It makes more sense to buy TVs than monitors

  • Thread starter Deleted member 273615
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 273615

Guest
After spending time in this section and researching monitors for the last week, I came to a truly sad conclusion... The quality difference between today's affordable SPVA/Plasma TVs and VA/IPS/PLS/TN monitors is mind-boggling. There is literally no way to get it all - affordable price, excellent color accuracy, acceptable contrast ratio of at least 2500:1, acceptable uniformity, lack of severe backlight bleed, and etc. when it comes to monitors, unless you are wiling to gamble until or if you get lucky. I just ordered Eizo Foris FG2421, but I expect utter poop that will get refunded, allowing me to get either a better videocard or better yet - Samsung F5350 plasma TV with excellent contrast ratio, blacks, uniformity, response times, but not a decent input lag for MP games, which I would simply give up on!

Most console gamers end up enjoying better picture than PC gamers simply because they use TVs instead of monitors, even though their consoles produce lower quality visuals. While there are no LightBoost TVs out there and many (but not all!) do tend to have only an adequate input lag, they still outperform monitors in just about every way! 120Hz is interpolated, but these days it has reached a point where you can't even see artifacts. Uniformity, while only excellent on plasma sets, is miles ahead on SPVA TVs when compared to IPS/PLS/TN/AMVA+ monitors... Panel lottery exists with TVs too, but not to the same extent and I think only with Samsung sets. Almost any good TV can be properly calibrated using internal controls - from grayscale to colorspace, allowing you to reach that IPS level color accuracy, while maintaining acceptable or even excellent black levels with full-array local/micro dimming features. Hell, Panasonic quit making plasma TVs because of several reasons, but one of the reason is because they released an IPS panel prototype that has black levels lower than those of VT60! Although its only a prototype and is likely to outperform the real product, consumer units will still be excellent.

I think it just means that gaming has gone big-screen. It absolutely sucks that Eizo Foris FG2421 and CRTs are the ONLY pro MP gaming monitors with good black level and contrast ratio. Sure, you can't enjoy eye candy all that much when you're focused on fragging newbz in BF4, but is that really true? I want my MP games to look just as good as SP games!

If you're an SP gamer - get yourself a good 40"+ SPVA or plasma. For MP gamers - there really are some excellent TVs with low input lag and "fake" but still great-performing 120Hz interpolated refresh rate. VT60, for example, has low input lag and plasma at 60Hz has 2.5 the amount of motion resolution LCDs have. Sony TVs tend to have very low input lag too. Sure, they are expensive, but why not just save up for one awesome TV than go through many monitor buying attempts and headaches from dissapointments? I bought a 40" Samsung CCFL SPVA in 2009 for $750, and outside of few super-mild issues, it outperforms just about any monitor out there in almost all aspects. I also bought ASUS VG248QE LightBoost monitor for MP games and recommended it to others for improved K/D ratio! Guess what? I actually do better on my TV than on a LightBoost monitor when it comes to K/D ratio. A LightBoost monitor may make it somewhat easier for you, but it won't let you become a pro in the long run. I also tried gaming on Samsung S27C750P monitor that is more or less a good AMVA panel, but it doesn't come close to my TV when it comes to image quality! There is no backlight bleed, only mild unifromity issue, the whole "VA black crush" is 10 times worse on S27C750P than on this TV. S27C750P has similar contrast ratio, but it ends up having silverish screen for blacks! TV blacks are fully black - no silverish crap!

I would also suggest going for CCFL over LED as LED is just cheaper and has a higher chance of light bleeding. People bought the idea of LED being superior, but it really isn't. The only thing to watch out for with older CCFL TVs is input lag and response times. That, and gaming on an uncalibrated screen is just a gaming sin and is against all video quality principles. The notion that calibration is needed only for photo editing is utter crap, be it TV or monitor. Its really not that difficult, but does require an investment of money, time, and effort. The end-result is worth every penny though! Gaming on a big calibrated TV screen with excellent blacks is a must if you want to properly experience those AMD R9 290x or nVidia GTX 780 visual capabilities in the latest games. A real MUST.
 
