30+ inch monitors usable?

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by Unprocessed1, Jun 24, 2009.

  1. Unprocessed1 macrumors 65816

    Unprocessed1

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    #1
    I was thinking about buying a 32" Samsung LED TV and using it as a tv, gaming monitor, and most importantly a monitor for my MBP (OSX + Windows 7). It looks great with OSX (at least with the 40 inch, picture below)

    What do people here think about monitors 30 inches and greater? Is it good or is it potential hazardous to someone's eyes and neck? Does anyone have personal experience?

    I'd probably have the monitor up against the wall on a desk in my dorm maybe 3-4 feet way from my eyes.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. MattZani macrumors 68030

    MattZani

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    The Resolution is too low, everything looks kinda pixelated.

    A Real 30" Monitor is where its at :p
     
  3. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #3
    No TV* is greater than 1920x1080, and that's LESS than the resolution of 24" computer monitors.

    The PPI is just greater on computer monitors.

    30" monitors have 2650x1600, so that's far more true real estate than any TV.

    *No one mention the Cinema 4K TVs. Or if you do, show me where you can buy one for less than the price of a Mac Pro. Exactly.

    **And don't get me started on Super Hi-Vision.
     
  4. Torq macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    #4
    Agreeing with MattZani here ...

    I have a 30" ACD and it is is fabulous, but is has double the resolution of the TV you referenced. No way I would put up with 2 megapixels when I could have 4 in the same space .. especially 2ft from my face.

    40" at 1920x1080 is okay for games, but will be awful with text ... you will see every individual pixel. And even sub-pixel addressing has a hard time making it look good. Panels like that are cheaper for a reason.
     
  5. Unprocessed1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Unprocessed1

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    #5
    My current HP w2338h is only letting me do 1600 x 900 for some reason, but still looks really good. I don't need crazy resolutions.

    I really don't want to spend $1000 on a computer monitor when I can get an LED backlit TV for $1300 which will actually let me play my PS3 and watch tv unlike the ACD.
     
  6. Unprocessed1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Unprocessed1

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    #6
    Actually, if you look at the photo closely the entire picture is pixelated, not just the TV. It also has a VGA port, so I'm not concerned about picture quality.

    And the description by the owner:
    I really just want advice on screen size, not monitors vs. hdtv.

    And BTW, I'm interested in a 32" monitor not a 40" monitor.
     
  7. MattZani macrumors 68030

    MattZani

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    I Mean the Image that will be displayed on the screen, not the photo *FML*
     
  8. Unprocessed1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Unprocessed1

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    #8
    Yeah and user experience says otherwise ;)

    Seriously though, my question was whether 30+ inches is too big to use as a computer monitor.
     
  9. Unprocessed1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Unprocessed1

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    #9
    What does everyone think about using 30+ inch tvs/monitors with your computer?
     
  10. windywoo macrumors 6502a

    windywoo

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    #10
    30" tend to be designed for a viewing distance greater than 3-4 feet. I think the picture will look pretty ugly, not to mention that you will probably need to move backwards to get a proper view of the whole screen instead of looking at one litle bit of it.
     
  11. Unprocessed1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Unprocessed1

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    #11
    Why do you think the picture will look ugly?
     
  12. zer0tails macrumors 65816

    zer0tails

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #12
    30" is great to use as the extra screen estate just really helps with my work flow and the amount of windows I can have on screen I don't have to constantly switch windows. However, I am speaking from experience using a 30" with a resolution of 2560x1600 so bear that in mind. I am not sure how I would feel with a 30" screen with only 1920 pixels.
     
  13. JasonR macrumors 6502a

    JasonR

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    #13
    There's no benefit of using a 30" screen with 1920x1200. My 17" MBP screen has the same resolution.

    Now 2560x1600 on the other hand...
     
  14. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #14
    If you're happy with 1600x900 you can EASILY get a true monitor with that resolution (on the order of 20-22") for less than $400.

    30" is not too big to be used as a monitor, but it's too big for any resolution less than 2560x1600.

    TV, no. Monitor, I can only dream :)
     
  15. Unprocessed1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Unprocessed1

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    #15
    i actually don't like the 2560 x 1600 resolution. Although it's super fine and sharp it is a bit hard to read from a distance, which is why i prefer the 1080p resolution. Its still looks clear from a distance.
     
  16. akm3 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #16
    Get the Dell 3008WFP

    You can get high quality, high DPI 30" display, high resolution *and* have inputs for your PS3 or whatever.

    Best of all worlds.
     
  17. xparaparafreakx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    #17
    Why not a 24" with all the inputs? 1920x1200. My Mac, Shuttle PC, ps3, wii and xbox all at once.
     
  18. Sehnsucht macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    #18
    +1. I'd venture to say that anything you connect to a hi-res display would look better than on a 1920 x 1080 TV.
     
