes/nerves are, but it can induce considerable strain even if you don't realize it. Recently, monitors not using PWM for brightness control appeared on the market and if you are very sensitive, they are worth considering. Good review sites like prad.de or tftcentral always measure and review backlight control method as well.

 

current monitor has a max resolution of 1680x1050.. but i only set it to 1280x800 because I sit like 1/2 meter away and the text is small enough as it is.



This is always a bad idea, since if you use a non-native resolution, everything is scaled and therefore blurry. Increasing text size is usually a better option. Getting a monitor with larger pixel size (i.e. low DPI) may be a good idea in your case, but maybe visiting an optician and getting proper glasses would not hurt either.

 

Considering the IPS/VA/TN question, it really depends on what you prefer and how you use your monitor. LCD monitors are inherently flawed, because they create image by filtering white light through liquid crystal color filters, therefore the backlight bleeding, pixel response, viewing angles, poor contrast and/or imperfect color reproduction will always be a problem. The only real advantage over CRTs or OLEDs is longevity. CRT, plasma, OLED, they all degrade with use, and in case of OLED it's particularly bad problem, but until the backlight kicks the bucket or the electronics fry out, your LCD can last very long.

 

If you are a hardcore gamer or play a lot of fast, 3D fps games, consider using a TN monitor, maybe even 120Hz TN monitor. The extra frames can go a long way in reaction precision and don't believe people who say "can't see more than 60 fps". If you do graphics, IPS monitors are good for precise color reproduction and image quality. (M/P/S)VA monitors offer best contrast, and are good for watching movies.

 

Quick and dirty guide:

TN - fastest response, lowest input lag, cheapest, but worst colors (6bit usually), worst viewing angles

IPS - good color reproduction and viewing angles, but usually bad input lag/response. S-IPS are slower, but better for graphic professionals, while cheaper e-IPS are faster, but introduce a nasty glow and color shift. The newer PLS panels seem superior, but most models I saw had very agressive backlight PWM. Eizo 2332 Foris made my eyes bleed in just 2 hours, returned it to shop

PVA/MVA - good contrast, really crappy response time, usually bad input lag, good colors

 

As far as backlight goes, it's CCFL vs LED today, but CCFLs are receding, replaced by cheaper LED backlight.

CCFL - cold cathode fluorescent lighting, provides softer, mellow, yellowish backlight I personally like more. But the unit is heavier, the tubes contain poisonous mercury vapors, and the coating degrades with time, decreasing brightness and color reproduction. I opted for it though

LED - better color gamut, but more aggressive, bluish white, in combination with agressive PWM it can really kill your eyes, because LEDS switch on and off faster, if you turn fast in a FPS game, it creates a stroboscope-like effect which disturbs fluidity of the motion. Also, strange light bleeding in high-contrast shifts. Did not like it at all.

 

Hopefully, OLEDs will arrive soon to save the day, I am fed up with LCDs, compared to OLED, they are horrible image quality wise.

 

 

 

Reply #9 Top

The thing you have to watch, with larger-screened TVs, is that your computer has a sufficient enough GPU.  It's definitely not a big problem for a rig already designed with gaming in mind, but one of those integrated graphics solutions on a cheap machine just won't cut it.  I know because I tried playing GC2 on just such a computer, and I ended up having to go for a lower resolution to avoid black-screening and flickering.

Reply #10 Top

Quoting MarvinKosh, reply 10
The thing you have to watch, with larger-screened TVs, is that your computer has a sufficient enough GPU.  It's definitely not a big problem for a rig already designed with gaming in mind, but one of those integrated graphics solutions on a cheap machine just won't cut it.  I know because I tried playing GC2 on just such a computer, and I ended up having to go for a lower resolution to avoid black-screening and flickering.

Not screen size, but resolution matters. If you buy a 32 inches large TV with just 1920x1080, you are quite okay with mid-range cards most of the time. Howerver, you can have a 27 inch monitor with 2560x1440 resolution that will be quite demanding. 

Take care also that most monitors are locked to 60Hz refresh rate - and the larger resolution you have, the less smooth it looks. 

