Advice on which monitor (or TV) to buy

I am looking for advice. My SONY monitor has issues which I believe are hardware-related (menu button not working, information box pops-up incessantly). Also, I just got a new computer, one that would satisfy a gamer, and want to at least lean toward maximizing the computer's capability.

Of course, I am looking for the best bang for the buck...something at the lower end of the price ranges. Still, since I don't buy a monitor every day, I don't want to overlook something important.

I went window-shopping at Best Buy, Costco, and although I hate to go there: WalMart. I see that the TV's and the Monitors can be about the same size (something in a 22" maybe? 23? 24?). Although I don't really watch much TV, it occurred to me that since my broadband is cable, the TV signal is also right here at my computer, and perhaps using a TV as a monitor is a good idea? The 16:9 wide-screen aspect ratio looks nice.

While asking about the differences, a sales rep told me that monitors have a slower response time (like 5 ms) and that TV's are almost instantaneous. Is that right?

Then, I see "true 1080" and something about static or dynamic, and of course resolution numbers. I start to get confused and am not sure what's important. It's probably all important...oh yes, including contrast ratio!

I am a Photoshop-loving photographer and only play computer games rarely...so, like everyone, I am interested in great graphics.

System Details:

Graphics card: SAPPHIRE VAPOR-X HD5750 1GB GDDR5 PCIE...running on i7-920, Win 7 x64, 6 GB DDR3 RAM, 80 GB Solid State Drive, 1 TB RAID-I Data drive...

I'll be attaching via the DVI-I port and just noticed two additional ports on this card I have no idea what they are for...Specs say: 2xDVI-I, TV-out HDMI, HDMI capable: yes. Another site lists: 1 x HDMI and 1 x DisplayPort

I guess I'll be Googling HDMI and "display port" to learn more, though I'd appreciate any opinions you might offer me.

1. So, do TV's respond faster?
2. Is it possible for me to in any way notice 5 ms?
3. What should be the minimum response time?
4. Which port is best?
5. Should I get a TV or a monitor?
6. Which (non-glossy screen) one?

Thanks in advance,

--drcarl

 

I'm not going to be able to answer all of your questions but I can give a few tidbits of information.

Regarding the "True 1080", most LCD monitors used to run at a 16:10 aspect ratio which would run at a 1920x1200 resolution. However a 1080i/p display is a 16:9 aspect ratio giving a 1920x1080 resolution. Most manufacturers use the "True 1080" as a marketing gimmick because most people associate 1080p with their HDTV's.

As for refresh rates many monitors are just as quick as LCD TV's. My 23" widescreen LG has a 2ms refresh rate. That's the same as quality LCD TVs. Additionally you will find that many "budget" LCD TV's run at a 5ms refresh rate. Will you notice a difference? Unless you're watching something with fast action such as sports or first person shooter video games, probably not.

Just about every current LCD monitor is going to have DVI port and many more are starting to add an HDMI port. Having the HDMI port is handy because many newer multimedia/entertainment computers/laptops have built-in HDMI out ports and its an easy connection to get both video/audio with just one cable.

I personally would get an actual monitor especially if you desire a higher screen resolution in the 22inch range. You won't find many, if any, 1080p tv's at that size.

 

Perfect...thank you for reflecting. I know a lot can be hype. In the early days (a few months ago - lol) the retailers used to sell HDTV without explaining that one needs an HD source to have HD on the screen.

I really don't watch much TV and I do like high resolution (and probably contrast ratio, too). I ran across an interesting little USB device that's actually a $69 tuner for digital over-the-air broadcasts. It also had a cable connection...though I believe I digress...derailed again by cool gadgets.

Mainly, I wanted to cast the question net 'out there' to find out if there is something obvious (to one that knows) that should be considered by me.

Just like my MoBo has USB 3 ahead of the release of any USB 3 devices, I'll be sure to opt for a monitor with an HDMI port.

Thank you,

--drcarl

 

Run, don't walk, but run out of that store and never seek technical advice from them again. That guy does not have a clue and instead of keeping his mouth shut, he's giving you totally incorrect information. The response times have NOTHING to do with whether the device is a monitor, or a TV. That is determined by other factors.

As far as the HDMI port, I agree that is the way of the future and if buying new, should be a requirement. But to take full advantage of HDMI, so too must the computer support HDMI. But it is important to note that the video signal carried by HDMI is exactly the same as that carried by DVI so inexpensive adapters can be used. The biggest advantage to HDMI is that besides carrying high-resolution video, 5.1 surround sound is carried in the same cable. As you may have guessed, HDMI emerged out of the home theater industry. But (I know - lot's of "buts") most monitors and so far, most graphics cards don't support audio so even though the card and monitor may support HDMI, you will still need a cable from the audio-out of the sound card (or on-board audio) to your speakers. Why HDMI if no audio? It always boils down to money, doesn't it? Since the big TV makers just happen to be the same makers of monitors, it make no financial sense to support both HDMI and DVI, especially when HDMI is much more convenient in the long run.

 

Aren't ALL these 22" 1080p HDTVs? They were not at all hard to find unless I'm missing something important here.

VIZIO 22" 1080p Class LCD HDTV - Black (VA22LFHDTV10T)

Visio M220VA- WalMart - about $260: Noise Reduction, CC, V-Chip 2.0. Supports 1080i (HDTV), 720P (HDTV), 480P (EDTV) and 480i (SDTV) video signals. HDMI V.1.3. USB supports Digital images (JPEG) photo files. Supports 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1360x768 via RGB or 1920x1080 via HDMI®. 3-D comb filter, 3:2 or 2:2 reverse pull-down, ATSC with 8VSB & QAM demodulation, ATSC with MPEG-2 decoding, NTSC video decoding via Video (AV, SVideo, or Component). Progressive Scan Video via HDMI®, Component or RGB. Built in speakers x 2. Dolby Digital Decoding, SRS TruSurround HD and SRS TruVolume.

