Any Experience With Using A Newer TV As A Monitor?

News & General Discussion
1

I will be replacing my current monitor with a larger one soon and am considering using one of the newer television sets instead of a standard computer monitor. I’ve done research, and now I am hoping to tap the Unity community for some advice. I need the larger monitor primarily for Windows applications. I probably provided too much detail below because I’m stressing over the research. The questions I am looking for further advice on are these:

  • Does anyone have any experience using recent televisions as a computer monitor for Windows applications like Word, Excel, and Unity? How does it work out?

  • Do you notice any actual issues in non-twitch games with the response time difference between a true monitor and a television?

  • Is there any point in going 4K for the Windows desktop side of things since I’d have to have Windows running at 1920x1080 instead of 3840x2160 anyway? My research so far suggests not.

To be clear: I do not play fast PVP shooters or twitch based games. The closest would be a first person survival building game such as 7 Days to Die. Trove or Torchlight are my idea of an “action” game. I also watch movies and Netflix.

The main reason I am upgrading is that I have a vision problem with fine details to where reading text on my current monitor has become difficult, especially in applications and games that do not allow you to zoom the fonts. I squint at Unity. I have Word zoomed in to a silly level. Last night, I was playing a game with a bunch of text and realized I was leaning over my keyboard and inches from the monitor.

Currently, I am using a 27" Sceptre whose native resolution is 1920x1200 (16:10), but which I run at 1440x900 in order to get larger text. I have read that this makes the font less sharp, but even using Windows’ various “make stuff bigger” features, that is the smallest I can go and still be likely to use programs like Explorer. Most web pages I still have Firefox zoom anywhere from 150%-250%.

I wish I could afford the kind of massive monitors that I’m sure some well-funded places like @zombiegorilla has access to, but I cannot right now. (Did you see the thread where he posted the images of the awesome movie statues they have at their office? Makes me think their actual computers look like something out of Star Trek.)

I can get one of several 32" 1920x1080 (16:9) monitor for $250-$400 US range. That is about an 18% increase in size, but since I’m already adjusting the resolution down on my current monitor by about 25%, I expect I would still have to run a 32" monitor at not the native resolution. (Though I may have screwed that math up.)

Or I can get one of the 40"-42" 1920x1080 televisions for the $300-$450 US range. That is a much larger jump in size. Based on some images I’ve compared of how large the fonts should be displayed, I could run something that size at native resolution.

My GTX 970 video card has two HDMI ports, one of which is HDMI-2. My research suggests that it would have no problem with the normal 1920x1080 television, or even two of them if I wanted to. 4K would require lower game settings, but I honestly do not care about 4K unless it makes most of my text larger and sharper.

2

I was using a 2009 47" model of Philips as my gaming monitor for 2 years after an older 24" monitor broke down… I was pretty happy with it. Not the best contrast values (well, in 2009 contrast of LCD monitors was not that great, and the TV was in constant use since), but very good colors once calibrated (was one of the high end philips TVs at the time), and to my amazement neither the input lag (which is rather high with most TVs), nor the bad resolution for the size (Full HD at 47" is not that great once you start using it as a PC monitor) really bothered me too much… it didn’t overshadowed the joy of coding on such a large screen or playing games where the input lag didn’t matter that much with a screen completly filling the field of vision.

At some point I wanted better contrast and 4k to get rid of the two things that bothered me with my TV monitor, and after oogling at the Philips BDM4065UC 40" monitor for a year, it finally came down in price in a sale, and I pulled the trigger on it.

I am extremly happy with that monitor. Of course, I had to adapt to the colors, as a VA monitor the colors are just not as good as with my old TVs IPS Screen. But the best contrast I have ever seen (5000:1 static contrast… best IPS screens have slightly below 1000:1 nowadays), colors once calibrated pretty decent, good viewing angles (which is pretty important in case of large screens), 4k, and ticks the box in every regard else. If you want a good big screen, I would say give this monitor a closer look. Because its not a TV its cheaper than comparable TV screens, and while not having the best input lag for a PC monitor, its generally lower than with most TVs. You get USB 3 Ports, a display port (which will be your best bet once you start driving the monitor at 4k and want to get 60Hz refresh rate out of it), and many other goodies most TVs just don’t have built in.

