t.v. as a monitor?

P

plantastic

New member
My wife and I recently took photos in Yellowstone.

After sorting and processing, my wife hooked up her laptop to her Mom's flatscreen t.v.

Photo night was a blast, and it got me wondering what the drawbacks are to using a t.v. as a monitor for editing pictures.

I tried usng the search function, but could find no reference as to either the drawbacks or benefits, if any.

So, is it a sneaky way to get a large screen monitor, or a newbie idea?

Thanks for any responses.

Scott
 
not really. i used a 26" HD samsung as my PC monitor for about a year (i spent $2500 building it myself, very fast gaming comp). its res was the same as any average comp monitor, and it actually looked much better than a 1080P comp monitor i tried a little later. the TV was $700, much more expensive than most comp monitors.

you can find HD tv's that have the same resolutions as comp monitors. there's plenty of LCD tv's that are 1920X1080

i was planning on getting a 40"+ to game on but then I got a SW tank lol
 
Thank you for answering so fast, Doug.

I figured there was a simple reason. You can tell my level of ignorance!

What would you recommend for an aspiring photographer?

I have already experienced the incongruity between processed image on our computer screen, and what the printer spits out.


I think about 1/3 of the equation is having the right tools, the second third is understanding how to use them, and the last third is having the creative eye. Fortunately for me the last third I think(hope!) I have...it is the first
2/3rds that can be costly to figure out on one's own.
 
At the risk of sounding blasphemous, I would like to provide some clarification which I hope doesn't contradict the mighty and all knowing Doug.

While as a generality I would agree with his statement about computer monitors being higher resolution than many tvs, when one gets to 1080p resolution, they are about tied. 1080p is progressively scanned 1920x1080. The term "HD" can refer to resolutions as low as 720p (1280x720). Many LCD HD tvs, particularly those less than say 32", are that format. There are of course 1080p tvs as small as 23". "Old school" standard definition maxed out at 480x360 (4:3 or 1.33:1 aspect ratio), typically interlaced ("i" v. "p").

Many "widescreen" computer displays are 1680x1050, which is actually slightly less resolute than 1920x1080 (1080p). The difference is mostly in horizontal resolution, with 1680x1050 being a 1.6:1 aspect ratio and 1920x1080 being 1.78:1 ("true" widescreen).

Many tvs have vga inputs for hooking up computers to them. However, vga resolution is 640x480, which, aside from being 4:3 aspect ratio, even if upscaled, is far from true 1080p HD. I believe using a HDMI connector between the computer and tv could allow for 1080p display but not all computers have HDMI out, though that's changing rapidly.
 
Reef Bass said:
Many tvs have vga inputs for hooking up computers to them. However, vga resolution is 640x480, which, aside from being 4:3 aspect ratio, even if upscaled, is far from true 1080p HD. I believe using a HDMI connector between the computer and tv could allow for 1080p display but not all computers have HDMI out, though that's changing rapidly.
Click to expand...

There are actually quite a few HDTVs that do full 1080p over the VGA connection.

Most computers have DVI ports now (and more are getting HDMI). DVI is essentially HDMI without sound.
 
My understanding is that the vga input is upconverted to 1080p, which is like digital zoom compared to optical. If you could provide some links to facts that prove otherwise, I'd love to read them. I like to learn.

Yes, lots of computers have dvi ports (mine included), but I haven't seen many recent tvs with dvi inputs. One of the selling points of HDMI to consumers is the "one cable carries everything" feature, versus separate cables for video and sound, thus few to no dvi inputs.
 
It's not the number of pixels, it's their size and that becomes a problem on the larger TV screens. Computer screens are designed for close viewing, televisions are not. Under 26" it's probably no that big of a deal but you start getting into very low dpi numbers when you start going bigger.
 
IDK I use my 52" LED LCD @ about 5 foot for my comp screen when the kids and wife aren't home and it is crystal clear even at 2 foot but then you can't really see the whole screen...lol...you would definitely need to adjust your desk so you sit further back if going to a dedicated monitor with a large formate TV. The distance back will depend on the quality of the TV.
 
fatrip said:
IDK I use my 52" LED LCD @ about 5 foot for my comp screen when the kids and wife aren't home and it is crystal clear even at 2 foot but then you can't really see the whole screen...lol...you would definitely need to adjust your desk so you sit further back if going to a dedicated monitor with a large formate TV. The distance back will depend on the quality of the TV.
Click to expand...

Case in point. You're doing your editing on roughly a ~46dpi screen. That's lower res than most cellphone screens. ;)
 
We use our 42" flat screen as a computer monitor. We don't have cable and it's great since we watch our TV there (hulu and movies). We surf from the sofa with wireless keyboard and mouse. I love it!
 
beerguy said:
Case in point. You're doing your editing on roughly a ~46dpi screen. That's lower res than most cellphone screens. ;)
Click to expand...

than why is it clearer than my phone and just as clear as my 20 inch HD monitor?


Edit: figured it out contrast ratio's are way higher on the TV. So DPI really doesn't matter when essentially the color clarity between two pixels is much better.
 
Last edited:
plantastic said:
What would you recommend for an aspiring photographer?

I have already experienced the incongruity between processed image on our computer screen, and what the printer spits out.
Click to expand...

I would look into the Eizo line of monitors or the Apple monitors. To save some cash I ended up with a Samsung SyncMaster 245t which works out very well for me. After you get a decent LCD you are going to want to work on the lighting in your room and get a color calibrator... Jeff
 
Thank you everyone for your input...

Unfortunately, the technical vocabulary is lost on me, although I an loosely following along.

Jmik26-

Thank you for the specifics of brand names. I usually start there and work my way back as to why somthing is "good".

Do you post process pictures for display, submission, etc.?

As a side note, we blew up one of my wifes pictures to 24" x 36", framed it and hung it in the bedroom. What a thrill to see one of her images so large!
 
Even if your resolutions are about the same, 1080 on a 20" screen has much smaller pixels and higher pixel density than 1080 on a 40" screen. So the TV is a great photo viewer, but I would not do my editing on it. And my monitor is calibrated to give me the most accurate print possible. My TV is set to give me a bright pleasurable viewing experience, not accuracy.
And that's to say if the monitor and tv had comparable resolutions. I do my editing on a 1900x1200 monitor.
 
I recently bought a new Sharp 46" LED LCD TV. I sue an HDMI cable from my laptop, and the resolution is crystal clear. I can't even see the pixels if I look closely. My point is, if you spend the money, you can get a TV to work very well and clearly as a monitor. Without all the bells and whistles though, you are looking at a lower resolution like Dough was saying. But it is possible to get a mighty clear image on your television if it's good enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

305 Steve
Steve's Reef Casa
Replies
13
Views
1K
Dustin07
D
pheinzig
22g LPS build
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Reefing102
Reefing102
Plastik0cean
Indonesian Biotope Build - JBJ 45G
Replies
1
Views
680
JohnL
JohnL
slief
NEW Apex FMK Flow Monitoring kit with two 1/2” flow sensors & one 1” flow sensor
Replies
1
Views
655
slief
slief
T
Internet monitoring of Aquarium
Replies
8
Views
1K
Jaffster
J
Back
Top