Viore LED22VF60 22-Inch 1080p LCD Television (Black)

Viewsonic VT2230 22" LCD HDTV - 1080p, 1920x1080, 1000:1 Native, 8000:1 Dynamic, 5ms, 16:9, VGA, HDMI

Haier 22" 1080p Ultra Slim LED HDTV HL22XSL2

I have been reading a lot since my original post. Learning a lot, too. Just when I think I've found something suitable, I find one more piece of data that kills the deal. Oh, well...that's life I guess (and I am happy to learn of these things in advance of a purchase)

I am still wondering, If these TVs are almost the same price as same-sized monitors, is there some reason why I would not want a TV built-in?

 

So what does differentiate a monitor from a TV or verse-visa? Back in the olden CRT days (on movie sets), monitors had more lines of resolution than the then popular home TV sets. While shooting, production people would have a regular TV running to see what the home viewer would see. Without knowing any better, today's flat-panel LCD TV's look a whole lot like a monitor plus a tuner.

Interesting that HDMI and DVI are the same. Thank you for the clarity on all that; everything in fact. The 7.1 audio is indeed handled by my motherboard (Gigabyte X58A-UD3R 3WAY CROSSFIRE & SLI DDR3 USB3.0 SATA3) and of course I have to run wires to all of the speakers...if I even plug that many in.

My Graphics card supports DVI (x2), HDMI (x1), and some other "display port" which I am now only semi-clueless about (thank you internet). I found a manual online and see that a "displayport" port is "a step up from HDMI" for some reasons...just like my USB 3 capability before 3.0 devices are even sold, I think the DisplayPort port might be handy at some future time. I sure don't know how to use it now.

I found quite a few 22" TVs that support 1080p (which I assume is better than 1080i). A couple were even LED-lit. I learned that some manufacturers measure grey-to-grey speeds and others measure on-off-on speeds making comparing apples to apples sometimes a bit elusive.

I still don't know if these TVs are appropriate to be used as monitors; if one or the other will yield a better picture for my Photoshop work.

Champagne taste - beer budget - you know how it goes.

Thanks more,

--drcarl

 

No. HDTV's resolutions are 720p, 1080i and 1080p.

It is actually very simple and basic. A TV has a tuner, a monitor does not. The tuner (actually a radio receiver) converts RF (radio frequency) from an antenna to audio and video signals and hands them off to other circuits, and then to the TV's monitor and speakers.

No. Not true. Well, it may be true on THAT movie set, but only because the set used expensive monitors - that is, they did not broadcast (transmit) over the air (via radio waves) the movie they were making and instead drove the monitor with a direct video connection via some cable interface.

That's because that is exactly what a TV is.

 

Thank you for confirming what I thought all along: TV = Monitor + Tuner

What I am still confused about is this. In post #5 I asked, "Aren't ALL these 22" 1080p HDTVs?" I then listed five models ALL of which have 1080p as a part of their listed specifications. You answered "No. HDTV's resolutions are 720p, 1080i and 1080p." So, what part of 1080p is NOT 1080p??? --and therefore not HDTV???

Perhaps you thought that I was asking if ALL 22" TV's are HD rather then the five specific units I listed.

Here are my original questions and the status of the answers I've collected so far.

So, do TV's respond faster?
Still no firm, definitive answer

Is it possible for me to in any way notice 5 ms?
yes, especially with fast action like sports and first-person shooting games; 2 ms is better

What should be the minimum response time?
5 ms is OK, yet 2 ms is much better

Which port is best?
from best to worst: displayport (unknown why), HDMI (<--carries audio) & DVI (these two provide/carry an equivalent video signal)

Should I get a TV or a monitor?
still undecided; there is a great deal of conflicting information especially when it comes to working with Photoshop on a 22" HDTV.

Which (non-glossy screen) one?
still in limbo until the dust settles around the HDTV v. Monitor issues.

Looks like another day for the internet. Besides the useful info here, I think I'll post in a photographer's forum.

 

Sorry, my mistake - yes, I thought you meant ALL.

Your mistake this time. I think I was pretty clear when I said,

Other factors typically boil down to cost.

No no no. No human can differentiate a 3ms difference. A fast blink takes 300ms, nearly 1/3rd of second. No way someone can see 3/1000th of a second difference. If someone thinks they can see a difference, it is the placebo effect, or there are other differences in the monitors.

 

....and to think I started out the other day asking if I should get a LCD or LED - HAHAH!

I found the answers I was looking for here

Amazing information.

Thank you everyone for your replies. I am headed for a Monitor (instead of a TV) for many reasons.

Again, Thanks!

---drcarl

 

Well, I agree with your choice to get a monitor, but note a TV that supports computer input may (depending on size, features, model number - and of course $$$) also support resolutions higher than 1080p (1920×1080).

If you really want to watch TV, get a tuner card which you can then output to the monitor.

 

FYI - I decided on, bought, and LOVE my new NEC EA231WMi. Had to utilize Newegg's return policy once [$10 shipping on me] because of a [known issue] color shift problem that, thanks to the internet, I knew about in advance. The IPS panel ROCKS. It is worth the $350 for my photo manipulation and other purposes, though it might be a tad slow for a heavy duty gamer (which I am not). Other displays look like comic books; this one looks like a Rembrandt.