Having said all that, if you already have a good old TV screen standing around, or can get a new one for cheap, a TV will also do the job fine.
From personal expierience, I would not go over 40" if you are sitting as close to it as to a normal monitor, I would go for a 4k monitor, if not for your current card (which might drive 4k fine on the desktop or in applications (using a large 4k screen for coding is a joy), but might not be enough for driving modern games at 4k (older or Indie games might run fine in 4k… well made 2D games look spectacular in 4k)), then for your next one which hopefully will be powerful enough for 4k in all games.
Full HD is just a tad low resolution at such a screen size.

As to Windows at 4k… runs fine 99% of the time. Took em quite awhile, but with Windows 10 MS has amended most teething problems of Windows at 4k. Scaling works generally well.
Now, the same cannot be said about all applications… especially older application versions often have no scaling at all. That can make it difficult to use these applications at 4k or other high DPI resoluations, especially on small screens (like laptops with high DPI screens)… less of a problem once your screen is 40" big, but still annoying.

I still think 4k is worth it even in Windows 2D mode, IF the applications you are using support 200% scaling. Sharper text and Icons alone make it worth it. Thus you could work in 4k in Windows, and set all your games to use a Full HD resolution when the GTX 970 lacks the oomph to drive the game at 4k (or does so only at 30 Hz).

TL; DR: Yes, a big Full HD TV can work fine if used as monitor. At some point you might still want to move up to 4k if only for sharper text in applications.
And given the fact you can now get 40" 4k dedicated PC monitors for under 500$, I would look at those first before buying a cheap TV as a PC monitor. Generally these will do a better job as dedicated PC monitor, and cost less than a comparable TV.

3

I personally don’t have any experience with using a television as a monitor, but based on what I think about the concept, here’s what I can say about it.

Monitors were meant to sit in front of you, on a desk, while TV screens were meant to sit at least 2-5 meters away, on or below the wall. Computer monitors (especially gaming ones) are designed and created solely for the purpose of not harming your eyes as much while looking at them for very long periods of time, not to mention the contrast and image quality is much better than on TVs (when it comes to games).

And there is that considerable difference in feeling, when you’re using something that’s actually serving its purpose, or something that you’ve made into a make-shift monitor.

But that’s just my opinion. If you have a TV with the resolution of the average monitor, and it has good image quality, then I can’t say anything bad against it. It’s purely just my pickiness about using things the way they were meant to be used.

4

I wouldn’t want anything as big as a TV on my desk. I’m currently using 2x 27inch monitors with a 2,560 x 1,440 resolution on each one. Makes a great setup to work with and play games on. For a desk I find 27 to 32 inch ideal. But I would never go back to 1080p. The higher res I notice most while working and not gaming, gives way more screen space to work with it.

1 Like
5

I appreciate the feedback. Unfortunately, more screen space is generally a negative for me though. Because of my vision issues, I need the text to be much larger than for a “normal” set of eyes. When I have to look at something on other people’s computers when they are running at higher resolution, I have to get very close to the monitor in order to read any text.

Just running my 27" monitor at 1920x1200 native is impossible because I cannot read file names in Windows Explorer or menu items in just about any program.

Honestly, this is one of the issues I keep running into when researching reviews and recommendations. People talk about how much screen space they have and how they can open all these different windows or show this and that part of their program… but all of that means tiny little fonts that I cannot read. What I really need might best be expressed as the ability to take the screen space of a 24-27" monitor and make it about 30-50% physically larger so that it’s possible for me to read things.

I guess what I really need is the monitor equivalent of large print books. :wink:

6

Any suggestions on brand model I should be looking at? In my research, once a 4K monitor hits 32", the prices jump to around $700 to $1,200 US. I have not seen any 40" 4K monitors close to $500.

7

Vizio has a 4K 40-inch television for a little over $400. Just keep in mind it’s a budget brand.

http://www.target.com/p/vizio-d-series-40-class-uhd-120hz-full-array-led-smart-tv-black-d40u-d1/-/A-50650850

1 Like
8

I think the discussion got crossed over here. @gian-reto-alig was talking about 40" monitors being available for $500, something I just have not scene in shopping around at various store sites.

During my research, I have looked at several Vizio televisions which fall into my budget.

9

Won’t glasses help? I used to not be able to see writing on a wall 5 meters away, but now I can see tree tops on mountains 10 kilometers away.

