Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
30+ inch monitors usable?
- Thread starter Unprocessed1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I keep my 30" at 2560x1600, both screen shots are that resolution, what I was trying to show you is the quicktime window in the first, that window is the size of a 1080p screen, you LOSE that much desktop space running at 1080p.
I have seen a computer hooked up to a 1080p display, at my brothers we have a machine hooked up to his 52" XBR5 LCD TV to play iTunes. It looks alright for coverflow when you are a few feet away form it, but in general, computer text on it will be "soft and fuzzy", not sharp and crisp. It's the resolution size trade-off.
I get no eye-strain from my running my 30" at 2560x1600, if anything I get a bigger workout from moving the mouse to get to the menu bar waaaay up there.
You are putting way to much stress on the LED backlighting, its not THAT huge of an improvement over traditional cold cathode unless you are getting a TV that supports localized LED dimming - which that TV does not.
You probably won't be disappointed with either, but the picture on the 1080p one will naturally just be not as good.
You also don't have to spend $1300, go to dell outlet, the 3008WFP is $1199 or 1099 depending on when you catch it, and it has DVI, DP, and HDMI (and more) inputs.
Built-in TV Tuner? People still use those? Clear-QAM channels are going the way of the dodo, if that becomes a deciding factor for your TV I'd be really shocked. As on-demand, Video-over-IP and the like continues to grow, goodbye clear-QAM.
If anything the one thing you may run into is the "IMAX Movie Theatre" effect where, because of the large size you can't fully "focus" on the screen and will have to "look around" for details. I run into this, especially running two large displays (one 30", one 27").
Give me a min to post another reply, I took some new pics for you. If this doesn't help you make up your mind, nothing will.
lol.
You won't see the differences here other then just the image size because the picture will show as good as your monitor can do it. (for instance, on mine the screenshots look the same, just difference sizes when viewed at 2560x1600)...the photo shows some of the degradation you get.
My 30" Desktop at 2560x1600:
My 30" Desktop at 1920x1200 screenshot:
A screenshot doesn't really show how the details go "soft" from low DPI (lack of pixel density) when you lower the resolution, so I attempted to take a photo of it:
My 30" Desktop at 2560x1600:
My 30" Desktop at 1920x1200 screenshot:
A screenshot doesn't really show how the details go "soft" from low DPI (lack of pixel density) when you lower the resolution, so I attempted to take a photo of it:
Photobucket is scaling them, so its tough to tell, lets see if this shows it better:
and
See how you lose sharpness? You can think of it like the difference of watching Blu-ray vs DVD... the DVD isn't "so bad", but its not sharp and clear like the Blu-ray. Can folks live with it? Sure.
and
See how you lose sharpness? You can think of it like the difference of watching Blu-ray vs DVD... the DVD isn't "so bad", but its not sharp and clear like the Blu-ray. Can folks live with it? Sure.
Thank you SO MUCH for taking the pictures, it's very much appreciated.
The funny thing is I've never seen or used a 2560 x 1600 resolution monitor in the flesh and I probably won't for a very long time, so I'm still leaning towards the TV. The 1080p is about what I'm used to now, and it still looks pretty good. I'm planning on using the big monitor to surf the web and be a big entertainment hub to watch tv and blu-rays, which obviously the LED tv will handle great.
I think I'm going to see what new monitors pop up in the next month or so (I'd really like to see what the led backlit LG w2486L will look like, since it has great connectivity.)
I guess I could also go to best buy and ask them if I could plug in my MBP just to be on the safe side if I do go with the Samsung.
Why do you care so much about whether the backlight is LED or not? That is literally one of the least important features. You are being swayed by marketing buzzwords. Go to a store and look at one before you buy a TV to use as a monitor and regret it later.
THAT SAID: The TV will make a fine monitor. However, a proper-30" monitor is a far better TV than a TV is a monitor.
Well if you've been to a best buy and seen the LED tv next to a normal lcd, you'll understand what all the hype is about. And LED is not "one of the least important features". That's a silly statement. The picture is significantly more vibrant and crisp than a typical LCD. A monitor/tv is all about the picture, brightness and color for goodness sakes... It's like saying SSD is not an important product when discussing hard drives. I think it's a very good tv and one of the best on the market, but definitely has it's own niche for the time being. I'm confident LED backlighting will be the gold standard (replacing LCD) until OLED takes its place in about 3-5 years. This TV should easily be top of the line for the next 3 or so years, and if it can be a decent monitor for writing papers once in a while and watching blu-rays, and being an entertainment hub, then it will have been a good investment.
I'm not sure one of those 30" LCD monitors will still be near the top of the line 2 years from now because LCD will probably be obsolete by then. It would be nice to have tech that could decently "modern" in the future. I guess it's future proofing.I'm guessing Best Buy should have no problem letting me plug in my MBP to an outlet and then connecting it to a TV? (Sometimes I really hate the service and "expertise" of the store, as I know many here do as well)
Excuse me if I didn't read correctly, but skimming this thread I got that the OP wanted a 32" tv? Well 1080p resolution doesn't really matter on that small of a tv and what everyone says is true about the 30" computer monitor vs a 32" tv. I have the 46" samsung led (thin one) and I don't think it even compares to my 24" Dell.
That said, your choice will most likely depend on what you want to use the screen with the most. If you plan to use it as a media center to watch movies and listen to itunes and also play video games, I see no problem with you going with a tv. If you plan to do anything such as editing papers majority of the time, then I would go with a Dell 30" with all the inputs.
That said, your choice will most likely depend on what you want to use the screen with the most. If you plan to use it as a media center to watch movies and listen to itunes and also play video games, I see no problem with you going with a tv. If you plan to do anything such as editing papers majority of the time, then I would go with a Dell 30" with all the inputs.
I think you don't understand the relationship of resolution and screen size.
First, of course movies etc will look great in 1080dpi on 32" or bigger TVs but what holds true for moving pictures will not be the same on a computer screen.
Imagine this simple analogy for the pixels, especially if you are sitting close to the monitor. A pixel on your typical 24" computer monitor at 1080 will be about 0.27mm. It is quite small and agreeable not recognisable as a pixel without looking closely. This is why the text, for example, on a computer monitor looks round and pleasant to read, with anti-alias, arguably even better. If the screen size is blown to 32", your pixel size is now 0.51mm. This is almost double the size and already clearly distinguishable for the human eye, double the size of a thick human hair. This is all fine and dandy if you are sitting away 3 or more meters from your screen as you do in a typical TV setting for this size of TV. However, I presume like everyone else, you will be sitting quite close to a computer monitor when working. Your picture will be awfully pixelated since you can clearly distinguish them. Hence, with screen size, resolution should typically increase. 1080 on 23" looks very detailed and sharp and for some people too small (when do we get resolution independence in MacOSX again? - and I want to use it in the minus!) but on 32" it will be a brick house looked upon from a close distance. I agree 2560 makes not sense on a 20" monitor but will on a 32".
If you already have LCD now and it supports resolution spanning (will upscale the pixels so you don't get black bars around the picture on lower resolutions), try the following. Lets say you current resolution is 1680 x 1050. Now, set it to 1152 x 720. This is the difference you get only worse on a big screen.
As another post said, there is a reason computer monitors are more expensive and the subjective picture quality depends what you do with it and how far you sit away.
I get the feeling you are seriously confused, LED is not a type of display, it is NOT replacing LCD. LED is simply a type of backlight used, the panel is what is responsible for picture quality. LED is a completely insignificant feature and you should consider a DELL monitor that take HDMI, however it seems as though you are already sure about the TV, so go for it.
I reference LED BACKLIT in every post I make how the heck am I confused?... It's not insignificant. That argument some of you guys are making is absolutely ridiculous. I understand the difference in resolution is a key concern, but don't try to tell me LED backlighting makes no difference in quality or enjoyment of a screen. Go to a Best Buy and see for yourself. It's clear the people that have no respect for led backlighting have never actually seen it in person.
It's like people saying SSD's are irrelevant, even though they've never used one.