BpQwW.gif
 
pixel density...

TV aren't mean to be sat in front of with 1-3Ft of distance, the pixel density would drive me mad!
 
MrGuvernment said:
pixel density...

TV aren't mean to be sat in front of with 1-3Ft of distance, the pixel density would drive me mad!
Click to expand...


BTDT, and I wanted to gouge out my eyes. I think mine was 4ft.
I already told the OP about my experience with plasma for gaming. Maybe he's blind in more than one way? :D
 
I would think so, TV's are meant for far distance viewing, not desk distance viewing, that is why a 32' TV is so cheap vs a 32" LCD monitor....

different quality screen, sure they could make a monitor with everything you want but are you willing to pay that much money for it, and also then it is a very very very niche market...
 
Another problem with CCFLs is that they dim slowly over time.

My LED backlit monitor that I bought over 4 years ago is still as bright as the day I got it. The CCFL backlit display I bought 5 years before that went straight to recycling, as I could barely see anything on the screen anymore. At that point it just doesn't make financial sense to fix it, even if I were to do the labor.
 
MrGuvernment said:
I would think so, TV's are meant for far distance viewing, not desk distance viewing, that is why a 32' TV is so cheap vs a 32" LCD monitor....

different quality screen, sure they could make a monitor with everything you want but are you willing to pay that much money for it, and also then it is a very very very niche market...
Click to expand...

I picked up a Westinghouse 40" 1080p 120Hz LED TV during black Friday for a little over $200. IMO it has just as good of quality as regular computer monitors.

Not sure if the "input lag" mentioned is as low as a regular monitor, but the picture sure is nice.

I have hooked it up to a couple different computers, used it within a couple feet.. actually less since the keyboard was on the table that the TV sits on.. and it looked just fine to me.

And of course the pixel density is going to be less than on a smaller monitor, whether or not you are talking about a 40" TV or a 40" computer monitor. The same as if you have a 5" vs 7" screen that both run at the same resolution.
 
TVs don't dim enough for me. Most monitors done either, but there are a few that will. I've yet to see a TV dim enough for me to comfortably view late at night in a dark room.

There's also the fact that most TVs can't properly display red text.
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
There's also the fact that most TVs can't properly display red text.
Click to expand...


That was one of the major problems I had with my Plasma.

Also, I want to thank you for not putting an apostrophe on TVs! My sir, you are a rare man! :D
 
I used a 2007 40" 1080P S-PVA Samsung for a couple of years. Going with a TV maximized what I find is LCD's one major picture quality advantage -- size. And the TV also had better contrast and black levels versus the computer monitors of the time.( Also debezeled it, which lowered it and made it a bit better ergonomically, but still a stretch.) All in all, it was quite impressive for what it was.

That said, I'm afraid the high resolution displays used in today's mobile devices ruined me for low pixel density panels (with the former's sharpness without the harshness).

And it would be hard for me to give up CRT black levels and picture depth again.

If one goes the TV route, Vizio's upcoming 4K locally dimmed P and R series sets have stirred some interest...
 
I play on a Sony KDL55W900A. It's a great PC gaming TV for an LCD (Mostly used Panny Plasma's in the past). Very low input lag when set to game or graphic mode, and using impulse motionflow mimics lightboost but @ 60hz so motion blur is vastly reduced.
 
Not sure how you can even compare these things. You can't sit at normal desk distance from a TV to game on unless you buy a very very small one and don't mind clearly seeing pixels the size of barn doors. Not everyone cares about k/d ratios or even plays first person shooters, for that matter, either, and there are plenty of types of games where fast movement is far less important than still detail and text clarity.

So... maybe it makes more sense TO YOU to buy TVs than monitors, but claiming this applies to anyone except a small minority that prioritizes very specific, narrow things, is a little crazy.
 
Sancus said:
. Not everyone cares about k/d ratios or even plays first person shooters, for that matter, either, and there are plenty of types of games where fast movement is far less important than still detail and text clarity.
Click to expand...

