TV or not TV?

August 6, 2006 11:31 PM

How well can a good TV work as computer monitor?

I'm looking to buy a new display to serve as a computer monitor/surrogate TV. I just got a new job, so I'm looking to spoil myself by buying something in the >20 in category, on the border between jaw-droppingly large monitors and small-medium TVs. What are the pros and cons of using a good TV as a monitor?

Pimary uses: web browsing, occasional gaming, DVDs. I don't have cable, but I do have NetFlix, so actual TV capability isn't a necessity. I'm hoping to stay in the <$1500 price range. Outputs available: I'll be buying a new Mac Pro (when it ships), so I assume DVI. Flat preffered but not necessary.

A quick web search reveals a 30in Dell LCD monitor for $2200, but a 32in Samsung LCD HD TV for $1200. What's in the $1000 difference? Resolution? Input formats? Why would I NOT use a TV as a monitor?

posted by bargex to computers & internet (15 comments total)

I've never seen a TV look quite right as a monitor, I'm not sure of the technical word for what's not right, but something just isn't. Probably resolution or refresh rate.
posted by matkline at 11:33 PM on August 6, 2006

I have the understanding that TV's refresh at 60hz and monitors usually do so at 85+, this makes a big difference to many people in the appearance of the screen. Also, HDTV resolutions are much lower than a really good monitor can give you.
posted by IronLizard at 11:35 PM on August 6, 2006

Why would I NOT use a TV as a monitor?

The resolution and the refresh rate just aren't good enough for sustained close attention, particularly reading. Your eyes will thank you for not doing this.

If it was just watching DVDs and gaming, maybe. But not for anything where you have to actually focus on small detail, like text.

Go into an electronics store and put your face right up against the screen of a monitor and a TV and you'll soon see why not.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 11:51 PM on August 6, 2006

This is a couple of years old, but is probably worth a read.

It seems to come down to resolution, but given the publishing date, that may be something you want to check with whatever TV you're considering.
posted by pompomtom at 11:56 PM on August 6, 2006

A standard TV makes an awful monitor for (perhaps unsurprisingly) practically anything other than low-res video playback. You can get a Dell Ultrasharp 2407WFP 24' for under $750 which is a really nice display and has inputs that will allow you to connect a terrestrial/cable/HDTV tuner or set-top DVD player along with an computer via VGA/DVI.
posted by ed\26h at 12:09 AM on August 7, 2006

that Dell looks mighty fine. Well within your budget. Too small?
posted by wilful at 12:13 AM on August 7, 2006

There are so many kinds of TV out there these days. An analog, tube television makes a miserable monitor. There's a range of flat TVs that gets expensive quickly.

You might consider a projector as well. Generally, what you get is massively more size (60 inches easily) but less resolution (1024x768 is standard at the entry level). Also bear in mind that projectors look better at night than during the day because of ambient light.

But those things considered, you can get a good DLP projector for $2000, and probably something for less. I scored mine for $800 on eBay and it takes input from my TiVo and computer.
posted by scarabic at 12:25 AM on August 7, 2006

I have that Dell. Note that for HDTV, there's some ghosting due to teth 16ms flip rate on the lcd. Otherwise it's an excellent monitor and decent TV. I usually use the P-in-P to display the TV picture, which even at the largest P-in-P size leaves enough room for an enormous browser window.
posted by orthogonality at 12:26 AM on August 7, 2006

NTSC resolution: 640x480

My 19" LCD ranges 640x480-1280x1024, meaning it would literally be like using the monitor on its lowest setting. It's like having a tiny monitor with big pixels.

I had a WebTV some years back, and, though it wasn't critical in that case, the sharpness was not there.
posted by evil holiday magic at 12:59 AM on August 7, 2006

Shit, I misread the question. Nevermind.
posted by evil holiday magic at 1:03 AM on August 7, 2006

A 32in Samsung LCD HD TV for $1200. What's in the $1000 difference?

Rsolution. An LCD TV in that price range is 1366x768. The Dell is 2560x1600. 1366x768 is 20% less pixels than a basic $150 17-inch 1280x1024 LCD. If you do the maths it's 48 dpi, which means the pixels are twice the size of on an average computer monitor. It's completely unusable.

I also don't recommend LCD monitors for video playback. The backlight setup and overall system design isn't optimised for it. If space isn't an issue, buy a pair of 17-inch LCDs ($300, a Mac Pro can drive two monitors out-of-the-box, and it gives you an obscene amount of screen space), leaving you $1200 for a decent TV.
posted by cillit bang at 1:15 AM on August 7, 2006

LCD TVs also include speakers, a remote, and a tuner, which a monitor does not.
posted by smackfu at 6:31 AM on August 7, 2006

The Amiga had 60 column mode specifically for TV monitor use, so that should give you an idea of the lack of resolution in a TV.
posted by rfs at 6:56 AM on August 7, 2006

You can buy a used 21" CRT monitor for less than $100. Just something to think about.
posted by malp at 7:59 AM on August 7, 2006

And for good reason!
posted by ed\26h at 6:01 PM on August 7, 2006