I've been checking online reviews and comments: so far the majority view seems to be that even a modern 4K TV doesn't make an ideal monitor. But different users have different tolerances: a personal trial is clearly the only way to be sure.
Bert
As a unique monitor format, there is the
LG 28" (27.6" Viewable), 2560 x 2880 Built-in Speakers Flat Panel 28MQ780-B
That's a monitor with a 16:18 (square ratio) instead of 16:9 .
Beware of the stand, which is weirdness. If comes with a VESA plate mount, and you might actually need that to make it work. The stand it comes with is a "clamp", and the clamp would work if mounted on the edge of a flat desk surface.
At one time, the "PC Input" port on a TV set, did not run at the native resolution of the TV. Maybe a 1920x1080 TV would run at a max of 1440x900 on the PC Input port. They have since fixed this, and no longer screw around. Today a 1920x1080 TV runs at 1920x1080 on the PC Input port.
Finding monitors which are not 16:9 today, is a lot harder than it used to be. There were some 1920x1200 (16:10) but they're not as easy to find now. Sure, you could get a 4K monitor or you could get a 4K 16:9 TV. I would get the LCD monitor type (you can choose between glossy and matte finish, as you like). I prefer glossy and just watch that there are NO light sources behind me.
There are also monitors which are extremely wide, which again wasn't what you were looking for. That might be for gaming. There are even some monitors that are 49" diagonal (and my desk is only 48" wide).
And the other aberration today is high-refresh-rate monitors. 60Hz is the normal rate and good enough for office work.
Also note that your graphics card needs a suitable output to drive a 4K monitor. There are some Intel GPU solutions that do 4K @ 30Hz and you'd need to use a newer video card to improve on that. I think my 6 year old video card can do 4K @ 60Hz on the DisplayPort.
Paul
Most modern TVs with a HDMI will display a computer's output crisply and legibly. However there are some things to keep in mind. Many will run an standard HD resolution (1920 x 1024) - so going for a ever larger screen will get you bigger pixels rather than more actual useable screen space. Sometimes handy if you are struggling with readability of text due to its size, but you may not see much advantage say going from a 24" widescreen monitor to a 32" TV, unless it also lets you run at a higher screen resolution. So you might need to look at "ultra" 4K TVs to let you run higher resolution screen modes.
Many TVs have multiple processing modes that control how much video processing they do. Some of them may be less well suited for computer use if they introduce lag into the response. Using the TVs "Gaming" mode will often fix this.
Also look at larger monitors - the prices are not as high as they were. Monitors have a screen resolution option between HD and 4K, called QHD or WQHD which is normally 2560x1440. That gives you enough depth to show two A4 pages side by side in detail, or wider pages when required.
A decent AOC 27" WQHD screen can be had for around £200, an ASUS for a bit more.
4K 3840x2160 screens start at around £310 at the moment.
More to the point (or at least as relevant anyway) is how many pixels it will have top to bottom in comparison with your current monitor in portrait mode.
If your current monitor is HD (1920x1080) then switching to any size of
4K (3840 x 2160) monitor in landscape will increase the vertical pixels. So I think it'd be well worth your time looking at a 32" 4K monitor.
This is probably reflection that there are loads of different setups out there, and they do not all perform equally. Also, not everyone's needs are the same. Someone writing a script may want a very tall display - in effect several pages of A4 stacked, whereas someone editing a magazine may want a faithful reproduction of a double page spread etc. A gamer will want high refresh rates, and smooth movement. A publisher or video producer may need calibrated colour accuracy, or high dynamic range colour.
I use TVs as monitors on several computers- everything from R PIs to Linux machines to a Mac Mini. All the TVs came from Aldi and are their various brands. Some use HDMI, some VGA. Sizes from 32( or perhaps 36 I’m not sure) to 21”.
I find them excellent.
That - stand apart - looks close to ideal, though even at the lowest I've found (Curry's, surprisingly, at £599) the price is a tad eyebrow-raising. I agree about the stand: very odd. If the screen is a permanent fixture on the mount, then clamping it to the back of a desk isn't going to be easy, I think. I wonder if my local Curry's have one in stock for me to play with?
a lot harder than it usewd to be.
For a 16:9 screen to give me the height I need it would have to be just over 34" diagonal. It may be that I haven't looked in the right place yet, but the only 34" monitors I can find online are all the ultra-wide type, which of course means less height.
Thanks for the tip about possibly needing to upgrade the graphics card
Bert
Yes, text and graphics (CAD). It's pin sharp, 4K seems to be the keyword.
Whereas our actual telly downstairs is HD and clearly not as good as a monitor.
Currently using a 40" Full HD TV in landscape mode.
The plan was to use a 4K monitor but PSU and graphics card issues have delayed that.
The picture and text isn't as crisp as the old Full HD monitor it replaced, but it does have enough real estate to display two documents (or other windows) side by side.
4K is better, but Full HD will do.Cheers
Dave R
I guess we used to also say that some of the tricks used to make ttvs could upset the way computers use the device, but from what folk tell me, there is little to choose these days. The definition is very similar in the mid range pixel numbers, I'm told. Because I'm blind I seldom use a monitor, so I have a Samsung 42 inch set fed from a via to hdmi adaptor and people tell me its pretty good. Its surprising how many people though, simply cannot read the smaller fonts, no matter what monitor you use. Most have to increase the size, I guess they were all designed by 20 year olds who did not need glasses.
Brian
I don't know if they are still available, but you used to be able to buy rotating monitors that, as you turned them on their stand, instructed the PC to change its output automatically, allowing you to switch instantly between portrait and landscape modes.
I know there are rotatable monitors, but I don't know if any still have that feedback or whether you'd have to manually tell windows to change orientation.
I use a 28" 2560x1440 monitor and find that I can comfortably fit two full-page, A4 documents side-by-side, with them being easily readable.
Noting that if you need to upgrade the graphics card you also need to check that your PSU has some spare power and spare connectors. DAMHIKT.
Cheers
Dave R
4K seems to be the keyword.
Thanks, Clive. Actually I have two small LG TVs (neither of them 4K) and I'm impressed with their picture quality. It's a brand I would trust.
Bert
Good grief, it never ends, does it? Thanks.
Thanks.
various> brands... I find them excellent. Another source for me to investigate. Thanks, Brian.
Bert
Thanks, David.
The good thing about my present setup (a 20" 4:3 monitor in portrait mode) is that it allows me to display a single A4 sheet at life size (or slightly bigger if I wish). That's something I want to preserve in any new monitor.
Bert
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.