TV as a Monitor
-
@anonymous said:
So I just bought a VIZIO E-Series 32” Class Full‑Array LED Smart TV however it seems to only support a maximum resolution of 1920x1080. The screen looks nice and everything, but everything is very large. Anyway to get a higher resolution so I can fit more windows on the screen?
That's because it's a Full HD tv (1920x1080) :D. You can't make it display more pixels than it physically has.
I think that the issue here is perspective. The TV has the same pixel count as a 22" FullHD monitor. It's like putting a magnifying glass infront of a 22" fullHD monitor.
Also, I reckon that computer output on a TV, is just plain weird as everything seems out of proportion. It's not but I'm just used to the same amount of pixels in a higher density, slammer form factor.If you wanted more real estate (pixel wise) on on the physically bigger screen, then you should buy a 4K (Ultra HD) TV.
Hope that helps
-
@nadnerB said:
4K (Ultra HD) TV.
There pretty much isn't (and will never be) any 4k TVs. 4k is a DCI standard (film) not a broadcast. UHD is the Broadcast standard. Not sure why marketing people even started calling UHD, 4k when it is not. Film and TV standards have always been different.
Also keep in mind even with a 4k TV as a monitor it will still go through a scan converter, It's not going to be as high quality as a 4k monitor would be. TVs are not designed for close viewing. Have you ever sat close to the screen in a theater, and noticed how many artifacts were present in the video up close?
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
There pretty much isn't (and will never be) any 4k TVs. 4k is a DCI standard (film) not a broadcast. UHD is the Broadcast standard. Not sure why marketing people even started calling UHD, 4k when it is not. Film and TV standards have always been different.
Also keep in mind even with a 4k TV as a monitor it will still go through a scan converter, It's not going to be as high quality as a 4k monitor would be. TVs are not designed for close viewing. Have you ever sat close to the screen in a theater, and noticed how many artifacts were present in the video up close?
Well, look. You're in the industry and I'm not so I won't argue the point ... BUT... I have questions
:
What's your take on the TV's in this link? https://www.jbhifi.com.au/tv-home-entertainment/Ultra-HD-Televisions/- Are they the DCI Standard? (genuine question)
- From what I read (here: http://4k.com/resolution/), they seem like real 4K TV's.
For reasons that you've already pointed out a TV is probably better suited for a wall display
-
@nadnerB said:
- From what I read (here: http://4k.com/resolution/), they seem like real 4K TV's.
Not sure who 4k.com is but they are no an authority on it. It looks like some blogger bought it (and is selling ads on it.)
The Terms UHD and 4k were never meant to be used interchangeably. Marketing people started using them interchangeably a few years ago when they were claiming "4k revolutions". Since this it seems many people are using them interchangeably or not even know the difference. I guess the marketers have reached their goal of making people think they were getting something they weren't. Before this no one used these terms interchangeably. Remember 4k is not new. even most older 35mm Films were at least 3k equivalent.
4k resolution is 4096 x 2160
UHD is 3840 pixels × 2160
These two have a different aspect ratio, UHD is still 16:9 like 1080p. -
@nadnerB said:
- From what I read (here: http://4k.com/resolution/), they seem like real 4K TV's.
4K, officially known as UHD (Ultra-High Definition)
Haha. Who ever is written this has no business to be "informing" other people, when they don't even known what they are talking about.
which offers more pixels than regular HDTV (at least 4 times more pixels and thus the name 4K)
Again this guy is wrong the 4k has nothking to do with multiples. Notice the k as in 4,000. It means it's 4,000 (actually 4,096) pixels. Has nothing to do with the size of HDTV (not to mention there is both 1080 (1920x1080) and 720 (1280x720) HD).
-
@nadnerB said:
https://www.jbhifi.com.au/tv-home-entertainment/Ultra-HD-Televisions/
Are they the DCI Standard? (genuine question)Doesn't look like a single one is. All of them are UHD.
Here is a true 4k monitor http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-31MU97-B-4k-ips-led-monitor
-
@A-Former-User said in TV as a Monitor:
4k resolution is 4096 x 2160
UHD is 3840 pixels × 2160https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
Actually both of those are 4K. One is common in consumer media, and the other in digital projection like theaters.
