HDTV as computer monitor

[FreeflyChile 0]

Hi guys,

since all the audio-visual-philes reside here I figured I'd post here...

I am going to get a new computer because i need one to work from home. Since i was needing a new one anyway, I want to get a pretty beefy one to also use for gaming and video and photo editing.

I was looking into getting a 40-or-so inch plasma or LCD instead of a 'real' computer monitor, and i saw a couple threads on the subject, but some are a few years old so i wanted to get opinions as to how well this works.

I know that resolution will be limited compared to a monitor, but what other concerns should i be looking for? I am thinking i'll get a video card with an HDMI output that will make the hooking-up pretty simple. Anything else?

Thanks.

[PharmerPhil 0]

A couple points to consider:

If you are real serious about your photo editing, you will need to color calibrate your monitor so that WYSIWYG. I don't know if you can get that level of color calibration out of consumer TVs these days or not.

I wouldn't go Plasma for a computer monitor. Your static computer images such as toolbars, dock, etc. will burn into the screen, and you'll see them even when watching TV.

Most better TVs have resolution comparable to better computer monitors. However, if you are too close to the monitor, this may be too much of a good thing. You want to make sure you are far back enough that you don't see individual pixels. There are a whole bunch of formulas for the optimal distance (it depends on TV size, HD vs. SD, and how good your eyes are...). Google "TV viewing distance" or something like that.

When I hook up my computer to one of my LCD TVs (20" next to my computer monitors or a 40" in the living room), I just use a DVI-to-HDMI cable. They're cheap. You don't get audio over DVI, but you're not really gonna watch movies on a big, beautiful screen using cheap built-in speakers...are you? Instead hook-up a digital audio out from your computer to a decent receiver and speakers. And before you think about it, most TVs won't output 5.1 audio to a receiver from a HDMI input source (they just output stereo instead). Something about Dolby licensing not allowing it to be passed through.

Make sure your video card supports the exact, native resolution of your TV (or vice versa) or you will end up having to jump through hoops to get them to talk nicely. I am guessing most modern cards will do 1920x1080 so that's a good TV pixel size to shoot for.

Have fun!

[FreeflyChile 0]

Thanks for the input -- very helpful!

A couple of things....good to know about the plasmas - LCDs are cheaper anyway, so that's likely the route i'll go.

I likely won't use this to watch movies as I have 60 inch with a PS3 attached that I use for that via HDMI. As far as sound, i'll run an optical cable from the computer sound card to a stereo system I have for that purpose.

Mainly I was worried for any connectivity issues or maybe other issues that I hadn't considered, but it seems like they work pretty well together. Thanks again for the help!

[mdrejhon 8]

If you get a 40" as a desktop computer monitor, you better have a big desk and push it to near the rear of desk.

Many really good recent 40" LCD's make very good computer monitors nowadays, but make sure your viewing distance is appropriate - I feel ideal distance is 3 or 4 feet away for a 40" monitor; which puts it flush at the very rear of a large deep desk, or in a very small media room. Otherwise you have to move your head to see the corners of your computer monitor, and you can get eyestrain for having too big a monitor too close.

Aim for 1080p display, so you get a 1920x1080 computer resolution. My vote goes for Sony Bravia or the Samsung 81-series (500,000:1 contrast ratio bliss on an LCD -- same screen, not just dynamic, due to individually-controllable area-based LED backlight!), the latter is among the best 40" league displays, if your money can afford it. It has shown to be an excellent videogaming 40" display; rave reviews everywhere. At least, feast your eyes on LN-T4081F at Best Buy, before you make any buying decisions on other 40" monitors.

If you play videogames, makes sure you get at least Radeon HD3850 or better, or Geforce 8800 series or better, since that's a lot of pixels to be pushing for 3D graphics. If you want max quality settings with full screen AA in most games including some upcoming ones, you may want to wait for the Radeon HD4870 arriving shortly, or get one of the Geforce 9000 series, or 8800GTX, or go for a dual-card setup (SLI/CrossFire). Just having DVI output is just fine; you can get a DVI to HDMI cable, the signal is actually pretty compatible.

Personally, I am using a Radeon HD3870 with my 24" 1920x1200 monitor and am able to get 60fps in all Half Life 2 based videogames, although I did have to turn off AA in Episode 2 to stay maxed at 60fps (since I prefer 60fps over 30fps -- it really makes a big difference to my eyes).

