32 Inch TV for Monitor

[boobaroo]

I looking to purchase a 32 Inch Tv to use as a monitor. I am new to advancing to a larger monitor. I am not sure if this is the right forum to ask this in or not. As you can see this is my first post.

Can anyone help with helping me make the right choice to pick the correct TV.

I have been reading on the DVI to HDMI cable. What is the proper way to hook up the new TV/ Monitor.

Any help is much appreciated.

Thanks

[madmanmarz]

If you get a 32" you're definitely gonna want a 1080p resolution. 720 will suck. If you want 3D you need 120hz +. Look at the back of your computer and see if you have HDMI, if you don't and have DVI, use that. It's basically the same thing without audio. If you're buying a TV that doesn't have DVI, yes, it's perfectly fine to use a DVI to HDMI cable. You could also buy a cheap graphics card if you absolutely wanted HDMI. If you don't have either and have VGA, you could use that if the TV supports it. Keep in mind that some TVs only support up to a certain resolution over VGA though.

My mom wanted a bigger monitor for her laptop when it's setup at home, so we went to Tiger and bout a 28" 1080p TV for a little over $200. It turned out to be a really good buy and I think you can step up to 32" for a little under $300.

[Saber Cherry]

TVs tend to have a much higher input latency than monitors. My TV has at least a 200ms lag, for example, which does not really matter when watching videos but is extremely annoying when I try to use a mouse with it. So, be sure that wherever you buy this TV, you can return it with no restocking fee if it doesn't work out.

[emorgoch]

Why do you want to use the large TV instead of a proper monitor? The reason that people sub in a TV instead of a monitor is they plan on sitting far away from it when using it (i.e on the couch, on their bed, etc, rather than at a desk with their nose < 3 feet from the screen). Getting a TV screen, putting it on a desk, and sitting directly in front it it is only going to lead to eye strain and unnecessary sacrifice because, as Saber Cherry said, TV screens are not built to have the same specifications as monitors, and definitely do not perform nearly as well.

[Ryhadar]

I can't speak for all TVs, but I used my 32" LCD TV from LG as a monitor and it didn't suffer from all the downsides the above are speaking of. I plugged it in to the VGA port on the back (full 1080P support), as HDMI made text really blurry and using VGA was just easier to fix it. Eye strain was severely reduced by reducing the backlight (which my TV can do). I didn't notice any extreme lag either and played TF2 the same as I usually do.

It wasn't ideal, but at the time the only other option for me was to use 2 x 1028x764 monitors and since my apartment is small I used my desktop as an HTPC and watched Netflix and played games from the couch (from time to time). Recently, I purchased a 24" BenQ BL2400PT and moved the TV off my desk. I love the 24" waaaaay more and the TV is still connected to the PC for when I wanna watch or play from the couch.

[Waco]

I've been using a 42" LCD for years as a desktop monitor. Input lag is nonexistent assuming you can turn off whatever BS processing is built into the set.

Definitely go with a 1080p TV and use HDMI or DVI if at all possible. VGA is generally more of a hassle than it's worth on HDTVs due to the lack of monitor profiles being correct (out of the many I've tested not many would play nice at 1920x1080, 60 Hz, without a custom monitor profile).

[swaaye]

I picked up a Samsung 32" 1080p LED TV earlier this year as my monitor. I'm very happy with it for gaming, but of course 1080p on a 32" isn't exactly dense and it's not the best for general desktop use. For gaming and video however, the image quality is astonishing and the size is wonderful. This thing has the deepest blacks I've ever seen from any monitor including plasmas and the color is wonderful too. I was previously using an old but liked Dell 2405FPW and this completely outclasses it in every respect (well except for the 1920x1200 24" density). This panel has no discernible lag (to me) or motion blur.

I had to go with VGA though because TVs often seem to have post processing on the HDMI inputs even if they claim one is for DVI/PC. VGA looks a lot better than I could get HDMI looking even after tweaking. I think it has some kind of sharpening that I can't disable because it messes up text. Also, sometimes you can't set the correct color standard with HDMI so you'll get in effect a wide gamut image that's too saturated. TVs can also have different gamma calibration, which in my experience seems to mostly affect games because dark areas will be too bright (a quick tweak to the game's brightness or gamma solves it).

[C-A_99]

I got a Sony 55" EX500 and its input lag (even on gaming mode/minimal processing) makes it somewhat annoying to use the mouse and very difficult to aim in games. If you're going to get a TV and use it for any purpose that requires input, you'd do best to try it out yourself first. At 32" it shouldn't be a problem as most TV manufacturers seem to switch to a lousy, high-latency panel at larger sizes, but below that it shouldn't be as bad. However, I'd still have to say that the safest bet is to go with a monitor; monitors without HDMI seem to be less prone to latency issues. DVI provides the exact same picture quality.

If you need cables/adapters, Monoprice.com has a good selection; lots of low priced and high quality stuff.

[swaaye]

I have 3 TVs that I use with PCs connected. They are all Samsung models; a 50" 720p plasma, 32" 720p CCFL LCD, 32" 1080p LED LCD. None have input lag that I can discern (thankfully). The cheaper 32" has ghosting problems that are at their worst when it's cold. But I like them all for gaming and video.

Monitors are certainly much better for desktop PC use but I wouldn't choose one for gaming or video.

[C-A_99]

Input lag is a very finicky, subjective kind of thing. The best way to tell is to get the numbers, but beyond that everyone has their own sensitivities to it. Often times, people will aim more poorly on a certain screen (due to input lag) than on others without even realizing it. As for me, I can't directly tell either, but if I'm having trouble aiming, then I usually know what it is. (i.e. I identify light input lag by its negative effects, not by trying to observe it and "catch" it lagging.)

Monitors are actually the best devices for gaming possible. They are almost always built for low latency, and you can focus your money on the important stuff; the video display, without fancy things like tuners, image processing, extraneous ancient inputs (i.e. YPbPr), horrible-quality speakers, and other features mucking into the cost of the device. Some ASUS HDMI monitors do seem to have more input lag than usual though. In the end however, it's up to how strict you want to be on latency; if you want it to be as perfect as possible, use a CRT.

[FuturePastNow]

If you get a 32" you're definitely gonna want a 1080p resolution. 720 will suck.

Depends on how far away it is. If it's hanging on the wall across the room, frankly, I'd prefer lower resolution over having to constantly magnify text.