Possibly dumb question -- tvs for pc displays

[Namelessme]

Something I've wondered about, and apologies in advance if it's a dumb question and has been covered in this forum somewhere before.... but what issues are there when using a tv lcd as a computer monitor?

Overlooking size, of course, but say someone was using a 27-32" IPS TV. Would it work as well as a regular IPS monitor? Or are there issues regarding electronics + settings in TVs themselves?

I was primarily wondering about the price differences. A 32" TV can be had for $300. A 30" IPS monitor is over a $1000. I realize something else must be going on as far as why the price is so much higher for the monitor, but don't know what that is (assuming panels are similar type).

Also curious if there is a database anywhere showing what panels are in certain TVs? I think my Sony is a PVA... not sure what my Vizio is... read it may be IPS, but unsure if it actually is. It does have a 178 degree angle though and unusually nice picture for being so cheap.

 

[extide]

One of the main things with a 30" computer monitor, is it will usually do 2560x1600 res. Thats quite a bit higher than the 1920x1080 res of a full HD TV set.

 

[Namelessme]

True, I forgot about the resolution differences.

But what about a 24 or 27" TV? Or perhaps they simply don't make any decent IPS tvs at that screen size?

 

[suiken_2mieu]

One of the main things with a 30" computer monitor, is it will usually do 2560x1600 res. Thats quite a bit higher than the 1920x1080 res of a full HD TV set.

This + 1

On top of that tv tend to have a lot of lag, and the pixel sizes are much bigger than monitors would be. Tvs are also only optimized to view videos, not to read text.

 

[Racer_J]

True, I forgot about the resolution differences.

But what about a 24 or 27" TV? Or perhaps they simply don't make any decent IPS tvs at that screen size?

There aren't any. Any "TV" less than 32" in size isn't a TV. It's a TN monitor with extra video inputs shoved into it and, you have to be concerned if the extra electronics will add lag and/or screw up text on HDMI. Even if/when they do start putting e-IPS panels in TVs under 32", they won't be any higher in resolution than 1920x1080 for a considerable amount of time. The only way higher resolutions are going to become widespread in the TV market is with the new ultra widescreens and once a new "OMG new ultra high res DVD format" is released to "force" the general consumer into purchasing a higher resolution unit. A majority of consumers simply have no need for anything higher than 1920x1080 right now especially after they got taken for a ride on 720p and 1080i.

On top of that tv tend to have a lot of lag, and the pixel sizes are much bigger than monitors would be. Tvs are also only optimized to view videos, not to read text.

Yet this TV displays text identical to a 930b monitor that has a much higher pixel density (7555 vs 4533 pixels / sq. in.). Not all TVs are bad at text and, a lower pixel density doesn't automatically equate into reduced "quality". The pixel density is only lower on certain TVs compared to certain monitors. If they are both the same size panel and the resolution is the same the pixel density will be as well (e.g. 24" monitor @ 1920x1080 vs a 24" TV @ 1920x1080 will both have a pixel density of 8428 pixels per sq. in.) Not all monitors are higher than 1920x1080 and, not all people need/want one higher than that so it's unfair to toss around a blanket statements that can/will be misconstrued.

To be fair some TVs will be absolutely atrocious as a monitor. At the same time certain monitors will be horrible at their primary function. Everything has its pros and cons depending on the actual needs (not desires) of the intended application.

 

[suiken_2mieu]

@racer j: well go tell that to the hdtv thread who are looking for tvs with 4:4:4 and "low" input lag. There are few and far between. Blanket it maybe, but generallizations come from some whete. If you wsnt to use a tv as a monitor do some research.

 

[Namelessme]

There aren't any. Any "TV" less than 32" in size isn't a TV. It's a TN monitor with extra video inputs shoved into it and, you have to be concerned if the extra electronics will add lag and/or screw up text on HDMI. Even if/when they do start putting e-IPS panels in TVs under 32", they won't be any higher in resolution than 1920x1080 for a considerable amount of time.

I was wondering about something like the 26" Vizio -- VL260M

I've read it has an S-IPS panel. I've also read some people have used it as a monitor. Yeah, it is only 1920x1080, but due to price differences vs a 27" IPS monitor, that trade-off could be worth it.

Assuming anyone can even find them for sale anymore, that is.

The lag and other things mentioned could be an issue too. I guess I was wondering if there was anything inherently wrong with using a tv as a monitor, and what the differences were. I also have a hard time understanding why a 24" IPS (not e-ips) goes for $400-$500, and a 27" can be close to $1000... when IPS tvs may be a fraction of the price for that size. Resolution for the 27"+ models could explain it, I guess... just seems dis-proportionally high-priced to me.

 

[Racer_J]

@racer j: well go tell that to the hdtv thread who are looking for tvs with 4:4:4 and "low" input lag. There are few and far between. Blanket it maybe, but generallizations come from some whete. If you wsnt to use a tv as a monitor do some research.

I've done extensive research on the topic along with making rather in depth posts in both the thread here and at the one at AVS.

The point I was making was that the loss of pixel density (up to a certain point) isn't what affects the text. The generalization used was incorrect which is why I posted what I did. Actual TVs tend to be bad at text because of the issue with 4:4:4 not the pixel density. The loss of pixel density comes into play with image/video editing which is the only reason 2560x1600 displays exist in the first place. Almost no one is gaming at that resolution as the FPS on even the best cards is entirely to low which will leave most people gaming at 1920x1080. Once everyone is able to fully take advantage of a 2560x1600 display it will be a different story. Well, it will actually be a similar situation as there will be an even higher resolution display at that point which will be intended for image/video editing.


For the sake of clarity what people purchase and why they do so is entirely up to them and, I'm not going to pass judgment on them one way or the other. I have no interest in convincing anyone to go one way or the other as everyone's intended/future use is going to differ.

 

[Racer_J]

I was wondering about something like the 26" Vizio -- VL260M

Assuming anyone can even find them for sale anymore, that is.

That looks like it's a 2009 model so I would guess the second hand market is the only place you will see them.

The lag and other things mentioned could be an issue too. I guess I was wondering if there was anything inherently wrong with using a tv as a monitor, and what the differences were. I also have a hard time understanding why a 24" IPS (not e-ips) goes for $400-$500, and a 27" can be close to $1000... when IPS tvs may be a fraction of the price for that size. Resolution for the 27"+ models could explain it, I guess... just seems dis-proportionally high-priced to me.

It depends on what the intended use of the TV as a monitor will be and what size the TV is. I can make out the pixels on a 37" @ 1920x1080 from 3' to 2' away from it. I would say the sweet spot is a 32" but others say it's 37" and then others say it's 40" and then some say 50"+ isn't an issue.

The increased resolution is part of the reason 27" IPS monitors are so expensive. The other part of the reason is people are willing to pay for it. You're going to have a really hard time finding an actual TV under 32" with anything other than a TN panel in it. It's sort of a difficult task to find an IPS panel at 32"+ unless you are willing to spend a fairly decent amount of money or play the panel lottery on certain sets.

The biggest problem you're going to run to is there is a short list of confirmed 4:4:4 TVs and most of them are discontinued and have already been clearanced out. I think the only TV left in that list with the chance of an IPS panel is the LG 32LK450 (CUSY product code). The Panasonic U3s are still available as well and they can't do 4:4:4 but, they are currently the lowest lag TVs.

You'll have to make a list of what you actually need and then decide if you are willing to compromise. You could always guinea pig TVs as well. I did and found an outstanding one but, both it and the replacement had manufacturing defects and it was clearanced out before the replacement arrived so I had to migrate to a different make/model. One thing that is nonnegotiable though is that the maximum resolution on a TV is going to be 1920x1080 and it needs to be able to do 4:4:4 or the quality is going to suffer as a monitor.

To try and narrow your search down, you can do a model search at shopjimmy and see if they carry the mainboard for the TV as you should be able to find the panel information that way. The other option is to call the manufacturer and see if you can get a replacement part number for the panel and then Google that. Just remember that a lot of TVs are still VA panels.


You could also skip the TV altogether and get one of the Korean 2560x1600 monitors for under $400 and then get the Squaretrade warranty on it that will pick up after the 1 year manufacturer's warranty is up. It really just depends on what you need and want to spend.

 

[SH1]

If one goes LCD, I do like the idea of using a TV, because I think it maximizes LCD's one PQ advantage meaningful to me -- size. (Also some TVs have better blacks/contrast than many LCD computer monitors...)