Nice try claiming everyone is wrong, but pretty much everyone agrees on these terms. The accepted 4K used by essentially everyone is 3840x2160. The 4K refers to "near" 4K horizontal resolution, none of them actually have just 4K.
-
@nadnerB said in TV as a Monitor:
That's because it's a Full HD tv (1920x1080) :D. You can't make it display more pixels than it physically has.
This whole thread and this is literally like the only useful part of the discussion, lol.
-
Anyone using a 4K TV as a monitor? I have been thinking about it....
-
-
@VoIP_n00b said in TV as a Monitor:
Anyone using a 4K TV as a monitor? I have been thinking about it....
Agreed - since they are LCDs today, what's the difference between a TV and a monitor? assuming the resolution is the same in both.
-
@Dashrender said in TV as a Monitor:
@VoIP_n00b said in TV as a Monitor:
Anyone using a 4K TV as a monitor? I have been thinking about it....
Agreed - since they are LCDs today, what's the difference between a TV and a monitor? assuming the resolution is the same in both.
LEDs more often today.
-
The idea of the TV faded away. For me, it was gone when this thread was new. I think it is gone for most people now. Things built to be computer monitors tend to be more accurate than things built to be "televisions", but not necessarily so. It's really all one and the same now, regardless of what Jason the "everything in AV is special and normal humans won't understand it" hubris says. AV people want their field to be special, but like we know from IT, the basics are always the basics.
-
@VoIP_n00b said in TV as a Monitor:
Anyone using a 4K TV as a monitor? I have been thinking about it....
My dad does that with a 42" 1080P, works great.
-
@scottalanmiller said in TV as a Monitor:
@Dashrender said in TV as a Monitor:
@VoIP_n00b said in TV as a Monitor:
Anyone using a 4K TV as a monitor? I have been thinking about it....
Agreed - since they are LCDs today, what's the difference between a TV and a monitor? assuming the resolution is the same in both.
LEDs more often today.
LED backlighting? more often than before - sure, but so much so as to make a difference? and if it's edge lighting, and not directly behind the panel, what difference does it really make? power saving? anything else?
You can definitely find LED backlit TVs too.
The visual I expect will be exactly, or nearly so, the same. -
@Dashrender said in TV as a Monitor:
@scottalanmiller said in TV as a Monitor:
@Dashrender said in TV as a Monitor:
@VoIP_n00b said in TV as a Monitor:
Anyone using a 4K TV as a monitor? I have been thinking about it....
Agreed - since they are LCDs today, what's the difference between a TV and a monitor? assuming the resolution is the same in both.
LEDs more often today.
LED backlighting? more often than before - sure, but so much so as to make a difference? and if it's edge lighting, and not directly behind the panel, what difference does it really make? power saving? anything else?
You can definitely find LED backlit TVs too.
The visual I expect will be exactly, or nearly so, the same.Umm wut?
Most TV’s are now LED and not LCD. That is all he said.
-
@scottalanmiller said in TV as a Monitor:
@VoIP_n00b said in TV as a Monitor:
Anyone using a 4K TV as a monitor? I have been thinking about it....
My dad does that with a 42" 1080P, works great.
The 50" @VoIP_n00b links above is 44" wide, that's about 4" wider than my pair of 22", plus has no central bezel. being a 4K monitor, it's actually more physical display space than 4 of the 22" monitors I currently have. Definitely something to consider, of course I'd need/want a tool that splits the screen into 4 zones, mimicking 4 separate monitors, I'd almost never use it in full screen mode. heck, generally, I'd only use it in two screen mode with the top half maybe having my email just to causally glance at.
Though I think I'd need a new mount, my current one holds two monitors, I'd need a taller single point mount for that, assuming a VESA can hold a 50", otherwise it's going to be a PITA dealing with one of those wall mount kits. -
@JaredBusch said in TV as a Monitor:
@Dashrender said in TV as a Monitor:
@scottalanmiller said in TV as a Monitor:
@Dashrender said in TV as a Monitor:
@VoIP_n00b said in TV as a Monitor:
Anyone using a 4K TV as a monitor? I have been thinking about it....
