New computer screen: LCD Monitor or LED-LCD TV?

[AD Chaos]

Hello all

I'm planning a new build to set up a computer for my workspace (guitar teaching). I've been looking at computer LCD monitors (up to 27'' seem to have reasonable prices), was almost decided on this (seems good bang for the buck and not so hideous):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001431

However I've been wondering about the possibility of using a Led TV instead.. Have to spend more $$ but I also get a much larger screen, which seems more comfortable for working on GP files, sequences and scores with the students, watching guitar videos, some pr0n or games maybe , etc. This one at a store interested me today, image looked sharp and bright (at least with a DVD or Blu-ray feed, not sure about that):

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/LG-42LV3500-42-Inch-1080p-LED-LCD/dp/B004OVEVOM/[/ame]


Are any of you using TVs with HDMI connection instead of the 'traditional' ones for computer duties?

I'm not gonna be mixing in front of it (well, at least not initially) and the option to make everything bigger -and hopefully less visually stressing- seems appealing to me. It's 1080p (native?) resolution for both, but I'm wondering if the fact that perhaps I'm gonna be some 2 or 3 feet farther away from it could compensate somehow for the difference in size (and the fact that one is a monitor and the other a TV being fed a PC signal, of course)- I'm guessing my choice of video card is going to affect quality as well?
Or, is there (still) a clear advantage in sticking to computer monitors? (bigger, LFD LED computer monitors -with different resolutions, sometimes even lower- don't look practical, and the price is still way up)

The TV is bigger, certainly does have more functions, and since I'm having mostly kids and teens as students, the added visual appeal of the screen is also a factor worth considering, I think.


I appreciate your opinions

​

 

[sprack]

They're the same thing. The only thing a 'real monitor' might gain you is potentially higher resolutions than 1900x1080 and maybe a faster paint rate, but the paint rate only really matters to gamers. On the other hand if you don't want to get up from the computer to watch TV having it in the same screen could be another pro.

Get the TV.

 

[Djunn]

They are not the same! DPI is quite different between LCD TVs and LCD monitors. 27" LCD TV will hurt your eyes MOAR as they have less DPI and will result more blurry text and pictures. Go for the monitor.

 

[sprack]

You're saying a 27" TV that runs at 1920x1080 has less DPI than a 27" monitor that runs at 1920x1080?

 

[Sloan]

My brother is using a 42" tv via HDMI. it is blurry. get the monitor.

 

[Sloan]

You're saying a 27" TV that runs at 1920x1080 has less DPI than a 27" monitor that runs at 1920x1080?

check the specs, resolution has nothing to do with dpi.

I could run a 1920x1080 10dpi monitor and I wouldn't see shit.

 

[AD Chaos]

My brother is using a 42" tv via HDMI. it is blurry. get the monitor.

Would you happen to know from what year/model?

Thanks much Sloan. I will look into that - been browsing a little, but tbh it's kind of confusing.

 

[Melb_shredder]

Interesting discussion... I went from 2 24" monitors to a single 32" tv screen... It looks perfectly fine to me, I even do some PC gaming on it too. I just run HDMI into the pc, so not sure about any issues yuo guys have had, but the text is crisp and fine to my eyes

 

[Djunn]

You're saying a 27" TV that runs at 1920x1080 has less DPI than a 27" monitor that runs at 1920x1080?

As Sloan said, DPI is something different. When you look closer to the TV, you can actually count dots/pixels. DPI stands for dots per inch. More is better. It has nothing to do with resolution. LCD/LED TVs can not replace monitors. For gaming and movies, they are great. But other than that, they are shit. Your eyes will get raped while editing drums or whatever and standing 30cm-1m close to the TV.

 

[sprack]

Then you're not talking about DPI. Your talking about dot pitch.

 

[AgentX]

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/27-hazro-hz27wc-led-ips-pro-8bit-dvi-2560x1440-420cd-m2-10001-6ms-speakers-pc-mac?utm_source=google+shopping&utm_medium=google+shopping

Good 27" monitors are getting cheaper all the time.

If you can make up the extra cash get something like this, the extra real estate comes in handy with big reaper projects and it also looks amazing when playing Starcraft II.

 

[Sloan]

Would you happen to know from what year/model?

Thanks much Sloan. I will look into that - been browsing a little, but tbh it's kind of confusing.

i think it would be ok for games and stuff, but the desktop and text looks too blurry for me. I couldn't imagine using it for a long time.

i think it's about a year or two old now?

 

[Vinny]

Don't have time to read the entire post.
BUT I currently use a 32" Dynex LCD TV as my monitor. Much cheaper than buying an actual computer monitor (atleast the ones I compared).
Plus it also has 720p HD and was only like $200 at best buy.
Connected via a $20 HDMI-VGA cable or whatever connector Apple sells.

Best route to go in my opinion for the money.

 

[AD Chaos]

I've been looking more and DPI (dots per inch) measures saturation of the pixels, and it's more a measure for printing. For monitors, though, DPI measures the physical clarity of each pixel.

720p screens seem to have around 1 million pixels, whereas 1080p doubles it, at around 2 million. What that means basically is in 2 screens with the same size and different resolutions you're going be able to make everything smaller and put more work surface onto the screen.

