Ask HN: experience using big LCD TV (42"+) as monitor?
9 comments
It all depends on what you expect from the display.
A 42" plasma/lcd/etc doesn't have as much resolution/pixels as even a standard 22" monitor these days. So while your image is larger, it's also going to be less crisp. Text will generally be less readable as well.
If your use is primarily graphical, then it may work very well for you. If you think it's going to function as a true second monitor for day-to-day stuff, you'll probably be disappointed.
FWIW, I have 2 42" displays and a 60" display, all with Mac Mini's attached to them (along with various other devices) at my house. They work great for watching movies, general/occasional web surfing, weather, etc. They do NOT work well (IMO) for reading emails, reading text-heavy sites (like HN), doing heavy photoshop work, etc. YMMV.
A 42" plasma/lcd/etc doesn't have as much resolution/pixels as even a standard 22" monitor these days. So while your image is larger, it's also going to be less crisp. Text will generally be less readable as well.
If your use is primarily graphical, then it may work very well for you. If you think it's going to function as a true second monitor for day-to-day stuff, you'll probably be disappointed.
FWIW, I have 2 42" displays and a 60" display, all with Mac Mini's attached to them (along with various other devices) at my house. They work great for watching movies, general/occasional web surfing, weather, etc. They do NOT work well (IMO) for reading emails, reading text-heavy sites (like HN), doing heavy photoshop work, etc. YMMV.
My plan was to develop on laptop screen then run the art on the TV. However, I was hoping that the TV would be usable for reading email, etc, if I bumped up the font size. Maybe I can find a friend with said TV and try it out for a while.
It might work if you bump up the font size, but then when your email app is on your regular screen the fonts will seem HUGE.
You might be able to use the TV for "skimming" email.
You might be able to use the TV for "skimming" email.
I have a 42" plasma TV hooked up to a Windows computer and Mac Mini. I use it for playing games and watching movies.
At 'couch distance' (~10 feet), normal size (10-12 pt) text is pretty much too small to read. I have 20-20 vision. 16-18 is readable, but my eyes get tired of it after a few hours of following chat on WoW.
I had no problems with crispness of image or anything of that nature.
Granted, I'm talking 10 feet and you're asking about 4, so... grain of salt.
Also, in my not so honest opinion, things you stare at all day are not things you want to go cheap on. Buy a decent TV if you buy one. If you have the time, find a model you like then set up alerts on FatWallet.com to tell you when one's on sale. I did that for my TV and got it (new) for $1000 (it's $1700 normally).
If you want an actual data point at 4 feet away from a 42" TV, I can pull a chair up to 4' away tonight and use the TV instead of my laptop. Just ask.
At 'couch distance' (~10 feet), normal size (10-12 pt) text is pretty much too small to read. I have 20-20 vision. 16-18 is readable, but my eyes get tired of it after a few hours of following chat on WoW.
I had no problems with crispness of image or anything of that nature.
Granted, I'm talking 10 feet and you're asking about 4, so... grain of salt.
Also, in my not so honest opinion, things you stare at all day are not things you want to go cheap on. Buy a decent TV if you buy one. If you have the time, find a model you like then set up alerts on FatWallet.com to tell you when one's on sale. I did that for my TV and got it (new) for $1000 (it's $1700 normally).
If you want an actual data point at 4 feet away from a 42" TV, I can pull a chair up to 4' away tonight and use the TV instead of my laptop. Just ask.
In my experience, TVs are terrible for displaying anything but video. Driving a TV from a computer can be problematic for a variety of reasons: signal timings, available resolutions, overscan, etc.
You'd think that with HDMI being essentially the same as DVI (leaving aside audio and such) we'd be rid of this issue, but no, it's been dragged into the HD era too.
Personally, I've had the best results with the VGA (analog! gasp!) inputs on TVs that have them. Basically nothing apart from computers provide VGA signals, so the TV knows what to expect. This avoids overscan, running at the native panel resolution, etc. I realise that for something as high as 1920x1080 this might not give decent results, but I would check in the specs if your TV's panel REALLY has that resolution. I've seen all sorts of weird resolutions in TVs.
You'd think that with HDMI being essentially the same as DVI (leaving aside audio and such) we'd be rid of this issue, but no, it's been dragged into the HD era too.
Personally, I've had the best results with the VGA (analog! gasp!) inputs on TVs that have them. Basically nothing apart from computers provide VGA signals, so the TV knows what to expect. This avoids overscan, running at the native panel resolution, etc. I realise that for something as high as 1920x1080 this might not give decent results, but I would check in the specs if your TV's panel REALLY has that resolution. I've seen all sorts of weird resolutions in TVs.
You've got to look at the native resolution of the LCD, which for a 1080p TV would is 1920x1080. For a comparison, a 30" Apple Cinema Display is capable of 2560X1600. So, fewer pixels over a greater screen area = kinda chunky!
At home I use my old Mac workstation as a media/internet server and have it plugged straight into my HDTV as the monitor. I use Teleport for controlling mouse / keyboard on the workstation from my laptop instead of running cables.
I don't think I'd want to run my HDTV as often or as long as I have my laptop open (which is 18-24 hrs/day). I still prefer a dedicated 2nd monitor (which I have at the studio).
I don't think I'd want to run my HDTV as often or as long as I have my laptop open (which is 18-24 hrs/day). I still prefer a dedicated 2nd monitor (which I have at the studio).
