Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 15 Nov 2017 (Wednesday) 09:44
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

LED TV as Main monitor

 
rakeshrajn
Member
rakeshrajn's Avatar
35 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Clifton, New Jersey
Nov 15, 2017 09:44 |  #1

45 min. ago | #1
Is there anyone using an LED TV as monitor. This TV would not be used for any other activities apart from being a monitor setup(not switch back and forth between TV/monitor etc). I was looking at a 32" size since I would be sitting closer to it. The main reason of going the TV route is the cost point of view.

Does anyone have experience with getting a 1080P , 32" tv as their Main monitor. Any recommendations ?

Primary Work : Photo Editing (LR5), Video Editing (Premier PRO, After effects etc)

PS: Sorry if this is the incorrect forum. Please direct me to the right place.


Canon EOS 5D, EOS 7D, EOS Digital Rebel XSi / EOS 450D / Kiss X2, EOS 6D | Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 35mm f/2, EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L USM, EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, EF 200mm f/2.8L USM |

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Jarvis ­ Creative ­ Studios
Goldmember
Jarvis Creative Studios's Avatar
Joined Aug 2013
Houston, Texas
Post has been edited 1 month ago by Jarvis Creative Studios.
Nov 15, 2017 10:18 |  #2

Sitting close enough to edit will not look ideal on a 32" 1080P TV. Thats a ppi of around 69 which will make text fuzzy. If you're opting for a TV over a monitor, you can get good editing monitors for a decent price. Here is my recommendation if you want 32" and are on a budget: https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com ...&is=REG&sku=1071744​&smp=y (external link). You could probably find it cheaper on Amazon or other sites as well.

Just for reference, I've included what text would look at full resolution on both a 32" 1080P display and a 32" 1440P display below.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

WEBSITE (external link)
flickr (external link)
Sony HX90V || Sony RX100V || Sony a6500 || Sony a9 || Sony E 10-18mm f/4 OSS || Sony FE 24-70 f/2.8 GM || Sony Sonnar T* FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA || Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f1.8 ZA || Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS || Godox speedlights and strobes

LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Nov 15, 2017 10:20 |  #3

Probably better posting in the General gear talk/Computers sub forum for this question. Still I'll give my opinion here. A 32" 1080P TV is going to make a really bad monitor. At that size you are only going to get around 64 pixels per inch. Since the launch of Windows 95 it has been designed to run on a monitor providing 96 PPI, and most standard resolution monitors offer resolutions that provide between 96 and about 110 PPI. These resolutions result in both relatively smooth looking, easy to read fonts and a decent amount of screen working space.

Conversely when it comes to this very low resolution you will find that not only do the fonts etc look large and jaggy, you actually end up with not a lot of space to work in. The only time that I would suggest a monitor that ran at that sort of resolution would be for someone running a dedicated gaming rig, where 1920×1080 pixels was sufficient. Even then I would suggest a monitor, not a TV, since such a monitor is likely able to run at a much higher frame rate.

Personally I would suggest looking around for a 27" 2550×1440 IPS monitor for the sort of work that you mention. If you shop around you should be able to find a computer monitor at around the same price as a TV. After all you are not including all the TV receiver electronics, that you won't need if you are not using it as a TV.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
rakeshrajn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
rakeshrajn's Avatar
35 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Clifton, New Jersey
Nov 15, 2017 10:21 |  #4

Thank you Jarvis. That is a very good sample. Text aside, what about the picture/video quality for editing. Would you say its the same case? Would appreciate if you could share any sample.


Canon EOS 5D, EOS 7D, EOS Digital Rebel XSi / EOS 450D / Kiss X2, EOS 6D | Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 35mm f/2, EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L USM, EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, EF 200mm f/2.8L USM |

LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
FarmerTed1971's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Portland, OR
Nov 15, 2017 10:24 |  #5

TV's are terrible workstation monitors. And 32" is too large IMO because you sit so close to it. If you need bigger think about 27" as the max and run a second monitor for palletes and such.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - 18-55 - 35 f2 WR - 50-140 - 6D - 135L - 70-200 f4L IS - 600EX-RT x2 - ST-E3-RT - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Nov 15, 2017 10:27 |  #6

Everything you view is going to be just as fuzzy as the text if you go with such a large 1920×1080 display. Personally I think the 91 PPI that a 32" 2550×1440 will give you is on the bottom edge of acceptable resolution, and why I would stick with a 27". But I am running a 5K display, which is 5120×2880 and at 27" diagonal gives me 219 PPI.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
rakeshrajn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
rakeshrajn's Avatar
35 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Clifton, New Jersey
Nov 15, 2017 10:33 |  #7

Thanks guys. I was worried about being too close to the display.The fuzziness part scares me. The lowest 4K TV i was able to find is 40" and that would be too big to sit down in front and work. Ill look for a cheaper deal on a good monitor.


Canon EOS 5D, EOS 7D, EOS Digital Rebel XSi / EOS 450D / Kiss X2, EOS 6D | Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 35mm f/2, EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L USM, EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, EF 200mm f/2.8L USM |

LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
FarmerTed1971's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Portland, OR
Nov 15, 2017 12:58 |  #8

Check the stats and buy the best you can afford.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - 18-55 - 35 f2 WR - 50-140 - 6D - 135L - 70-200 f4L IS - 600EX-RT x2 - ST-E3-RT - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,372 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Nov 15, 2017 14:12 |  #9

rakeshrajn wrote in post #18497075 (external link)
Thanks guys. I was worried about being too close to the display.The fuzziness part scares me. The lowest 4K TV i was able to find is 40" and that would be too big to sit down in front and work. Ill look for a cheaper deal on a good monitor.

I just picked up a Samsung 28" 4k monitor for my wife and the picture is stunning. Nothing fuzzy about it, it's almost too sharp.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,044 posts
Joined Mar 2012
PEI, Canada
Nov 15, 2017 20:07 |  #10

A few things to keep in mind when considering a TV over a monitor:
1. Input lag - Especially true when looking at lower end units. The time between the signal going into the TV, and it getting displayed can be shockingly bad on some units, which can make fine detail work in photoshop a bit of a headache and result in a very 'sloppy' feel.
2. Signal Processing - TVs may apply various post processing effects that aren't normally seen on monitors, which means trying to use them for editing is less than ideal.

Sticking with a quality computer monitor is generally the best bet for a decent experience. And stepping up to something well above the old 1080P resolution is worth it. Those are TINY monitors that can't show a lot by today's modern standards.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Lucklessexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Ian ­ Mackie
Don’t bait the TF, it’ll backfire on you.
Ian Mackie's Avatar
Joined May 2013
From Scotland, living in Gibraltar "A Jock on the Rock"
Nov 19, 2017 03:47 |  #11

gjl711 wrote in post #18497246 (external link)
I just picked up a Samsung 28" 4k monitor for my wife and the picture is stunning.

Sounds like a good deal to me JJ, was the guy who gave you the Samsung happy with the swap?


flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,136 views & 1 like for this thread
LED TV as Main monitor
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00085 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is AlexThimisy
926 guests, 513 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017