One of the things that make me hesitant about getting a 27'' computer monitor is that at 1080 res things are going to be really small for two people looking at them from a distance of at least 3.5 feet. And yes I'd like to use full resolution to fit for example a large amount of viewable measures in a sequence, but to be able to see them from 2 or 3 meters (7 to 10ft), that's why the TV option seems interesting to me.

The DPI spec is nowhere present in any monitor I've looked at so I guess it could not be relevant. As Sprack mentioned the correct term though seems to be dot pitch (unfortunately the specs are different for monitors and TVs).

The measures that seems to matter most for visual ease are refresh rate -which is linked to response time (in ms), and I think also Contrast Ratio.
As for refresh rate, 72 Hz and up is recommended for large LCD screens, less than that puts a strain on the eye.
However this seems not very relevant as Windows NT-based systems (up to Windows 7) adopted a 60Hz rate, so the OS is not going to make use of a better refresh rate (that being said, this other computer monitor has 2ms response time, vs 5ms for the TV -which if I understand correctly, is equivalent to 60Hz, or frames per second-, and a contrast ratio for the monitor of 10,000,000:1 against 2,000,000:1 for the TV (the bigger ratio translates into more vivid colors I think).

In short, that's why I'm looking for opinions of people who have used TVs, rather than numbers which only give me a vague idea

​

 

[TheWinterSnow]

The reason monitors are more expensive is because they have a higher DPI (or dot pitch) which is more expensive to manufacture. This means that a 27in TV and a 27in monitor will not have the same resolution. The monitor will have a higher resolution. You have to remember the maximum resolution of an HD TV is 1920 x 1080 if it over 36 inches and 1280x720 for TVs under 36 inches. This means that a 27 in TV will basically have the resolution of a 19 inch widescreen monitor blown up to 27 inches. It gets worse the higher up you go. Using a 42 inch TV will have the same resolution as a 24in monitor blown up to 42 inches. You don't get more desktop space and the image just gets blurry and fatiguing on the eyes.

Fuck the TV, save up and get the monitor.

 

[AD Chaos]

Thank you Winter


The PC monitors I've been shopping around for have 1080p max resolution (1920x1080, same as the TV). Are you saying -resolution being the same- the picture quality is still going to be better on the monitor?

I should mention also that the 27'' computer monitor will cost me around $375 dollars as I have to import it (no effective guarantee with dead pixels or anything). With the TV I get a usable guarantee, as I can shop for that directly at a local store. The 42'' TV would cost me around $860 dollars.

 

[TheWinterSnow]

Monitors at 20+ inches max out at 1920x1080 although some above 20 inches do have capabilities of going higher. For example, some 24 inch monitors can do 1920x1200 and some 27 inch can do 2560x1440. All 30 inch monitors can do 2560x1600. The monitors that can go higher than 1080 are more expensive generally (but not always), but to some gammers and crackheads like me its worth it.

In terms of having two different screens with the same resolution, the larger screen in severe cases appears to be blurry because the image is being "zoomed in" on or stretched to fit the larger screen. Now you have to imagine taking a resolution that is native for a 20 inch screen and expanding it to 42 inches, you will notice weird things in the picture such as the icons and font being huge, the lettering and colors will be a bit off (aliasing/noise) and the image will have a little bit of blur to it.

 

[Soundlurker]

Sorry to hijack the thread but is there a non-empirical way to find out how big a screen I need to buy to have a 1920x1080 screen that looks good and is suitable for mixing when positioned just under a metre away from my eyes? I'm thinking a 27" monitor should be a good fit for that but I have no idea if that would really be the case and no way to test this.

 

[AD Chaos]

No worries man- that's exactly what I'm trying to figure out myself

I would say for mixing -or reading- in 1080p with a 27'' monitor, a comfortable distance would be 60cms (or 0.6 meters / 2 feet, from your eyes to the screen, that is). A meter is almost double that distance, too far away IMO.

Of course one can always zoom in, but then in turn your work area diminishes. In Windows:
From the keyboard you can increase or decrease the zoom value in 10% increments. To zoom in, press CTRL+PLUS SIGN (+). To zoom out, press CTRL+MINUS SIGN (-). To restore the zoom to 100%, press CTRL+0.
This works well, but it's only for web browsers. And zooming in does indeed blur things, even in high res :.(

For making the OS (Windows) bigger there's the Magnifier, which I really don't like.

 

[AD Chaos]

Wrote to the LG people with some inquiries and their answer was basically ''buy our product everything is fine''.

Also downloaded the TV manual and came across this:

'' Preventing “Image burn” or “Burn-in” on your TV screen:

• If a fixed image displays on the TV screen for a long period of time, it will be imprinted and become a permanent disfigurement on the screen.
This is “image burn” or “burn-in” and not covered by the warranty.
• If the aspect ratio of the TV is set to 4:3 for a long period of time, image burn may occur on the letter boxed area of the screen.
• Avoid displaying a fixed image on the TV screen for a long period of time (2 or more hours for LCD, 1 or more hours for the Plasma TV) to prevent image burn. ''


Looks like as of 2011 the 27'' computer monitor is the safest/best bang for the buck option..
​