Any downside to using an LCD TV

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: mrrman

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: zod96
Yeah text is one thing that no matter what I do doesn't look to good on the LCD TV. I think I'll just stick to a regular monitor for my PC and games..

Text looks fabulous on my Sharp Aquos. No adjustment required.

I'm glad I ponied up and bought a decent brand name.

what model and size did you buy

46" Sharp Aquos 46D92U (I think).

The model is outdated (I've had it for 2 years or so). Some people say that the newer screens have a worse panel, but better backlighting. I think Sharp must be a very good name because Sony has outsourced their LCD HDTV panel manufacturing to them.

 

[Psynaut]

Lots of people, including myself, use the Westinghouse 37" 1080p as a monitor. It is not technically a tv since it has no tuner, but if you have digital or high def cable you need a box anyway.

It works great. You can check out the threads on it at hard forum and AVS forum, both of which run over 300 pages iirc, plus there are discussions at other boards. No one seems to be unhappy with it as their main monitor, and for gaming it is fantastic. You will be surprised how sharp and crisp the text is even when very small, and eye strain will be a thing of the past.

It is so cool that even girls will be into it. seriously.

 

[SickBeast]

The Sharp LCDs blow the Westinghouse screens out of the water for only a few hundred dollars more. I know this because I almost bought a Westinghouse until I saw the Sharp screen on sale for around the same price.

The Westinghouse screens have a terrible black level (it looks like grey) and they have really washed out colors compared to the Sharps. The Westinghouse also has a very bad response time compared to the Sharp's blazing fast 4ms.

 

[MTDEW]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: zod96
Yeah text is one thing that no matter what I do doesn't look to good on the LCD TV. I think I'll just stick to a regular monitor for my PC and games..

Text looks fabulous on my Sharp Aquos. No adjustment required.

I'm glad I ponied up and bought a decent brand name.

Agreed, its dependant on the lcd.
Text looks great on my Toshiba Regza also right out of the box.
Its honestly as good on this Regza as it was on my 24" Dell monitor.

 

[Mango1970]

Got a 52 LCD Samsung and 42" sharp Aquos. The Sharp always looked amazing when I had my HTPC hooked up to it. Sharp and clear. The Samsung is also good but never noticed it being as crisp as the Sharp was. Maybe it's the size issue not sure. Anyhow I would have had no problem using the Sharp as my monitor, I just could not sit close to it which made my office setup pretty much useless.

 

[MTDEW]

Originally posted by: Mango1970
Got a 52 LCD Samsung and 42" sharp Aquos. The Sharp always looked amazing when I had my HTPC hooked up to it. Sharp and clear. The Samsung is also good but never noticed it being as crisp as the Sharp was. Maybe it's the size issue not sure. Anyhow I would have had no problem using the Sharp as my monitor, I just could not sit close to it which made my office setup pretty much useless.

Yeah size does matter a "bit", text isnt as sharp on my 42" Sceptre or my 52" Panasonic, but still very readable on both and could use either as a monitor if you didnt sit with it less than 2 feet in front of you like i do with my 32" on my desk.

But i still feel text is dependant on which specific lcd 1st and size 2nd.
Especially since when i was doing research for and LCD as a monitor, i ran into a lot of what was mentioned above that a lot of LCDs need major tweaking for text to look right.
I assume thats because not all LCDs are made with use as a pc monitlor in mind.
(and just because it has a DVI input doesnt mean text will look great for sure either)

So if was the OP, i'd do the research and purchase an LCD that is already "KNOWN" to be an excellent pc monitor and is verified by people who actually own one and use it with a pc.
Instead of taking a chance purchasing one that may not do so well with text.
You'll most likely be much happier in the long run.

I wouldnt get set on a specific model first and then try and find out how well it does text.
I did it the other way around.

What i did was come up with several that were known to be good pc monitors first.
Then narrowed those down by picture quality. (notably black levels)
Then narrowed those down by inputs i wanted.
Then out of what was left i narrowed those down by price and whether i found the LCD appealing to me. ( some are just plain butt ugly...LOL )

 

[Psynaut]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
The Sharp LCDs blow the Westinghouse screens out of the water for only a few hundred dollars more. I know this because I almost bought a Westinghouse until I saw the Sharp screen on sale for around the same price.

The Westinghouse screens have a terrible black level (it looks like grey) and they have really washed out colors compared to the Sharps. The Westinghouse also has a very bad response time compared to the Sharp's blazing fast 4ms.

I went with the westinghouse because I was comparing the 32" Aquos to the 37" Westinghouse and I went with the larger screen and have never been dissapointed.

That said, I would consider going larger. What size Aquos do you use? 42"? How does that compare to the 37" based solely on a size comparison for your main monitor? Is the text still sharp and crisp as it is on the 37" Westy?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Psynaut

Originally posted by: SickBeast
The Sharp LCDs blow the Westinghouse screens out of the water for only a few hundred dollars more. I know this because I almost bought a Westinghouse until I saw the Sharp screen on sale for around the same price.

The Westinghouse screens have a terrible black level (it looks like grey) and they have really washed out colors compared to the Sharps. The Westinghouse also has a very bad response time compared to the Sharp's blazing fast 4ms.

I went with the westinghouse because I was comparing the 32" Aquos to the 37" Westinghouse and I went with the larger screen and have never been dissapointed.

That said, I would consider going larger. What size Aquos do you use? 42"? How does that compare to the 37" based solely on a size comparison for your main monitor? Is the text still sharp and crisp as it is on the 37" Westy?

Well, I went with a 46" Sharp instead of a 52" Westinghouse (I think; they had several sizes, including a 47" model).

From 10' away the screen looks great. It's actually more legible than my 24" monitor is from 2' away. If I want to be completely immersed in a 3D game, I sit 4' from it and it pretty much fills my entire field of view. :Q

 

[AstroManLuca]

Wow, so I tried hooking up my 32" 720p (actually 768p) Westinghouse as my primary monitor this evening. What a huge difference! Yes, technically I'm getting a pretty poor resolution of just 1366x768, so it does make things look a bit big, but the apparent size is huge, not to mention the contrast and clarity is excellent! There's a minor screen door effect as well just because of such huge pixels, but again, with a VGA connection instead of DVI-HDMI, I can get the native resolution no problem. It was a little excessively pink but I just reduced the amount of red and blue in CCC and it's looking good again.

Anyway, I still have my 20" monitor hooked up for now, but I'm quite impressed with the 32" TV. Gaming is amazingly better even with the lower resolution. Black levels are great, overall contrast is great, and I have the added bonus of better video performance due to the lower res.

Guess I've become an IPS convert! No more TN panels for me I guess? I might give my 20" to my parents - they could use an extra monitor.

 

[Psynaut]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Wow, so I tried hooking up my 32" 720p (actually 768p) Westinghouse as my primary monitor this evening. What a huge difference! Yes, technically I'm getting a pretty poor resolution of just 1366x768, so it does make things look a bit big, but the apparent size is huge, not to mention the contrast and clarity is excellent! There's a minor screen door effect as well just because of such huge pixels, but again, with a VGA connection instead of DVI-HDMI, I can get the native resolution no problem. It was a little excessively pink but I just reduced the amount of red and blue in CCC and it's looking good again.

Anyway, I still have my 20" monitor hooked up for now, but I'm quite impressed with the 32" TV. Gaming is amazingly better even with the lower resolution. Black levels are great, overall contrast is great, and I have the added bonus of better video performance due to the lower res.

Guess I've become an IPS convert! No more TN panels for me I guess? I might give my 20" to my parents - they could use an extra monitor.

I'm just gonna mention this as some food for thought. The main reason why people pick the Aquos or the Westinghouse, is because they are (as far as I know) the only two TVs made under 40' that are 1080p. This is because they say that with movies you can not tell the difference between 1080p and 720p on a screen smaller than 40" so they don't bother to make them. You can, however, tell the difference when using it as a computer monitor, and therein lies the popularity of these two specific TV's when being used as a computer monitor. That said, I know people use, and are happy with, 720p TVs as monitors.

 

[AstroManLuca]

My Westinghouse is 720p though, not the 1080p version. When I got it, a year ago, I found a pretty good deal on a remanufactured one. Now of course I could get the same one new for a fair amount less. I wouldn't mind upgrading to a 1080p one either. Would make general computer use that much better. But even at 1366x768, it's worth it.

 

[mrrman]

just picked up a Vizio 32" 1080p tv for my pc....sure hope this looks goood

 

[Wreckage]

Text can be a pain to read. Mostly in games or other applications that don't allow you do adjust the text. 12 point font on a 52" screen from 8 feet away for example. I must say I am totally impressed how good Hulu looks.

 

[Ausm]

I would rather have a dual monitor setup like mine using a high quality LCD PC monitor as your main screen and using an HDTV LCD as a secondary monitor.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Just saw that NewEgg has a Sceptre 40" 1080p display for $650. Sceptre may be the Kia of HDTVs, but it still seems like a good deal.

I think now that I've been bitten by the "using an HDTV as a monitor" bug I won't ever go back! Only question is how I get it to work with my home theater setup... I could just pick up the monitor and move it in front of my couch whenever I have company over, I guess.

 

[s44]

Originally posted by: Psynaut
I'm just gonna mention this as some food for thought. The main reason why people pick the Aquos or the Westinghouse, is because they are (as far as I know) the only two TVs made under 40' that are 1080p.

Uh, no. There are a lot of them.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I use a 13x7 toshiba with DVI-HDMI cable and have no issue getting native res with a 7900GT. Since my graphics card is kind of aging I'm somewhat grateful for having the low res : ) It looks great for games, but text is a little hard to read. I used to have a 17"monitor hooked up too that I used for reading/browsing, but I sold it since it was like 7 years old and I wanted a 19" monitor (haven't gotten one yet though).

 

[mrrman]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
My Westinghouse is 720p though, not the 1080p version. When I got it, a year ago, I found a pretty good deal on a remanufactured one. Now of course I could get the same one new for a fair amount less. I wouldn't mind upgrading to a 1080p one either. Would make general computer use that much better. But even at 1366x768, it's worth it.

I bought the Vizio 32" LCD TV $450 shipped from Ebay refurbished by Vizio...1080P as mentioned in my previous post