[DSE 3]

I feel ideal distance is 3 or 4 feet away for a 40" monitor;

Actually, 10 feet is ideal for a 40" monitor. Multiply the screen dimension x 3 and that'll give you a very rough approximation of where the eye no longer discerns pixels.
A 40" monitor will give you a monster headache in no time at a 4' distance.
FWIW, I'm a Bravia and Samsung 80 series fan too.
Plasmas: Burn in (as Phil mentioned) is a very big deal. It's not hard to calibrate an LCD monitor to be very close, assuming your video card allows for controlled calibration.
[self-serving alert] My latest book "The Full HD", goes fairly deeply into selecting a monitor, viewing distance, calibration, etc.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Awesome. I'll check out the Samsung but i will likely go the Sony route as there's a Sony outlet store not too far from Chicago where you can get large discounts. That's where i got my 60 inch Sony a couple years ago.

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

Actually, 10 feet is ideal for a 40" monitor.

I agree for television viewing, yes.

Your book is excellent, but you missed one critical point:

Observe that poster wants to use 40" TV as a computer monitor. So 3 x viewing distance does not necessarily apply, given the info the poster posted.

Therefore, if this is used as a primary computer monitor, the screen dimension x 1 is a more common measurement. Notice how most people put desktop computer monitors at arm's length? People usually sit an arm's length away from a computer monitor, this is often the case for 20" monitors. But if you double monitor size, you need two arm lengths, which is 3 to 4 feet from a 40" monitor.

It depends on the purpose of the computer monitor. Notice the poster says he wants to use this as a computer monitor instead of video.

However, if you're a videophile and use a good 1080p projector with good optics and your primary viewing material is always Blu-Ray with no standard-def television, screen dimension x 2 is good, or even x 1.5. For example, 15 feet away from a 10 feet projector screen. Just like watching a 40 cinema screen from 60 feet away; the best-quality Blu-Ray can be sharper than worst-quality mass-copy 35mm print at an average multiplex. (I now watch IMAX wherever possible, that's still much better than home 1080p on a good 1080p.

This is the chart.

Regular TV Viewing
3 x screen width

Primary computer monitor for desktop use
1 to 1.5 x screen width
(Yes, people are now starting to actually use 40" TV's as desktop computer monitors now: But you have to push them to two arm lengths instead of one arm lengths AND you must reduce brightnesse to eliminate eyestrain; see WARNING disclaimer at bottom.)

High-Def Only Use With 1080p
1.5 to 2 x Screen width
(Large-screen projector cinema recommendation)
(This even works fine with good quality upconverted DVD)

Several custom built basement home theaters, like those you see in Audio Video magazines with folding cinema seats, for use with Blu-Ray players and HDTV television, can go as low as 1 x screen width. 2.35:1 projector screens 12 to 15 feet wide, with a 12 to 15 feet viewing distance. Personally, this is too close to me and a little rich, but I actually have a projector that I use at 1.5 x screen width. Works out perfect, since I never use it for television viewing.

At 3 feet away from a 40", most CANNOT TELL the pixels of a 1080p monitor, especially if everything is anti-aliased. Look at 24" 1920x1200 computer monitors. Now, sit 24 inches away from it. Can you see the screendoor effect of a 1920x1200 LCD from 24" away. Nope. Most people can't, and especially with antialiasing in video and images, it's pretty much pixel free. A deep computer desk can be 40" deep, and if you mount a 40" LCD monitor on the wall at the very back of your office computer desk, it becomes perfectly fine to view this 40" computer monitor from 40" away for desktop use; this is excellent for lowered eyestrain, since you're not focussing on a nearby focal plane all day long. The trick is to set it up correctly, for the same pixels-per-radians in your viewing angle, as with other computer monitors. 24" monitor from 24" away. 40" monitor from 40" away. Same thing, for visual acuity. This assumes similiar computer resolutions such as 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. Of course, sharper-eyed people will want to slide the display a little further away, but you Photoshoppers ACTUALLY want to see the pixels - so you may actually want to slide the monitor up a little bit closer; such as 24 inches away from a 40" monitor. As long as you're able to lean forward and back, it works very well -- remember, we're talking COMPUTER use, not television use.

3 x screen width is TOO FAR to see the Start menu if you want to use full 1920x1080 computer desktop (without zooming), you need approximately 1 x screen width distance if you're using it as a regular desktop computer monitor. This is approximately equal to arm's length for 19" through 24", and approximately equal to two arm's lengths for 32" to 40". Two arm average lengths equal approximately three feet.

Now... if we're talking lower-quality 720p or 768p LCD for larger size computer text, yes, you need to put them a little further away before you stop seeing pixels. But if you mount your 40" 1080p monitor about three feet away (or four feet away, if your vision is good), computer text looks absolutely perfect, just like viewing arm's length away from a regular 22" or 24" computer monitor.

IMPORTANT: If you use a 40" computer monitor as a DESKTOP computer monitor, you MUST lower brightness of a modern flat panel LCD, to the same brightness as a computer monitor, so that the general amount light from 40" monitor is roughly equal to a properly adjusted monitor. This ELIMINATES the monster headaches 100%. Unfortunately, some LCD television brightness don't go low enough, so please test before you decide to use a 1080p television as a desktop computer monitor. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT! Most TV's are too bright at default settings (even in movie mode) for use as a desktop computer monitor, and will cause increased, rather than decreased, eyestrain. Once PROPERLY calibrated from the PERSPECTIVE of a DESKTOP use, it actually REDUCES eyestrain.

[DSE 3]

Quote

As long as you're able to lean forward and back, it works very well -- remember, we're talking COMPUTER use, not television use.

I'm aware of what we're discussing. I'm also understanding what he's talking about using the monitor for more than just computer GUI use.
Not only do I have an opinion on the subject, so does OSHA. The20/20/20 rule applies as well, but the general industry standard is that any monitor larger than 14" should be as far away as possible while still being readable. The luma factor of the monitor is incredibly painful to the eye when used for any length of time, and most users of computer monitors are staring at them for long periods of time.
Saying something doesn't "necessarily apply" assumes a lot more than simply assuming the HDTV will be used part time for computer use and part time for viewing use. Given that health issues apply, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.

[mdrejhon 8]

Thanks. Your PM has caused me to add a disclaimer (see edit above in red)

I was famous for some time in the home theater world - I regularly went to CES and CEDIA. I designed a few products for Stewart Filmscreen, TAW Inc., Key Digital, and a few other clients. I got mentioned in Forbes magazine (page 214 of July 24, 2000 issue).

I was the first moderator of the AVSCIENCE Home Theater Computers forum, beginning in 1999 -- in that day, members of that forum pratically invented the term "HTPC" which is now in widespread use by companies today.

Although I am now in the mobile industry, I respect your opinion, but I also am informed on many things. I do apologize if some of my posts presented a risk; but the truth is that TV's have started becoming much better computer monitors recently, especially with the advent of 1080p and when the monitor has a wide range of brightness and will get better (the LED backlights are excellent in wide brightness range adjustments from super-dim to super-bright -- much better than cold cathode)

Do this test, which I have:
1. Set up a 40" 1080p monitor. (don't use cheap 1360x768)
2. Configure computer to 1920x1080p maximum resolution
3. Adjust brightness down to minimum. If still too bright, use ATI/nVidia Color Calibration to reduce the brightness down digitally. Use a Spyder colorimeter and ColorFacts if necessary; I used to do some ISF calibrations. There are some disadvantages to doing it this way, as it can compress the color values to less than 8bits, but it's a compromise that is sometimes taken (if the monitor is still too bright)
4. Use regular computer fonts, rather than Large Fonts. Don't use Media Center, DVD, etc -- we're talking about Photoshop, Word, Adobe, Start Menu, Internet Explorer stuff.
5. Sit progressively further away from the display until you cannot read the Start menu.
6. Observe that the sweet spot is approximately 50" or 60" away, and even as little as 40". Sit 2x screen width away and you cannot read the computer text anymore; increasing eyestrain. When you're using maximum resolution on the new higher-end 1080p displays, sitting, 40" works better; this is the sweet spot when using a 1080p 40" display. Thus, I stand by my words that it reduces eyestrain once it's done properly. Many people eyes prove this - I saw some posts in optometrist forums too; especially lesser well-sighted people who find too much eyestrain focussing closer. The big companies just haven't researched this phenomenon; there definitely is a point where minimum eyestrain occurs (on a properly calibrated-for-COMPUTER-use 40" display set to MAXIMUM resolution of 1920x1080 with pixel-free goodness), at less than 1.5x screen width viewing distance.

Almost nobody uses an office computer monitor at 3x viewing distance, and the recommendations are from the old days of 14 inch monitors; it's actually a linear relationship: The bigger the monitor, the further away it must go. But it's definitely not black and white like a jump from arm's length to 8 feet away; it's rather a continuous scale depending on how the monitor is used, and how high resolution the computer monitor is, and how bright it is, etc. There are lot of variables. The important thing is for a double-sized monitor, it needs to be placed at double regular computer monitor distance. (i.e. two arm lengths away if you normally use a high-resolution 20" computer monitor at one arm lengths away).

I do not recommend doing this with plasma or DLP, since they flicker (colorwheel, and plasma pixel noise) which does increase eyestrain. The store-and-hold nature of LCD is preferable for computer monitor use, when brightness is cranked down low -- to match the safety recommendations of an average computer monitor, instead of a television set. That's the key. I emphasis, primary computer monitor rather than a video/television display.

Again, we're talking about the computer world, not the video world. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I actually know quite a few things -- the safety recommendations are actually spot on. But if you do the steps I mentioned above, you'll quickly go into total agreement, being a fellow video tech (even though I'm now a former one), if we're calibrating it for the purpose of a high-resolution primary computer monitor rather than a video/television display.

Either way, the original poster will just quickly figure out optimal viewing distance. If he's just setting up the monitor as a videogame monitor, then viewing distance doesn't matter nearly as much as Photoshop or Internet Explorer if running at its full 1080p resolution (instead of zoomed mode). His eyes will quickly tell him what's comfortable.

Part of my post was to warn him from setting it up like a regular 24" monitors: In recent times, people are starting to experiment with placing 32" televisions at only one arm's length on top of their monitor. THAT IS BAD. So my recommendations assist to properly calibrate and position a display, in the perspective of computer-specific use;

I do apologize I forgot to warn that most TV's are WAY TOO bright for use as desktop computer monitors, but fortunately this is fixable nowadays (through the dual action of the display's adjustments, and the Control Panel, or even better -- using a custom color profile that's perfectly calibrated in the perspective of desktop computer use rather than theater use).

Just look at the AVS HTPC forum, for the big boom of students and kids plonking cheap 32" TV's on their dorm-room or bedroom desks as primary computer monitors that also doubles as bed TV's -- and you will see the trend. We are the old generation (although I'm still much younger than you), but we should also watch what the new generation is trying to do too - and you are right, some of them don't know what they are doing and. Kids today, deciding between a cheap $500 32" TV and a $500 24" widescreen computer monitor, sometimes go for the 32" TV and plonk it on the desktop. Apparently the picture quality is starting to become so good enough that it's becoming increasingly done. What I tried to say is you MUST push the display to the REAR of your desk, not the middle of your desk (like most computer monitors) and dial the brightness WAY down... Old 21" CRT computer monitors couldn't be pushed to the rear of the desk, but flat panels now can, such as 32", 37", and 40" LCD's (and you still get roughly same field-of-view between the CRT monitor forced to be closer to your face, versus the much bigger flat panel LCD that can now be pushed to the rear of your desk)

Mind you, this may not be what the original poster is intending, but you have to realize that TV's are now starting to be plonked on desktop nowadays by the newer generations. Flat panels are now almost always expected to also have a DVI/VGA computer input as standard nowadays (And computer cards with HDMI output are now available), meaning that flat panel TV's now serve as good computer monitor replacements, and sometimes people are now placing these big TV's on desks instead of across the room. No standardized recommendations exist at the government level, so we have to extrapolate from both the OHSA and from users' experiences. The truth is to follow the steps above in my post, to show that 1 to 1.5x screen width viewing distance is the sweet spot for very high-resolution computer displays (i.e. 1080p), and BRIGHTNESS is the problem: It must be vastly reduced when used at much closer distances than regular television use.

Also, in fact, the Apple Cinema 30" display have pixels that are too small to make the monitor placed at the rear wall, so people often use the Apple Cinema 30" from less than 1 x viewing distance (you see this in Apple shops all the time, with people viewing this screen from 0.5 x to 0.7 x viewing distance). This is because this display has extreme resolution at 2560x1600 and you cannot read the text on this Apple computer monitor if you sit at even just 1.2 x screen width -- this produces more eyestrain than at 0.7x because the resolutiopn is so extreme and the text is so small. In fact, it's better to get a lower resolution computer monitor and sit it slightly further away: With the bigger pixels of 1920x1080 of a 32" flat panel LCD (or even 40"), putting it at 1x viewing distance, and at optimal computer monitor brightness, these displays can produce less eyestrain than, say, extreme-sized 2560x1600 monitors. Then again, even sitting 0.7x from a Apple 30" Cinema (that has been heavily lowered in brightness) has less eyestrain arm's length away from a 14" CRT monitor (which the OHSA is based on), because the CRT flickers and the text is always fuzzier on CRT than on LCD. So as you can see, it's not really clear cut. If you've run Final Cut on an Apple 30" Cinema display, I absolutely guarantee you will notice yourself sitting less than 1x computer monitor width a lot of the time, leaning forward to examine details on the screen, much like looking close at photographs -- to read the small text, thumbnails, labels, menus, etc. Yes, that may be bad for eyestrain for some people, unless they reconfigure the Apple to use super large fonts for all applications.

The smallest flat panel TV's are now smaller than the biggest flat panel monitors, so the lines are really BLURRING. Flat panel TV's are starting to equal or better resolution of flat panel computer monitors. In fact, there is actually nearly nil difference between a 24" or 28" widescreen TV and a 24" or 28" widescreen computer monitor; if you ISF calibrate both equally, with the same computer resolution (1920x1080 or 1920x1200) they are exactly the same in eyestrain at exactly the same viewing distance. What's important is to be educated on how to properly calibrate the display for its INTENDED use. Which means GREATLY REDUCED brightness, if used desktop-monitor style.

Yes, new guidelines may be required. But ISF guidelines, OHSA guidelines, and many books on home theater, don't apply to computer monitors in the recent trend of today's much-fuzzier-line between TV's and computer monitors. But what I am writing is the current prevailing trend of the new generation. Somebody needs to write a book about computer monitors using 2008-era technology of the blurred line between monitors and televisions. I actually even qualify as the author but my money is currently in mobile devices programming, so I won't be authoring such a book. (hint: A book about computer monitors: New book idea for you. Profit opportunity?)

[DSE 3]

Quote

Somebody needs to write a book about computer monitors using 2008-era technology of the blurred line between monitors and televisions. I actually even qualify as the author but my money is currently in mobile devices programming, so I won't be authoring such a book. (hint: A book about computer monitors: New book idea for you. Profit opportunity?

Nope...already written a lot of pages about it in a recently released book (I think you said it was a good book, but given that it only released 10 days ago,I sorta doubt we're referring to the same book).
Computer displays and television displays are the first point of convergence, and we're almost there, but not quite. Part of the reason we're not there is because the home movie viewing experience doesn't share the same luma and distance requirements. It'll be a while, and somewhat evolutionary before they do. Panasonic has the best ideas, IMO, on this subject, but even Panasonic offers disclaimers about resolution, distance, and luminance.

[mdrejhon 8]

I meant to say, your book sounds extremely good as I have not seen it. What I wanted to do is avoid sounding like I was "putting your book down", while moving onto other specific points of focus. I should have worded it more clearly in that your book sounds like it is excellent.

Quote

Panasonic has the best ideas, IMO, on this subject, but even Panasonic offers disclaimers about resolution, distance, and luminance.

Very rightfully so - there are risks, since the adjustments for TV's and for monitor's are different, and very different default settings.

Among the community that knows what they are doing, it is now possible in many cases to calibrate a 26" or 28" widescreen LCD television to the same settings as a 26" or 28" widescreen LCD computer monitor (of similiar resolution), to recommended computer-usage settings, and thus the different recommendations for these two displays are somewhat contradictory now that both are virtually identical (after calibration to computer usage) from an ergonomic perspective for certain displays. i.e. 24" 1920x1200 flat panel LCD monitors have fallen to only $399 each, and Viewsonic sells computer monitors that are now 26" and 28" in size. Plus television manufacturers have now started releasing very small 1080p LCD televisions, that are similiar in resolution to these. Even Sharp now even has a 22" and 26" LCD HDTV that is full 1080p. Same technology, same eye effect, in fact sometimes they use the same panels in both TV and monitors - for certain models. Yet, the community continue to disagree even though now we have run into the situation of identicalness / near-identicalness.

Eventually, there will be better standardizations as time passes, but one thing is definitely true: People are already plonking some of the LCD flat panel TV on computer desktops, against manufacturer recommendations. It can be done more safely though (With the smaller of LCD flat panels, up to approximately 40" depending on desk depth), with a few simple measures such as proper lowered brightness, and sliding it to the very rear of the desk.

This original poster *could* be one of these people.

[FreeflyChile 0]

I will have to, once I get the HDTV i will use as a monitor, look at what settings work best.

As far as distance, I already know this won't be on a desk right in front of me, but a few feet away mounted on a wall.

Anyway, thanks for all the input, and DSE, i'd love to read that book.

[mdrejhon 8]

If you go the Bravia route, remember they can be blindingly bright at close distances, especially if you don't have windows or game late into the eveings or lights off. They make wonderful monitors but crank the brightness WAY down or it's headache inducing. Even my 24" designed-for-PC monitor burns my eyes during videogaming, if I leave the monitor at default brightness -- same problem.

To push the monitor even further back, you can also configure Control Panel font size to Large fonts, and use Firefox or Internet Explorer 7's page zoom feature (125% or 150%) to make it more comfortable to view from further-than-usual PC-monitor-usage (non-television-usage) distance. Then you can back away to approximately 2:1 viewdistance:screenwidth, closer to regular hometheater recommendation than usual computer monitor usage as a compromise.

Without adjusting the operating system or letting it scale a lower computer resolution (i.e. 800x600 stretched to 1920x1080), 1080p usually causes computer text way too tiny to read if you back away further away than 1.5:1 which ends up to be slightly less than approximately 60 inches away, from a 40 inch diagonal display. After all you're going to be using this for videogaming anyway, so this is not going to be that big an issue anyway. You can easily make do with just 720p or 768p rather than 1080p, if you want to save a few dollars, although it's nice to go for 1080p. You'll just have to experiment with computer settings... But proper reduced brightness will be a primary key to eliminating eyestrain. You'll know if you have sore eyes after 2 hours of gaming, that you need to make adjustments. Even today's computer monitors are often set way too bright, just like TV's and equally at risk of eyestrain.

[DSE 3]

Actually, today's displays are generally set to a lower-than-historically average due to the effect of increased saturation with a lower luma value. Think something along the lines of an underexposed shot allows colors to saturate better....

While your ideas may work, having all these different settings for different viewing experiences seems silly and is definitely an impediment to the creative process vs the movie viewing process, vs an efficient workflow each time the schizophrenic monitor is powered up with a variety of profiles. "Am I set to a res of 1080 today? Or am I 720? How bright am I? How accurate am I going to be with all these changing settings?" How far back should I sit for this vs that? For photoshop I want this resolution and for video editing on a secondary video card (assuming Vegas), I need that resolution and color space and calibration. "Schizophrenic" doesn't quite cover it. If you're using the device as a secondary monitor for video editing (making some assumptions here), there are some VERY specific settings, recommendations that you'll want to observe.

Using the industry-recommended distances for monitors larger than 19" is a good plan, IMO.
Eyestrain can be painful, and usually has residual result for up to several days.
It's true there are no federal regulations regarding monitor distances, but OSHA and the manufacturers generally agree. It's no different than BSRs existing in areas that FARs may not directly apply. They're there for good reason, and generally are a good idea to follow.

Reading (what I feel is) silliness about monitor distances for this activity and that luminance settings for that activity may somewhat easily be translated to recommending that someone with 200 jumps might manage a wingloading of 1.7 "if they do this or that."

then again, some users might not mind changing profiles for every unique input and display use. I know I would mind (and do).

[FreeflyChile 0]

OK, so I have one final question regarding websites such as newegg and overstock.com....the prices seem to be cheaper than going to best buy.... so what's the catch? would you guys recommend going this route, and if so, what kinds of things should i watch for?

thanks for all the help!

[siddacious 0]

Quote

OK, so I have one final question regarding websites such as newegg and overstock.com....the prices seem to be cheaper than going to best buy.... so what's the catch? would you guys recommend going this route, and if so, what kinds of things should i watch for?

thanks for all the help!

There isn't much to worry about with Newegg. They're very well known as taking good care of the customer, and I've made several thousand dollar purchases through them with no issue. They're just better.

One catch: No instant gratification

A dolor netus non dui aliquet, sagittis felis sodales, dolor sociis mauris, vel eu libero cras. Interdum at. Eget habitasse elementum est.

[DSE 3]

I'll second NewEgg, they're great. Overstock.com has their main warehouse (and original location) just over the hill from me, and I'd still go w/NewEgg. They don't deal with greymarket, and they have great prices, good service, and a decent return policy.

[Icon134 0]

Quote

There isn't much to worry about with Newegg. They're very well known as taking good care of the customer, and I've made several thousand dollar purchases through them with no issue. They're just better.

One catch: No instant gratification

I couldn't agree more... I've had excellent experiences with newegg...

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[FreeflyChile 0]

thanks again, everyone!

[FreeflyChile 0]

So i got a samsung, and it works great...the thing i am trying to do is get the settings right.

i have it a few feet from where i sit, and the letters look a bit odd....i have tried turning the brightness down and contrast, and they just don't look as 'crisp' as a monitor....any suggestions?

[mdrejhon 8]

DSE,

As for color gamut - let's remember we're comparing LCD versus LCD. Many LCD TV's and newer LCD monitors are 92% NTSC using fuller spectrum CCFL backlights, so they actually end up having similiar measured color gamuts with a colorimeter (i.e. ColorFacts with a Spyder). On these panels, the same filters are typically used. We're comparing LCD versus LCD, not LCD versus plama, LCD versus CRT. So assuming both the TV and monitor are set to the same brightness, which typically means the TV needs to be dimmed, and you're viewing at the same angle-of-view (i.e. 20"@2ft vs 40"@4ft), about the same amount of light is hitting your retinas, with the same amount of color saturation. Resulting in similiar eye stress. Also, typical CCFL backlights, often result in either 78% or 92%, although newer technologies such as LED is leading to even more saturated colors, though they can be calibrated to more subdued levels...

Once equality is reached on certain displays, the other straw that might be grasped at is the focal plane. Of course, one has to refocus the focal plane from 4ft away to your keyboard constantly, that could add eyestrain for a non-touchtypist than refocussing from a 19" monitor 2 feet away to their keyboard below the monitor. But then again, this is less eyestrain than continuous refocussing from focal plane 8ft away. This ain't a TV being used as a TV, folks... We have to factor in this other ergonomic of refocussing from nearby materials constantly (copy materials, art, mouse, keyboard, etc)

As for profile switching, I only use one profile most of the time, but my Samsung has a nifty front-panel button that allows me to switch to a dimmer or brighter profile, because I am next to a window. When the sun is shining, I sometimes go into a brighter mode when the display is dimmer than a sheet of paper sitting in shadow on my desk, for example... One button press. The fact that I can switch between some predefined modes in the display (movie mode, game mode, internet mode, all separately calibratable) is a convenience just because Samsung added the button to the front of my Samsung 24". Granted, you won't see such a button in front of a 40" Samsung LCD sitting in the television section....so no disagreement there about the inconvenience of switching profiles...

I totally agree that following industry recommendations is the best. But for example, have you checked Apple/Dell/HP's recommendations for their oversized 30" computer monitors, versus what people are ACTUALLY doing with them?

Note - there's less eyestrain in a properly calibrated-for-computer-usage 40" LCD at 4 feet away than a 19" CRT at the usual office-environment 2 feet distance in actual practice, so all is moot when this is considered. 40"@4ft and 20"@2ft is the same angle-of-view. There's really no contest when we're talking about this apples-to-oranges comparision for that matter.

Also, I disagree it's the same thing as a 1.7 wingload - a pretty silly apples-to-octopus comparision. If we're talking about skydiving world, we're talking about round parachutes versus square parachutes -- early on, the early squares were risky for students until it all progressed to the point where students were safer under squares. But even I think that's a silly comparision too (as you do too, probably). The truth is I am witnessing trends (24", 26", 28" and even 30" computer monitors at Best Buy in the COMPUTER section). That's bigger than the 19" you're talking about. Plus, smaller LCD TV's are smaller than these and are more eye-appropriate at typical too-close officedesk view distances than some of these oversized computer monitors sitting in the computer section. We have to understand lines are being blurred and the new university student who's slapping a multifunctional display on their dorm desk, to things like people like these who's posting here instead of AVSFORUM.

