[GTALUG] war story: fixing an LCD TV

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

| From: Evan Leibovitch via talk <talk at gtalug.org>
| Subject: Re: [GTALUG] war story: fixing an LCD TV

| I'd like to take the opportunity of this thread to ask about the
| suitability of using a TV as a computer monitor.

I've been mentioning this on the mailing list for almost 4 years.

| Right now I have a dual screen setup with one 24" and one 22". The colour
| doesn't quite match between the two of them

Colour is a subtle topic about which I'm not qualified to talk.
I don't think Linux is up to snuff here either.

HDR (High Dynamic Range) means a confusing variety of things,
especially after marketing has had at it.  But "normal" computer
pixels have 8 bits per colour in each pixel.  HDR often means 10 bits
per colour in each pixel.  So if you care about colour, you might want
HDR.

You also need to worry about chroma subsampling (TVs often do this).

| and some thick bezels prevent
| useful work with a window that spans both monitors.

and an UltraHD display has the same number of pixels as four FullHD
monitors, not just two.

A 24" FullHD monitor has the same pixel density as a 48" UltraHD
monitor.

I want to maximize information so I prefer 40" over 32".  If you want
to maximize beauty, 32" might be better.  I don't have experience wih
43" but it might be better for information than 40".

| Now, it's possible to replace them with a single 32" widescreen monitor
| <https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B01BMES072/> for about $550. For $477 I could get
| what looks to be a top-tier 43" Samsung 4K.

Top-tier Samsungs are more than that.
<https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/samsung-43-4k-uhd-hdr-qled-tizen-smart-tv-qn43q60rafxzc/13407245>
That "Quantum Dot" technology might be good -- I've not looked at it.

| I am wondering if the lower price is because of greater volumes and
| consumer orientation rather than any inherent quality of the screen. As
| Fathers Day approaches I expect some deals a-coming here.

There is some silly divergence.  Off the top of my head:

- monitors tend to be more expensive than TVs for the same level.
  Quality improves faster in TVs (model lifetime is short).
  I'm pretty sure this is a function of the market size.

- TVs only do HDMI or worse.  Monitors have DisplayPort, which
  supports higher bandwidth (depending on the state of leapfrogging
  standards).  Monitors generally support HDMI as well.

- Older HDMI standards didn't support UltraHDMI well

- TVs often do chroma subsampling, without being mentioned in the spec
  sheets.  Monitors do not.

- TVs can be annoyingly "smart"

- some monitors have USB hubs (mildly useful)

- some monitors don't support sound (inconvenient)

- viewing angles differ between TV and monitor uses.  So the tradeoffs
  differ.  Also refresh rates, if you are a gamer.

- TVs sometimes do interpolation to make videos smoother.  I wonder if 
  that impairs accuracy.  It seems to increase latency.  You will want to 
  disable some TV processing tricks (not always clearly documented)

| How viable Is it to use a TV as monitor, ignore the "smart" crap and just
| plug in the HDMI? Are there features or specs needed for a TV to make it
| usable for close viewing?

It is easy and has been for years.  There are gotchas if some part of
your video chain is a few years older: UltraHD wasn't widely
supported.  At least HDMI 2.0 or DisplayPort 1.2 are needed to support
3840x2160 at 60Hz.  And then there is HDR.

There is a deal at Costco, ending tomorrow, for a 40" Samsung that might
fit your bill.  Read this thread for some context:

<http://forums.redflagdeals.com/costco-samsung-40-4k-model-40nu7100-369-99-2287167/>

Other deals will surely come up.