I was just wondering why I shouldn't buy a 40 inch LCD flat panel tv for a monitor. It has 1920x1080 resolution, and 80,000 to 1 dynamic contrast. It's a samsung on sale at Costco for $600. So why would I spend 1200 or more on a 20 inch Lacie or Eizo. I obviously don't need a 40 inch monitor, but a smaller size would be even less.
Thanks for any help,
Chris
Posted by Luke Ormand on November 23, 2009 at 10:15 PM
I'm no expert, but I'm thinking the same reason you don't by a video camera with a 60X zoom and simply take still frames out of the video footage. Sure, it'll work, but that's not what the camera was designed for. A TV is designed for broadcasting digital signals in HD (1080i/p) - that's all it does and it's very good at it. A monitor is designed for showing photographs, video, websites, etc. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think were Eizo excels is in displaying colors and it will blow out all but the highest end TV's in this category.
- Luke
Posted by David Bostedo on November 23, 2009 at 10:36 PM
I can't say for sure that it's a bad option - it may be good for you (although you'd probably have to sit back from something that large for it to look normal). But the reason high end monitors are expensive is because of color capability, accuracy, and ability to be calibrated and adjusted.
TVs are not typically made to be accurate, and may have variation across them that doesn't matter for TV viewing but may for detailed photo work. They may also vary in how they look as you move, despite whatever their viewing angle is listed as. Finally, I'd imagine they may not reproduce the same gamut as a higher quality monitor, nor show as many colors at once.
But for what's important to you, a NEC, Lacie, or Eizo may be overpriced - there are certainly Dell/HP/Apple 21 - 30 inch monitors for a lot less that are very capable in terms of accuracy and gamut. For me, personally, I wouldn't spend a ton on a monitor, and would also consider an LCD TV, but I'd like to see if it calibrates at least OK before assuming it's a good option.
Maybe someone here has tried it and can chime in...
Posted by Kenn Leonhardt on November 24, 2009 at 9:06 AM
I've hooked up to my 42" Samsung HD LCD a few times, and as great of a TV as it is, it's not ideal for photo editing purposes. Not saying that it's bad by any stretch, but based on my experience, I'd prefer to spend the money on a proper middle-of-the-road monitor since it's specifically built for computer usage.
Posted by Austin Booth on November 25, 2009 at 2:13 PM
First of all you don't need to spend $1200 on a top of the line display, you can get a 24" display for less than that $600 40" TV. The 1920x1080 resolution is not very much for a 40" display and your photos will not look as good when you view them up close, having a 40" display is not going to allow you to see more detail when your resolution is that low. TVs are designed to be viewed from a distance and if your plan was to put it on top of your desk it would hurt your eyes and you would most likely end up with a headache every time you edited your photos. Another reason not to get a TV as a display is you have no way of knowing how accurate the colors will be on it or if you will be able to calibrate it to display your photos correctly. Accurate colors and calibration potential are important for displaying photos especially if you plan on printing them but the same is not nearly as important when watching tv or movies.
Of course you don't have to spend $1200 on an EIZO unless you want the absolute best but I think getting a cheaper 24" or even 26" monitor is a much better option than using a larger, lower resolution LCD TV. Having higher resolution capabilities on a 24" display will allow you to see more detail in your photos than having a 40" screen with less resolution. The 40" screen has to be viewed from a distance and the 24" screen can be viewed up close so you essentially get the same field of view on the 24" screen just with more detail.
Posted by David Page on November 26, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Chris,
I have a 40 inch Toshiba LCD flat panel TV and have tried photo editing with it in the past. It is calibrated, but the color is way off from my Mac Book monitor. In addition, as others said you have to be back (about 6 feet) from the TV for it to be clear. Otherwise, up close it is very grainy. With my experience I would not recommend using a flat panel TV for photo editing. Quality and color replication for photo editing is poor.
I currently use a NEC monitor (about $1000) and it syncs and calibrates nicely with my Mac Book. IMO it is worth the extra money for a decent monitor. Check out the NEC MultiSync 2690WUXi2 25.5". It retails for about $1,063 which I believe is a lot cheaper than Lacie and Eizo monitors.
Thank you,
I figured that was pretty much the case. But a friend brought it up, and didn't have a definative answer. I was just trying to get a higher rez screen for less money. Sounds like it would actually be less rez. Thanks for the help.
Chris
Posted by David Bostedo on November 28, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Well Chris, the TV would still be high res, since it would be about the same resolution as a large monitor. But the pixels themselves wouldn't have the tight pitch and regularity in color and sharpness that you get in a monitor. I THINK that's what makes the TV "grainier" - but I'm guessing a bit.
Discussion
7 repliesThanks for any help,
Chris
- Luke
TVs are not typically made to be accurate, and may have variation across them that doesn't matter for TV viewing but may for detailed photo work. They may also vary in how they look as you move, despite whatever their viewing angle is listed as. Finally, I'd imagine they may not reproduce the same gamut as a higher quality monitor, nor show as many colors at once.
But for what's important to you, a NEC, Lacie, or Eizo may be overpriced - there are certainly Dell/HP/Apple 21 - 30 inch monitors for a lot less that are very capable in terms of accuracy and gamut. For me, personally, I wouldn't spend a ton on a monitor, and would also consider an LCD TV, but I'd like to see if it calibrates at least OK before assuming it's a good option.
Maybe someone here has tried it and can chime in...
Of course you don't have to spend $1200 on an EIZO unless you want the absolute best but I think getting a cheaper 24" or even 26" monitor is a much better option than using a larger, lower resolution LCD TV. Having higher resolution capabilities on a 24" display will allow you to see more detail in your photos than having a 40" screen with less resolution. The 40" screen has to be viewed from a distance and the 24" screen can be viewed up close so you essentially get the same field of view on the 24" screen just with more detail.
I have a 40 inch Toshiba LCD flat panel TV and have tried photo editing with it in the past. It is calibrated, but the color is way off from my Mac Book monitor. In addition, as others said you have to be back (about 6 feet) from the TV for it to be clear. Otherwise, up close it is very grainy. With my experience I would not recommend using a flat panel TV for photo editing. Quality and color replication for photo editing is poor.
I currently use a NEC monitor (about $1000) and it syncs and calibrates nicely with my Mac Book. IMO it is worth the extra money for a decent monitor. Check out the NEC MultiSync 2690WUXi2 25.5". It retails for about $1,063 which I believe is a lot cheaper than Lacie and Eizo monitors.
- DMP
I figured that was pretty much the case. But a friend brought it up, and didn't have a definative answer. I was just trying to get a higher rez screen for less money. Sounds like it would actually be less rez. Thanks for the help.
Chris