3 ms·

Unfortunately, the image quality of computer monitors pale in comparison to modern TVs. I recently switched from a Dell P4317Q to an old Samsung Q7 for my gamin

Unfortunately, the image quality of computer monitors pale in comparison to modern TVs. I recently switched from a Dell P4317Q to an old Samsung Q7 for my gaming monitor, and the quality (contrast, colors) improvement is profound, even without any HDR content. When we’re talking about HDR, they’re not even on the same playing field. And that’s an old Samsung TV. On top of that, Samsung’s current flagships are among the worst TVs right now vs the competing major brands’ flagships (because all the best are now OLED, and Samsung is the only hold-out). Even the improvement from a Samsung Q90 (which I had for a few weeks) to LG C9 OLED has to be seem to be believed. On some content, the improvement is drastic. The technological progress of modern OLED TVs vs LED LCD is practically magical, when viewing good HDR content. If you go for an old panel for the sake of privacy, you’re either going to be sorely disappointed or blissfully ignorant of what your missing. I would much rather buy a modern model and figure out how to disable the radios, if I was this worried about privacy.

criley2 7y ago
I would lean the opposite direction. I switched from a Vizio TV to a 144hz ViewSonic monitor and the difference in gaming is night and day. It's not only a better image with better colors, deeper blacks, better looking sharpness and stronger brightness where it counts, but the ability to render up to 144hz is a gamechanger. I never realized that 1080p60 would look better on a 144hz monitor than a television but everything is so crisp and smooth in games, it's honestly breathtaking with the right scene. I didn't realize that having a panel that can handle 144hz means that vertical sync is pointless, and for the games that I can actually render at 144hz, the effect is magical by comparison. I find myself replaying more cinematic games (like say Witcher 3) on the new panel and it's like experiencing the magic of these scenes all over again for the first time. I couldn't ever imagine going back to a television for gaming.
- electrograv 7y ago
  Sure, a bottom of the barrel TV vs a highly rated PC monitor is going to have a different outcome - no surprise, since that’s not a fair comparison. Compare high end models in similar price ranges (as I have) and you’ll see what I’m talking about. For example: Compare an LG OLED in a dark room to any modern PC monitor, and I would be surprised if you were anything but blown away by the OLED, and appalled by how expensive these gaming monitors are compared to what a similarly priced OLED is capable of (especially now that LG OLEDs are capable of 120hz and variable refresh rate with input lag lower than many gaming monitors). Of course, the main reason we don’t see everyone using OLED PC monitors are concerns about burn in effects from long term use. But for most people for TV and movie viewing, it’s not a concern. My 3 year old LG B6 OLED is still going strong with no signs of burn in, and has picture quality that still puts the best of the best non-OLED TVs to shame.
TrumpSucks 7y ago
blissfully ignorant in this case, usually. OLED is the future and the holdouts will fight until they realize they settled for years with inferior IQ.
tomc1985 7y ago
My experience with PC displays is almost the complete opposite... its the computer display that has the most accurate colors -- all the TVs I've played with ride the contrast waaay too hard, and if all the extra processing isn't disabled the picture looks worse
- electrograv 7y ago
  By any chance is your experience with TVs from Samsung, or bargain brands? Among the top tier brands (LG, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung) only Samsung is notorious for intentionally bad out of box calibration (because oversaturated colors is a cheap a easy way to impress, though in extended use you will tire of it quickly). I don’t know about the bargain brands like Vizio but I heard their latest stuff is pretty capable, though I don’t know if they have good calibration by default like the above mentioned brands do (minus Samsung). Color calibration isn’t everything BTW. The contrast ratio modern TVs are capable is pretty much unrivaled by any modern computer monitor until relatively recently, and even now the only ones that come close cost many times the price of an equivalent TV. But no monitor on the market can hold a candle to the image quality experience of an OLED TV for HDR movies and TV shows. This is not really under any dispute btw among audio video forums: virtually everyone admits that emissive technology like OLED has inherent quality advantages. The main debate centers purely around whether or not OLED burn in is likely to occur for various use cases. If you haven’t experienced modern HDR content on a flagship TV (particularly OLED), you are missing out on something really special. No current PC monitor can even come close, except those that cost >2x the price of a modern 55” OLED TV.
  - tomc1985 7y ago
    Color accuracy is more important for me, I guess, and I have 99% sRGB coverage desktop LCDs to prove it. As for TVs I had a mid-tier 2013-ish Vizio 42" and a newer mid-tier 2017-ish Samsung 60" and both of them required a lot of tuning to get the color right. The Samsung does HDR and it does look nice, but again my priorities are color accuracy, low latency, and good contrast ratio (I do a lot of photo editing) and don't watch many movies or much TV. I'm curious as to how a 10-bit display measures up, isn't HDR just a fancy standard for high-bit-rate color? Other than the backlight I imagine they'd still be superior. I'd still prefer a giant computer display over a TV, if anything to avoid the various "smart" features and other value-adds, but to each their own I guess. I'll check out OLED TVs when I can but the demo reels they play are almost always blown-out contrast-wise and I can't stand images that feel like the saturation is set to max.