Agreed - since they are LCDs today, what's the difference between a TV and a monitor? assuming the resolution is the same in both.
LEDs more often today.
LED backlighting? more often than before - sure, but so much so as to make a difference? and if it's edge lighting, and not directly behind the panel, what difference does it really make? power saving? anything else?
You can definitely find LED backlit TVs too.
The visual I expect will be exactly, or nearly so, the same.Umm wut?
Most TV’s are now LED and not LCD. That is all he said.
But it's wrong. LED TVs are a type of LCD.
LED is totally misleading as a description because it's just the light source. Used to be fluorescent tubes but that was a long time ago. But I guess they have to call it something. ALL displays and TVs today have an LED light source.
OLED is another matter though. It's not an LCD.
-
@Pete-S said in TV as a Monitor:
@JaredBusch said in TV as a Monitor:
@Dashrender said in TV as a Monitor:
@scottalanmiller said in TV as a Monitor:
@Dashrender said in TV as a Monitor:
@VoIP_n00b said in TV as a Monitor:
Anyone using a 4K TV as a monitor? I have been thinking about it....
Agreed - since they are LCDs today, what's the difference between a TV and a monitor? assuming the resolution is the same in both.
LEDs more often today.
LED backlighting? more often than before - sure, but so much so as to make a difference? and if it's edge lighting, and not directly behind the panel, what difference does it really make? power saving? anything else?
You can definitely find LED backlit TVs too.
The visual I expect will be exactly, or nearly so, the same.Umm wut?
Most TV’s are now LED and not LCD. That is all he said.
But it's wrong. LED TVs are a type of LCD.
LED is totally misleading as a description because it's just the light source. Used to be fluorescent tubes but that was a long time ago.
OLED is another matter though. It's not an LCD.
This was my point... who really cares about the lighting source unless you the power consumption is that different that you care about that.
Also, as mentioned, if, IF the LED lighting is used for zone lighting like HDR TVs/monitors, then it makes a difference too, while I'm sure one could use fluorescent tubes with zone lighting, it would likely be expensive and difficult, and likely not worthwhile compared to converting to LED. -
@Dashrender said in TV as a Monitor:
@Pete-S said in TV as a Monitor:
@JaredBusch said in TV as a Monitor:
@Dashrender said in TV as a Monitor:
@scottalanmiller said in TV as a Monitor:
@Dashrender said in TV as a Monitor:
@VoIP_n00b said in TV as a Monitor:
Anyone using a 4K TV as a monitor? I have been thinking about it....
Agreed - since they are LCDs today, what's the difference between a TV and a monitor? assuming the resolution is the same in both.
LEDs more often today.
LED backlighting? more often than before - sure, but so much so as to make a difference? and if it's edge lighting, and not directly behind the panel, what difference does it really make? power saving? anything else?
You can definitely find LED backlit TVs too.
The visual I expect will be exactly, or nearly so, the same.Umm wut?
Most TV’s are now LED and not LCD. That is all he said.
But it's wrong. LED TVs are a type of LCD.
LED is totally misleading as a description because it's just the light source. Used to be fluorescent tubes but that was a long time ago.
OLED is another matter though. It's not an LCD.
This was my point... who really cares about the lighting source unless you the power consumption is that different that you care about that.
Also, as mentioned, if, IF the LED lighting is used for zone lighting like HDR TVs/monitors, then it makes a difference too, while I'm sure one could use fluorescent tubes with zone lighting, it would likely be expensive and difficult, and likely not worthwhile compared to converting to LED.Agree.
Notice also that LED TVs was just mentioned when talking about TVs and not displays and not the panels themselves. It's was (is) just a consumer buzz word.
The difference between computer monitors and TVs is primarily the quality and things like stands and inputs of course. Especially when talking about more expensive monitors where color accuracy and how even the luminosity is matters and viewing angle. And backlight should work at low outputs on a monitor and be flicker-free, which TV users don't really care about. TVs are more likely to run at full intensity and have lots of contrast of contrast and color and image processing to make it look good.
There are also professional large monitors, like those used for signage.
