Computer monitor or TV as a monitor.

Jorgario · 04-29-2015, 10:28 AM

Hi people,

My 8 years old Dell computer monitor is dying ! And I do not know if it is better to buy a LED specific computer moniotor (as AOC, 22' inches) or a LED-TV (that can be bigger, say 32'). Of course the bigger depends on my money, but I am asking you advice if I have to take care about a general specification on the TV screen, eg: color rendition, calibration, ... that can not be a good deal to do post processing pictures on a TV screen ??

Any advice will be great !

nomadkng · 04-29-2015, 10:45 AM

in theory a 1920x1080 monitor or tv of the same size would render the image the same way. and both have similar picture adjustments although intrinsic contrast ratios/black points and some of that stuff on a tv are designed for tv viewing and monitors are designed for computer images.

the big difference would be the TV would not have a DVI connection which would be my preferred method of data transmission if you don't have a Display Port capable monitor/gpu.

also, monitors tend to be a little lighter because they don't have as many functions so fewer parts.

but basically if you can use a monitor as a tv, you can use a tv as a monitor.

Originally posted by JeffB

Most "monitors" are designed for arms length viewing distance and are higher resolution than a "TV".

A 1920x1080 image is going to be the same image (resolution of 2,073,600 pixels or 2.1 MP) whether its on a 22" or a 72" screen. the difference will be pixel density. a character such as the letter "M" will look bigger on the 72" tv because the pixels are spaced father apart, but it will still be made up of the same 100 or so pixels. that's handy when dealing with text/graphics, but it really doesn't have a major impact on photo editing once you get past about 27" or so or under about 22". In fact, my photos viewed from the same distance on my old 28" monitor look horrible on my 55" tv, because of the pixel density. ie you aren't gaining much value in spending more money for a larger screen. the caveat to that is the individual's myopia, hyperopia or other eyesight related profiles. someone who's nearsighted might gain a little from a larger monitor, much like reading glasses help magnify small print.

the real impact comes into play when you move up to a 4k monitor. at 3840x2160 you get 4x the pixel density (and resolution of 8,294,400 pixels or 8.3 MP) for the same screen size. you'll really start to easily notice things in your photos, especially motion blur and fringing, that you didn't see on a 1080p monitor.

JeffB · 04-29-2015, 10:47 AM

Strictly speaking, a screen is a screen. Both may be properly profiled to use for color accurate image editing. But . . . there are lots of variables. Most "monitors" are designed for arms length viewing distance and are higher resolution than a "TV". How do you intend to connect? TV's usually use HDMI but few computers have that type of output port.

My feeling is you get more for the money with a "monitor". With a "TV" you are paying for all the other built in gear to actually view TV broadcasts and connect to multiple audio and video sources.

mr.b.snowden · 04-29-2015, 11:28 AM

I would try to not go for the TV route, due to resolution limits and color reproduction. I'm a gamer and I tried hooking up my PC to the HDTV only to be horrified by the color differences with regards to saturation and vibrance when viewing the photos on it. This is when I had a 22in 1680x1050 display.

Then, I upgraded last year to a 27in IPS display from Asus (Amazon.com: ASUS PB278Q 27-Inch WQHD LED-lit Professional Graphics Monitor: Computers & Accessories), which is higher res than the HDTV's 1080p resolution and provides better color reproduction and detail. It's a lot easier to have the screen real estate for carefully editing your photos. The monitor is able to reproduce a better color gamut than the TV could.

promacjoe · 04-29-2015, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by JeffB

Strictly speaking, a screen is a screen. Both may be properly profiled to use for color accurate image editing. But . . . there are lots of variables. Most "monitors" are designed for arms length viewing distance and are higher resolution than a "TV". How do you intend to connect? TV's usually use HDMI but few computers have that type of output port.

My feeling is you get more for the money with a "monitor". With a "TV" you are paying for all the other built in gear to actually view TV broadcasts and connect to multiple audio and video sources.

Actually, other than the plugs there's very little difference between the HDMI and DVI protocol.and if you look at today's computers, you will find many of them using HDMI connectors as well as DVI connectors and VGA connectors. So connecting your HDMI computer to a DVI TV is not a big deal.

TVs tend to be cheaper than computer monitors, Even with the addition of a tuner and extra connectors. a 32 inch 1080 P TV may cost less than $250, but a 27 inch computer monitor with asimilar resolution will cost you about $300 from the same company.

Note: using a large monitor, can produce more problems than it solves. The larger the monitor the farther away you need to set from it. Think of it like sitting in the first row Of a movie theater, the one closest to the screen. it's hard to see the entire picture.

Resolution is a biggie, The higher the resolution, the more detailed you will be able to see. But the harder it will be to read the text on the screen, if you choose to use that high resolution. There comes a point where a higher resolution screen means you want be able to read the text. so it is a trade-off. If you buy a monitor with a high resolution screen you may find that you do not use the higher resolution, because you cannot read the text.

I don't know your economic situation, Nor do I have any idea of how good your eyesight is. So it's difficult for me to make a recommendation. I can only say that a properly adjusted calibrated TV can do as well as a computer monitor using the same resolution.

LensBeginner · 04-29-2015, 12:47 PM

It really depends... I use a 40" Samsung TV which happens to have a Sharp ASV-type panel (it's really a lottery with Samsung TVs...)
Once calibrated it's pretty good.

BE AWARE of the kind of panel you are buying though, under 32" it's very likely to be a simple TN panel, totally unfit for the purpose.
ASV, MVA, PVA, IPS are all good.

Culture · 04-29-2015, 01:10 PM

I recently changed my monitor to a TV monitor about two months ago.
I had an 8 year old 22" monitor. Changed for a 24" Samsung LED TV monitor 1080.
But I thought what the hell. I sent it back and took the same monitor but 27". The price was also good.

I really love it. Its bright and clear. Easy to read text and edit images. My only peeve is that my computer can not turn on or off the monitor when it shuts down or turn on.

My kids can be watching cartoons on the top right corner while I work on the rest of the space. Everybody happy.

kadajawi · 05-09-2015, 11:50 AM

You can use a DVI to HDMI adapter or cable, both are entirely mechanical and very cheap.

No issue with using a TV as monitor, just keep a bit more distance perhaps (or go for a 32" 4K screen if your graphics card and computer is fast enough).

My mother is using a 32" FHD from JVC, I am using a 32" FHD Toshiba... don't know the model right now, but I was pretty impressed with its black levels. I do also have a 24" HP monitor that used to be ridiculously expensive, and of course that thing easily beats most monitors or TVs. But the Toshiba isn't too bad.

Try to find a TV that is fully LED lit, not edge lit. Those have problems with light leaks and uneven brightness.

04-29-2015, 10:28 AM	#1
Jorgario Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: San José Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,769	Computer monitor or TV as a monitor. Hi people, My 8 years old Dell computer monitor is dying ! And I do not know if it is better to buy a LED specific computer moniotor (as AOC, 22' inches) or a LED-TV (that can be bigger, say 32'). Of course the bigger depends on my money, but I am asking you advice if I have to take care about a general specification on the TV screen, eg: color rendition, calibration, ... that can not be a good deal to do post processing pictures on a TV screen ?? Any advice will be great !

04-29-2015, 10:45 AM	#2
nomadkng Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,448	in theory a 1920x1080 monitor or tv of the same size would render the image the same way. and both have similar picture adjustments although intrinsic contrast ratios/black points and some of that stuff on a tv are designed for tv viewing and monitors are designed for computer images. the big difference would be the TV would not have a DVI connection which would be my preferred method of data transmission if you don't have a Display Port capable monitor/gpu. also, monitors tend to be a little lighter because they don't have as many functions so fewer parts. but basically if you can use a monitor as a tv, you can use a tv as a monitor. Originally posted by JeffB Most "monitors" are designed for arms length viewing distance and are higher resolution than a "TV". A 1920x1080 image is going to be the same image (resolution of 2,073,600 pixels or 2.1 MP) whether its on a 22" or a 72" screen. the difference will be pixel density. a character such as the letter "M" will look bigger on the 72" tv because the pixels are spaced father apart, but it will still be made up of the same 100 or so pixels. that's handy when dealing with text/graphics, but it really doesn't have a major impact on photo editing once you get past about 27" or so or under about 22". In fact, my photos viewed from the same distance on my old 28" monitor look horrible on my 55" tv, because of the pixel density. ie you aren't gaining much value in spending more money for a larger screen. the caveat to that is the individual's myopia, hyperopia or other eyesight related profiles. someone who's nearsighted might gain a little from a larger monitor, much like reading glasses help magnify small print. the real impact comes into play when you move up to a 4k monitor. at 3840x2160 you get 4x the pixel density (and resolution of 8,294,400 pixels or 8.3 MP) for the same screen size. you'll really start to easily notice things in your photos, especially motion blur and fringing, that you didn't see on a 1080p monitor. Last edited by nomadkng; 04-29-2015 at 11:11 AM.