criley2 7y ago

I would lean the opposite direction. I switched from a Vizio TV to a 144hz ViewSonic monitor and the difference in gaming is night and day. It's not only a better image with better colors, deeper blacks, better looking sharpness and stronger brightness where it counts, but the ability to render up to 144hz is a gamechanger. I never realized that 1080p60 would look better on a 144hz monitor than a television but everything is so crisp and smooth in games, it's honestly breathtaking with the right scene. I didn't realize that having a panel that can handle 144hz means that vertical sync is pointless, and for the games that I can actually render at 144hz, the effect is magical by comparison. I find myself replaying more cinematic games (like say Witcher 3) on the new panel and it's like experiencing the magic of these scenes all over again for the first time. I couldn't ever imagine going back to a television for gaming.

electrograv 7y ago
Sure, a bottom of the barrel TV vs a highly rated PC monitor is going to have a different outcome - no surprise, since that’s not a fair comparison. Compare high end models in similar price ranges (as I have) and you’ll see what I’m talking about. For example: Compare an LG OLED in a dark room to any modern PC monitor, and I would be surprised if you were anything but blown away by the OLED, and appalled by how expensive these gaming monitors are compared to what a similarly priced OLED is capable of (especially now that LG OLEDs are capable of 120hz and variable refresh rate with input lag lower than many gaming monitors). Of course, the main reason we don’t see everyone using OLED PC monitors are concerns about burn in effects from long term use. But for most people for TV and movie viewing, it’s not a concern. My 3 year old LG B6 OLED is still going strong with no signs of burn in, and has picture quality that still puts the best of the best non-OLED TVs to shame.

TrumpSucks 7y ago

blissfully ignorant in this case, usually. OLED is the future and the holdouts will fight until they realize they settled for years with inferior IQ.

tomc1985 7y ago

My experience with PC displays is almost the complete opposite... its the computer display that has the most accurate colors -- all the TVs I've played with ride the contrast waaay too hard, and if all the extra processing isn't disabled the picture looks worse

electrograv 7y ago
By any chance is your experience with TVs from Samsung, or bargain brands? Among the top tier brands (LG, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung) only Samsung is notorious for intentionally bad out of box calibration (because oversaturated colors is a cheap a easy way to impress, though in extended use you will tire of it quickly). I don’t know about the bargain brands like Vizio but I heard their latest stuff is pretty capable, though I don’t know if they have good calibration by default like the above mentioned brands do (minus Samsung). Color calibration isn’t everything BTW. The contrast ratio modern TVs are capable is pretty much unrivaled by any modern computer monitor until relatively recently, and even now the only ones that come close cost many times the price of an equivalent TV. But no monitor on the market can hold a candle to the image quality experience of an OLED TV for HDR movies and TV shows. This is not really under any dispute btw among audio video forums: virtually everyone admits that emissive technology like OLED has inherent quality advantages. The main debate centers purely around whether or not OLED burn in is likely to occur for various use cases. If you haven’t experienced modern HDR content on a flagship TV (particularly OLED), you are missing out on something really special. No current PC monitor can even come close, except those that cost >2x the price of a modern 55” OLED TV.
- tomc1985 7y ago
  Color accuracy is more important for me, I guess, and I have 99% sRGB coverage desktop LCDs to prove it. As for TVs I had a mid-tier 2013-ish Vizio 42" and a newer mid-tier 2017-ish Samsung 60" and both of them required a lot of tuning to get the color right. The Samsung does HDR and it does look nice, but again my priorities are color accuracy, low latency, and good contrast ratio (I do a lot of photo editing) and don't watch many movies or much TV. I'm curious as to how a 10-bit display measures up, isn't HDR just a fancy standard for high-bit-rate color? Other than the backlight I imagine they'd still be superior. I'd still prefer a giant computer display over a TV, if anything to avoid the various "smart" features and other value-adds, but to each their own I guess. I'll check out OLED TVs when I can but the demo reels they play are almost always blown-out contrast-wise and I can't stand images that feel like the saturation is set to max.