What is the difference between a Monitor and a TV screen?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

Caveman

Platinum Member
Nov 18, 1999
2,537
34
91
30 years ago this distinction made sense...

Now, it appears not so much...

Is the only real difference these days that TVs contain additional circuitry to drive OTA signals, etc. and PC Monitors do not (instead being more focused on Pic IQ)?

I know in general that all other things being equal, something marketed as a computer monitor will look better than a TV display but is that distinction soon be something of the past?

I'm very interested in a 40-50" 4k monitor for doing flight simulation... Not sure the 2X price for a "Monitor" is justified over a "TV Display"...
 
Last edited:
ShintaiDK

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
There is still a huge difference. Unless perhaps select models against one another.

I can just compare my Dell 2713HM with my Samsung UE55ES7005 to see.

However with time the span have gotten smaller (In my own example my previous Samsung TV was much worse.). And it may even out somewhere in the future.

Try check here:
http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/

Try select 4K resolution. The best TV is 4x more input lag. The worst 10x more.
 
Last edited:
M

Morbus

Senior member
Apr 10, 2009
998
0
0
Grooveriding said:
The most significant difference is PPI is much higher on monitors.
Click to expand...
Well, no. There are plenty of 24' and bellow full HD TVs. And they are similarly priced to 24' and bellow full HD monitors. It's just that everything else isn't similar. The panels aren't as good, the sharpness is not as good, the reliability, the features...
 
Grooveriding

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,329
126
Yeah, well I would of thought the reason why PPI on monitors is higher would be obvious....

Not many people buying 24" HDTVs. And there are no 2560x1440, 2560x1600 screens in 24"-32" sizes. Also doubt there are any 4K screens in a 32" size for HDTVs, at least none I've seen.

PPI is the largest factor to great image quality. Most HDTVs are IPS derivative panel types, but the huge pixels make them look awful compared to good computer monitors. There is input lag as well, but you don't notice that unless you try gaming on one. There are plenty of HDTVs with good quality panels, but they have large pixels.

LCD is a pretty poor technology all round for movies and big screen sizes. Plasma is still superior until we see good OLED screens in large sizes reach reasonable pricing. My Pioneer Kuro is still the best HDTV I've ever used and it's ancient.
 
happy medium

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
best TV's for gaming...

http://www.reviewgist.com/best-tv-gaming


"VGA Connection – By connecting through your HDTV’s VGA connection you virtually eliminate all signal processing time because the system assumes you are using a personal computer and that the processing is taking place by the computer hardware graphics card. Unfortunately by eliminating that portion of the processing this option eliminates many picture settings and therefore limits control over picture quality.VGA mode will usually reduce lag time to 0-8s.Many display modes from 640×480 all the way up to 1775×1000 and 1920×1080 will work with most TV’s in VGA mode, however it varies according to the TV model "


I use the vga connection on my 40 inch tv (238$ on sale) and it works great.
 
Last edited:
exar333

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
Grooveriding said:
Yeah, well I would of thought the reason why PPI on monitors is higher would be obvious....

Not many people buying 24" HDTVs. And there are no 2560x1440, 2560x1600 screens in 24"-32" sizes. Also doubt there are any 4K screens in a 32" size for HDTVs, at least none I've seen.

PPI is the largest factor to great image quality. Most HDTVs are IPS derivative panel types, but the huge pixels make them look awful compared to good computer monitors. There is input lag as well, but you don't notice that unless you try gaming on one. There are plenty of HDTVs with good quality panels, but they have large pixels.

LCD is a pretty poor technology all round for movies and big screen sizes. Plasma is still superior until we see good OLED screens in large sizes reach reasonable pricing. My Pioneer Kuro is still the best HDTV I've ever used and it's ancient.
Click to expand...

Good explanation.

TVs focus more on bigger size, viewing angles (who would want a TN for their living room, right?) and brightness.

Monitors need good pixel density for text and generally lower input lag for gaming and such. Viewing angles, although important, are less of a concern for 'most' people in a Desktop setting due to the proximity and location of how they view their screen.

TVs also have MUCH more focus on scalers and using tech to make even older non-HD sources look good.
 
Valantar

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
Grooveriding said:
PPI is the largest factor to great image quality.
Click to expand...

Oh god no.

Panel type, display controller, refresh rate, post processing, response time, input lag, overscan, just to mention a few.

And you do realise that for an equivalent size with the same resolution, PPI and pixel size would be (very, very close to) the same, right? Sure, a TV meant to be viewed from 3+ meters away might have slightly more room between pixels than a monitor meant to be viewed from <1m. But given the same size and resolution, this difference would be negligible, at least at high resolutions (where the amount of pixels itself necessitates densely packed pixels).

Monitors are (usually) tuned for displaying (mainly) still images. No edge enhancement, balanced contrast, as little post processing as possible.

TVs are tuned for showing moving images of variable quality. They usually have a liberal heaping of post processing to "enhance" percieved quality. This is why most TV screens need quite a bit of tuning to not look like utter crap if you connect a PC to them - and in many cases these "enhancements" cannot even be switched completely off. On the other hand, many TVs these days have a dedicated "PC" HDMI input that allows for a low-lag, no-enhancements image.
 
Grooveriding

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,329
126
This seems to.be stuck going in circles. As I said, there are plenty of HDTVs using great panels, controllers etc. - that check all those boxes. The drastic apparent difference in quality between a good monitor and good HDTV is down to PPI, as it has a huge impact on IQ. This why you see a lot of PC users into good displays who prefer 27" 1440p to 30" 1600p. Even at a distance the size of larger HDTVs and the related PPI is why images look nowhere near as sharp as they do on monitors even with both being good quality displays.

As far as image processing; most HDTV enthusiasts will calibrate colour accurately and disable all image processing because it alters the reference image. As far as the OP, going 4K will help because of the higher pixel density. But gaming will still suffer with the increased latency. You'll have to use HDMI 2.0 to drive 4K 60hz and get an HDTV capable of 4K 60hz.
​
 
Last edited:
know of fence

know of fence

Senior member
May 28, 2009
555
2
71
If this was Family Feud, asking "What is the difference between a Monitor and a TV screen?"
I'd say, a remote and speakers.

Also If you have a DVI-in on the back of your TV, i recommend using that with a DVI/HDMI adapter, rather than HDMI. Though maybe modern Monitor/TV combos don't have those nasty over-scan issues any more...
 
Last edited:
Valantar

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
Grooveriding said:
This seems to.be stuck going in circles. As I said, there are plenty of HDTVs using great panels, controllers etc. - that check all those boxes. The drastic apparent difference in quality between a good monitor and good HDTV is down to PPI, as it has a huge impact on IQ. This why you see a lot of PC users into good displays who prefer 27" 1440p to 30" 1600p. Even at a distance the size of larger HDTVs and the related PPI is why images look nowhere near as sharp as they do on monitors even with both being good quality displays.
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing against this in general, just against the application of this argument in this specific case. The OP specifically asked for 40-50" sizes @4k. Thus DPI is irrelevant for image quality in this discussion whether you like it or not, as it will be the same whether it's a TV or monitor.
 
J

JeffMD

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2002
2,026
19
81
All these post are just people saying they don't really know. -_-

The only difference between a monitor and a TV is the presence of a tuner. That is all! It does not tell you the quality, or anything about the other features. Does not tell you dpi, connection type, or if it has speakers or not.

I currently use a 32 inch panasonic TV as my monitor. It is a 1080p ips screen and allows me to turn off all the filters it uses to smooth out noisy broadcast and SD video input. TV's make fine monitors as long as you can turn off all the image enhancement filter crap they come with.
 
Black Octagon

Black Octagon

Golden Member
Dec 10, 2012
1,410
2
81
rickxross said:
Another distinction between tvs and monitors is that good computer monitors display a 4:4:4 color format. Most broadcast and even Blu-ray content use color compression and are therefore in 4:2:2, or 4:2:0 today, so many tvs only support a similar color format.

Here's a good link explaining the difference:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...official-4-4-4-chroma-subsampling-thread.html
Click to expand...


+1

That's only one of several differences, but for folks who try using HDTVs as monitors for desktop use it's usually the very first intractable stumbling block they run into.

For those too lazy to read that link, 4:4:4 chroma support (rare on TVs) is basically essential to read text on a display without experiencing significant eye discomfort.

That said, some of us wonder whether most TVs deliberately lack this support, so that the manufacturer can continue demanding a massive price premium for their monitor products.
 
S

sheh

Senior member
Jul 25, 2005
247
8
81
exar333 said:
TVs focus more on bigger size, viewing angles (who would want a TN for their living room, right?)
Click to expand...
Viewing angles are just a factor of the panel type. TN may not be common in TVs, but also VA is far from great in this regard. IPS might be better, but there are still problems in dark colors.

Viewing angles, although important, are less of a concern for 'most' people in a Desktop setting due to the proximity and location of how they view their screen.
Click to expand...
Proximity increases the viewing angle to the sides of the screen.

No, LCDs are just bad, whether it is a computer monitor or TV. :)
 
Black Octagon

Black Octagon

Golden Member
Dec 10, 2012
1,410
2
81
Rakehellion said:
The expensive ones. How many monitors have RCA and component inputs?
Click to expand...


I actually think this is a fair reply to what I posted. The main issue is that RCA and component inputs were more common on first-generation HD and "HD Ready" TVs
 
reallyscrued

reallyscrued

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2004
2,618
5
81
...

These answers.

"Television" and "Monitor" are marketing terms / model names. It's like asking what makes something a crossover / suv / station wagon. BMW even has a "gran coupe" now that has 4 doors. It's whatever the manufacturer wants it to be - but you were probably asking about the overarching characteristics.

A "television" usually comes with a tuner box for cable / dish connections. They also come with various inputs that can handle common consumer audio/video inputs. Typical 'monitors' don't come with RF / coax / s-video connections. Then comes the remotes, smart tv capabilities, etc. Televisions are also designed to be viewed at further distances, be of the ratio of current home video offerings, and top out at resolutions provided by consumer media.

Televisions also have, at a very low level, filters and visual processing applied proprietary to each manufacturer. Each television manufacturer has its own idea of what moving video/cinema should look like and typically throw in denoisers, special color hues, frame blending, etc.

A 'monitor' is used to - "monitor" - visuals. The word implies professional use (there are audio "monitors" used as well in the recording industry which are very accurate speakers). Consumer computer technology somehow appropriated the word "monitor" to cover all personal computer displays, which is a misnomer that will probably never be corrected. However, most computer monitors don't do a whole lot to the signal being displayed and always represents a 1:1 pixel representation, so maybe it's not that much of a misnomer.

In any case, I assume the reason this question is being asked is simple - now that everything has gone digital, computer displays and consumer televisions are sharing a lot of the same inputs/connections - but they are meant to be used and designed for very different purposes, even though you might be able to interchange them if you wish.

Hell, you can take a Honda Accord off-roading if you really wanted to. It might even work. It just wasn't designed for it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom