Is there an advantage to using an actual computer display over a nice HDTV?

[bpetruzzo]

In the next several months, I'm considering adding a Mac Pro workstation to my office. Now, when I do this I figure I'll probably drop some dough on a larger display. What I can't seem to figure out though is if there is really a good reason for me to buy an actual computer display or would a 1080 television also do the trick? I was considering one of the new LED tvs as their price comes down.

Any thoughts?

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Get the computer monitor. It is much, much, much higher resolution. You'll be disappointed with the TV.

 

[mkrishnan]

The computer display generally has a higher resolution (most computer displays have greater than 1080 lines vertical). It also typically consumes less energy and produces less heat. Also if you use it in a traditional setup -- that is, you have it at a display viewing distance (and are not using it across the room), the higher resolution also means that you'll get a typical desktop dot pitch, whereas the HDTV will look grainy at those kinds of distances.

 

[bpetruzzo]

Hmm. These are good arguments. What about the new LED tvs? Anyone have anything to weigh in on that idea?

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Hmm. These are good arguments. What about the new LED tvs? Anyone have anything to weigh in on that idea?

They're the same resolution. In the NTSC regions, there is 480i (just standard) 480p (standard with progressive scan), 720p (a bit better, with progressive scan), 1080i (almost the best, no progressive scan), and 1080p (the best, highest res, with progressive scan). I'm not sure what PAL has.

The point is, TV resolutions are standardized, so the type of TV won't make a difference.

I used my Mac mini on a 720p TV for a few months at a distance of about two feet. It worked well enough, but at only 1366x768 (standard 720p res), the 26'' TV didn't have much room to move around on.

I got a Dell 2208WFP, which runs at 1680x1050, and even though it is smaller, there is way more room to move stuff around, and things are much more detailed.

Again, I've got to say a computer monitor is the only way to go.

 

[bpetruzzo]

Yeah, I'm a photographer, so I guess the extra space really is that important. How about as second display for previewing purposes for clients and such? Any reason why a lower resolution display wouldn't be good for this?

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Yeah, I'm a photographer, so I guess the extra space really is that important. How about as second display for previewing purposes for clients and such? Any reason why a lower resolution display wouldn't be good for this?

That sounds like a good idea. Someone one this forum does something similar.

 

[mkrishnan]

Yeah, I'm a photographer, so I guess the extra space really is that important. How about as second display for previewing purposes for clients and such? Any reason why a lower resolution display wouldn't be good for this?

The only thing is still that the resolution will be lower and the photos will appear grainier. If the customer is sitting or standing ~ 3-6 feet or more away from the display, the TV is fine. It's designed for that. If the customers are going to be closer than that, they're still going to get a better experience on a computer display.

 

[pinback pro]

i thought it was more about pixel size with a tv. the pixels are much larger than a computer monitor and thats why it looks grainy. where as the resolutions can be the same between the monitor and the tv the pixel size makes the monitor look much more detailed...

 

[mkrishnan]

i thought it was more about pixel size with a tv. the pixels are much larger than a computer monitor and thats why it looks grainy. where as the resolutions can be the same between the monitor and the tv the pixel size makes the monitor look much more detailed...

That's correct ... it's just that if you're several feet away, your eye can't resolve it that well, and then the TV has some mild advantages like a brighter backlight and maybe better viewing angle. But the pixels are (almost) always smaller on the computer display and the photograph (which presumably has a higher resolution than either screen can display) will therefore always look better on the display.

 

[Palleraa]

Something that has not been covered in this thread is the contrast and color depth. I believe, no matter what the numbers says, that the image on a dedicated computer monitor is much clearer. I would never consider working with a TV as my primary monitor. Get the 24" apple monitor or a dell. These are very good monitors there will surpass any tv, even expensive ones like Samsung LCD and Pioneer.

 

[Jigsawjammer]

I think everyone here pretty much nailed it. If I was you, I would invest in a dedicated monitor. I had a combo thing and it was OK but not great.

 

[bpetruzzo]

Alright, well that seems pretty well settled. Unless I'm using it for studio style, distance viewing I'll be sticking with a dedicated monitor. Thanks for the input folks!