Need a small advice about LCD/LED tvs. Recently my monitor went dead, i need some replacement , i was going thru lots of different screens and some of new tvs from samsung have cought my attention . Its samsung series 6 LCD 32" TV and samsung series 7 LED tv, any one knows how they compare to normal monitors as i would like to use pc 24/7 on them(gaming and graphic edit). I was reading about Image retention caused by still images, and bluring when playing games. Any thoughts about it?
LCD/LED tvs Vs PCMonitor
- Thread starter pafk0o
- Start date
FarFarAway
New member
It's not necessarily the quality per-se, it's the size. A TV just isn't practicle for use with a PC desktop environment at all.
I also think that PC panels are designed specifically with the PC in mind, whereas a TV is designed with TV/movie content in mind. When you think that ideal 1080p movie content is 1080p @ 24FPS you see why TV's just don't suit a PC environment.
Get a decent 24" screen and go with that, take it from me (and Ham)
I also think that PC panels are designed specifically with the PC in mind, whereas a TV is designed with TV/movie content in mind. When you think that ideal 1080p movie content is 1080p @ 24FPS you see why TV's just don't suit a PC environment.
Get a decent 24" screen and go with that, take it from me (and Ham)
A lot of tv panels are 1900 x 1200 roughly. that is the same native res as a good 22-26" monitor.
The sheer increase in physical size gives you poor text so the TV will not perform for tasks where text reading is required, so rather alot.
If you change the TV res and sit further back then things become more practical. I used to run my PC HTPC stylee on the 40" Bravia when i rented a room.
Generally with your pc you are going to be closer to the screen so i think a monitor is a better option.
The good thing is that the 22" + panels are getting more and more affordable every day
The sheer increase in physical size gives you poor text so the TV will not perform for tasks where text reading is required, so rather alot.
If you change the TV res and sit further back then things become more practical. I used to run my PC HTPC stylee on the 40" Bravia when i rented a room.
Generally with your pc you are going to be closer to the screen so i think a monitor is a better option.
The good thing is that the 22" + panels are getting more and more affordable every day
FarFarAway
New member
Yep that's essentially what I meant. My 42" Panny plasma looks OK if I use it as my PC desktop from 3metres+ away, but that's just not practicle to work with.
Rastalovich
New member
name='k4p84' said:A lot of tv panels are 1900 x 1200 roughly. that is the same native res as a good 22-26" monitor.
The sheer increase in physical size gives you poor text so the TV will not perform for tasks where text reading is required, so rather alot.
If you change the TV res and sit further back then things become more practical. I used to run my PC HTPC stylee on the 40" Bravia when i rented a room.
Generally with your pc you are going to be closer to the screen so i think a monitor is a better option.
The good thing is that the 22" + panels are getting more and more affordable every day
The majority aren't as good as that. They'll inherently take a 1024x768 dpi, in terms of pixel size, and blow it up - so the pixels are now blocks. It's the manufacturers tech that mushes everything together.
Kinda like looking at ur lovely pc monitor through a magnifying glass whilst squinting.
Interlacing a computer screen has never looked good for text etc. Mostly cos the wrong colors are chosen and amplify the effect. Stills and moving images it generally looks ok. Games can be ok.
I Hunta x
New member
just change the refresh rate, mine is bad for games/pc use in the 24hz default but its a 30 secs job to change the refresh ratename='Kempez' said:
And TVs may look bad with a vga cable, but i use a dvi to hdmi cable with my 42" toshiba, works perfectly, i use it for games, photoshop, web ect ect, looks better than my 20" monitor imo
FarFarAway
New member
I have changed the refresh rate and I use a high quality DVI to HDMI cable (QED) and sure it looks fine.
However, my PC monitor is far superior to normal PC work. I've got a superb Panasonic Plasma which is awesome for the job it does, but imo TV's just aren't up to the job that a PC monitor does.
However, my PC monitor is far superior to normal PC work. I've got a superb Panasonic Plasma which is awesome for the job it does, but imo TV's just aren't up to the job that a PC monitor does.
Rastalovich
New member
Sometimes u got to think of things in terms of detail and screen size native resolutions.
A computer invariably writes a color to a pixel, and the pixel goes that color. Without any post processing, that's what u'll get.