Just about any game where you are panning the view will benefit from a strobed backlight. Hell, any game where there is movement of any sort will benefit. This holds for RTS games, racing games, first person shooters, etc. The textures of the environment will retain their detail during such movements.

Sancus said:
So... maybe it makes more sense TO YOU to buy TVs than monitors, but claiming this applies to anyone except a small minority that prioritizes very specific, narrow things, is a little crazy.
Click to expand...

the demand for accurate colors, good contrast, strobed/scanning backlights, and low input lag is not narrow and specific, and from what I can gather, there is about to be a proliferation of monitors that attempt to meet these criteria precisely because they are reasonable.
 
spacediver said:
the demand for accurate colors, good contrast, strobed/scanning backlights, and low input lag is not narrow and specific, and from what I can gather, there is about to be a proliferation of monitors that attempt to meet these criteria precisely because they are reasonable.
Click to expand...

I dunno why you're making up points to respond to. Nowhere in my post did I say that those things don't matter at all. It's not about what "will benefit". You don't make huge pixel density sacrifices for strobed backlighting or better contrast on a desktop monitor. That's all.
 
Sancus said:
I dunno why you're making up points to respond to. This thread isn't about how it would be nice to have better contrast and strobed backlighting. I never said that those things aren't important at all, nor did I say that wanting them on top of what existing monitors offer is bad.... what I said was that it's crazy to make major sacrifices in pixel density for them.
Click to expand...

I misunderstood your post then, my bad.
 
spacediver said:
I misunderstood your post then, my bad.
Click to expand...

No big deal. I would love a monitor that has allofthethings too(strobed backlighting, OLED level black levels, perfectly accurate colours, etc). But if it was 1080p and 42 inch, it'd be totally useless to me and to just about everyone who uses a desktop normally.
 
Agreed. The only way I can see it working is if you have the tv far enough away that each pixel subtends a similar visual angle to that of a higher density display at a closer distance.

Even then, you'd need a tv that can handle proper full range RGB input.
 
Sorry but TVs are purpose built to be TVs. I have used one for gaming, it was alright in a multi monitor setup. But as a main monitor, absolutely was terrible. Text looked extremely crappy and it gave me headaches.
 
jojo69 said:
this is a joke thread...right?
Click to expand...

Nope - Sony W8/W9 series tv destroy any pc display - and they do it with <10ms input lag while being multi input and using strobing.

Biggest problem is they don't make them smaller than 40" which is way too big for pc usage.
 
Michaelius said:
Nope - Sony W8/W9 series tv destroy any pc display - and they do it with <10ms input lag while being multi input and using strobing.

Biggest problem is they don't make them smaller than 40" which is way too big for pc usage.
Click to expand...


I'm going to partially agree as I currently have a 55" W900a. I'm not sure it absolutely destroys any PC specific display (My Dell ultrasharp is still really good when I'm at my standing desk) but I do find this TV has many more gaming related features than many other PC specific displays on the market.

If Sony were to make a true 4k display @ 60hz (I believe their current 4k TV's will get an eventual HDMI 2.0 firmware update to allow this) and with all the same features of a W900a, then that would be the ultimate gaming display in my opinion.

Also all of these new Sony TV's have 4:4:4 natively so text looks just as good on my screen (with proper distance) then my Ultrasharp. If you are sitting 1-2 feet away from a 55-65" monitor @1080p then any text/graphics are going to look a bit pixelated. The screensize is simply too big for that resolution. I think if Sony came out with a 39-42" true 4k TV with all the features of the W900a, then that would look perfect sitting 1-2 feet away.
 
Pixel density is only an issue if you decide to be stupid and sit real close to a TV. Move 5ft away and its perfect if you have a 40" TV. You would have to move further away for bigger screens though...

You can easily set up a desk-like environment where you can use your mouse and keyboard just like on any PC desk.

Text thing is BS. You just need to know more about TVs and something called subsampling. Most TVs can work in 4:4:4 mode today, but even in 4:2:2 mode some TVs show perfectly fine text.. Its also true that some don't... That is why you do your research and find the one that does.