My girlfriend bought a 46" Sharp Aquos LCD 1080p TV a few weeks ago, and I built her an HTPC to drive it. It's a tolerable monitor, but only for games (for which it rules) and movies (also awesome). Since it's the only Windows machine in the house, I use it for testing our UI with IE, and even briefly using it for development it is apparent that this is not the ideal workstation monitor.
And on the Costco front, we checked out their stock, and they didn't have any of the models we liked. We were mainly shopping for the high end Sharp models, as most of the rest of the LCDs we looked at were a bit blocky in high movement scenes. The Sharp also had a better contrast ratio, 10000:1, than almost all of the other LCDs, which leads to clearly deeper blacks. We found a great deal on the model we wanted at BeachAudio.com (we'd intended to buy the 42", but the 46" was gonna be about the same price). Even shipped, it was about $250 cheaper than buying locally.
And on the Costco front, we checked out their stock, and they didn't have any of the models we liked. We were mainly shopping for the high end Sharp models, as most of the rest of the LCDs we looked at were a bit blocky in high movement scenes. The Sharp also had a better contrast ratio, 10000:1, than almost all of the other LCDs, which leads to clearly deeper blacks. We found a great deal on the model we wanted at BeachAudio.com (we'd intended to buy the 42", but the 46" was gonna be about the same price). Even shipped, it was about $250 cheaper than buying locally.
Quick observation. Your eyes will need to make a dramatic focus change between a monitor on your desk and another on your wall, or it's really close to your face, in which case you'll be scanning all over the place looking for stuff). Either way you're probably going to tire them out faster.
My boss (day job) has a flat screen TV on his wall that he uses as a third monitor. Some observations:
* He doesn't use it very frequently for himself. * It's somewhat useful if he wants to show you some content online without you squinting at his on-desk displays * The resolution isn't that fantastic. * My boss is a Costco freak, so I'm sure the Aquos display he has is from there.
So, in my research with a sample space of one, I'd say that it's an okay thing to do, but if you were intending to use the display as a day-to-day second monitor, you'd probably be better off getting something that'll sit next to your laptop.
My boss (day job) has a flat screen TV on his wall that he uses as a third monitor. Some observations:
* He doesn't use it very frequently for himself. * It's somewhat useful if he wants to show you some content online without you squinting at his on-desk displays * The resolution isn't that fantastic. * My boss is a Costco freak, so I'm sure the Aquos display he has is from there.
So, in my research with a sample space of one, I'd say that it's an okay thing to do, but if you were intending to use the display as a day-to-day second monitor, you'd probably be better off getting something that'll sit next to your laptop.
A 42" screen 4 feet away will only appear the same size as a 21" monitor 2 feet away. Remember its all about view distance. Any distance at least 1.2x screen width is usually considered acceptable but if you want the screen further away for being able to show more people thats fine. It will just diminish the perceived size.
If you use it frequently you might strain your eyes though, focusing between near and far all the time. If you start to get a headache you could just try moving it closer.
If you use it frequently you might strain your eyes though, focusing between near and far all the time. If you start to get a headache you could just try moving it closer.
This sounds less like a second monitor, and more like a test environment that is meant to mimic real life usage.
I've found TVs to not be very effective second monitors.
I've found TVs to not be very effective second monitors.
Sorry for the thread hijack, but I'm curious about people's use of monitors as tv replacements. I don't have a tv - instead my second monitor has hdmi input, and I use that for my very infrequent tv watching. I think that the quality of the image isn't all that it should or could be, and wondering if other people have found ways to get better quality HD on a computer monitor.
I've only ever used monitors driven by a PC playing video, not from some other video source, but for those scenarios I've not had any trouble.
The problem with other video sources is that the HDTV timings aren't what a monitor will usually get from a PC. This is particularly problematic in PAL-land, as 50Hz are unheard of on PC monitors, although I wouldn't be surprised if the NTSC "not-quite-60-Hz" caused havoc in the monitor circuitry. Of course, the reverse situation is just as bad. TVs expect TV timings on their HDMI inputs, they'll do overscan trimming, etc.
The problem with other video sources is that the HDTV timings aren't what a monitor will usually get from a PC. This is particularly problematic in PAL-land, as 50Hz are unheard of on PC monitors, although I wouldn't be surprised if the NTSC "not-quite-60-Hz" caused havoc in the monitor circuitry. Of course, the reverse situation is just as bad. TVs expect TV timings on their HDMI inputs, they'll do overscan trimming, etc.
The draw is that there is an assumption that 'large monitor' == good, and tv == 'large monitor'.
The problem is that what people really want is more pixels, and HDTVs actually have fewer than most monitors.
Monitors as TVs don't work for me because I want more than just me to be able to watch and that means moving the viewing device further back. After moving the viewing device further back it doesn't really matter how much fine-grained detail there is. Whalla! That's a TV! :)
'course I haven't "watched tv" in a couple weeks... but this is beside the point.
The problem is that what people really want is more pixels, and HDTVs actually have fewer than most monitors.
Monitors as TVs don't work for me because I want more than just me to be able to watch and that means moving the viewing device further back. After moving the viewing device further back it doesn't really matter how much fine-grained detail there is. Whalla! That's a TV! :)
'course I haven't "watched tv" in a couple weeks... but this is beside the point.
I have a small enough room that my 27" monitor works nicely. However I read about HD features - "advanced signal processing, comb filter, blah, blah, blah" - that suggest that my monitor might not be as good quality as a TV just because it isn't optimized for that. I don't have a tv to compare it to unfortunately, but I see things like motion blur, crappy blacks, that make me think it could be better.
I make projected software generated art as my job, so this is also a way to have a demo environment.