Any TV which can work as a monitor?

rajil.s

Adept
Hello,
I have two 24 inch monitors sitting on a desk just wide enough for them. I would like to replace one of them with a TV, so that the screen can serve a dual purpose of a TV and monitor. Does anybody have a recommendation of a TV which can act as monitor?
PS: In the old days TV was never supposed to be use as monitor and you were supposed to sit further way because it strained your eyes. Wonder if that is still the issues with TV's.

Thanks
 
Almost every modern TV has HDMI input, hence can be used as monitor. Also, if you have a set-top box with HDMI out + aux, you can use one of your monitors as the TV.

But whatever you get, just don't get a 32" TV because they usually have 1366x768 resolution which is fine for a TV but utter crap as a monitor.

PS: In the old days TV was never supposed to be use as monitor and you were supposed to sit further way because it strained your eyes. Wonder if that is still the issues with TV's.
The distance is not much of a factor, but anything backlit is going to strain the eyes. If the purpose is general viewing, distance can be more but if you are gaming, then shorter distance is preferred (All my opinion)

Also you saying the desk is just wide enough for them. If that's the case, there ain't no way you are replacing just one of the monitor.
 
Following this .. I saw few ppl here use a TV as a monitor so first hand experiences would help..
For some time I used my brothers 40" TV as monitor. First thing is turn off the post processing (Sharpening usually is the main culprit), or use the "Game" or "gaming" preset. It felt great using a huge display but when playing games I did have to move a bit closer.
Also using a keyboard and mouse from couch is hella uncomfortable lol. Something like lapdesk would make things easier.
 
I think more than resolution (like both a monitor and TV can be 4k, yet the monitor is way better for text and windows) it's the dot or pixel pitch that matters.

I spoke to a few people and the consensus is that beyond a short while, using a TV will strain your eyes.

There are apparently a few TVs that work fine for regular computer monitor usage but i don't know the exact models. And they're also possibly more expensive than a regular monitor+tv separately.

My monitor is way past EoL so i will probably need to make a decision soon.

If money was no object i would just get this lol:


Also TVs are also getting ridiculous:


this is a new category called super ultrawide. because regular ultrawide wasn't wide enough...
 
Hello,
I have two 24 inch monitors sitting on a desk just wide enough for them. I would like to replace one of them with a TV, so that the screen can serve a dual purpose of a TV and monitor. Does anybody have a recommendation of a TV which can act as monitor?
PS: In the old days TV was never supposed to be use as monitor and you were supposed to sit further way because it strained your eyes. Wonder if that is still the issues with TV's.

Thanks

you are going about this the wrong way, use the monitor as a tv - get headphones or a speaker.
 
I have tried using my 32" TV as a work monitor. I had an issue with the text being displayed, this made matters worse for me as I wear prescription glasses. If you intend to use them largely for entertainment, it should work with no issues.
 
Used my Hisense 40in tv as a monitor for initial 2 days. All good except that not used to to such larger displays so was uncomfortable. Used it from around 3mtr distance to ensure eye wont take a hit but it was a great exp.

Very useful for large spreadsheet etc. kind of work..
 
@rajil.s cross posting from another thread - this is not to say there aren't TVs that do not do well with text rendering but they don't come cheap
https://techenclave.com/threads/monitor-or-tv-for-console-gaming-ps4.198708/
Its a simple answer actually
TL;DR
If you know for sure that you are not going to use the display for any text based work - then just get a TV without thinking twice.
If however you do intend to use the display with a laptop/PC for any kind of text rendering, get a monitor..

Longer version - TV panels and driver electronics are tuned for videos - and are focused on parameters such as maximising the brighness levels/ contrast ratio.. this works great for movies/ console gaming
While monitor panels and electronics have to ensure proper 4:4:4 chroma subsampling and a panel suited for accurate text rendering - which works great when you are working on a spreadsheet or a word processor....
For a given budget, they both achieve it by maximising the preferred parameters at the cost of the other

If your budget is high enough, you can get either that excel at both
but for a finite budget, pick a side and stick to it
 
you are going about this the wrong way, use the monitor as a tv - get headphones or a speaker.
this is the correct approach , but than your budget matters the best one would be high refresh rate tvs best one would be 48 inch lg oled but that that is stupid expensive .

But try to locate samsungs 2-3 year old led tvs they had free sync and good refresh rate tv and pricing was at around 40-50 ,now they should be cheap if available , but do note they would be power hogs .
 
Before buying a TV try to use one as a monitor for few days. If you experience headaches/eye pain don't get one. TVs are not made to be used too close. I tried and will never use a TV as a monitor.
 
Using TV as a monitor is bad idea in long run due to chroma sampling difference between Monitor and TV. And that difference become apparent when using text applications where TVs can't just cut it. So if your sole purpose of using TV as a Monitor is just for gaming, entertainment, then go ahead do it. But for working with Text, office work, TV can't be substitute for Monitor (unless it can match chroma sampling offered by Monitors).
 
Anyone actually know anything in-depth technically about whether the dot/pixel pitch difference also matters? I know it's one of if not the most important factor for image clarity/sharpness, but don't have much technical knowledge about it (yet lol).

DPI/PPI is the real meaning of the word resolution, 1920*1080/1080p/4k is actually something else altogether. You can call it image size, but it's not technically resolution.
 
Anyone actually know anything in-depth technically about whether the dot/pixel pitch difference also matters? I know it's one of if not the most important factor for image clarity/sharpness, but don't have much technical knowledge about it (yet lol).