.. and plasmas, especially Kuro, beats the s&%# out of both until we get OLED. LED, quality wise as advantages to LCD, has even surface lighting, is brighter, and has a better white polarisation of the colour spectrum. However, what it doesn't have is better blacks. Because the technology is essentially the same as LCD. Just the light source changes but blacks still are produced by the activation of all three colour pixels in front of it. If the blacks got better, it just means they managed to keep more light from escaping from the gap in-between the pixels. They can, and do, the very same to the most recent LCD. Mostly LEDs perception of being better is mostly caused by the even light spread and brighter picture - which is a good thing. Then again, making things brighter and turning up contrast on new TVs is an old trick of the TV sales man.
As for the resolution, I really suggest, you go to Best Buy, plug in your laptop in a 30" monitor at full native resolution and a 32" TV at 1080 and see how you can work with the resulting desktop image.
This will help clear up some misused terms here that are about to make me scream.
And LED backlit TV is still an LCD TV. LED backlighting replaces cold-cathode fluorescent light for thinner flat panel displays. (rear projection LCDs still use whatever bulb system they use - halogen, hid, laser, etc) OLED is completely different and is actually a different display technology and blows everything out of the water - it just needs to come down in price.
The "vividness" of LED backlightning or cold-cathode depends on the quality of manufacture and less on the backlight except in the case of localized dimming. (this is measurable)
The advantage coming with LED Back lighting will be localized dimming instead of edge-lit lighting - which overcomes an LCD's largest short coming, black levels. This is relatively new and is only on a few TVs. Localized dimming will allow the LED back lightning in sections of the screen to turn off and give "true blacks", where as edge-lit lightning (both LED and CCFL) were "always on" creating a soft gray-black instead of true black. (plasmas like the KURO had an almost true black, CRTs have a true black)
Until there are more (I think 2 at them moment? Samsung and Toshiba on specific models) localized LED backlit displays available, there is no large distinct advantage to a quality built screen. My CCFL XBR5 dims to try to achieve better black when there is lots of black present...it still will give edge-lit LED backlit tv's a run for its money in picture quality and is already out of manufacture. And yes, I've compared them when deciding if I wanted to upgrade my Sony 52" CCFL XBR5 to an 52" edge-lit LED XBR8. The XBR8 is more vibrant, but that is because of tri-color illumination which uses 3 colored LED lights instead of just white LED lights to light the display, and isn't available on the Samsung you are looking at.
From a computer perspective - the main reason LED backlit LCD displays are becoming more popular is because they use LESS electricity (about half!), hence improve laptop battery life.
The type of manufacture makes a HUGE difference, just slapping the word "led backlightning" on the unit means nothing. The display you are talking about does not have any of the more expensive LED backlight enhancements, so it is not as significant for comparison to CCFL displays.
Here's a good article about it:
http://gizmodo.com/5271493/giz-explains-whats-so-great-about-led+backlit-lcds
Overall, Milk said it best:
If you are going to do more XBOX and Blu-ray then computer, get the TV.
If you are going to do more computer then XBOX/Blu-ray then get the monitor.
If you are going to keep it 3-4 feet away like you say in your first post, the TV would be the better solution because the higher resolution monitor will be too difficult to read, you'll want the bigger letters.
And LED backlit TV is still an LCD TV. LED backlighting replaces cold-cathode fluorescent light for thinner flat panel displays. (rear projection LCDs still use whatever bulb system they use - halogen, hid, laser, etc) OLED is completely different and is actually a different display technology and blows everything out of the water - it just needs to come down in price.
