With the rapid development of television, Xiaoshu found that its functions with desktop monitors are increasingly overlapping: 4K, HDR, HDMI interfaces seem to have everything
But at the same price, the TV has a larger size, with its own stereo, boot advertising and other additional benefits.
The most important thing is that the computer monitor can never stand in the C position of the living room, it is too small, but the TV can do the TV part-time when it is a monitor.
In this way, for families that occasionally use a computer, or only have a laptop, it is enough to connect directly to the TV.
And still need to use a computer family to buy a TV instead of a monitor seems to be more "affordable"?
The price difference between the same size 4K 120Hz monitor and the TV is very large
In fact, now the TV is indeed enough to meet the needs of some people for monitors, and Little A has an old computer in his own home to use under the TV.
But for most people, the TV may not be as good as it seems, and after reading this article, you will know whether you should use the TV as a monitor.
01, the TV may not be suitable for the desktop
The obvious problem is that the TV is too big to see at 40 inches and below, which requires a huge desktop to hold it (hanging on the wall).
This is not a problem for desktops with A fans per capita of 20m.
However, a larger screen size at the same resolution also means that the "pixel density PPI" is lower, for example, a 55-inch 4K TV has a PPI of only 84, while a 27-inch 4K monitor has a PPI of 163. The result is that the picture quality of the TV is not as good as the monitor, it will look grainy, and it will feel blurry when reading small texts.
In addition, the TV is designed for the living room of the bright hall, its screen brightness is usually 400nit starting, peaking above 1000nit, and the color will be more intense, so that it is more exciting when watching at a distance (more than 1.5m).
(Source: Xiaomi TV official website) On the desktop, the distance between the human eye and the screen is usually 30-60cm, and long-term use will inevitably hurt vision and neck.
Of course, the above problems can be solved by stretching the distance, as long as the dwelling is large enough.
02, TV is not designed for interaction
Almost all of the resources we consume on tv are recorded in advance, and the data transmitted by optical fiber is also designed for television. So the TV usually does not need a faster response speed, the potential problem is that the TV has a higher latency, when we perform an operation on the TV, it usually takes 50-100ms to respond. But on desktop monitors, we interact almost non-stop on the screen, and the response delay is generally 4 -10ms.
This means that when dragging the mouse, window, and game screen on the TV, it may feel very slow to react, and there are cases of smearing and blurring.
Studies have shown that we feel uncomfortable interacting for long periods of time on screens with a latency greater than 20ms.
As some friends may know, console games usually use the TV as a display device, but it seems that there is no problem in playing.
This is because console games are more single-player, and the controller also has certain restrictions on the speed of the perspective steering, and it cannot drag the screen like a mouse, so it will not feel so obvious.
Video game: Bloodborne Curse
But for hardcore ACT or FPS players, playing console games on low-end TVs can still feel the gap.
The good news is that new TVs have seen lower and lower input latencies and better support for games in the last two years.
But most TVs are still not up to the task of picking up computers and playing competitive games with a mouse.
03, the standard of tv is different from the monitor
Although television consumes pre-recorded, resource formats designed for transmission, the output standards vary because different tv stations use different devices.
Many regional stations and niche stations still use older equipment and standards, and no TV still dares to give up the compatibility of the standard definition format.
For example, the "overscan" technology of the CRT big head TV era, it will reserve 5% of the area as the scanning area, to avoid a black edge on the screen, and now the TV still retains this technology (some TVs can turn off this function).
Because overscan results in content loss, subtitles are out of screen If you use an overscanned TV as a monitor, you mean that 5% of the content is off-screen. This also requires setting the zoom mode in the drive settings or adjusting the output size to match the TV screen.
What's more important is that most TVs use the Y'CbCr color space, while computers use sRGB, the color space for printed, web pages.
This means that the TV cannot accurately restore the color of the computer, and the friends who do the design cannot use the TV as a monitor.
And most TVs only support 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 chroma sampling, while displays are 4:4:4 for more color information.
Watching a video may not be a big problem, but in the text interface, low sampling can create a noticeable blurring of the edges of the text.
Of course, all of the above problems can be solved by "adding money".
High-end TVs can still achieve 1ms latency, 4:4:4 chroma sampling, and so on. But buying such a TV, the cost is already comparable to the same function of the monitor, it is a bit more than worth the loss.
In summary, for most people, the TV is far from replacing the position of the monitor on the desktop. But the answer to this question isn't unique. For friends who only have a notebook at home and usually only work every day, it will be much more efficient to buy an HDMI cable to connect with the TV and occasionally operate multiple windows on a larger screen. Even for specific groups of people, the long-term experience and cost performance of TVs have surpassed monitors.
so
Do you think it's feasible to replace a monitor with a TV?
Would you like to try a TV instead of a monitor?