04-29-2015, 12:47 PM	#6
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	It really depends... I use a 40" Samsung TV which happens to have a Sharp ASV-type panel (it's really a lottery with Samsung TVs...) Once calibrated it's pretty good. BE AWARE of the kind of panel you are buying though, under 32" it's very likely to be a simple TN panel, totally unfit for the purpose. ASV, MVA, PVA, IPS are all good. Last edited by LensBeginner; 04-29-2015 at 01:33 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Computer Monitor	Storm Chaser	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	10-16-2014 02:49 PM
Using a Computer Monitor for Live View?	reivax	Pentax K-30 & K-50	6	03-21-2014 01:17 AM
Video Output to computer monitor on k-01?	anachrophile	Pentax K-01	3	01-18-2014 03:54 PM
Connect to monitor or TV to give live view??	mrlearnmor	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	02-03-2012 02:10 PM
Where can I buy a monitor calibration tool or get my monitor calibrated, I'm in Texas	JGB	Photographic Technique	10	12-22-2010 12:47 AM

04-29-2015, 10:47 AM	#3
JeffB Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: 'Merica! Posts: 209	Strictly speaking, a screen is a screen. Both may be properly profiled to use for color accurate image editing. But . . . there are lots of variables. Most "monitors" are designed for arms length viewing distance and are higher resolution than a "TV". How do you intend to connect? TV's usually use HDMI but few computers have that type of output port. My feeling is you get more for the money with a "monitor". With a "TV" you are paying for all the other built in gear to actually view TV broadcasts and connect to multiple audio and video sources.

04-29-2015, 11:28 AM	#4
mr.b.snowden Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 683	I would try to not go for the TV route, due to resolution limits and color reproduction. I'm a gamer and I tried hooking up my PC to the HDTV only to be horrified by the color differences with regards to saturation and vibrance when viewing the photos on it. This is when I had a 22in 1680x1050 display. Then, I upgraded last year to a 27in IPS display from Asus (Amazon.com: ASUS PB278Q 27-Inch WQHD LED-lit Professional Graphics Monitor: Computers & Accessories), which is higher res than the HDTV's 1080p resolution and provides better color reproduction and detail. It's a lot easier to have the screen real estate for carefully editing your photos. The monitor is able to reproduce a better color gamut than the TV could.

04-29-2015, 11:54 AM	#5
promacjoe Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 340	Originally posted by JeffB Strictly speaking, a screen is a screen. Both may be properly profiled to use for color accurate image editing. But . . . there are lots of variables. Most "monitors" are designed for arms length viewing distance and are higher resolution than a "TV". How do you intend to connect? TV's usually use HDMI but few computers have that type of output port. My feeling is you get more for the money with a "monitor". With a "TV" you are paying for all the other built in gear to actually view TV broadcasts and connect to multiple audio and video sources. Actually, other than the plugs there's very little difference between the HDMI and DVI protocol.and if you look at today's computers, you will find many of them using HDMI connectors as well as DVI connectors and VGA connectors. So connecting your HDMI computer to a DVI TV is not a big deal. TVs tend to be cheaper than computer monitors, Even with the addition of a tuner and extra connectors. a 32 inch 1080 P TV may cost less than $250, but a 27 inch computer monitor with asimilar resolution will cost you about $300 from the same company. Note: using a large monitor, can produce more problems than it solves. The larger the monitor the farther away you need to set from it. Think of it like sitting in the first row Of a movie theater, the one closest to the screen. it's hard to see the entire picture. Resolution is a biggie, The higher the resolution, the more detailed you will be able to see. But the harder it will be to read the text on the screen, if you choose to use that high resolution. There comes a point where a higher resolution screen means you want be able to read the text. so it is a trade-off. If you buy a monitor with a high resolution screen you may find that you do not use the higher resolution, because you cannot read the text. I don't know your economic situation, Nor do I have any idea of how good your eyesight is. So it's difficult for me to make a recommendation. I can only say that a properly adjusted calibrated TV can do as well as a computer monitor using the same resolution.

04-29-2015, 01:10 PM	#7
Culture Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Vaasa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 818	I recently changed my monitor to a TV monitor about two months ago. I had an 8 year old 22" monitor. Changed for a 24" Samsung LED TV monitor 1080. But I thought what the hell. I sent it back and took the same monitor but 27". The price was also good. I really love it. Its bright and clear. Easy to read text and edit images. My only peeve is that my computer can not turn on or off the monitor when it shuts down or turn on. My kids can be watching cartoons on the top right corner while I work on the rest of the space. Everybody happy.

05-09-2015, 11:50 AM	#8
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	You can use a DVI to HDMI adapter or cable, both are entirely mechanical and very cheap. No issue with using a TV as monitor, just keep a bit more distance perhaps (or go for a 32" 4K screen if your graphics card and computer is fast enough). My mother is using a 32" FHD from JVC, I am using a 32" FHD Toshiba... don't know the model right now, but I was pretty impressed with its black levels. I do also have a 24" HP monitor that used to be ridiculously expensive, and of course that thing easily beats most monitors or TVs. But the Toshiba isn't too bad. Try to find a TV that is fully LED lit, not edge lit. Those have problems with light leaks and uneven brightness.