Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
osama_bin_athlon

condidering a 32" TV as a replacement monitor

Recommended Posts

I don't want to spend too much - absolute limit, say $8-900 (but I'd like to keep it under that.....)

I've googled it, and get mixed messages - some people love them, some don't.....

with the size of my desk, I'll be sitting about 2' away from it (when on the PC) could possibly manage 2.5' at a stretch.

I play games occasionally, watch a lot of movies, DTV, and of course use the net and other stuff - I usually am laying back on the lounge to watch movies....but not always

should I buy a TV, or another 27-28" monitor?

is there any real difference between 1900x1200 and 1900x1080 in actual practice?

somebody mentioned the 32" Sony Bravia, which is about $100 difference in price to a 27" Samsung monitor ($478 at MSY)

has anyone made the switch from a largish monitor to a TV?

who's using a TV as a monitor, and your impressions (is it better/worse/what brand etc)

the deed will be done later this week, one way or the other

all advice/recommendations will be greatly appreciated.

Edited by osama_bin_athlon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the max visible res i was able to get out of my mates LG 42'

was somthing like 1360 x 768 ... any more and it was unreadable

i know all tv's are different but this is my only expierence

 

hope it helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that larger TV's aren't good

32" is as large as I'd consider/ever need in my flat as a TV or monitor.

if it can't do 1900x1080 at 1-120Hz, I'd rather get a monitor - I already have DTV cards....

thanks for your input.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that budget why not look at getting a Dell 2711? Massive res, Great for gaming and sweet for watching shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to user a Acer 32" screen a few years back (about 5years ago), its screen res is 1368x768, its awesome for playing car racing games + movies, any other game that requires text is painfull.

And if you dont use a screensaver set to turn on within 4mins of idle, u get picture burn, which isnt cool considering its a proper LCD......

 

But anyways, if you can afford it, do it, you wont reget it, even with limited use, just keep your regular monitor for anything that requires reading on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm replacing the monitor, it's developed a fault.

thanks, but I don't want 1368x768

it has to be full 1080 etc etc for my purposes, or it's a monitor

picture burn? you sure it wasn't a plasma? I didn't think LCD's had that problem.

Dell? far too expensive - I'd rather settle for a Samsung for half the price, and buy a few extra HDD's......any difference in quality would/could only be negligible - maybe I'd notice for the 1st 5mins.......

nah, it's either a 32" TV that can perform at 1900x1080

or

a nice 27" Samsung monitor

I'd like the extra screen real estate, but not at too much/any cost in screen quality

I've been quite happy with my 27.5" ViewSonic which is only a so-so quality.....I doubt that there'd be any diff with a 27" - what's .5" when you're talking that size.....?

but having 32" is tempting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i had a 32 TV as a PC monitor, its was win

even it was a crappy 1366*768 20ms screen

web+email wasnt too bad, games and movies were amazing

the best thing was having the PS3, 2 PCs, RGB xbox 360 all plugged in.

despite what ppl say, I could play shooters like TF2 online no probs, so considering today's TVs are nearly 50% faster, the Sony would even be great for games

I think some models have DLNA? look up the KDL32EX700/KDL32EX710 - DLNA will help keep loungeroom (PC Fan) noise down if your just watching movies etc in the evening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[This post was started at 2.30 (just to give a rough idea of how long I was using the screen for]

 

I thought I would give it a serious whirl and some honest opinions. I've gone over to the HTPC that I mentioned in your other thread and am typing on a Bravia (yeah it was me that suggested it) 32" and here are my impressions at your hypothetical 2-f.5 feet.

 

Movie watching is great it has superb color, contrast and brightness - but then you'd hope so considering that it's designed for that kind of thing.

