A big LCD computer monitor or a small LCD tv?

TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
edited November 2011 in Hardware
I was at the local Best Buy today, and was looking at computer monitors. I'm planning to get a new one, and the biggest LCD was a 27" SA550 Samsung for $400.

Then I was looking at the LCD tv sets, and a 32 inch model, also in 1080p, was in the 400-450 range.

An extra 5 inches for more or less the same price sounds good, but I wonder if the TV picture quality will not be as good because (1) it isn't specifically a computer monitor, and (2) the same 1920 by 1080 resolution has to fill a larger area.

Which should I get? And will one be better in picture quality than the other?

Comments

  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    The monitor will always offer better picture quality for the size.
  • TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    I forgot to mention, a friend of mine plays WoW on a 50 inch LCD tv, and it looks really good, but when I'm watching him play, I'm sitting in a recliner chair 10-12 feet back from the TV. He is about 5 feet from the screen.

    I think the monitor will do better than the TV.
  • CrazyJoeCrazyJoe Winter Springs, FL Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    Thrax wrote:
    The monitor will always offer better picture quality for the size.

    Why is that?
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    get the samsung on newegg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001477&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Monitors+-+LCD+Flat+Panel-_-SAMSUNG-_-24001477 and spend the $120 on beer
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    Crazy Joe wrote:
    Why is that?

    Simply because monitors have been engineered at every step of the game for close viewing. That means not overlooking the technological details that are imperceptible at 6-12', as is the case with a TV. Monitors typically have finer dot pitch, better image processing, so on and so forth.
  • CrazyJoeCrazyJoe Winter Springs, FL Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    Ah, so that is why my HDTV doesn't look that good if I'm sitting right next to it putting in a movie?
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    That, and largely because you're looking at 1920x1080 stretched to fit two or three times the viewing area of a monitor. This only looks good at 6-10 feet because human visual acuity is not good enough to perceive the very obvious flaws this arrangement actually creates up close.
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    Thrax wrote:
    That, and largely because you're looking at 1920x1080 stretched to fit two or three times the viewing area of a monitor. This only looks good at 6-10 feet because human visual acuity is not good enough to perceive the very obvious flaws this arrangement actually creates up close.

    also why a 73" 1920x1080 TV is bad.

    "I see pixels..."

    edit> who am I kidding, I would just move the couch back farther ;)
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Geeky, in my own way Naples, FL Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    Monitors also tend to use better response time panels or screens than their TV counterparts if they are not sub-$200-$250 closeouts (for big sizes) which might be slower response time.. Some techs and purist enthusiaistss will insist folks use refresh rate instead of response time, but refresh rate alone really talks about individual pixel refreshing while response time is usually used for a full screen's or panel's worth of refreshing and refresh rate is part of that calculation.
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    Tim asks
    The board has responded

    ...so it has been written, so it shall be done!


    I just love that line
  • TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    I've seen a variety of 1920 by 1080 27 inch monitors on newegg and tiger direct for around $300, and I'm sure they are mostly good, but I wonder if a 1920 by 1200 would be better. 16:10 instead of 16:9, and more resolution! 1200p! But I don't see many of those available.
  • pigflipperpigflipper The Forgotten Coast Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    I have a Samsung SyncMaster T260HD which is a 1920x1200 hybrid monitor/TV. It has 2 HDMI, which is nice, but when you want to watch TV on it like I do, HD comes in with a black bar above and below to make up for the extra pixels on the vertical size. Just keep that in mind if you go to a 1920x1200 and want to view HD video.
  • TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    I was just looking for info on monitor sizes and found a wikipedia page talking about all sorts of resolutions, and it says the 1920 by 1200 stopped being made in 2010. So no new 16:10 monitors are apparently being made, I'll have to settle for 1920 by 1080 on a 16:9, which is widely available.
  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    They're still being made - most (all?) IPS panels are 1920x1200. They're more expensive though, because the panels are higher quality and photographers are willing to pay a premium for the increased color accuracy.
  • BandrikBandrik Elkhart, IN Icrontian
    edited October 2011
    Thanks to everyone that posted information. This was something I was wondering as well.
  • TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
    edited November 2011
    I ended up getting an Asus VE276 27" monitor. It looks pretty good, and I play games and watched Blizzcon on it.
  • BandrikBandrik Elkhart, IN Icrontian
    edited November 2011
    Woot. Not a fan of Asus anymore, but hopefully it'll work well for you.
Sign In or Register to comment.