Ogre Forums

I am building a man cave and was curious if anyone had any advice in regards to lcd tvs? I plan to use the thing as a computer monitor (for work and games), and I am thinking I want something at least 46".

The thing that concerns me most is the refresh rate. Most of the newer tvs make a big deal about their 120hz refresh rate, claiming it reduces blurring/lag for fast moving scenes (like games). However, I know people have been playing games on lcd tvs for years now, so I cant imagine the old 60hz tvs are THAT bad.

I kinda had my eye on this bad boy...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6889101138

It has a 4ms response time (whatever the hell that means), but it does NOT appear to have a 120hz refresh rate. And of course I just read a cnet review that claims this particular model has terrible banding issues with fast moving scenes (which scares the shit out of me, since I am very concerned with game performance).

Shopping for a tv sucks. If anyone has any advice I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks!

The problem with using a tv as a monitor is that tv's have lower resolution.
The res of a 52" tv is 1920x1080. But that's what a 24" monitor would give (actually, a 24" 16x10 monitor is 1200 vertical. Only the new 16x9 monitors are 1080). So the pixels are going to be giant compared to a monitor. Ok if you are sitting way back from it, which I guess you'd have to do with a 52".
For programming (and 99% of non game tasks), I believe vertical res is more important, so I'd always take a 16x10 monitor with 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 rather than a tv style 16x9 with only 1080p.

The 4ms bit is related to how long it takes for a pixel to change colour, higher values mean motion blur and trails on the screen. But there's 2 common ways to measure it, and if they don't say which was used then the rating is a bit meaningless.

For games a more important rating (which no manufacturer lists) is frame delay. On many lcds, what you see on the screen is actually one or more frames in the past. The monitor/tv receives the signal, buffers up a full frame worth, processes it for scaling/colour stuff/etc, then finally shows it on screen. The delay on some can be 50+ms. For a game at 60 frames per second, that means you are seeing 3 frames behind what is really happening. Pretty crappy for fast reflex games. I've never seen a tv measured for frame delay, only monitors. The way you test is you hook up a crt monitor and the lcd to one pc and run in clone view mode with both displays side by side. Display a clock with millisecond accuracy on the screen. Then take a photo with a high speed camera. The difference in times in the photo will be how far behind the lcd is.

Then there's also panel type. Sharp's ASV panel sounds pretty good, but not much info is around on it compared to TN, PVA and IPS.

LCD is such an annoying technology. So many issues (pixel latency, frame delays, viewing angles, crap colour, etc), and then there's the whole dead pixel nightmare (most companies have an acceptable number of dead pixels before they'll replace the screen, even if it arrives with them).

Anyway, I like the term Man Cave.
I want to build a sound proof underground bunker in the back yard, so I can turn up the sound without annoying neighbors at 4am.

(Disclaimer: I hate lcd. I'm waiting for a SED (surface-conduction electron-emitter display) tv and monitor: all the advantages of a CRT but in the thinness of an LCD).

Why don't you get one of these http://www.novelquest.com/emperor_specs.html

Kojack wrote:The problem with using a tv as a monitor is that tv's have lower resolution.
The res of a 52" tv is 1920x1080. But that's what a 24" monitor would give (actually, a 24" 16x10 monitor is 1200 vertical. Only the new 16x9 monitors are 1080). So the pixels are going to be giant compared to a monitor. Ok if you are sitting way back from it, which I guess you'd have to do with a 52".
For programming (and 99% of non game tasks), I believe vertical res is more important, so I'd always take a 16x10 monitor with 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 rather than a tv style 16x9 with only 1080p.

It's what i tried to explain to the shop guy... when my old PC screen broke, i wasn't able to find any 4:3 screen anymore. I had to buy a 20'' to have a nearly comparable vertical res, and I still lost 120 px.
Wich are much more than 4 lines of code... damn manifacturers

Anyway for me TVs as PC screens are fantastic, they have an image and colour processing that pc monitors just lack, they are bigger, and they are much better for moving things: Crysis at 17 FPS was completely unplayable on PC, while I enjoyed it for hours on the TV.
My advice anyway is to NOT trust manufacturer specs, because they are completely random. Just go to a big mall and see the differences with your eyes... a good TV is good also in a bad environment with bad settings, IMO.