If u like, TVs have the built in post processing. U write the pixel with the same computer and u'll get it, and perhaps something above it, to the left/right/beneath.
The computer monitor just writes the pixel as the computer intended. (in the majority of cases)
The native resolution thing is like imagining a standard 15" screen is 1280x1024, 20" wide is 1680x1050. If u get a 22" doing the 20" resolution, there's some stretch, or larger blocks if u like, from pixel to end result.
Same on an exaggerated theory if ur 40" TV does 1680x1050 (or a resolution around that). To overcome this, they work hard on post processing the display. Varying techs from one company to another.
Thing with computer monitors, like 20" to 22" - ur only talking about 2" extra on the diagonal, which is very small, u would seriously need a microscopic view to see any deflection of the images. 20" to a 24" (using 1680x1050) the differences are more visible, only in so much as comparing them to 24" native resolutions.
Some TVs with 1920 resolutions do have a "computer" mode u can attach to a feed or connection. This would in theory remove all processing. But it does appear that instead of doing the regular TV/Movie processing, it just does a variation of it. This is highly likely to prevent ur screen looking like a commodore 64. As after all, 24" native resolutions to 40"+ is almost 1:1.75 pixels. U gotta blend it somehow.
A computer invariably writes a color to a pixel, and the pixel goes that color. Without any post processing, that's what u'll get.
If u like, TVs have the built in post processing. U write the pixel with the same computer and u'll get it, and perhaps something above it, to the left/right/beneath.
The computer monitor just writes the pixel as the computer intended. (in the majority of cases)
The native resolution thing is like imagining a standard 15" screen is 1280x1024, 20" wide is 1680x1050. If u get a 22" doing the 20" resolution, there's some stretch, or larger blocks if u like, from pixel to end result.
Same on an exaggerated theory if ur 40" TV does 1680x1050 (or a resolution around that). To overcome this, they work hard on post processing the display. Varying techs from one company to another.
Thing with computer monitors, like 20" to 22" - ur only talking about 2" extra on the diagonal, which is very small, u would seriously need a microscopic view to see any deflection of the images. 20" to a 24" (using 1680x1050) the differences are more visible, only in so much as comparing them to 24" native resolutions.
Some TVs with 1920 resolutions do have a "computer" mode u can attach to a feed or connection. This would in theory remove all processing. But it does appear that instead of doing the regular TV/Movie processing, it just does a variation of it. This is highly likely to prevent ur screen looking like a commodore 64. As after all, 24" native resolutions to 40"+ is almost 1:1.75 pixels. U gotta blend it somehow.
There is a reason a 42" TV is cheaper than a 24" monitor and its all about quality. For kicks you may get away with a TV for a gaming session but they are completly impracticall for any actual PC use.
It may support 1920x1200, but the quality will be significantly worse and not just because of the post processing thats done by the TV. The color reproduction, pixel size and dimension and other related image properties tend to suck on TV's, hence the requirment for post processing.
Also even if you have the image quality, the shear image size becomes an issue, a freind managed to score a top of the line cinema quality digital projector, it is great fun but the shear scale makes it difficult to do much beyond watching videos and the ocasional short game session.
If you really want big, buy yourself a 30" monitor and be done with it, throw in a projector for movie viewing and your golden.
It may support 1920x1200, but the quality will be significantly worse and not just because of the post processing thats done by the TV. The color reproduction, pixel size and dimension and other related image properties tend to suck on TV's, hence the requirment for post processing.
Also even if you have the image quality, the shear image size becomes an issue, a freind managed to score a top of the line cinema quality digital projector, it is great fun but the shear scale makes it difficult to do much beyond watching videos and the ocasional short game session.
If you really want big, buy yourself a 30" monitor and be done with it, throw in a projector for movie viewing and your golden.
FarFarAway
New member
Aye deffo for PC use only a TV/Projector isn't the way to go. for movies though, a good plasma is superb. Anyone who says differently hasn't seen a proper plasma, set up well.
Rastalovich
New member
Actually playing with the settings makes a massive difference on all kinds of TVs tbh.
So many people take them out of the box and settle for how they are shipped. Or worse still, in-store settings.
So many people take them out of the box and settle for how they are shipped. Or worse still, in-store settings.