DPI/PPI is the real meaning of the word resolution, 1920*1080/1080p/4k is actually something else altogether. You can call it image size, but it's not technically resolution.
Its the other way round actually
1080p/QHD/ 4k etc are the actual resolution.
However, different people have different preferences for the rendering size so most OSs allow for a scaling option.

e.g. if you take at 4K 24" or 27" monitor and render at 1:1 scale - then everything will look a little too small.
Alternatively you could render text at "looks like 1920x1080p"/ 200% scaling ... or "looks like QHD/ 150% scaling

Now you may ask why even buy a 4K monitor if the rendering scale is going to look like QHD or FHD - that is because for the same text/image render size, the scaled display will have a much higher pixel pitch than a native QHD or FHD and thus will look a lot crisper/ more like printed text than say on a 1080p
 
You're better off buying a monitor and using it as a TV. You'll get 27" or 32" monitors with QHD or even 4k resolution, but 32" TVs are all 1366x768, which is a horrible resolution for that size.

You'll find monitors with speakers or you can just buy a soundbar and connect it to the monitor. It's very easy to do.
 
Its the other way round actually
1080p/QHD/ 4k etc are the actual resolution.
However, different people have different preferences for the rendering size so most OSs allow for a scaling option.

e.g. if you take at 4K 24" or 27" monitor and render at 1:1 scale - then everything will look a little too small.
Alternatively you could render text at "looks like 1920x1080p"/ 200% scaling ... or "looks like QHD/ 150% scaling

Now you may ask why even buy a 4K monitor if the rendering scale is going to look like QHD or FHD - that is because for the same text/image render size, the scaled display will have a much higher pixel pitch than a native QHD or FHD and thus will look a lot crisper/ more like printed text than say on a 1080p

No, this is the colloquial use of the word resolution. When it actually means number of pixels per unit area. Also not talking about rendering/scaling but native pixel pitch.

(Some) photographers i believe use resolution correctly as DPI and the total number of pixels (megapixel) is the multiplication of say 1920*1080=2073600 OR 2 megapixel which is actually referred to as image size.

It's hard to think beyond standard definitions used for years, even though it's completely incorrect.

You're better off buying a monitor and using it as a TV. You'll get 27" or 32" monitors with QHD or even 4k resolution, but 32" TVs are all 1366x768, which is a horrible resolution for that size.

You'll find monitors with speakers or you can just buy a soundbar and connect it to the monitor. It's very easy to do.
A friend just sent me this: https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-reviews/samsung-smart-monitor-m7-review-7339177/

I will rather get a 50" tv for 35k and a 22" monitor for 15k. Because I don't need a 32" monitor. But a 32" TV is also not enough.
 
No, this is the colloquial use of the word resolution. When it actually means number of pixels per unit area. Also not talking about rendering/scaling but native pixel pitch.

(Some) photographers i believe use resolution correctly as DPI and the total number of pixels (megapixel) is the multiplication of say 1920*1080=2073600 OR 2 megapixel which is actually referred to as image size.

It's hard to think beyond standard definitions used for years, even though it's completely incorrect.
Thats semantics.
When we say resolution of a display, it almost always means the native display resolution i.e. the horizontal X vertical number of pixels on the monitor/TV/whatever.

When we say resolution of a photo, we almost always mean the absolute pixel count of the photograph
Neither usage is incorrect.

DPI is entirely different- thats the density of the pixels per inch (if digital) or density of dots (if physical print) - and is not the end goal

When evaluating a display, there are three variables that come into play - the native display resolution, the size and the viewing distance
These three combine together to get you to the end goal - which is the PPD .. or pixels per degree
If you want the display to look good like printed paper, you would need a PPD of about 150 .. although 120 is also fine for most cases

this would translate - very roughly to
- a 4K 65"TV at 10 feet
- a 4K 32" monitor at 3.5 feet
- a 6.5" phone 1.5 feet
 
Thats semantics.
When we say resolution of a display, it almost always means the native display resolution i.e. the horizontal X vertical number of pixels on the monitor/TV/whatever.

When we say resolution of a photo, we almost always mean the absolute pixel count of the photograph
Neither usage is incorrect.

DPI is entirely different- thats the density of the pixels per inch (if digital) or density of dots (if physical print) - and is not the end goal

When evaluating a display, there are three variables that come into play - the native display resolution, the size and the viewing distance
These three combine together to get you to the end goal - which is the PPD .. or pixels per degree
If you want the display to look good like printed paper, you would need a PPD of about 150 .. although 120 is also fine for most cases

this would translate - very roughly to
- a 4K 65"TV at 10 feet
- a 4K 32" monitor at 3.5 feet
- a 6.5" phone 1.5 feet
Agreed, it's semantics, but just because the whole world is using it doesn't make it correct or accurate. If you look at science or engineering, resolution has a whole different meaning. along with accuracy, precision and sensitivity. This article is a little more spot on that the commonly used display resolution.

DPI is a unit. What does it define? What single word could you use that is the definition of the unit used as DPI? The dictionary meaning of the word resolution. There are some definitions in tech which are inadequate or grossly incorrect, yet the usage persists because it's too common now to change.

Anyway, lets not get into an argument about what is being used vs what should be used.

My point is pretty much what you wrote in the end.

Native display resolution, size and viewing distance. These three parameters are not enough to define quality. If they were, the main topic of this thread, TVs and monitors having the same three parameters would have identical image quality and usability. But they're not right? A 43" 4K TV and a 43" 4K monitor viewed at say 4' are not the same quality. Maybe just about adequate for video playback. So other factors too, like @saggyN73 mentioned above about chroma subsampling, and the DPI/PPI i mentioned earlier are more important.
 
Back
Top