Is there an LED TV detailed enough for photoshop work?

[livingski]

Currently searching the forums. Is there an LED TV that covers the Adobe RGB or sRGB color spaces and is of high quality to do photoshop work on and display high quality photographs on?

Thanks.

 

[chrono1081]

Nope. TVs are terrible to use as monitors if you care about resolution.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Get Dell's ultrasharp 24" IPS panel. You can hook so much up to it, it might as well be a TV.

It has 2 DVI, VGA, composite, component, display port, hdmi, sound out/support for a speaker bar and a 4 port USB hub. It is very adjustable, with settings for sRGB and Adobe RGB. it is a matte screen, 1920x1200. It is absolutely beautiful.

Oh, and it rotates 90 degrees for portrait mode, swivels, and it height adjustable. I got mine for a little less than $500. Love it. At $600 I would still be happy.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...etail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=320-8277


If you want to game on it (Xbox, PS3), the response time and lag in game mode are perfect for fast paced games. Absolutely no issues there.

 

[jampat]

If you want a little bigger, the Dell U2711 is also good. Dell and Apple also make 30" screens that are very good.

TV's are not designed to be monitors, you will get much better results using a monitor as a TV than the reverse. Look at the prices of monitors that meet your requirements (ie. Dell U2xxx, HP Dreamcolor, Apple) and extrapolate up to the size of most TV's. You would have one of the most expensive tv's on the market with essentially no visible benefit when watching TV.

 

[fkntotalkaos]

Nope. TVs are terrible to use as monitors if you care about resolution.

that's odd because 80% of all monitors these days are 1920x1080

"The 16:9 monitor trend currently sweeping the market has given many smaller monitors higher resolutions than they were capable of at 16:10 aspect ratio. A 22-inch model with a 16:9 aspect ratio now has a potential high-definition, native resolution of 1,920x1,080 (1080p) pixels as opposed to 1,680x1,050 pixels. "

 

[whiterose]

@fkntotalkaos
agree even adobe never recommend to use their product on TV, but latest TV product reasonable to use as monitor and it's usually already use HDMI port.

 

[flynz4]

that's odd because 80% of all monitors these days are 1920x1080

This low 1080P resolution is one thing that I dislike about using TVs as monitors. I prefer 2560X1600 or 2560X1440 depending upon the aspect ratio. The required bandwidth is about 2X over a television.

 

[dissolve]

that's odd because 80% of all monitors these days are 1920x1080

"The 16:9 monitor trend currently sweeping the market has given many smaller monitors higher resolutions than they were capable of at 16:10 aspect ratio. A 22-inch model with a 16:9 aspect ratio now has a potential high-definition, native resolution of 1,920x1,080 (1080p) pixels as opposed to 1,680x1,050 pixels. "

This completely disregards screen size though. Sure, 1920x1080 is alright for 22-24" displays (although 24" used to be only 1920x1200 before 16:9 took over) but once you go bigger, this resolution is terrible. Most TVs are much larger than 24" and keep the same resolution. This is fine for video content as 1080p is the highest resolution readily available for media, but for computer uses it's a huge sacrifice.

 

[chrono1081]

that's odd because 80% of all monitors these days are 1920x1080

"The 16:9 monitor trend currently sweeping the market has given many smaller monitors higher resolutions than they were capable of at 16:10 aspect ratio. A 22-inch model with a 16:9 aspect ratio now has a potential high-definition, native resolution of 1,920x1,080 (1080p) pixels as opposed to 1,680x1,050 pixels. "

It all has to do with pixel density. Resolution is important but pixel density is almost always more important (within reason). TVs are horrible for photoshop work (real photoshop work anyway). You need a monitor with a high resolution and a high pixel density. TVs can't offer that.