And I did use a 40 inch previously when I thought my CRT was broken. Was kind of neat. Back then, at least, Samsung had a "pc mode" that basically made the set an instant computer monitor. (At 40 inches, it was ergonomically questionable, even stripped down to essentially the panel...)

With this 4:4 issue and such, sounds like the prospect of using a TV as a monitor is quite a bit bleaker now though...

 

[Racer_J]

If one goes LCD, I do like the idea of using a TV, because I think it maximizes LCD's one PQ advantage meaningful to me -- size. (Also some TVs have better blacks/contrast than many LCD computer monitors...)

And I did use a 40 inch previously when I thought my CRT was broken. Was kind of neat. Back then, at least, Samsung had a "pc mode" that basically made the set an instant computer monitor. (At 40 inches, it was ergonomically questionable, even stripped down to essentially the panel...)

With this 4:4 issue and such, sounds like the prospect of using a TV as a monitor is quite a bit bleaker now though...

The 4:4:4 issue only involves the HDMI signal. It's not an issue over VGA. However there's really no point in using a digital display with an analogue signal if a digital signal is available which brings back the issue of 4:4:4 over HDMI and does make things a little bleak. Some TVs allow you to change to a different mode, some TVs allow you to rename the input, some TVs allow for both of those things, and some TVs allow neither. There are TVs that need to do some of those things to trigger 4:4:4 over HDMI and there are some TVs that can't do any of those things and can still trigger 4:4:4. Some are able to do it over HDMI>HDMI but some may have to stick with DVI>HDMI. You might also have to do an EDID overdrive if you are using a Nvidia card.

That's what makes finding a 4:4:4 TV a little "tricky" as manufacturers aren't currently advertising it (barring Sharp's new top tier sets) and the average consumer has no idea about it. If more people knew about it and were testing for it (e.g. review sites) the list would probably be a bit longer. Until Sharp's recent move though, it wasn't something that was intentionally put into a TV. The TV either had it or it didn't. If this move helps Sharp sell it's new top tier units, it will likely trickle down to other manufacturers that have to compete. Hopefully, it will trickle down to the cheaper sets as well but it could just as easily remain atop tier option.

At some point though, a manufacturer is going to realize more and more people are looking for an all in one solution and they are going to access the risk to cost ratio for making a truly low lag/fast response/4:4:4 TV that doesn't require any fiddling with different types of input cables or EDID overrides. While that may come at an initial premium, it would likely start to catch on very quickly as it has the potential to capture a large chunk of the market in both the average consumer for TVs and monitors. The catch is, it would have to do extremely well as both a TV and a monitor in order to garner the "approval" of the die hard monitor and TV consumer as well as enthusiast consumers in both of those categories. A misstep could result in a string of "backlash/badmouthing/complaints/etc." that would quickly find its way into the hands of the general marketplace as it would be posted in every site review known to man.


Out of curiosity, were you using VGA or HDMI on the Samsung?

 

[SH1]

HDMI.

(I agree...would not want to use VGA with an LCD. And it was an older Samsung I used, LNT4065. I don't think 4:4:4 was an issue with that set in pc mode. Everything looked good for what it was. The backlighting was a bit uneven at low brightness, but I guess that, alas, is common...)

 

[Neenja_Jenkins]

First, I gotta ask what you're using this for? Gaming? Work? All of the above? Coming from your same situation, there are downsides, it just depends on how picky you are.
For a while, I was using my 55" LED as a monitor, and gaming was of course pretty awesome...for a while.

Good points are as you said, Price. You can't beat it. 30" monitors are expensive as hell. Plus, if your using it for gaming, 1080P is much easier to do on a rig than 2560x1600. So if your machine isn't fairly awesome, this might make a difference. I wouldn't worry too much about lag either. Any HDTV worth it's price today has a gaming mode or PC mode that significantly improves lag.

Bad points: Surfing was difficult as text was always hard to read. There are fixes, but it still wears on the eyes after a while. Eventually, I found that 1080P wasn't nearly enough, and I wanted more resolution. I can say that my 30" 2560x1600 monitor was well worth it.

If you're not wanting to shell out for a big 30", maybe the new 120hz monitors will be good? 1080P, and 120hz is supposed to be pretty nice.