Are there light-strobing TVs out there? I haven't heard of any...so aside from that and the feeling of privacy, there aren't many good reasons to use monitors instead of TVs.

Crappy TVs will cost little, but aside from professional-grade monitors, most monitors are worse than mid-quality TVs.
 
True 120hz -144hz input on computer monitors are capable of showing more recent and more frequent unique world states. No tv can do that
(other than a few hacks on particular models mentioned on www.blurbusters.com with varied/inconsistent results).

TV's typically have more input lag. Even on some of the better input lag ones, people say things like "not bad - for a tv". Back when I played it, I found playing ps3 move "quickdraw" and target shooting games impossible/frustrating to play on most tvs due to ghosting and high input lag. (I hooked it up to my xbr960 34" ws crt in order to be able to play those).

TV's also blur a lot being 60hz input, and their 120hz+ is not really new unique frames, relying on interpolation. This hardware usually causes input lag and screen abberations(while enabled) by design, in many cases the input lag can still be quite high even when the "120hz" option is disabled ~ "gaming mode". A lot of TV's also have ghosting on high speed motion (especially VA's, though their black levels are good for a LCD).

Unless you set it back ~ 4+ -> 5' or more as someone wisely mentioned, 37"+ tv is literally "eye-bending" to the periphery (perhaps even micro-neck bending). This is because games use virtual cinematography (virtual cameras) with the same essential FoV. Unless games allowed you to define a primary virtual monitor/camera space in the middle with all of the extents being additional FoV for immersion, you are just going to get the same scene JUMBO on a wall in front of you regardless of the rez and screen size (i.e. 16:9 scene is same 16:9 scene from virtual camera).

Soon, we will have true 120hz input g-sync monitors, capable of a dynamic hz function (which eliminates screen abberations caused by inferior fps/overblown graphics settings vs gpu power)or a ulmb mode (zero blur via backlight strobing). The one I am eyeing is 2560x1440 27".

No TV's have true 120hz input by design. No TV's will have gsync /ulmb strobing, (at least not for the foreseeable future afaik).
web-cyb.org: 120hz-fps-comparisons
(There may be a sony tv with backlight strobing (mentioned on www.blurbusters.com) but it is 60hz so likely has obvious flicker. Also have to question the input lag and ghosting, etc).

The push for very high resolution is putting the cart before the horse imo by the way. Considerable enthusiast gpu budgets will have low fps and will be seeing "freeze frames" through multiple screen updates (hz), resulting in lower motion tracking and lower motion+animation definition - as described in the previous link. People will probably use g-sync to achieve higher still frame eye candy, depending on g-sync's dynamic hz function in order to suffer a moderate to low fps+hz roller coaster ride while avoiding screen aberrations, but they will lose out on the ulmb zero blur motion mode unless they play non-demanding games that allow high fps (like source games, older games, etc). That is, other than the few exceptions that go to extreme gpu budgets of course.
Best case scenario imo would be very high fps for the max motion tracking/motion&animation definition and use ulmb mode for zero blur. That kind of fps (120+) is impossible on many modern games at highest settings on even healthy enthusiast gpu budgets without going to extreme gpu budgets at 1080p and 1440p. 4k forget about it.
forums.evga.com GTX 780Ti Benchmarks 1x-4x SLI (Work in Progress)
hardware canucks: Metro-LL vs various single cards at 2560x1440 no AA

Going forward, eventually the oculus rift will come out. The current prototype uses high hz input and some sort of low persistence/strobing mode to eliminate blur. Consoles (typically an 8 yr cycle) won't be able to output higher than 60hz output and aren't be capable of high fps at high resolutions, and typically have to dumb down the textures to be less demanding so they look "muddier". Future revisions of the oculus rift and competitors will likely be higher resolution display and textures in the following years as well, since rez is even more important in a VR setup where everything is huge(including pixels).
http://www.web-cyb.org/hardware-info/oculus-rift_ces-interview-transcript.htm
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top