4K TV's - Connectivity?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Why do you say that?
Because they were, lol. Why else? Anything from a Sony Trinitron or higher was sold as a monitor, not a TV. It was a designation about image replication intent.
I'd say higher end TVs this was mostly true on but not in general. Obviously anything with a VGA port on them were. With HDMI it definitely became more standard.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
You gotta realize you are buying a TV and not a monitor.
Even midrange TVs were designated as monitors up to twenty years ago.
err. No. The pixel spacing will be different on a TV. They will cause more eye fatigue close up. Some people use them as that but, no they are not designed or designated as monitors unless it actually is just a monitor with a TV tuner built in.
-
@thecreativeone91 Pixel spacing? Like dots per inch? Higher on my 39" tv than a 22" 1080p
39" TV @ 4k
Horizontal resolution: pixels
Vertical resolution: pixels
Diagonal: inches (99.06cm)
Display size: 33.99" × 19.12" = 649.92in² (86.34cm × 48.57cm = 4193.04cm²) at 112.97 PPI, 0.2248mm dot pitch 12762 PPI²22" lcd 1080p
Horizontal resolution: pixels
Vertical resolution: pixels
Diagonal: inches (55.88cm)
Display size: 19.17" × 10.79" = 206.81in² (48.7cm × 27.4cm = 1334.28cm²) at100.13 PPI, 0.2537mm dot pitch, 10026 PPI²They are all just monitors with TV tuners built in from an electronics stand point. I don't see your point man.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@thecreativeone91 Pixel spacing? Like dots per inch? Higher on my 39" tv than a 22" 1080p
39" TV @ 4k
Horizontal resolution: pixels
Vertical resolution: pixels
Diagonal: inches (99.06cm)
Display size: 33.99" × 19.12" = 649.92in² (86.34cm × 48.57cm = 4193.04cm²) at 112.97 PPI, 0.2248mm dot pitch 12762 PPI²22" lcd 1080p
Horizontal resolution: pixels
Vertical resolution: pixels
Diagonal: inches (55.88cm)
Display size: 19.17" × 10.79" = 206.81in² (48.7cm × 27.4cm = 1334.28cm²) at100.13 PPI, 0.2537mm dot pitch, 10026 PPI²They are all just monitors with TV tuners built in from an electronics stand point. I don't see your point man.
Your comparing two different resolutions. Also keep in mind TVs aren't mean to produce clear text close up. They are designed for distance viewing.
-
@thecreativeone91 Dude there's no difference - the same panels are used on TV's as are in Monitors. They package them differently and skip the tuner.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@thecreativeone91 Dude there's no difference - the same panels are used on TV's as are in Monitors. They package them differently and skip the tuner.
With regards to LCD's you're right, and since most TV's today are LCD the logic applies in general.
-
@Dashrender said:
@MattSpeller said:
@thecreativeone91 Dude there's no difference - the same panels are used on TV's as are in Monitors. They package them differently and skip the tuner.
With regards to LCD's you're right, and since most TV's today are LCD the logic applies in general.
It depends on the TV you buy. Also the scalers and processors in the TVs can greatly affect the look of text. Computer monitors have no scalers for the most part.
-
Don't the scalers typically disable when there is no scaling to do? One would hope.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Don't the scalers typically disable when there is no scaling to do? One would hope.
to some degree. But, they are still there an affecting the signal. Hence why most tv's even today have over/over scan issues. Going from CRT to LCD was suppose to fix that, since they are more predictable but it didn't. High end $4-6k tv's gennerally do much better about it though.