 

Text at 1920x1080 seems fine - I'm not convinced that it’s any better or worse than a normal display as I am currently comparing it to my eeepc. It does look slightly "blockier" or maybe a better way of saying it is that the optical illusion of a curve that we get out of little square pixels is slightly less convincing. Although, I find it a little odd to have so much screen real-estate I almost feel like I have to turn my head to read the beginning and end of each line. In short I think it’s probably not as good at text but then I've never experienced such a large display area, I think that a lot of the small problems that I feel I am having with text could be alleviated by having a higher resolution but I would need to fork out over a grand to get a decent 30" to compare it to with a high resolution and I don't have that kind of money. I'd leave "text based stuff" as acceptable and do-able for the day to day but not phenomenal - the movies really shine but I feel the text could be improved a little.

 

To test gaming I've tried a ski-racing game (it's all that is installed on this computer) and I'm currently installing COD 4. I did notice that the ageing graphics engine of "Alpine Ski Racing" looked fairly jagged but that was more likely due to the lack of anitaliasing (due to an archaic graphics engine and a poor old 8800gts 320mb running in this computer (it's only a htpc)) rather than the actual size of the screen, although I would argue that the size is a contributing factor to the notice ability of the rough edges but with a good video card and some AA/AF it would look amazing. The screen is huge so it covered more of my vision and really helped immersion. Just having played the kill house level of COD 4 a couple of times, the graphics looked a lot better and there weren't any really standout jagged edges the screen size was immense and the immersion was very good. A lot of people have said that there is a noticeable lag on TV's as opposed to monitors but I haven’t really noticed any such lag in playing. Maybe if I was an online and twitchy competitive gamer then I would be more accustomed to noticing these kinds of lag issues or maybe I am not having them at all - I just couldn’t say. I will say that the experience was very enjoyable and that it seemed flawless to me.

 

Overall I would say that a Sony TV would make an acceptable monitor but its size comes with some drawbacks. You notice a lot more. If there are jagged edges on a low resolution video file/game, despite this particular TV up scaling very well, it’s still a lot more noticeable than on a smaller screen. Although I would assume coming from a fairly large LCD you may be used to these kinds of issues. Something like this may be considered as a competitor http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_p...oducts_id=16025 but it is 5" smaller; then again it’s also aprox $100 cheaper. I think the major lure of this setup is the size - price ratio. To be fair I am also using a fairly expensive HDTV considering that with lesser brands you could get the same size/specs for a couple of hundred less. Realistically I may be more tempted to buy a good 27" led monitor because I just feel it might be better at doing this job. This is just a hunch and I would have to try the monitor extensively. With a TV (especially the bravias) there are huge bezels whereas with the monitors there aren’t. Although with the TV there is a huge viewing angle I can lay on the floor before this thing bleeds color but with a normal LCD monitor a couple of degrees can loose color.

 

Gaming and movies are spectacular, the size is engrossing and the detail is great. I would, if I were only gaming and watching movies, really strongly consider a TV and maybe even a larger one. For a casual gamer I can't see any problems with this TV.

 

However the text thing, although not hard to read or straining on the eyes, just isn’t spectacular. I think this is largely due to the size of the screen. I do a lot of typing on occasion and I think that the size of the screen is a little too big for that. Maybe some graphical editing (Photoshop) and sound editing I do would be better with a screen this size unfortunately I can't test them on this computer and you haven’t mentioned an interest in either of these things. You can also notice the color bleed that exists around all of the black to white areas (to get what I mean load a page of text and view it with your nose touching the screen).

 

To really understand though you should go to Harvey Norman or jb an ask them to hook the TV up to a computer and use it for a while (or if you have a laptop).

 

Hope it helped (sorry about the wall of text) [finished at 3.40]

 

 

 

EDIT DLNA on this sony tv is very laggy and almost unusable, I wouldnt consider this a reason to get a tv but would try it out and if it does work consider it a bonus (this bravis is a couple of models old)

 

EDIT 2

if it can't do 1900x1080 at 1-120Hz, I'd rather get a monitor - I already have DTV cards....

TV's (bar the new 3d ones) can only do 60Hz, the "200Hz motion flow" or any of the other names it parades under are fake refresh - they take a 60Hz feed and through an algorithm that compares the previous frame and the next creates hypothetical "filler" frames to give the illusion of a 200Hz image because in TV land by and large FPS and Hz are very closely related unlike on pc where you can have 200fps and 60Hz or 20fps and 120hz. In some cases it can look kind of hyper-real for lack of a better explanation.

 

Don't worry I promise I'll stop adding to this already over abundant wall of text.

Edited by UberPenguin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm replacing the monitor, it's developed a fault.

thanks, but I don't want 1368x768

it has to be full 1080 etc etc for my purposes, or it's a monitor

picture burn? you sure it wasn't a plasma? I didn't think LCD's had that problem.

Dell? far too expensive - I'd rather settle for a Samsung for half the price, and buy a few extra HDD's......any difference in quality would/could only be negligible - maybe I'd notice for the 1st 5mins.......

nah, it's either a 32" TV that can perform at 1900x1080

or

a nice 27" Samsung monitor

I'd like the extra screen real estate, but not at too much/any cost in screen quality

I've been quite happy with my 27.5" ViewSonic which is only a so-so quality.....I doubt that there'd be any diff with a 27" - what's .5" when you're talking that size.....?

but having 32" is tempting.

 

yeah ancient LCD's suffered from picture burn, next time im over at my sisters ill take a pic (if i can find a decent camera instead of my crappy inbuilt phone cam),

yep, i wouldnt get 1368x768 screen these days either, just letting ya know my experaince with huge LCD tv's as primary pc monitor.

 

Isnt the dell 27" + screens using IPS panels? hence the mega price, but im with you on the samsung point, id rather a cheaper samsung that comes close in picture quality, and use the spare

cash on more HDD space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LED's use a lot less energy and usually have better contrast/brightness. A bottom of the line led looks as sharp in contrast as a upper-midrange LCD. But it varies from product to product. They are also thinner and lighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[This post was started at 2.30 (just to give a rough idea of how long I was using the screen for]

 

I thought I would give it a serious whirl and some honest opinions. I've gone over to the HTPC that I mentioned in your other thread and am typing on a Bravia (yeah it was me that suggested it) 32" and here are my impressions at your hypothetical 2-f.5 feet.

 

Movie watching is great it has superb color, contrast and brightness - but then you'd hope so considering that it's designed for that kind of thing.

 

Text at 1920x1080 seems fine - I'm not convinced that it’s any better or worse than a normal display as I am currently comparing it to my eeepc. It does look slightly "blockier" or maybe a better way of saying it is that the optical illusion of a curve that we get out of little square pixels is slightly less convincing. Although, I find it a little odd to have so much screen real-estate I almost feel like I have to turn my head to read the beginning and end of each line. In short I think it’s probably not as good at text but then I've never experienced such a large display area, I think that a lot of the small problems that I feel I am having with text could be alleviated by having a higher resolution but I would need to fork out over a grand to get a decent 30" to compare it to with a high resolution and I don't have that kind of money. I'd leave "text based stuff" as acceptable and do-able for the day to day but not phenomenal - the movies really shine but I feel the text could be improved a little.

 

To test gaming I've tried a ski-racing game (it's all that is installed on this computer) and I'm currently installing COD 4. I did notice that the ageing graphics engine of "Alpine Ski Racing" looked fairly jagged but that was more likely due to the lack of anitaliasing (due to an archaic graphics engine and a poor old 8800gts 320mb running in this computer (it's only a htpc)) rather than the actual size of the screen, although I would argue that the size is a contributing factor to the notice ability of the rough edges but with a good video card and some AA/AF it would look amazing. The screen is huge so it covered more of my vision and really helped immersion. Just having played the kill house level of COD 4 a couple of times, the graphics looked a lot better and there weren't any really standout jagged edges the screen size was immense and the immersion was very good. A lot of people have said that there is a noticeable lag on TV's as opposed to monitors but I haven’t really noticed any such lag in playing. Maybe if I was an online and twitchy competitive gamer then I would be more accustomed to noticing these kinds of lag issues or maybe I am not having them at all - I just couldn’t say. I will say that the experience was very enjoyable and that it seemed flawless to me.

 

Overall I would say that a Sony TV would make an acceptable monitor but its size comes with some drawbacks. You notice a lot more. If there are jagged edges on a low resolution video file/game, despite this particular TV up scaling very well, it’s still a lot more noticeable than on a smaller screen. Although I would assume coming from a fairly large LCD you may be used to these kinds of issues. Something like this may be considered as a competitor http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_p...oducts_id=16025 but it is 5" smaller; then again it’s also aprox $100 cheaper. I think the major lure of this setup is the size - price ratio. To be fair I am also using a fairly expensive HDTV considering that with lesser brands you could get the same size/specs for a couple of hundred less. Realistically I may be more tempted to buy a good 27" led monitor because I just feel it might be better at doing this job. This is just a hunch and I would have to try the monitor extensively. With a TV (especially the bravias) there are huge bezels whereas with the monitors there aren’t. Although with the TV there is a huge viewing angle I can lay on the floor before this thing bleeds color but with a normal LCD monitor a couple of degrees can loose color.

 

Gaming and movies are spectacular, the size is engrossing and the detail is great. I would, if I were only gaming and watching movies, really strongly consider a TV and maybe even a larger one. For a casual gamer I can't see any problems with this TV.

 

However the text thing, although not hard to read or straining on the eyes, just isn’t spectacular. I think this is largely due to the size of the screen. I do a lot of typing on occasion and I think that the size of the screen is a little too big for that. Maybe some graphical editing (Photoshop) and sound editing I do would be better with a screen this size unfortunately I can't test them on this computer and you haven’t mentioned an interest in either of these things. You can also notice the color bleed that exists around all of the black to white areas (to get what I mean load a page of text and view it with your nose touching the screen).

 

To really understand though you should go to Harvey Norman or jb an ask them to hook the TV up to a computer and use it for a while (or if you have a laptop).

 

Hope it helped (sorry about the wall of text) [finished at 3.40]

 

 

 

EDIT DLNA on this sony tv is very laggy and almost unusable, I wouldnt consider this a reason to get a tv but would try it out and if it does work consider it a bonus (this bravis is a couple of models old)

 

EDIT 2

if it can't do 1900x1080 at 1-120Hz, I'd rather get a monitor - I already have DTV cards....

TV's (bar the new 3d ones) can only do 60Hz, the "200Hz motion flow" or any of the other names it parades under are fake refresh - they take a 60Hz feed and through an algorithm that compares the previous frame and the next creates hypothetical "filler" frames to give the illusion of a 200Hz image because in TV land by and large FPS and Hz are very closely related unlike on pc where you can have 200fps and 60Hz or 20fps and 120hz. In some cases it can look kind of hyper-real for lack of a better explanation.

 

Don't worry I promise I'll stop adding to this already over abundant wall of text.

 

 

thanks for the (wall of) info!

it's beginning to look like a 27" monitor....the only reservation that I have is my current 27'5" is 1900x1200, but I guess a better quality monitor would make up for that

HN's sounds like a good idea, I'll go in and annoy them and try whatever alternatives they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah yes, Kogan, I'd forgotten about them......are the LED's any better/worse than the LCD's?

Depends on what you like. Id go down to a TV retailer and check the differences yourself, you might find you like LED better, or maybe LCD better.

 

my flatmate has a LG E2340V (LED) and i have a LG L225WT (LCD), darker movies/games look better on the LED for me, light movies/games look better on the LCD, however, anything with loads of white in it, looks off,

majorly off on the LED... hard to describe, but that could be down to the LED having a gloss coat vs a matte coat on my LCD...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ah yes, Kogan, I'd forgotten about them......are the LED's any better/worse than the LCD's?

 

Well I have only seen one led from kogan in real life, and IMHO the picture appears to be a bit crisper than my kogan 100hz lcd. But that may have more to do with lighting and the fact that my lcd is 42" and the led I saw was 32".

 

But I can tell you that they make a good product, and we have 3 of their bluray players (can change the bluray regions) 2 tv's and their HD camera and all are preforming very well indeed.

 

And of course the price point is great because they cut out the middle men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ah yes, Kogan, I'd forgotten about them......are the LED's any better/worse than the LCD's?

 

Well I have only seen one led from kogan in real life, and IMHO the picture appears to be a bit crisper than my kogan 100hz lcd. But that may have more to do with lighting and the fact that my lcd is 42" and the led I saw was 32".

 

But I can tell you that they make a good product, and we have 3 of their bluray players (can change the bluray regions) 2 tv's and their HD camera and all are preforming very well indeed.

 

And of course the price point is great because they cut out the middle men.

 

 

well that was a big help - it's now down to one of them Kogan 32" TV's, and a 27" asus/samsung monitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ah yes, Kogan, I'd forgotten about them......are the LED's any better/worse than the LCD's?

 

Well I have only seen one led from kogan in real life, and IMHO the picture appears to be a bit crisper than my kogan 100hz lcd. But that may have more to do with lighting and the fact that my lcd is 42" and the led I saw was 32".

 

But I can tell you that they make a good product, and we have 3 of their bluray players (can change the bluray regions) 2 tv's and their HD camera and all are preforming very well indeed.

 

And of course the price point is great because they cut out the middle men.

 

 

well that was a big help - it's now down to one of them Kogan 32" TV's, and a 27" asus/samsung monitor

 

If you plan on buying a television for a monitor, do a bit of research on the model and its use as a PC monitor.

 

For example, my Senzu 37" has a slight overscan, around 3-10% when at 1080p, which means i cant see most of the task bar and alot of the desktop. In games its okay, but on the desktop its atrocious.

 

At the same time it has a VGA/PC input, but it can onlydo 1024x768 over VGA, making it kind of useless as a monitor unless I drop the res to like 1814x1020, but then I lose functionality in some games as they don't support that res.

 

For alot of my racing games and gamepad games, I will still use it as a secondary at 1680x1050, but it doesn't look as good as it would at real 1080p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ah yes, Kogan, I'd forgotten about them......are the LED's any better/worse than the LCD's?

 

Well I have only seen one led from kogan in real life, and IMHO the picture appears to be a bit crisper than my kogan 100hz lcd. But that may have more to do with lighting and the fact that my lcd is 42" and the led I saw was 32".

 

But I can tell you that they make a good product, and we have 3 of their bluray players (can change the bluray regions) 2 tv's and their HD camera and all are preforming very well indeed.

 

And of course the price point is great because they cut out the middle men.

 

 

well that was a big help - it's now down to one of them Kogan 32" TV's, and a 27" asus/samsung monitor

 

If you plan on buying a television for a monitor, do a bit of research on the model and its use as a PC monitor.

 

For example, my Senzu 37" has a slight overscan, around 3-10% when at 1080p, which means i cant see most of the task bar and alot of the desktop. In games its okay, but on the desktop its atrocious.

 

At the same time it has a VGA/PC input, but it can onlydo 1024x768 over VGA, making it kind of useless as a monitor unless I drop the res to like 1814x1020, but then I lose functionality in some games as they don't support that res.

 

For alot of my racing games and gamepad games, I will still use it as a secondary at 1680x1050, but it doesn't look as good as it would at real 1080p.

 

 

would that be typical with TV's?

I noticed at the Kogan site they do highlight at least one of their 32" TV's as an 'excellent' PC monitor

this one:

http://www.kogan.com.au/shop/kogan-1080p-3...v-pvr-hd-tuner/

I just want a new monitor that works properly - I generally only use about half my existing monitor for browsing, otherwise I find I'm having to move my head

I had a look at the manual for the Kogan, and it mentions using the VGA outlet, rather than HDMI for PC's

that doesn't sound good......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that Bravia I was talking about earlier I was using the VGA (D-SUB) It didn't have any overscan and was working fine - I might try the HDMI later on if I get a chance to see if there is any difference and re-post if there was a noticeable change. Come to think of it I might have to find a DVI-HDMI adapter....

 

EDIT:

 

OK. I'd like to preface this with the disclaimer that I am running a 8800GTS 320MB in that computer and I had to use the DVI-->HDMI adapter that I got with my 4890 BUT I am also running a DVI-->D-SUB adapter.

 

Impressions - There was no overscan on either the HDMI or D-SUB BUT contrary to what I would have thought the image quality on the D-SUB was better. Not just a little but A LOT! To start with the colours on D-SUB were better blended, more smooth and vibrant. The text on the HDMI was awful - severe blurry almost interlaced looking edges of characters and with buttons (like the Google "I'm feeling lucky" button) the text looked like it was rendered by an apple 2E (that may have been a little harsh). Whereas on the D-SUB it looked very good comparatively and as I said in an earlier post I could live with it but over HDMI I couldn't stand to use it day in day out. So I'd say if you were going to do some tests with a TV take both leads D-SUB may surprise you - it did surprise me.

Edited by UberPenguin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would that be typical with TV's?

I noticed at the Kogan site they do highlight at least one of their 32" TV's as an 'excellent' PC monitor

this one:

http://www.kogan.com.au/shop/kogan-1080p-3...v-pvr-hd-tuner/

I just want a new monitor that works properly - I generally only use about half my existing monitor for browsing, otherwise I find I'm having to move my head

I had a look at the manual for the Kogan, and it mentions using the VGA outlet, rather than HDMI for PC's

that doesn't sound good......

I gather what they mean is it has a VGA outlet if you need it, but there is nothing stopping you from using HDMI to connect your computer. I have used the VGA connection to connect my laptop to my 42" kogan for shits and giggles. (it worked well by the way lol).

 

And yes to cut down on paper and cost all manuals for kogan products are downloadable in digital form. :)

Edited by bowiee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm considering one of their LED TV's thinner and cheaper to run......the Kogan 32" Full HD ELITE LED TV - they're currently on special too!

This one is a 100hz

 

But the one you are looking at is bloody good buying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm considering one of their LED TV's thinner and cheaper to run......the Kogan 32" Full HD ELITE LED TV - they're currently on special too!

This one is a 100hz

 

But the one you are looking at is bloody good buying.

 

 

for $100 odd more, that's probably even better......

decisions, decisions

:/

 

I know, but isn't it fun :D Nothing like buying new goodies. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm considering one of their LED TV's thinner and cheaper to run......the Kogan 32" Full HD ELITE LED TV - they're currently on special too!

This one is a 100hz

 

But the one you are looking at is bloody good buying.

 

 

for $100 odd more, that's probably even better......

decisions, decisions

:/

 

I know, but isn't it fun :D Nothing like buying new goodies. ;)

 

 

ooooh yeh!

I love it.

:)

I think it'd be kinda pointless getting one of the ones with inbuilt DVD and BlueRay players.....I'd rather get an actual Blue Ray burner for the PC, I think that would be a much more versatile option....

their 'duck' guts' model still only costs $731 or something

but why pay $300 for a BlueRay player, when I can get a burner cheaper.......

I imagine that I'll still predominately use my DTV cards.

as long as I can still comfortably read shit, that's really my main concern - if I have say half the screen for Ff, and the other side for whatever.....

damn shame that 1900x1200 monitors are so rare

would it be noticeably more pixelated (a 32" 1080 TV) at say 2-2.5' away than a 27.5" 1900x1200 of fairly lowish quality (see tag) viewed a fair bit closer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×