Large (40"+) monitor or TV?

[AqD]

I'll have to abandon my current TV and buy a new one a few months later.

No need of cable connection (does that still exist out there?). I just connect it to my PC.


For all sort of purposes: movie, gaming, coding, etc. TV seems much cheaper as I don't need 4K, but over the past years I noticed:

- only full resolution is acceptable. Anything else = instant black screen (I have a secondary normal monitor for rescue, thankfully)
- very slow response. It has to be the reason I suck at shooting now.
- graphics enhancement is very annoying. I just want the simple, universal sRGB.


but cost seems like an issue yes. The cheapest 40" monitor I found is around $700 and 4K is pretty much compulsory now. Are they worth the extra cost? I also worry for quality/warranty as they seem rare.

[z3n]

I can't really answer that directly. I know some people think or find 1080p 27 inch monitors like mine blurry. Personally, this monitor isn't blurry at all and I doubt QA would let anything that obvious by, or monitors wouldn't sell.

But 40 inches is way bigger than 27 inches @ 1080p, so there are presumably far less pixels to present a good image; that's speculation on my part.

[AqD]

Well I'm already used to siting right in front of 40" 1080p TV for coding and playing games.

it doesn't feel blurry, although probably bad for my eyes. I do feel worried about 40" monitor - not TV, as they're rare and costly, and might have potential quality issue. They have shorter response time and (I guess) don't use the common TV panels at all.

[Sir Adrian]

Normally I would recommend a monitor because of the refresh rate, color correction and decreased delay - playing games on a tv is just a horrible experience imho. However, at that size, I really do not know which is better.

This article might help you https://www.techspot.com/article/143...op-pc-monitor/

[Aexodus]

I found on our 40” panasonic TV watching 1080p dodn’t feel that much different to standard. But when we got a 55” suddenly anything that wasn’t HD looked well... crap. So if you’re going for a larger size you’ll maybe need a higher definition because compared to the last one it’ll look worse especially close up. Our 55” is 4K ready but we haven’t had the chance to watch anything 4K yet. If you got a monitor I don’t think 4K is worth it at all unless you have money to burn.

[AqD]

I'm surprised that author complains about Ultrasharp. Isn't Ultrasharp one of the very best and in professional grade?

the price difference is shocking:

- cheapest 40 monitor, Philips BDM4037UW 40 "4K UHD, cost above 600 euros
- cheapest 43" monitor, Acer ET430K 4K, cost 700 euro
- while a regular TV, Samsung UE55NU6035 55 "Smart 4K, cost only 500 euros, and there are many like that one.

hmm, but on the other side, the difference is only 100-200 euros.

I'll wait to see if anyone encountering quality problem with big monitor then.


@Aexodus: thanks! I have no 4K content either and no intention to waste my travel money on that.

[Aexodus]

Why do you need such a big monitor anyway?

[AqD]

So it can be used as a TV of course! Why waste huge space and money on something that only plays a hour a day?

[Aexodus]

Fair enough. I watch TV and have a PS4, the computer (21.5”) is just for work and some Total War.

[AqD]

no I meant the TV part. huge waste of money it'd be for less than a hour a day!

nobody ever use those big monitors? What about short distance projectors? Optoma GT1080e are only 700 euros! full HD and not 4K, but i don't need 4K. They'd hurt the eyes less than monitor yes?

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

no I meant the TV part. huge waste of money it'd be for less than a hour a day!

nobody ever use those big monitors? What about short distance projectors? Optoma GT1080e are only 700 euros! full HD and not 4K, but i don't need 4K. They'd hurt the eyes less than monitor yes?

Well, theoretically new monitors or TVs can't hurt your eyes. Except if you're having a specific condition.