Anyway, I do not disagree with following industry recommendations, but the lines have blurred more than you think in the real world -- been to a student dorm lately? A LAN gaming party lately? Seen the new 26"/28"/30" computer monitors in computer sections of stores, and how they're actually being used in the real world such as a web design studio, etc? Parallel sets of informal recommendations are popping all over the place based on the explosion of these new technologies. Some crapshoot, some pretty decent (i.e. angle-of-view school of thoughts, etc) And I'm not talking about the CEDIA / NAB community. It's fruitless for the NAB community to be black and white like people fighting a Mac vs PC war in this school of thought. And yes, DSE -- I'm sure some people are definitely hurting there eyes in the meantime, while others are making it much more eye friendly for themselves (based on all the posts in certain foruns how much more eye-friendly things are now -- people who've upgraded from a 17" CRT to 26" LCD widescreen, etc). It's an evolving world. Also, the line isn't sharp at 19" - it's more of a proportional scaling, and other factors need to be taken into account. Improved sliding-scale recommendations (Computer-usage bigger than 19") better be made soon, warning labels, et cetra, to make things safe since manufacturers aren't going to stop pushing the envelopes on making computer monitors bigger, and making TV's even more computer friendly, and keyboards popping up in modern living rooms with media centers, and people using them in ways against recommendations that were made conservative due to lawsuit-proofing.

However the fact that this discussion exists, means one thing possibly: Today's new TV-sized computer monitors in the computer section of stores, are getting TOO BIG.

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

So i got a samsung, and it works great...the thing i am trying to do is get the settings right.

i have it a few feet from where i sit, and the letters look a bit odd....i have tried turning the brightness down and contrast, and they just don't look as 'crisp' as a monitor....any suggestions?

I assume you've already tried switching resolutions in Control Panel (via Display Icon). Make sure you try widescreen resolutions, typically 1280x720, 1280x768 and 1366x768 for a 720p-type display (different models vary), or 1920x1080 for a 1080p type display.

The easiest next-step is to try switching to DVI cable instead of a VGA cable, if both your computer and the display has DVI connections. Try a different port (i.e. DVI port instead of HDMI port, if using a DVI-to-HDMI converter). Some HDMI ports don't seem to like computer resolutions, although This may require switching to a different computer resolution. The monitor will do pixel-exact display of computer graphics much better on DVI, as not all widescreen monitors support 1:1 pixel mapping for widescreen modes for VGA. However, try VGA too if you're only testing DVI/HDMI, the vice versa actually sometimes happens: On some 768p (rather than 720p) displays, VGA works better than DVI/HDMI because some set manufacturers don't design them to display native resolutions properly on all inputs. Sad, I know. But knowing Samsung (Which manufactures both TV's and computer monitors) and recent displays do have good computer compatibility as a result, it should be possible -- try different inputs.

TV settings: If your set has an overscan setting, turn it off. If your set has an image scaling option or computer stretch option, turn it off. (This helps if you're using a DVI connection and your computer only has 1360x768 and the monitor is 1366x768 -- a 6 pixel difference -- that will enable you to fill the screen perfectly and only waste a couple millimeters at both edges of the screen)

If you are stuck with VGA, try the clock/phase test pattern at http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/clock_phase.php -- it will get you as close to ballpark as possible until you have a better solution.

If all else fails, google for instructions on how to set the exact computer resolution and adjust for 1:1 pixel mapping -- check forums such as www.avsforum.com "Home Theater Computers". Enthusiasts there often have tricks up their sleeves. The discussions can be rather technical.

Once this is done, you may wish to calibrate your display since it's not really designed for computer. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ can be a good starting point on all LCD displays. There are better ways to calibrate, but if you're getting it to look good for videogames which isn't as critical as Photoshop or other applications, this web resource is a big help. This will help you get things looking crisp without eyestrain.

[DSE 3]

A- you may not have read what I've had to say on this subject; monitor sizes and critical distance don't come into play until we're talking about monitors larger than 23" and/or we're dealing with specific bandwidths. Maybe spend a little time reading Poynton if you want to play with the math in "real world." He's forgotten more about the subject than I'll likely ever know.

B-Given that I work with HD and SD, calibration, and matching displays, and am a trained DIT, I know what I need to know to do my job both for our in-house work and our clients on-set and studio work.
Part of what I know, is that as a professional who has to own his work and words, it's generally a bad idea to make recommendations that lie outside of the industry spec, whether it's wingloading or luma levels. Eyestrain is a very real issue, and just because Best Buy and Circuit City do something doesn't make it the right thing. Whatever works for you is great. It may not work for someone else. I'm not the expert you are, so I'll leave it to what I've been taught and my own experiences resolution tests. Which well could be flawed.

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/clock_phase.php

Corresponding in PM, I'm told this link doesn't work -- try this link instead www.lagom.nl and clicking "LCD calibration" and going from there.

Also, don't forget to check the Sharpness test pattern at the calibration website. FreeflyChile told me that adjusting sharpness helped (edge enhancement is one of the possible distortions of computer text), thanks to DSE for that tip...