10

I wish it was that simple. Fortunately, I can see fine to drive with my glasses. Unfortunately, neither regular glasses nor the ones that some people use with modified prescription specifically for sitting at the computer can help my eyes when it comes to reading. It’s been tried. This is not a simple, “You need a new prescription,” type issue. I just have to have much bigger fonts both on the computer screen and on my Kindle book reader. I have to use magnifiers for reading packaging and other print that most people would consider “normal” sized.

To give you some perspective, where I am typing this response the letters are about 1/4 of an inch high, and that is the smallest I can comfortably have them and read what I am doing.

1 Like
11

Personally, I wouldn’t use a TV as a monitor, unless I absolutely had too. I have my desktop hooked up to my 46" flatscreen in my living room for gaming purposes, and I have written the occassional article from the couch too.

1: The TV business is very competitive, which guarantees that your TV will have a lot of features that you are paying for, but will never need. Most of it can be disabled, but it’s still a nuisance.
2: I’m assuming you’ll still be sitting relatively close to the screen, so you risk having to strain your neck, which would suck.
3: A decent monitor will most likely have both better colours and refresh rate.

The main consideration is your vision though - while a TV wouldn’t do it for me as a monitor in a lot of cases, it might help you, but there is a lot of things to consider.

5 Likes
12

Well, I have the philips model mentioned in my post: BDM4065UC. Costs around 600-650 SFr. normal price, got it for 450 bucks when it was on flash sale.
With swiss prices always being 10-20% above the US prices, I guessed it would hover at around 500$ in the US.

Now, having said that, I am not sure this exact model, or philips models in general are sold in the US. Doh! Forgot that Philips now is a brand not traded worldwide anymore AFAIK.
But: I guess you will find similar models from other manufacturers, maybe sadly not with this exact screen (which is a shame given its class leading contrast values). But I also heard great things about other manufacturers 40" 4k screens.

Thing is, the Monitor tech will dictate prices. Most “professional” screens will have IPS tech, which tends to be quite expensive once you get into the 4k range, or even worse, 10bit / 100%-ish RGB color performance.
Cheap screens are usually TN, as are the leet twitch gamer screens or the early adopter high refresh rate ones because of the techs advantges with fast refresh. I would never in my life buy a TN screen again, colors and viewing angles tend to be crap… though I have heard the newer, more expensive models have a better performance in this area.

These 500$-ish big 4k screens are mostly VA, which is a newer tech that seems to be a compromise between TN and IPS (colors and viewing angles getting close to some of the IPS screens), with the added bonus of best contrast values of all the LCD techs, but with sometimes not the best refresh rates.
Another bonus is that the tech seemingly is cheaper than comparable IPS screens, and not that much more expensive than TN.

If you do color critical work, I would only go for an IPS screen, thus you might need to pay more. If you are a twitch shooter gamer that thinks 60Hz or a 30ms input lag hampers your skills, go for a fast TN.
In all other cases, I can recommend VA screens. After getting a VA TV some years back and now a VA PC Screen, I can only recommend this tech.

13

Philips definitely still has a presence in the United States. That model was superseded by the BDM4350UC.

https://www.amazon.com/Philips-Monitor-Bdm4350uc-42-5in-3840x2160/dp/B01CO2QT4M/
https://www.walmart.com/ip/AOC/51941216

1 Like
14

Hard to say “superseeded” when the newer model uses a different screen tech and as such will sell at a much higher price. I would also say, for me, 42 inches would be ALMOST to big again… if 2 inches can make such a difference.

reviews are mostly good for this monitor however. As expect, contrast ratio is much worse at 1000:1, which is reasonable for an IPS tech monitor. Colors seem to be very good, and the response rate seems to be a tad higher than on the older VA screen (though I can’t say response rate ever bothered me on that particular screen).
One review mentioned some QA worries of some customers with the screen though…

There is the older 40" VA model also sold on amazon, altough at a higher price than I thought:
https://www.amazon.com/Philips-BDM4065UC-B-Resolution-DisplayPort-Refurbished/dp/B01MT22JWJ/ref=sr_1_10?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1484736113&sr=1-10&keywords=BDM4065UC

Definitely worth to wait a little bit for a sale.

15

For fun I hooked up my 36" Vizio TV to my computer to play around on. I normally have a duel 19" setup, set to 1920. On this day I used the 36" as a companion to my other development monitor a 19" Samsung? (can’t remember what kind) both setup as 1920.
It was pretty nice in my opinion, I played a couple games on it that day (I think Axiom Verge and The Witcher 2) and piddled around in Max and Photoshop. I definitely liked the larger text - on some UX interfaces.

Since my home “office” is in the back corner of the living room - it wasn’t visually pleasing to see a huge 36" sitting on my small-ish desk next to the other 19" so I changed back to duel 19" at the end of the day.
If I had an isolated office I think I’d keep a setup like that with the 36" Vizio, might even consider going out and getting another one for a duel 36" setup instead of 1-36 and 1-19.
Since my development workflow REQUIRES at least duel monitors and it has to not be an eye sore in the common living area in my house, for the time being I’m still running two 1920 19" setup.

1 Like
16

Yes, I can see how the eyesore factor would be important in a living room based office. My office space isn’t in the public part of the house fortunately.

Now I’m picturing dual 40"+ displays and thinking that while it would fit on the desk, it might be enough surface area to actually lower the air circulation in the room. :slight_smile:

1 Like
17

@gian-reto-alig @Ryiah

I did some poking around on the Philips website just now. Oddly, they don’t even list themselves as selling a monitor over 34" there.

Checking around, I found that 43" BDM4350UC monitor on a couple of sites, but $900 or more is well outside my budget unfortunately.

During my researching checking Amazon and the various brick & mortar store sites, I found that once you step past 32" in a computer monitor, the prices jump significantly. I can find the 32" HP Omen or Samsung S32F351FUN for about $350 for example, but the next size up in dedicated monitors generally doubles in price or even more.

I will definitely be watching out for sales on items.

18

Too long, didn’t read.

Buying any TV to replace a monitor is a horrible idea.

TVs have all sorts of gimmicks for movie and games that will just hurt your eyes or damage your eyes if using for reading as a monitor after time.

Also anything over 24" @ 1080p looks like garbage because the PPI is too low.

I have a Dell S2415H Glossy Display and will never change it for anything lower, will not even buy a 4K matte, its glossy or nothing. Matte diffuses light hitting the screen which causes a nasty haze it will damage your eyes after a few decades. If using glossy avoid reflections glossy is perfect quality as its crystal clear. Problem is it reflects light instead of diffusing so it becomes a mirror.

19

Did you check my link? Amazon does sell the smaller, older 40" VA model: https://www.amazon.com/Philips-BDM4…TF8&qid=1484736113&sr=1-10&keywords=BDM4065UC
580$ might still be outside your budget, but I got mine also on sale for less, and MAYBE amazon will put it on sale too at some point given the screen is already some years old.

As said, the newer 43" model seems to be a decent monitor, but its using different tech and thus is made for a different audience. Its most probably better suited for color critical work than the model I am having, if you don’t need that you might get a better screen for your needs for less money with the older, smaller model.

Pay some attention to the specs when comparing models and prices, especially the screen tech. Both 32" models you talked about are VA panels, which usually are much cheaper than IPS panels, and not that much more expensive than TN panel screens. Also, at least the HP screen seems to be sporting a 2K resolution only, the samsung even only FullHD?
Most bigger models seem to sport IPS screens, many of these also with 10bit color output, for professional uses. At these sizes, 4k has quickly become the standart. All these things drive up the price more than screen size. Oranges to apples comparison.

1 Like
20

I did check out that link. I appreciate the suggestion, but it takes me to an unavailable refurbished listing. Searching Amazon for the BDM4065UC generates a price of $1,390 for a new monitor, well outside my budget. The $500 dollar ones are used models, not new. I’m not willing to risk used/refurbished.

The newer Philips BDM4350UC does have some good looking stats, but the $870 is out of my budget range… and I am honestly not sure I’d risk it for a monitor with multiple reviews citing burn-in. (The monitor apparently even has a warning not to leave any image on the screen for more than 30 minutes.) The reviews seem split between whether burn-in does or does not happen, but considering this monitor would have to be ordered by mail since Phillips doesn’t sell at brick and mortar that I can find, returning a defective unit that has burn-in could be problematic.

1 Like