  19. Unprocessed1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Unprocessed1

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    #19
    It's nice, but just as expensive as the LED TV. I like the fact I'll be able to have a combo hdtv/monitor that's led backlit.

    Is the difference between 1080p vs. 2560 x 1600 really that big? Will the 1080p monitor resolution look like crap on a 32"? In that case I might just stick with a 23-24" LED monitor, either the Samsung P2370L or LG w2486L.

    Big Favor: Does anyone with a big 30+" monitor take pictures comparing the resolutions on their monitor? Would be REALLY appreciated!
     
  20. thepawn macrumors 6502

    thepawn

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    #20
    Yes, it makes a difference. 1080p at that size (and that close) will look "soft" and slightly "fuzzy" because of the lack of pixel density.

    Here's a 1080p video window on my 30" monitor.

    [​IMG]

    See the size difference?

    This is my 30" desktop:

    [​IMG]
     
  21. Unprocessed1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Unprocessed1

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    #21
    Maybe my eyes are just bad, but both pictures look really good to me?

    Was that resolution on your 30" set to 1080 or 2560?
     
  22. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #22
    If your mind is made up, then buy the TV. You asked for opinions, and you don't seem to be happy with them. Buy what you think will make you happy.

    Yes, it is. By a factor of 2 (2 million pixels versus 4 million).

    Yes, it will. Every inch you go larger than 24", the pixels get bigger and bigger and bigger.

    If you're hell-bent on going up to 1920x1200 and no more, then that would be a good decision.

    Imagine the 1080p screen stretched across that entire screenshot, then stretched an additional 2 diagonal inches. That's what it would look like on a 32" TV.
     
  23. SilentPanda Moderator emeritus

    SilentPanda

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Bamboo Forest
    #23
    I would recommend getting a 30" monitor over a 30"+ TV for use with a computer. If you are going to hook up other video devices (consoles, television) the 30" monitor should also work fine providing it has the needed inputs. At home I use a single 30" monitor and two 20" monitors on my Mac Pro. I also use the 30" as a TV using Slingbox.

    A TV will get you 1080p resolution at the most. The bigger your TV goes it really won't make much a difference... it will kind of be like taking a small image and blowing it up to full screen... you'll start seeing pixelation... it's not exact but it's a fairly good understandable example I think. I'd go with a monitor. For watching TV, size is nice... for using it on a computer, resolution is better.
     
  24. Unprocessed1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Unprocessed1

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    #24
    Yeah but my if you refer back to my original post, the original question was if 30+ inch screens are comfortable or not (which still really hasn't been answered), I wasn't asking about the differences between tvs and monitors - other posters began mentioning that.

    I really can't justify spending $1300 on a monitor, but I can see myself having the LED TV for at least the next 5-6 years. I just want to know if there will be problems (neck, eyes, headaches, etc) with using a big screen as a monitor.

    BTW: have you ever seen an HDTV using 1080p resolution w/ a computer? Not criticizing you, just want to know why you're so sure it would look like "crap". I posted pictures of the TV (which is actually 16 inches bigger than the one I want to get) and contacted the owner and he said the 1080p although not as good as a monitor the same size, still looked "crystal clear" as long as I use a tool to get 1:1 pixel mapping.

    Obviously resolution is very important, but the TV tuner, led backlight, cosmetics and picture outweigh the utility I'd get from a 30" monitor, so my only real concern is if the size of the TV will destroy my neck/eyes, and what distance I should keep it from me when using it.

    Honestly I prefer using a little lower resolution (like 1600 x 1900) on my 1080p HP monitor because letters are bigger and easier to read for me, but of course the 1080p resolution looks awesome, so they'll be a trade-off either way.
     
  25. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #25
    Image clarity is directly related to eye strain, and pixel size is directly related to image clarity. Smaller pixels are inherently better able to smoothly render things like fonts, making them easier to read. Larger pixels will make text have blurrier-looking edges, which can cause eye strain.

    I'm with you on that; I'm in no position to drop that much on a monitor, either. But you repeatedly pointed out that you would be happy with 1920x1200 resolution, which (as we've pointed out) could easily be had for under $400 in a 22"-24" size. Going any larger is just going to make those pixels larger and the text blurrier.

    Yes, and the pixel size is far, far more noticeable than when watching TV on the screen. Keep in mind that a computer screenshot will have thousands of pixels all together in a single color with no gradient, then suddenly meet up with text of a different color. Larger pixels are going to have a harder time rendering that transition smoothly.

    Like I said, if you really want a TV then buy a TV. We're trying to remind you that TV's are made for watching movies, basketball games, and infomercials; not for coding or web browsing. There are some pretty significant differences in the two technologies, and each does its thing well.
     

Share This Page