Any reasons why this 32" TV wouldn't make a great monitor?

500cd/m2... I wouldn't sit too close to it. I've had a monitor with this brightness before and even on minimum I find it hard to watch in dim light or for prolonged periods. Perfect for brightly lit rooms of course.
 
Resolution is too low? There is a reason why 24" monitors are 1920*1200 and 30" 2560*1600. Text won't look very sharp either.
 
jak731 said:
Resolution is too low? There is a reason why 24" monitors are 1920*1200 and 30" 2560*1600. Text won't look very sharp either.
Click to expand...

Actually they look pretty good over HDMI/DVI (VGA not so much). Sure, it could be higher res but I've been perfectly happy with a 32" screen for ages.
 
tbh I think 1920x1200 is too HIGH a resolution for a 24 inch monitor... about right for 28inch maybe. Such high resolutions on 24" screens are only being pushed because some consumers are too dumb to know that more pixels in a smaller space isn't always better.

I just think there's a reason why TV's (that are mean to be watched at a distance of about 8 foot+) are typically 500cd/square metre whilst monitors are usually 300 cd/sq metre.... because sitting right in front of 500 candela/sq metre is not good for your eyes.
 
Last edited:
Stickman said:
tbh I think 1920x1200 is too HIGH a resolution for a 24 inch monitor... about right for 28inch maybe.
Click to expand...

im sitting about a meter away from a 24" screen reading this right now. I dont see it as being too high - if it was i wouldnt be able to read your post :p

Such high resolutions on 24" screens are only being pushed because some consumers are too dumb to know that more pixels in a smaller space isn't always better.
Click to expand...

What made you come to this conclusion? i mean, i just dont know where to start with this statement lol
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
What made you come to this conclusion? i mean, i just dont know where to start with this statement lol
Click to expand...
LOL, sorry... I shouldn't have said "dumb"... musta been in a cranky mood. :) I know you can make Windows show fonts in larger sizes to compensate for the standard size being too small on websites etc.... but if you find yourself doing this a lot I guess that does show that the pixel pitch is too low, is all I meant.

And not so much with windows use (where more resolution is usually advantageous) but definitely for viewing television (which is usually done at a little more distance) I think it's daft how they have 1080p TVs as small as 24inch.... unless you're sitting close to it I don't believe you're really getting any benefit from 1080p over 720p on such a small screen. And even then all you often see is a more grainy picture. I just think we need to be more objective about how many pixels is actually useful to someone watching a small (sub 30inch) screen from a distance.

The worst example of what I'm talking about is people insisting on 1080p resolutions for 17" (or less) laptop screens.... people are just thinking that because 1080p is new it must always be good, whereas I think 1080p is great, but only really needed on a big screen.
 
Last edited:
Stickman said:
The worst example of what I'm talking about is people insisting on 1080p resolutions for 17" (or less) laptop screens.... people are just thinking that because 1080p is new it must always be good, whereas I think 1080p is great, but only really needed on a big screen.
Click to expand...

Actually i'd say the opposite way round mate. 1080p only really shows on most screens at close viewing. for example, at anything over say 10ft away you'd hardly see any difference between 720p and 1080p on a 42" screen. But get closer and you CAN see the difference.
I'd imagine that laptops are being fitted with 1080p screens because people watch HD content on them, and only from a couple of feet away.
I do agree its a little pendantic, but these sales of technology do prey on the uneducated i'm afraid.
It's simply akin to the purple shirted pc store charging double that a local pc shop might, because the majority of uneducated pc users buy there, and are easily duped.
 
Banzai_Joe said:
Actually i'd say the opposite way round mate. 1080p only really shows on most screens at close viewing. for example, at anything over say 10ft away you'd hardly see any difference between 720p and 1080p on a 42" screen. But get closer and you CAN see the difference.
I'd imagine that laptops are being fitted with 1080p screens because people watch HD content on them, and only from a couple of feet away.
I do agree its a little pendantic, but these sales of technology do prey on the uneducated i'm afraid.
It's simply akin to the purple shirted pc store charging double that a local pc shop might, because the majority of uneducated pc users buy there, and are easily duped.
Click to expand...

^^^ this.

the closer you sit to a screen, the bigger the pixels appear to be, which is pretty straight forward when you think about it. Therefor, when you sit closer you can resolve more of them. This is why 1920x1200 on a 24" screen is not overkill - because the pixels are actually only about 20% smaller than they are on a 19" 1280x1024 screen....and you never complained about one of those stickman ;) http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?a43b570222c5d7f0a647bdf597956c24 look at the pixel densities.


resolution is nothing on its own. to decide whether the resolution is too high or not, you need to consider 3 pieces of information: the size of the screen, the distance you sit from it and the native resolution of the screen. without those 3 its all meaningless.

i can categorically state that virtually nobody who's used a 24" monitor at 1920x1200 thinks the resolution is too high. not including those with visual impairments obviously.

stickman said:
I know you can make Windows show fonts in larger sizes to compensate for the standard size being too small on websites etc.... but if you find yourself doing this a lot I guess that does show that the pixel pitch is too low, is all I meant.
Click to expand...

I have never needed to do this on my 24" and i dont know anyone else with a 24" who has either.

The worst example of what I'm talking about is people insisting on 1080p resolutions for 17" (or less) laptop screens.... people are just thinking that because 1080p is new it must always be good, whereas I think 1080p is great, but only really needed on a big screen.
Click to expand...

why? you typically sit closer to a laptop screen than you do a monitor so again it's easier to see the difference that resolution makes. my 16.4" laptop is a 1600x900 16:9 widescreen and its about perfect imo.
 
I used a 32" 720p as a monitor for a while, that resolution was too low, but 1080p would have suited me.

Test it and tell us what you think, obviously it depends on the TV, your eyesight and past experiences more than the opinions of us lowly commenters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom