4 ms·
The draw is that there is an assumption that 'large monitor' == good, and tv == 'large monitor'. The problem is that what people really want is more pixels, an
by cconstantine 18y ago
The draw is that there is an assumption that 'large monitor' == good, and tv == 'large monitor'.
The problem is that what people really want is more pixels, and HDTVs actually have fewer than most monitors.
Monitors as TVs don't work for me because I want more than just me to be able to watch and that means moving the viewing device further back. After moving the viewing device further back it doesn't really matter how much fine-grained detail there is. Whalla! That's a TV! :)
'course I haven't "watched tv" in a couple weeks... but this is beside the point.
- ojbyrne 18y agoI have a small enough room that my 27" monitor works nicely. However I read about HD features - "advanced signal processing, comb filter, blah, blah, blah" - that suggest that my monitor might not be as good quality as a TV just because it isn't optimized for that. I don't have a tv to compare it to unfortunately, but I see things like motion blur, crappy blacks, that make me think it could be better.