The "vividness" of LED backlightning or cold-cathode depends on the quality of manufacture and less on the backlight except in the case of localized dimming. (this is measurable)
The advantage coming with LED Back lighting will be localized dimming instead of edge-lit lighting - which overcomes an LCD's largest short coming, black levels. This is relatively new and is only on a few TVs. Localized dimming will allow the LED back lightning in sections of the screen to turn off and give "true blacks", where as edge-lit lightning (both LED and CCFL) were "always on" creating a soft gray-black instead of true black. (plasmas like the KURO had an almost true black, CRTs have a true black)
Until there are more (I think 2 at them moment? Samsung and Toshiba on specific models) localized LED backlit displays available, there is no large distinct advantage to a quality built screen. My CCFL XBR5 dims to try to achieve better black when there is lots of black present...it still will give edge-lit LED backlit tv's a run for its money in picture quality and is already out of manufacture. And yes, I've compared them when deciding if I wanted to upgrade my Sony 52" CCFL XBR5 to an 52" edge-lit LED XBR8. The XBR8 is more vibrant, but that is because of tri-color illumination which uses 3 colored LED lights instead of just white LED lights to light the display, and isn't available on the Samsung you are looking at.
From a computer perspective - the main reason LED backlit LCD displays are becoming more popular is because they use LESS electricity (about half!), hence improve laptop battery life.
The type of manufacture makes a HUGE difference, just slapping the word "led backlightning" on the unit means nothing. The display you are talking about does not have any of the more expensive LED backlight enhancements, so it is not as significant for comparison to CCFL displays.
Here's a good article about it:
http://gizmodo.com/5271493/giz-explains-whats-so-great-about-led+backlit-lcds
Overall, Milk said it best:
If you are going to do more XBOX and Blu-ray then computer, get the TV.
If you are going to do more computer then XBOX/Blu-ray then get the monitor.
If you are going to keep it 3-4 feet away like you say in your first post, the TV would be the better solution because the higher resolution monitor will be too difficult to read, you'll want the bigger letters.
Fantastic suggestion, I'd say you go do that as well. Bring your own cable and I'm sure they will accommodate you.
Well, I am saying LED backlighting isn't important while typing on a unibody macbook pro with LED backlighting, so obviously I have seen them.
I've also seen the wonderful Samsung LED televisions at Best Buy and they are also gorgeous.
However, unless it is a locally dimmable LED backlight increasing your contrast ratio, or being run off a battery where the power advantages help, or in a situation where it gets turned off and on a lot and you need full brightness more quickly than a CCFL backlight warming up to full brightness, then it is irrelevant.
/edit: Thepawn said it all better than me two posts up. I should have read all the way through before posting.
Maybe its just me but I usually find monitors looks far better for both video and their higher resolution makes them far better for use with computers. As for your belief that having an LED backlight automatically means that the display is better, this is just plain wrong. Im sitter here trying on a LED Mbp, i can say that LED screens are not any better, if anything I have found that LED screens are more prone to uneven backlighting and bleeding. If you are so sure you want to get a TV just buy one. And as for your original question I do believe a 30+ inch TV as a monitor would be unusable due to the pixel density, I would either stick around the 24 inch range or just get a massive monitor instead. And as for the 30" monitor becoming out dated, my only response is that it just doesn't matter, you will still get years of use out of it and the picture will still be great, we are still a long way from OLED displays that large.
Thanks for the advice. You are right--although the very high resolutions look great, they become impossible to read if you are a few few away. That's why the 1080p on a 32" isn't all that bad IMO. I'm not going to have my face up against the monitor and see all the pixelation. At least I'm going to be able to clearly see text on the screen without squinting or wearing glasses.
For me, I don't like how my text looks like when I used the samsung as a computer display.
For games, I do prefer the samsung.. but I think its mostly because it's a bigger screen.
//edit:
Just saw you were going to stay about 3-4 feet away from the monitor... if so a tv would probably benefit you better.. but I would suggest going with a bigger size tv instead of the 32".
Only problem for me about screen size is the portability factor and weight. A 40" TV might be hard to fit on a desk also.
What are your overall impressions of the Samsung LED? How's standard television on it, and general happiness with it? You don't seem to be too crazy about it.
Cheers to thepawn for taking the time to write up great explanations and take pictures. More members like you are needed. Much appreciation.
I agree. Still want to know people's impressions of the Samsung LEd of the people who own one.
Don't get me wrong, I love watching tv and movies on my samsung but I still wouldn't use it as my main computer monitor just because of the way the tv displays my computer text and the color. I like vivid over the top colors for movies and watchig tv but I want color accuracy when using my computer