Why computer monitors are more expensive than TVs

RoganDawes said:
Yes, of course. The point of the article was to convince people to buy a higher priced monitor rather than a tv because the monitor is better quality.

The only convincing reason I could see in the entire article was the processing pipeline introducing latency in a tv, vs a monitor. If the tv would allow that to be turned off, no problem!
Click to expand...

You don't need a TV licence for a monitor. That is also a very convincing reason. I have never and will never get a TV licence. Once you're on the SABC Gestapo database you can never get off it.
 
CataclysmZA said:
If VGA is giving you a clearer picture, then it's very likely that the scaler inside the TV doesn't process HDMI signals from a PC very well, unless you have a dedicated mode for PC connections that change how the panel scans. The PC mode on Samsung monitors typically forces it to scan progressively instead of using interlacing, something that PC monitors are not typically required to do.

What V-Sync rubbish are you talking about? Are you confused as to what G-Sync and FreeSync do?
Click to expand...


ok then, i have yet to see a HDTV display fonts correctly over HDMI. I have monitors, every person I have seen using a HDTV as a screen has a lower quality pic on HDMI. I tell them to try a dsub and get a big, "gees thanks man! that was so annoying!" or they convinced themselves the image is fine, until they try dsub. and yes i have tried the PC mode, that just seems to display the resolution correctly with the refresh rate. or increase the refresh rate at higher resolution for computers. since tv and movies run at lower fps..


v-sync rubbish i was refering to is limiting/matching FPS to refresh rate. the gfx card does that. the TV does not need built-in "software" to do this. there is also a feature on gfx cards to eliminate tearing when v-sync is not enabled and they dont match because the fps is much higher.
 
access said:
ok then, i have yet to see a HDTV display fonts correctly over HDMI. I have monitors, every person I have seen using a HDTV as a screen has a lower quality pic on HDMI. I tell them to try a dsub and get a big, "gees thanks man! that was so annoying!" or they convinced themselves the image is fine, until they try dsub.
Click to expand...

My parent's Sinotec, for example, processes HDMI signals properly when using the third HDMI port, but not the other two, which have some processing added in. Some TV scalers have to alter the picture to account for the pixel arrangements, like Samsung with their PLS displays, which is why HDMI from a PC doesn't work well because the GPU is trying to do its own thing. Its weird, but there are some monitors that do this properly.

access said:
v-sync rubbish i was refering to is limiting/matching FPS to refresh rate. the gfx card does that. the TV does not need built-in "software" to do this.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised to learn how ****ty Intel, NVIDIA, and AMD's implementations of 29.97Hz and 23.976Hz modes used to be until AMD mostly fixed it in their HD5000 series. Almost every GPU made from the other two companies could not do these specific timings properly, and if you were running 29.97Hz content on a 30Hz display, that would end up delaying the audio by 5-6 frames after five minutes of playback, and not being close enough to 23.976Hz for video content meant you would see frame drops every few minutes. Intel only fixed this with Haswell. Some TVs do their own processing to try get as close to these refresh rates as possible for devices that aren't PCs with programmable refresh rates.
 
I suspect that TV's don't in fact have the advertised number of pixels on their panels.

SO a full HD monitor really does have 1920 X 1080 pixels but a full HD TV (even one specifically advertised as 1920 X 1080) has a panel more like 1760 X 990 pixels. (Historically there was something called overscan with CRT displays and this has persisted into digital TV for some reason.) The TV cuts off the borders which results in a larger picture. The borders sometimes contain junk anyway.

This is just a guess. I can't think of any other reason why a TV would struggle so much to display a crystal-clear 1920 X 1080 input onto a supposedly 1920 X 1080 screen without blurring the text. (The effect is most noticeable using text on Windows computers, because Windows never blurs its text. In Notepad or Excel, type a row of capital I's IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. Look closely at the screen. If each I looks exactly the same, your monitor is using its native resolution. If it looks more like a barcode, with some I's crisp and some blurred, then the output is being scaled.)
 
Last edited:
in 2012 I bought a 24" Monitor for R890.00 in SA Now I can not get the same model + specs for below R3000
The same time I also bought a 40" Sony TV for R4000. The same Tv can be had now for R4500

Explain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X