Need 30in + LCD For Computer Monitor

A

Al Shades

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
314
I'm looking to purchase a large-screen TV to replace my current 24" HP w2408h LCD monitor. My desired screen size is 32-40" and I'm hoping to save money by purchasing a used or refurb model from ebay. I'd like to spend under or around $500 if I can help it.

The intended use of this display will be desktop-level computing tasks such as web browsing, office work, and media viewing. The main reason I'm upgrading is because I need additional screen space. I don't do any graphics work and for the past few years I've had several glossy LCD displays. However, I don't know if LCD makers make glossy displays for TV's so I'd be content to settle for a matte screen. It will not be used as a TV or media center at all.

Questions/considerations:

1) Are LCD TV's and LCD monitors basically interchangeable if they have the same specs?

2) If not, what specs should I be looking at for comp usage?

3) Pixel size is relatively important to me since I wear glasses and do lots of reading on the computer. I look at some of the setups in the sticky thread and have no idea how people manage to see anything on their screens when their monitors are sitting 3 feet away and they're using massive resolutions which reduce all fonts to grains of sand. Up until now, I've been coping with this by enlarging DPI size in XP display settings, so it may be a non-issue.

I'm looking for recommendations on which displays to buy. There are thousands listed on ebay. Does anyone know why the display below is so cheap?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009269
HTML:
 
Last edited:
A TV would have less "screen space" technically. 1080p corresponds to 1920x1080, which is a lower resolution then your 1920x1200. However since you are enlarging things in windows you'd have to calculate how much more/less/etc. screen space you are actually getting. However if you leave everything at default size, you would actually fit less content on the screen due to the lower resolution.

4) It is hz not mhz btw, but for this spec it would not matter for your usage. The TVs you are saying use frame insertion during post processing to smooth playback on video. However this would not apply to computer usage, and would actually add a lot of input lag. If you actually want smoother performance for computer work you would need a screen that takes 120hz input.

The display you listed is less expensive because it is a TN, Typically TVs at 32inch+ will be using VA or IPS type panels, which are more expensive.

Edit: Nevermind, looking more closely, the display you linked is likely a VA of some type. But it isn't really that "cheap." The Sony EX400 32inch is also available for under $500 I think. Samsung and LG have products under that price point as well.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't going from say, 24" to 50" at the same resolution result in a massive pixel pitch enlargement? I don't see how it wouldn't if you're doubling the area of the display yet keeping the number of pixels in that area the same.
Do all HDTV's top out at 1920x1080?

Here's an idea:

As hardware pixel pitch increases, software pixel pitch should be decreased (via display settings) in order to "compensate," and vice versa. Doing this would actually give me more screen space, would it not?

Failing that, what are my options? I don't want to get a duplicate monitor because I'd hate to see the edge of a screen in the middle of my display.

Currently I'm running at 1920x1200 with 116 DPI set in XP display settings. This is significantly larger than the default setting. My icons and fonts are actually readable without a magnifying glass and that's how I'd want to keep them, only with more overall space. Of course, I could get more overall space now by simply reducing my software DPI, but that wouldn't keep things in proportion.

I don't understand why displays would "top out" at any given resolution. It seems logical and intuitive that with ever larger screen sizes should come ever-higher pixel counts and thus higher resolutions.

If a display receives an input signal in a resolution lower then its max then it should simply downgrade its output quality (via increasing software DPI) to compensate. So a 960x600 signal running on a 1920x1200 display would simply have its DPI multiplied by a factor of 4, for example.
 
Last edited:
Content is sized typically according to pixels. So a screen with say 1920x1080 would display the same amount whether it is 10 inches or 60 inches. Of course you are right in terms of pixel pitch, everything will look tiny on the 10 inch and very large on the 60 inch at the same distance, but they are still displaying the same amount of total information on the screen.

From a TV perspective they top out at 1920x1080 because content for TV tops out at 1920x1080 currently. There would be no incentive for consumers to pay extra for the higher resolution, and so manufacturers do not opt to release/develop such models. Combined with the fact you typically sit further the larger the screen, the large pixel pitch issue doesn't really present itself. Of course if you press your face up to a 1080p 32inch vs. 60inch you can tell the difference.

Now in your case you might get an effective increase in screen real estate even though the resolution is lower, since I assume you won't need to enlarge DPI anymore with the larger screen (due to the inherently higher pixel pitch). But from what I know DPI scaling has always been a little "flaky" in the sense not all programs properly adhere to it, so I'm not sure what the actual difference would be in your case.

For an actual higher resolution display that has a real screen estate improvement due to the higher resolution you are looking at very pricey monitors however.
 
Well, this is an interesting conundrum, if nothing else. Thanks for your input.
 
I will note that there are higher resolution large screen LCDs for sale, but you really don't want to know the price. Barco and some others make large screen LCDs that are near 4k (as in nearly 4000 horizontal pixels) but they are all 5 figures.
 
Haha, is there an online retailer that stocks these types of displays? Maybe I'll go for 2560x1600. That's the most common resolution for 30" LCD's right?
 
You might be able to score a 3007WFP for $500-700 used.
 
30" are $$$ because they are very low volume and very high cost to produce. Getting all those pixels to come out perfect from a manufacturing process is quite costly in terms of rejects. And despite the number of 30" models in these forums they are actually very low volume products.

Sadly that translates to price being high, advances in quality being very, very slow, and things like LED backlights so pricey that few makers can manage them.

Painful but true.
 
I was in the same boat man. Recently just bought an LG 32" LD450 for ~420 shipped on amazon and couldnt be happier. This was an upgrade from my 20" Dell 2007wfp, which I still keep for text---though i'm still pretty happy with the text on the 32" LG.

It comes with a calibration wizard if you're a newb like me, full 1080p. Style's cool.

hope that helps,phone-camera pics: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1036215788&postcount=21
 
Krescent, would you mind putting up a few photos of your display at desktop and with browser running? Preferably with a non phone camera, if you have one. Thanks

To other people, what is the best 32" HDTV LCD today for use as computer monitor? The one with the sharpest text clarity?
 
Last edited:
No problem here looking at 1080p on a 32" Viera. Image is good, text is good. I'm a bit less than 1 meter away from the screen.
 
I still do not understand the draw to 30 inch dells 2560x and what not. I have a 37 inch LG LCD that I run at 1920x1080. The image is clear as day and gaming is a joy on it. I paid 600$ and my eyes thank me for the increased font size. I can't do pc gaming on anything less anymore. I think it's a no brainer. I would avoid the 30 inch dells. The price they charge for them is way too much IMO. You could get 3 or 4 32 inch panels for the cost of one Dell 30inch. The only thing is the resolution is a bit lower.
 
jarablue said:
I still do not understand the draw to 30 inch dells 2560x and what not. I have a 37 inch LG LCD that I run at 1920x1080. The image is clear as day and gaming is a joy on it. I paid 600$ and my eyes thank me for the increased font size. I can't do pc gaming on anything less anymore. I think it's a no brainer. I would avoid the 30 inch dells. The price they charge for them is way too much IMO. You could get 3 or 4 32 inch panels for the cost of one Dell 30inch. The only thing is the resolution is a bit lower.
Click to expand...

Well the resolutions IS one of the draws. If your eyesight is good, it allows you to have more screen realestate. Also things can be scaled up. You can turn up the scaling in Windows to deal with higher DPI monitors. The advantage of that is things look smoother. The 90ish DPI that most normal computer monitors hover around isn't enough to produce a truly smooth image. You need something more in the realm of 200-300. Of course the Dell display isn't that high, it is only 101 DPI, but still it makes things smoother.

Quality is another potential issue. The big IPS LCDs are pretty damn high quality, which is part of the reason they cost a lot. You get a nice image. Cheaper TVs may not be as good. I bought a $1000 Samsung 46" TV and I love the thing, but it isn't nearly as high quality as my 26" NEC, which cost about $1200.

I'm not saying it is the One True Way(tm) but there are valid reasons to want 30" monitors rather than TVs.

Also I would argue that if vision is the problem, glasses are the solution. I have two sets of glasses. One are my regular ones, just to correct my astigmatism. My other set adjust to focus of things so that everything is a little larger, and I can only focus close up. Means I can't wear them walking around, they are for computer use only, but my eyes are at rest when using the computer.

Regardless, TVs certainly can be a solution if you want larger pixels or if you want to place this display further away. However it isn't the only solution or the best solution. Depends on the needs of the individual.
 
Sycraft said:
I will note that there are higher resolution large screen LCDs for sale, but you really don't want to know the price. Barco and some others make large screen LCDs that are near 4k (as in nearly 4000 horizontal pixels) but they are all 5 figures.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you have the time to get one running (they're difficult to set up) you can get an IBM T221 from eBay for around the same as a 30 incher. They're 3840x2400 at 22.2", albeit with slow (41 Hz or 48 Hz) max refresh rates using multiple DVI cables. 204 ppi is a sight to behold like none other. The screen real estate is unbelievable, too:








jarablue said:
I still do not understand the draw to 30 inch dells 2560x and what not. I have a 37 inch LG LCD that I run at 1920x1080. The image is clear as day and gaming is a joy on it. I paid 600$ and my eyes thank me for the increased font size. I can't do pc gaming on anything less anymore. I think it's a no brainer. I would avoid the 30 inch dells. The price they charge for them is way too much IMO. You could get 3 or 4 32 inch panels for the cost of one Dell 30inch. The only thing is the resolution is a bit lower.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the draw to giant 60 ppi displays. My eyes thank me for laser-sharp text on screen at 204 ppi, because it is scaled up to normal size thanks to Windows 7 and Firefox scaling. It's like reading a large print book, not a computer screen.

I spent a fair amount of time using my roommate's 28 inch 1920x1200 monitor, and it was impressive but being able to see the pixels and even the space between them absolutely disgusted me. It also hurt my eyes because of the almost moire-like behavior of the black space between them.

So you can keep your blocky, "I can see individual pixels", faux-sharp giant displays for yourself. Once everything in Windows is vectorized, the shift to 200-300+ ppi displays will be inevitable. It's already happening in smart phones, where there is even more benefit thanks to size being a constraint on display size. The reason it hasn't scaled up to monitors except in the case of the T221 is because the yield for such high pixel count dies is very low. Of course, it has been improving greatly - 150 ppi laptop displays aren't uncommon now.

Now I agree, the 30 inch displays are very expensive for the gain over a 24 inch 1920x1200 display.




Al Shades said:
Wouldn't going from say, 24" to 50" at the same resolution result in a massive pixel pitch enlargement? I don't see how it wouldn't if you're doubling the area of the display yet keeping the number of pixels in that area the same.
Do all HDTV's top out at 1920x1080?

Here's an idea:

As hardware pixel pitch increases, software pixel pitch should be decreased (via display settings) in order to "compensate," and vice versa. Doing this would actually give me more screen space, would it not?

Failing that, what are my options? I don't want to get a duplicate monitor because I'd hate to see the edge of a screen in the middle of my display.

Currently I'm running at 1920x1200 with 116 DPI set in XP display settings. This is significantly larger than the default setting. My icons and fonts are actually readable without a magnifying glass and that's how I'd want to keep them, only with more overall space. Of course, I could get more overall space now by simply reducing my software DPI, but that wouldn't keep things in proportion.

I don't understand why displays would "top out" at any given resolution. It seems logical and intuitive that with ever larger screen sizes should come ever-higher pixel counts and thus higher resolutions.

If a display receives an input signal in a resolution lower then its max then it should simply downgrade its output quality (via increasing software DPI) to compensate. So a 960x600 signal running on a 1920x1200 display would simply have its DPI multiplied by a factor of 4, for example.
Click to expand...

The problem with scaling down in size is that then you don't have enough pixels to create a good representation of the character or image you are trying to represent. Doing the reverse - scaling up - will result in far better quality characters/images that are actually easier to read, because they look closer to what 600 dpi laser printed documents look like.

You can experiment by using holding CRTL and pressing + or - to increase/decrease the size of everything in your browser. Notice how smoother everything gets when you increase the size? It can only do that because the screen has more pixels. A larger screen looks just as blocky as a smaller screen - just blocky in a bigger size.
 
I think I'll wait until Black Friday to upgrade. Appreciate the input on this thread, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top