Personal computing discussed

Moderators: mac_h8r1, Nemesis

 
Kamoshiyaan
Gerbil In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:16 am

why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:17 am

i have very old about 9 yr 20" 900p monitor for pc , and 4 yr old fullhd tv , they are average products both
but the monitor actually looks like it has better picture quality while tv looks jaggy and aliased ? its like the monitor is one that has higher resolution. . when i sit closer to tv the picture looks ugly like 480 old videos , while no matter how much i sit close to monitor the image is superior and much cleaner ? why such difference ?
 
confusedpenguin
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:50 am
Location: Potato State

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:24 am

How big is your television? It might have something to do with pixel density, or how many dots per inch there are. If there are more pixels packed into the same area on the monitor than the tv, then that might be the answer as to why the monitor looks better. Also, modern televisions often to some post-processing that can cause the signal sent from the computer to just look wrong. Monitors don't do much, if any at all, post-processing to the picture once it's gets the signal from the computer. Televisions were designed to show motion video, to be watched from a distance, with some color processing to make the colors pleasing to the eye rather than accurate, not to mention adding a lot of latency.
 
derFunkenstein
Gold subscriber
Gerbil God
Posts: 24997
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Comin' to you directly from the Mothership

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:36 am

We had a 22" 1080p TV that we tried using as a monitor but it always looked horrible over both HDMI and VGA. Moving images looked OK but text on the screen was just...off. I did some digging and it turns out the red, blue, and green subpixels in that particular model weren't arranged the way they are traditionally, and so certain text antialiasing methods would look weirdly colored. I can't remember the model number, but it was a TV/DVD combo made by RCA.

it would definitely help to know the exact model of your TV.
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
Twittering away the day at @TVsBen
 
meerkt
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:50 am

PC monitors don't have better quality than modern TVs. Not anymore, anyway.

Jaggy and aliased sounds potentially like bad settings, unless it's a bad generic model.
Check that you're feeding the TV its native resolution, turn off all post-processing options, turn off zoom/scaling/overscan.
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 52670
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:53 am

Are you watching actual HD content on the TV, or are you relying on the TV to upscale lower-resolution content to HD?

Or are you trying to use the TV as a computer monitor?
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
DPete27
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3680
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:50 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:23 am

Yeah, you need to look at pixel density. If you have a 20" 900p monitor, that's 92 pixels per inch. If your TV is 55" 1080p, that's only 40 pixels per inch. Therefore the TV's pixels are much bigger, and hence easier to see the square outline of them at the same viewing distance as the monitor. (Here's a PPI calculator)

There's also a balance of viewing distance. You're naturally going to view your phone screen closer than a 20" screen, than a 55" one. An interesting site to play with in this regard is "Is it Retina" while paying attention to the viewing distance (this site also calculates PPI). Using the same 20" 900p and 55" 1080p screens for example: they'd both look the same when you view the 20" screen from 3 feet away and the 55" screen from 7 feet away.
Main: i5-3570K, ASRock Z77 Pro4-M, MSI RX480 8G, 500GB Crucial BX100, 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4, 16GB 1600MHz G.Skill @1.25V, EVGA 550-G2, Silverstone PS07B
HTPC: A8-5600K, MSI FM2-A75IA-E53, 4TB Seagate SSHD, 8GB 1866MHz G.Skill, Crosley D-25 Case Mod
 
Bauxite
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: electrolytic redox smelting plant

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:37 am

Good TVs today are far ahead of most monitors in raw quality.

Some of the HDR/etc panels out right now rival professional color grading monitors, if only there was a way to talk to them directly and fine tune the calibration.

The main problem is they do not have good inputs, nor a way to bypass their processing. Many panels are natively capable of 120hz, 10bit, wide gamut and more but have no way to access this potential or adjust settings from an external source.

The best you can get from most is 60hz 4:4:4 8bit (if you're lucky: its buried in a menu, only certain on inputs etc) and hope the input lag isn't garbage. Most "game modes" settings drop to 4:2:2 or worse and are fine for consoles but trash for PC stuff with dense UIs.
2018: at 120 Zen cores and counting, so pretty much done with intel on the desktop.
E5 2696v4 22c44t 2.2~3.7Ghz - The last great gleam of the pre-nerf HEDT era.
E5 1680v2 8c16t 4.5Ghz - "Yes Virginia, there were unlocked xeons" /weep for them.
 
deputy dawg
Gerbil
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:20 am

meerkt wrote:
PC monitors don't have better quality than modern TVs. Not anymore, anyway.

Jaggy and aliased sounds potentially like bad settings, unless it's a bad generic model.
Check that you're feeding the TV its native resolution, turn off all post-processing options, turn off zoom/scaling/overscan.

I would also try turning the sharpness all the way down (or very low).
 
the
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:26 am

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:32 am

There are several things that effect how off consumer TV's can be "off".

First is that HDMI on the consumer side has a limited range for RGB, 0 to 231 instead of the expected 0 to 255 values for each color component.

The second aspect is that TV's may operate in YUC mode instead of RGB. This technically isn't much of an issue if they're using the same bandwidth (i.e. YUC 4:4:4 = full range RGB) but often devices will apply some color compression here. So instead of a a full 24 bits per pixel, some pixel data will be used between neighboring pixels (ie YUC 4:2:2 and YUC 4:2:0). This causes gradients to notoriously be off on still images.

Consumer TV's are hit or miss if they need overscan. Effectively to send a 1920 x 1080 picture some TV's will actually request a 2048 x 1152 image. The host system will fill the outer edge with black which is discarded by the display's electronics so the real final output is 1920 x 1080. This all happens in theory but I've seen some setups do some weird scaling here to compensate for which can produce artifacts like blurry text on what should be a sharp digital picture.

Differences mentioned by others about panel quality etc. still apply but these can explain how things can be off on the same display when using different inputs (ie one HDMI port labeled for PC/DVI vs. others).
Dual Opteron 6376, 96 GB DDR3, Asus KGPE-D16, GTX 970
Mac Pro Dual Xeon E5645, 48 GB DDR3, GTX 770
Core i7 3930K@4.2 Ghz, 32 GB DDR3, GA-X79-UP5-Wifi
Core i7 2600K@4.4 Ghz, 16 GB DDR3, GTX 970, GA-X68XP-UD4
 
meerkt
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:56 am

@the
That's not the case anymore, not for quite a few years now. 1920x1080 and other standard resolutions work fine. Also 0-255 color range is no problem (random examples: Sony, Samsung).
 
Chrispy_
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4627
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: Europe, most frequently London.

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:03 pm

A PC pipes an RGB picture to a monitor at 8-bits per channel, so black is 0,0,0 and white is 255,255,255. The intent is that one pixel generated by the PC is displayed by one pixel of the monitor.

This is called full-range RGB with 1:1 pixel mapping.

It is POSSIBLE to set up most TV's to display full-range RGB with 1:1 pixel mapping but there are so many things working against you on a TV, because a TV is designed to take images from a variety of low-definition sources and clean up the picture. This automatic cleaning of the picture by the TV's signal processing makes most PCs look like garbage on a TV at default settings. The worst offenders are:

1) Picture overscan - The TV fails to map pixels in the signal with pixels on the TV panel, enlarging the content and then cropping out the edges.
2) Black levels - TV signals usually expect the RGB range to be from 16-235, not from 0-255, which means black is grey and white is dull on a TV. Called HDMI black levels, usually.
3) Edge enhancement - Text on a PC is lots of 1-pixel wide, high-contrast lines and TV's edge enhancement makes a royal mess of this every time. Disable "sharpening" on your TV
4) Dynamic contrast/colour processing - TV signals with limited dynamic range need all the help they can get, but these features work against your PC signal, blowing out colours and losing detail.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, but if you disable all those features on your TV and ensure that your PC is outputting full-range RGB (AMD and Nvidia drivers both have this settting) you should notice a significant improvement.
Congratulations, you've noticed that this year's signature is based on outdated internet memes; CLICK HERE NOW to experience this unforgettable phenomenon. This sentence is just filler and as irrelevant as my signature.
 
Ifalna
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:14 am
Location: Celestis

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:33 pm

Text display is really the only department in which I notice a slight quality degradation compared to a monitor.
TV is running @4:4:4 chroma with full HDMI range.

Everything else looks way better, esp HDR content and having a 55" 4K display (basically 4x 27" 1080p monitors w/o bezels) is just awesome in itself.

There are pros and cons in every display you choose, so you need to know what you want to be happy and be prepared to compromise on the rest.

Maybe MicroLED will finally be the Tech that does it all.
The backbone of modern industrial society is, and for the foreseeable future will be, the use of electrical Power.
 
DPete27
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3680
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:50 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:37 pm

deputy dawg wrote:
meerkt wrote:
PC monitors don't have better quality than modern TVs. Not anymore, anyway.

Jaggy and aliased sounds potentially like bad settings, unless it's a bad generic model.
Check that you're feeding the TV its native resolution, turn off all post-processing options, turn off zoom/scaling/overscan.

I would also try turning the sharpness all the way down (or very low).

^This is actually very good advice for an easy, low-hanging fruit. I had and fixed this issue on a cheap 32" TV we use in our basement by reducing the sharpness. The only way I knew was because the picture looked fine for a while( many months), then one day I went down and it was terrible. Digging into the TV settings, the Sharpness was oddly @ maximum. Someone must have mistakenly changed it.
Main: i5-3570K, ASRock Z77 Pro4-M, MSI RX480 8G, 500GB Crucial BX100, 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4, 16GB 1600MHz G.Skill @1.25V, EVGA 550-G2, Silverstone PS07B
HTPC: A8-5600K, MSI FM2-A75IA-E53, 4TB Seagate SSHD, 8GB 1866MHz G.Skill, Crosley D-25 Case Mod
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 52670
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:49 pm

DPete27 wrote:
Digging into the TV settings, the Sharpness was oddly @ maximum. Someone must have mistakenly changed it.

Or on purpose. "Sharper is better, right? Let's just crank this setting up to 11!"
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Kamoshiyaan
Gerbil In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:16 am

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:14 pm

confusedpenguin wrote:
How big is your television? It might have something to do with pixel density, or how many dots per inch there are. If there are more pixels packed into the same area on the monitor than the tv, then that might be the answer as to why the monitor looks better. Also, modern televisions often to some post-processing that can cause the signal sent from the computer to just look wrong. Monitors don't do much, if any at all, post-processing to the picture once it's gets the signal from the computer. Televisions were designed to show motion video, to be watched from a distance, with some color processing to make the colors pleasing to the eye rather than accurate, not to mention adding a lot of latency.


55 inch sir
Last edited by Kamoshiyaan on Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Kamoshiyaan
Gerbil In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:16 am

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:14 pm

Text display is really the only department in which I notice a slight quality degradation compared to a monitor.
TV is running @4:4:4 chroma with full HDMI range.

Everything else looks way better, esp HDR content and having a 55" 4K display (basically 4x 27" 1080p monitors w/o bezels) is just awesome in itself.

There are pros and cons in every display you choose, so you need to know what you want to be happy and be prepared to compromise on the rest.

Maybe MicroLED will finally be the Tech that does it all.
oooh i dint think of that!!
 
UberGerbil
Grand Admiral Gerbil
Posts: 10363
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:56 pm

I recall a few years back hooking a PC up to an HD TV using the various connection options and being stunned when the quality using the VGA connector was better than the HDMI connection. Yes, analog was better than digital. I quickly realized that the TV wasn't messing with the signal that came in via VGA (it labelled it "PC") but it was treating anything coming in over HDMI as being a video feed (from eg a DVD/BR player) and doing a bunch of processing on it. Only after I went into the options on the TV and turned all of that off did the image over HDMI surpass VGA. Some more recent TVs have a "PC Mode" that turns all of that off in one go, but even then sometimes you have to find some obscure option deep in the menus to get everything looking right.

It goes the other way, too: even now, the Intel IGP "Graphics and Media Control Panel" for my old Sandy Bridge system identifies any monitor connected via HDMI as "TV" (but connect the same panel via DVI and it labels it a "monitor")
 
the
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:26 am

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:36 am

meerkt wrote:
@the
That's not the case anymore, not for quite a few years now. 1920x1080 and other standard resolutions work fine. Also 0-255 color range is no problem (random examples: Sony, Samsung).


You say that but I still encounter these issues on new displays. Much of that is related to the poor EDID tables on the TVs and PC's simply syncing to the preferred value offered, not what in reality is the best viewing experience. Yeah, the Sony and Samsung displays have options to override it but simply plugging in a display when set to 'auto' doesn't necessarily get you the full range as that may not be set as the preferred value between the two devices.

Also of note are HDMI 1.4 ports that'll do 4K60 but only in YUC 4:2:0 mode due to bandwidth limitations. Thankfully HDMI 2.0 ports are becoming baseline instead of just TV makers having a mix of HDMI 2.0 and 1.4 ports.

Over/under scan still remains an issue through HDMI. Much like your Samsung and Sony examples, most displays due have some options relating to these but it is not a plug-it-in-and-it-works-optimally experience.

EDID is thankfully on the way out with DisplayID which includes handles such nuances in displays better in theory. DisplayID should be more common place as greater than 4K resolutions and HDMI 2.1 enabled units start appearing in the wild. Hopefully AMD remove their driver installation feature of crashing halfway through and nuking Windows when a DisplayID monitor is connected (though I haven't check the drivers from December 2018 if this 'feature' is still present).
Dual Opteron 6376, 96 GB DDR3, Asus KGPE-D16, GTX 970
Mac Pro Dual Xeon E5645, 48 GB DDR3, GTX 770
Core i7 3930K@4.2 Ghz, 32 GB DDR3, GA-X79-UP5-Wifi
Core i7 2600K@4.4 Ghz, 16 GB DDR3, GTX 970, GA-X68XP-UD4
 
meerkt
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:14 am

Maybe tweaking some settings is needed on occasion, but that's tech life, not an inherent or insurmountable problem.

I occasionally check TV reviews (on Rtings), and I don't think I've encountered any TV where you can't get 1:1 pixel mapping. It sounds like the sort of problems you had when HDMI was new, or in cheap brandless TVs. Where did you see it?

4K bandwidth limitations are least real, and not due to artificial firmware limitations. So I don't fault the manufacturers there.

BTW, as far as I recall, Sony 2013 and 2014 models didn't need any tweaks for overscan, and HDMI input range is by default "auto". I don't know how others are, but I sort of expect nowadays most/all TVs have a global "PC" or "Game" picture mode with decent defaults for all settings.
 
the
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:26 am

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:30 pm

To get the best picture, manual tweaking is almost always necessary out of the box. The end consumer is generally lazy and not going to calibrate the display. Ditto for changing things like pixel mapping for over/underscan. Out of the box and just plug it in experience matters a lot and even Sony and Samsung have their issues here.

Both consumer and commercial LG displays are horrible in this regard. There commercial lineup is a bit better in that you can load a profile off of a USB to enforce 1:1 pixel mapping.

At this point in time, I would fault the manufacturers for offering 4K60 using YUC 4:2:0 over HDMI 1.4 as it is straight forward to include HDMI 2.0 nowadays. I'd keep HDMI 1.4 limited to 4K30 4:4:4 for quality issues if HDMI 2.0 is also provided on the displays.