Yeah I am going to go down and hit BestBuy/CC/Walmart today and try to see some particular models in person. I hope they will have some test applications so I can compare banding/motion blur (since thats what I am really concerned about). I will also try and do some research on the whole 'frame delay' thing (that seems like it could be a problem too).

The real problem is like you said - the manufacturer specs seem to be meaningless. There do not seem to be any real standards. I guess I will have to rely on my own eyes.

I run my current 21 inch monitor at 1024x768 (pretty low I know) for games and work, so I dont think I will notice the crappy resolution even if I sit close to a 52 inch.

You need to get yourself one of these babies:

http://gizmodo.com/341413/alienware-cur ... her-planet

Kojack wrote:or programming (and 99% of non game tasks), I believe vertical res is more important, so I'd always take a 16x10 monitor with 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 rather than a tv style 16x9 with only 1080p.

I don't know. I originally switched from a 4:3 display to a widescreen 16:10 monitor specifically to help me program. After all, you can scroll in vertical direction with relative ease without disrupting your flow that much. Scrolling in horizontal direction, however, is much more painful. Besides, it's extremely useful to be able to place two or even more documents next to each other. I don't know about 16:10 to 16:9, but I know that I would always prefer 16:10 and 16:9 over a 4:3 or even 5:4 monitor.

True, the extra horizontal helps for long code lines (if you aren't working somewhere which enforced 80 character line lengths for easy printing, like I used to).
I put my solution browser and compiler output windows on my second monitor so my primary has a full screen of text.
But when it comes to 16x9 vs 16x10 it's a bit harder. Same horizontal res (1920 for a 24", 1680 for a 22"), same diagonal, but the 16x10 gives you an extra 120 pixels vertical. So you can still have 2 pages side by side, they just have a little more vertical space.
The counter argument is that viewing 1080p blue ray content on a 16x10 gives you 60 pixel black bars on top and below. Pretty handy for video editing though, edit 1080p and still have room for a control bar for timeline and stuff. Most movies these days are 21:9 anyway, so you'll always have black bars onless you get the new Philips 21:9 tv.

I'd still prefer 4:3 or even 1:1, but at the same width as a 16:9. A 16x9 or 16x10 monitor fits more information across the screen, but only when the 4:3 is the same height. Make the 4:3 just as wide and it can fit the same stuff, plus have tons more vertical.

What's annoying with my tv (Panasonic 42" plasma) is that it's a 16:9 display, but the native resolution is 1024x768 (4:3). So I have to change my players mode depending on what display I play stuff on (stretch to fill the screen on my tv, letterbox with aspect ratio preserving on my monitor).

Here's some handy links.
Information on dead pixel policies of all popular monitor makers:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/666- ... -2007.html
(for example, Dell's official policy is that 1-5 dead pixels are fine, they'll only replace the monitor if 6 or more are dead. For a Benq T series 20" monitor, you can have 9 black dead pixels, 28 white dead pixels, and 96 dead sub pixels (stuck at other colours like red or green) and they can still say it doesn't need replacement. Only Viewsonic have an official policy of 1 dead pixel is grounds for replacement)

See what an image of various aspect ratios looks like on up to 4 different monitors side by side. You enter the monitor diagonal, aspect ratio, resolution, and it shows how much letterboxing and width/height differences each has.
http://www.tvcalculator.com
Here's an example of making a hypothetical 4:3 monitor with the same width as a 24" 16:10 monitor, then displaying a 16:9 image on it: http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?e1dc ... 336a9ee4f6

Huge collection of lcd info:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview ... id=2049206

Compare monitors, tvs, cameras, webcams, printers, etc, using photos and measurements.
http://www.digitalversus.com
Here's a 52" Sharp Aquos compared to a 52" Sony: http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php? ... =3305&ph=8
It's great for lcd monitors, it shows close up photos of text and game rendering (and a ton more stuff).

(I've been researching this stuff lately, I want 2 new monitors and a new tv, but I can't decide what to get)



Ultimate Man Cave:
http://www.silohome.com
An Atlas F missile silo converted into a 9 story underground home, with a log cabin and FAA approved private runway on the surface.
Argh, I wish I was rich!

I still love my 5:4 19" Philips (1280x1024). Good refresh rates, good colour renedition, and the DPI is very nice on the eyes (72DPI is less eye straining than 96DPI). Running a dual monitor setup, I have the other screen for doing stuff side by side, and 1280 pixels is perfect for watching 720p HD content since theres no scaling (Just letterboxing).

If I were looking for a new work monitor, I'd go for one of the 16:9 monitors you can rotate and use as 9:16 portrait, since most of my video watching and gaming is done via the HDTV these days anyway.

I'd still prefer 4:3 or even 1:1, but at the same width as a 16:9. A 16x9 or 16x10 monitor fits more information across the screen, but only when the 4:3 is the same height. Make the 4:3 just as wide and it can fit the same stuff, plus have tons more vertical.

But in that case the monitor would have more space overall, so it's not exactly a fair comparison You would need to compare the same amount of pixels in total. So if the 16:10 monitor has a resolution of 1920x1200 pixels (equaling 2.304.000 pixels), a 1:1 monitor would have 1518x1518 pixels. Similarly, 4:3 would be about 1753x1315. I'd pick 1920x1200, thank you

Well I just got back from Best Buy and I am more confused than ever. I did learn a few things -

Blueray at 120hz is AMAZING. The difference between blueray 120hz and 60hz is NIGHT AND DAY (assuming there is motion of course). So I think that I HAVE to go for something with 120hz or I will be kicking myself later. Sure maybe it wont do anything for games, but for blueray movies it is a MUST, hands down. Yay more money...

On the plus side, I think I could settle for a smaller screen size. I had my heart set on 52", but after seeing them up close, it almost made me nauseous (I had to back up quite a bit before I felt comfortable).

Another thing I noticed - all the best ones color/contrast wise, were Samsung. The guy said Samsung had some kind of 'super special glossy screen technology'. I am not worried about glare, so I am starting to lean towards Samsung.

Now I need to find a 46 inch Samsung with 120hz in the 1200ish range...

Now I need to find a 46 inch Samsung with 120hz in the 1200ish range...

There's this one:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp ... 5216782035
It's on sale for $1599.99. That's the cheapest 46" samsung with 120Hz.
It looks like it's only a series 6 samsung (they are up to series 9), but the higher model 46" samsungs cost more.

But I'm not american, so I don't know if best buy is actually any good for prices, I just used it because you mentioned it first.

Best Buy blows for just about everything. They are just the only brick and mortar store in my area (so I am going there to see the sets in person). I will likely be ordering from somewhere online once I make a final pick.

The one thing I hate about those Samsungs is this 'touch of color thing'. All the 120hz models have this red tint along the edges. Its subtle, but still looks dumb imo. However I still say those glossy Samsung screens make a huge difference, so maybe I will have to learn to love red tint...

The 65" Mitsubishi Laser Rear Projection TV sounds interesting: http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/product/L65A90
Instead of shining a white light through a rotating colour wheel and bouncing it onto the screen with a DLP chip, they use red, green and blue lasers.

I'm sure the australian government would freak out about them, claiming you could remove the screen and use it to blind pilots. (Our government has banned laser pointers over 5mW, because a few idiots have aimed green lasers at aircraft).

The order has been placed! Man Cave is on the way! I decided I can live with the subtle red tint of the samsung model, since it has the best screen hands down.

http://www.butterflyphoto.com/prodinfo. ... =sellpoint

I also decided to spend a bit more than I wanted on a sound system...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6882120081

Thats the highest rated tv and audio system according to consumer reports, so that must be a good sign. Now I just need a cool tv stand. I dont want a full entertainment center, so I was looking at this one...

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp ... merreviews

Its simple and clean... I like it... just a little worried that the glass might cause some reflection/glare from the window (I am putting this thing right infront of a big window).