Reply #11 Top

Yes, resolution matters.  I haven't had a chance yet to try running a 1080p TV with my mid-range rig but I guess it would hold up much better based on the performance I've got from a monitor with the same native resolution.  Unfortunately I can't just pick up my box and carry it half a mile to find out. :P

Reply #12 Top

i'm not sure how visiting the optician solves the problem. the issue is that i sit far away from the monitor, quite probably in a misguided attempt to protect my eyes. thus everything would naturally end up small.

as for the lower resolution vs higher dpi thing. unfortunately, not everything work with high dpi. whilst modern browsers can zoom in/out and scale properly, things like steam don't. or at least i haven't figured out how.for that matter, some flash stuff using those same browser simply doesn't scale at all, no idea why, probably because the zoom stuff didn't exist when it was written.

that said.. i've flipped to the higher resolution for now with higher dpi to see how if i can get used to it. anyway, that's sort of the idea behind bigger screen anyway. if you are on the same resolution/dpi, everything will look bigger if you have a bigger screen. i suppose i can always shift the monitor closer.

 

in games, i pick full screen lower res anyway.... so having matching desktop is no bad thing.. oddly, when i have monitor set to 1680*1050 default and have ingame resolution set to 1280*800... i (sometimes?) get black strips at top/bottom with screen stretched... strange as both are 1.6:1

Reply #13 Top

here's another question...

i notice some monitors have usb3 hubs.... does that mean your pc can use those usb ports even if your pc doesn't have usb3 features?

 

also... display port /hdmi... if the gfx card supports hdmi 1.3 and the monitor 1.4... is it better to use hdmi connector or display port?

Reply #14 Top

Re the hubs...yes, at whatever speed your MoBo connection can manage....the USB formats are backward compatible....;)

Re the other...yes....;)

Reply #15 Top

As a photographer I need depth as well as width, colour fidelity and resolution. I use a Samsung 24" which gives 1920x1200. I also view at arm's length which is the correct distance according to monitor health and safety guidelines...

However, I don't uses my keyboard and mouse at the recommended 4" from the table edge. Anyone who does that must have very short arms...

Reply #16 Top

Some really good tips here. I've been thinking of getting a larger screen, i.e. monitor to do graphics with. One that could double as a TV and monitor. That way I have both and won't have to use one for graphics and the other for watching movies and such. Thanks for all the info. :thumbsup:

Reply #17 Top

Quoting starkers, reply 6
Like I said, it suits my needs and is quite comfortable to use.  I can sit back from the screen [2 plus metres] and still see everything clearly without squinting or straining my eyes. 

Different horses for different courses, Right?

 

Similar situation to Starkers: 32" LCD HDTV that doubles as a PC Monitor/Movie Screen/TV screen. Neither the TV or my video card is UBER! but it suits my needs and not too expensive. I run the TV via the older DSUB connection which limits me to 1366x768 for PC use, I switch over to an HDMI connection when I am watching NetFlix from PC for HD viewing.

Honestly, I don't really care about 1920x1080, or w/e. I want fast FPS for shooters, and thats what I get...on a decently large enough screen.

SS

Reply #18 Top

Quoting Kamamura_CZ, reply 10

Quoting MarvinKosh, reply 10The thing you have to watch, with larger-screened TVs, is that your computer has a sufficient enough GPU.  It's definitely not a big problem for a rig already designed with gaming in mind, but one of those integrated graphics solutions on a cheap machine just won't cut it.  I know because I tried playing GC2 on just such a computer, and I ended up having to go for a lower resolution to avoid black-screening and flickering.

Not screen size, but resolution matters. If you buy a 32 inches large TV with just 1920x1080, you are quite okay with mid-range cards most of the time. Howerver, you can have a 27 inch monitor with 2560x1440 resolution that will be quite demanding. 

Take care also that most monitors are locked to 60Hz refresh rate - and the larger resolution you have, the less smooth it looks. 


Jupp you said it all if you want to replace any modern 22" monitor LCD TFT with a TV you should look at the Hz and the maximum resolution , the monitor should have a high Hz frequenz 200-400hz is standart (/ there are some TV´s that go to 600 or  over 800hHz) Hz is important it will allow you to view the motion that is made by single pictures more fluently the more hz you have on a big big screen the more pictures can pass by and your eye will see it as more fluent.The TV should have a resolution up to 1920x1080. No GFX card will be happy with a resolution above that when you play a highend Game on a higher resolution not even if you have a SLI Xfire setup.SO i would say 1920x1080 is enough but the Hz is more important, brightness/kontrast of something like 5000000:1 , and CMR "clear motion rate" should have plugs for ( HDMI DVI USB ) most importantly Full HD