I will say that commercial displays are generally better at this than the consumer side they are often paired with some signage player or similar device. These also tend to have DVI and/or DP as well which tend to provide a better plug-it-in-and-it-works experience than HDMI.
Dual Opteron 6376, 96 GB DDR3, Asus KGPE-D16, GTX 970
Mac Pro Dual Xeon E5645, 48 GB DDR3, GTX 770
Core i7 3930K@4.2 Ghz, 32 GB DDR3, GA-X79-UP5-Wifi
Core i7 2600K@4.4 Ghz, 16 GB DDR3, GTX 970, GA-X68XP-UD4
 
UberGerbil
Grand Admiral Gerbil
Posts: 10363
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:45 pm

meerkt wrote:
BTW, as far as I recall, Sony 2013 and 2014 models didn't need any tweaks for overscan, and HDMI input range is by default "auto". I don't know how others are, but I sort of expect nowadays most/all TVs have a global "PC" or "Game" picture mode with decent defaults for all settings.
You'd think so, and yet... The "game" modes in particular are problematic for PC use, as they often seem to include some smoothing or other effects that might improve gaming visuals but make text display worse.

Just a few months ago I set up a new Toshiba 22" TV for my mother that would do dual duty as a TV and computer monitor. I put it in PC mode and text still looked like crap: it took me a long time hunting through the unhelpfully-labeled options menus before I found and turned off all the smoothing and sharpening and whatever options so that the display was correct.
 
whatsryancookin2002
Gerbil
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:42 am

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:22 am

Kamoshiyaan wrote:
i have very old about 9 yr 20" 900p monitor for pc , and 4 yr old fullhd tv , they are average products both
but the monitor actually looks like it has better picture quality while tv looks jaggy and aliased ? its like the monitor is one that has higher resolution. . when i sit closer to tv the picture looks ugly like 480 old videos , while no matter how much i sit close to monitor the image is superior and much cleaner ? why such difference ?

In most cases, it's just because the source material is far better on monitors.

Try watching a movie with the same resolution on both the monitor and the TV. A SD movie will look as bad on a monitor as it does on a TV.

You think the monitor looks better because your source material is the same resolution as the monitor's peak resolution - in most cases at least.
 
francegamer
Gerbil In Training
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:56 am

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:00 pm

Modern TVs have better resolutions and sharpness than most monitors. Although I have seen monitors in HD format. Still, TVs of today have better picture. Depends on the TV you are using. I have a 45 inch LG and the picture quality is superb. Also, there are some files that have better picture when opened on a smaller screen.
 
CScottG
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1236
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:53 pm

Re: why monitors have better picture than tvs?

Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:06 pm

-in addition the previously mentioned: settings/*processing (or lack thereof) and with regard to input; pixel density vs. panel size,

..there is also:

back-lighting effects (which can be better or worse for any given TV or Monitor), and particularly in conjunction with that:

glass thickness/parallax (with potential light-bleed from the back-lighting), and quite likely reflective effects from the room and TV frame onto the glass. In this respect there is also the glass finish, which is often "matt" on a monitor and seldom so on TV's.

A couple of years ago I purchased a 42" 4k Hisense TV for my fathers system, the pixel vs. panel size is IMO good (not great) and if you look close you can see it but it really isn't what I'd consider a problem, instead the problem is the amount of light hitting the glass panel and also the small frame of the TV that (though not much) - still reflects light back onto and into the glass, which is still considerably thicker than the 24" 1080P monitor he uses for browsing. Of course it's largely panel-dependent: there are some really excellent panels out their that are just about as good as decent LCD monitors in this respect. (..ex. Sony is usually pretty good about this.)




*"processing" ALSO includes text on the Windows 10 side of things (not just the TV). The result of text scaling in 4k with Windows 10 doesn't produce a particularly good result when enlarging it, particularly text with something like Desktop icons:

https://www.tekrevue.com/tip/windows-10 ... y-scaling/

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests