Another misleading and incorrect Techquickie: monitor vs tv

[Enderman]

 

1) @ 1:16

Pixel response time has nothing to do with input lag, they are completely different.

Even linus knows this and has talked about it before, I thought he reviewed the script before recording videos but I guess not?

That part of the video incorrectly makes it seem like monitors have a 1-4ms delay between receiving an input and showing the image on the screen (aka input lag) which is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.

Monitors have typically 10-20ms or more of input lag, which can be compared on displaylag.com

 

 

2) @ 1:30

TVs don't "fare much worse" than monitors, in fact most recent models of TVs have about the same input lag as a regular 60hz monitor.

Apples to apples, a good 60Hz tv has no more input lag than a 60Hz monitor, between 10 and 30ms.

The image shows in the video is of tvs with 40-50ms input lag which is only 2x worse than a regular monitor, not 10x worse.

There are plenty of TV options below 20ms which is even good for competitive fps gaming. https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag

 

Also, if the person writing the script had ever used one side by side with a monitor they would have found that the difference is only noticeable when playing fast paced competitive games.

When writing documents, editing photos or videos, consuming media, browsing the web, playing casual games, etc. those few ms of input lag make no impact on the usability of the computer.

 

 

3) @ 2:18

Almost all new tvs being released by samsung support freesync, and probably some other brands are doing this too.

It doesn't have a huge variable refreshrate range at the moment but hopefully that improves in the future.

 

 

4) @ 2:30

A TV from a well known brand will have just as good or better colour reproduction than a regular monitor.

If you care about super accurate colours then you should be calibrating your display with a colour calibrator, whether it is a tv or a monitor.

Obviously a professional factory calibrated monitor made for photo editing will be more accurate than an uncalibrated tv/monitor, but just off-the-shelf a monitor or tv will be perfectly for gaming or regular consumer use.

If you colour calibrate the tv then it can even be used for photo editing with very accurate colours (assuming it is a good quality tv and not some cheap chinese model).

 

 

5) @ 3:00

Changing the label to "PC" is no more difficult than enabling game mode for low latency.

Anyone who reads the instruction manual or does a google search can figure this out.

 

 

6) @ 3:10

If you change your computer's resolution to a 21:9 aspect ratio then you can literally have the same experience as with an ultrawide monitor.

In fact, ultrawide on a 40" screen will be even bigger and more immersive than a 34" ultrawide monitor.

Then you also have the advantage of having 16:9 content (the other 99% of everything that exists) at the full 40" size (rather than 27" with black bars on the sides on the ultrawide)

 

 

7) @ 4:05

Local dimming is actually NOT a very desirable feature.

Having deep blacks may be nice for marketing big contrast ratio numbers and for movies, but it is actually bad for a monitor.

It produces a noticeable halo around objects on a dark background, and a "ghosting" or "trailing" effect behind moving objects as the backlight turns off a few milliseconds after the image changes.

Very bad for gaming, and also bad for photo editing since not all blacks will be the same, black areas near white pixels will be less dark.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/picture-quality/local-dimming

 

 

 

 

At least they got the part about fake refresh rates and OLED correct...but misinformation like this is why people incorrectly believe tvs are bad for using with computers.

 

There are two cases where a monitor is clearly better than a tv:

1) need high refresh rate for gaming (or don't want to drop resolution to 1080p to play at 120hz on some tvs)

2) need a professional and accurate calibrated display

 

In any other case, a (good quality) tv can certainly be considered instead of a monitor.

Just read the information at https://www.rtings.com/tv to find a tv that has good input lag and good colours.

Once you enable the PC/game mode and plug it into a computer it will literally work exactly the same as a monitor, all the tv and 'smart' features will basically not even exist.

It is a far more immersive experience than multi-monitor setups with bezels all over the place.

 

 

 

One last tip:

If using an nvidia GPU, in the nvidia control panel make sure this is set to full:

And if possible use 10 bit colour.

[Jurrunio]

also, monitors are better used in small spaces than TVs. You cant find a 24" TV these days

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

also, monitors are better used in small spaces than TVs. You cant find a 24" TV these days

Yeah, well size is obviously another factor, but generally most people want larger monitors or multi-monitors for more immersive gaming or more workspace, which is what a large tv allows for without bezels in the middle of everything

 

Of course if someone has a space limit then they only need to look at options that fit.

[SolarNova]

I was just about to post a thread like this.

 

Ths techquicky vid is riddled with inaccuracies and yet more burn in scare mongering in regards to OLED.

 

OLED burns in about as much as Plasma, and Plasma's can and do get used for PC and gaming. I use one myself. treat it right and you dont get burn in. Rtings is even doing a real world test showing how bad burn in actually is, and you will notice that the gaming side of things dont show burn in untill about a years worth of playign the same game and nothign but that game, has past. YES it does burn in evnetualy, but only after extended misctreatment.

 

I fulyl undertsand linus does not write the majority of what is posted nowadays , BUT he should atleast review it prior to filming, or at the very least read feedback so he can see where his team is consitently going wrong. In this case VDU technology has on multiple occasions shown to be a tripping point for LTT.

[RyzenDoctor]

Regarding local dimming the halo effect depends on how many points you have, if you only have a few backlights then yes. Most decent TVs have hundreds if not thousands of dimming points making it less of an issue

[SolarNova]

There is no TV or monitor out yet with enough Local dimming zones to properly negate haloing unfortunatly.

 

You would need a micro LED array of like 2750 local dimming zones (1 zone per ~3000 pixels) to get somthing even remotely suitable in a 4k ~40" 110 PPI screen (~12000 PPI² ). Idealy you would want 1 zone per pixel, which is a tad unreaistic atm, so somthing more suitable would be around 1 per 1000 pixels which is about 8295 zones. Nothing comes close to that atm.

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

There is no TV or monitor out yet with enough Local dimming zones to properly negate haloing unfortunatly.

This^

3 minutes ago, RyzenDoctor said:

Regarding local dimming the halo effect depends on how many points you have, if you only have a few backlights then yes. Most decent TVs have hundreds if not thousands of dimming points making it less of an issue

 

Look at the test videos of the high end tvs with hundreds/thousands of zones.

Something like a mouse pointer on a black background will still have a glow around it because there are fewer zones than there are pixels.

When moving the pointer around you can still see the trailing effect as the zones turn off.

The only time local dimming will be good is when there are just as many zones as there are pixels, aka basically plasma or OLED.

Making millions of zones in a backlight is not possible with current LED technology but soon with microLED displays it will basically be just as good as oled but without burn in.

 

8 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

OLED burns in about as much as Plasma, and Plasma's can and do get used for PC and gaming. I use one myself. treat it right and you dont get burn in. Rtings is even doing a real world test showing how bad burn in actually is, and you will notice that the gaming side of things dont show burn in untill about a years worth of playign the same game and nothign but that game, has past. YES it does burn in evnetualy, but only after extended misctreatment.

Stuff like the windows taskbar, program menus, etc will get burned into OLED.

A lot of things need to be done to prevent burn in (eg auto hiding taskbars), and even then if you use the computer a lot things will definitely get burned in like the top menus in chrome, microsoft word, etc.

Not a good option if you plan to use the tv for more than a few years.

 

8 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

I fulyl undertsand linus does not write the majority of what is posted nowadays , BUT he should atleast review it prior to filming, or at the very least read feedback so he can see where his team is consitently going wrong. In this case VDU technology has on multiple occasions shown to be a tripping point for LTT.

 

Thanks, you're absolutely right.

This is definitely not the first time a video has had tons of misinformation

[PlayStation 2]

I can preach in particular for TV response times being about as good as the average 60Hz monitor. 

I have a TV from 2009 and a TV from 2013 (both are 22", one's a Vizio and one's a Samsung), and when I run my desktop on them, they don't feel slow to respond at all.

[Evanair]

Cheap TV have horrible input lag. The best example is a TV wall with the same video displayed across all the displays. Watch and you can see when the scene cuts being off by a large margin on the offbrand models. 

 

It's not so much an issue for a good TV, but cheap ones have this a lot.

 

Everything else you said is pretty spot on however.

[Drak3]

LTT being a bad source for information.

 

Shocking.

 

 

 

/s

[Nena Trinity]

TV is not de wei! O3O

[Guest]

*lurks waiting for official LMG response* 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

5 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

...You cant find a 24" TV these days

Horsefeathers! https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?st=24"+tv&_dyncharset=UTF-8&id=pcat17071&type=page&sc=Global&cp=1&nrp=&sp=&qp=&list=n&af=true&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960&keys=keys

[Enderman]

18 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I can preach in particular for TV response times being about as good as the average 60Hz monitor. 

I have a TV from 2009 and a TV from 2013 (both are 22", one's a Vizio and one's a Samsung), and when I run my desktop on them, they don't feel slow to respond at all.

I have one from ~2010 and it has really high input lag, about 70ms, but other than some casual overwatch or CSGO I don't play fps games so it works fine for everything else.

The only reason I'm going to replace it soon is because the pixel density is way too low, I need a 4k screen.

 

15 hours ago, Evanair said:

Cheap TV have horrible input lag. The best example is a TV wall with the same video displayed across all the displays. Watch and you can see when the scene cuts being off by a large margin on the offbrand models. 

 

It's not so much an issue for a good TV, but cheap ones have this a lot.

 

Everything else you said is pretty spot on however.

Yes, but not all cheap tvs have bad input lag and not all high end tvs have good input lag.

It is really important to look at reviewers like rtings.com that do proper input lag tests, and you can get a cheap vizio tv with really good input lag.

[LAwLz]

It's a shame Linus scrapped the idea of having the community go through TeckQuickie scripts before the videos were filmed.

 

From what I have seen (I rarely watch any LMG videos) they often contain a ton of misinformation, to the point where I genuinely think that they do more harm than good these days. Not only do they feed people a bunch of incorrect information, but they may also discourage people from doing further research. People also tend to not like being told that what they thought was right was in fact wrong.

[Majestic]

Good post. You took the time to sift through the entire video and point out all the mistakes. The kind of feedback a community should give. Too bad Linus never cares. He never even addressed his horrible 6700K delidding video. 

 

I also use a TV as a monitor at the moment. Because it's a dirt cheap 32" 12bit VA panel that has a better picture than any of the 700+ euro panel's i've tried. I put it in gaming mode and it works just fine for the type of games I play (not CS:GO). And yes, especially that last setting is what most people forget. 16-235 colors or 0-255 makes a huge difference. 

[kilgore_T]

and in the uk you don't need a tv license to buy a monitor

[TechyBen]

4 minutes ago, kilgore_T said:

and in the uk you don't need a tv license to buy a monitor

You don't need a TV licence to buy a TV. Only to WATCH TV. They skirt the language a lot to confuse or scare people. But if you watch TV (live broadcast or BBC timeshift/watch later/iPlayer) you need a license (per property/owner and you get to use mobile apps wherever you go on that license).

 

I've got a TV not plugged into anything. Don't need a licence. If I used my phone to watch catchup (of BBC programs), I'd need a license.

[kilgore_T]

1 minute ago, TechyBen said:

You don't need a TV licence to buy a TV. Only to WATCH TV. They skirt the language a lot to confuse or scare people. But if you watch TV (live broadcast or BBC timeshift/watch later/iPlayer) you need a license (per property/owner and you get to use mobile apps wherever you go on that license).

 

I've got a TV not plugged into anything. Don't need a licence. If I used my phone to watch catchup (of BBC programs), I'd need a license.

don't most TV's have built in freeview or something? I haven't owned a tv in 15 years so out of the loop lol

[TechyBen]

4 minutes ago, kilgore_T said:

don't most TV's have built in freeview or something? I haven't owned a tv in 15 years so out of the loop lol

Again. Yes. But the law specifically says "use" or "watch". If you don't use or watch that feature, but only use it for Netflix/Amazon etc (not live and not BBC funded) or PS4/PC gaming (not TV and not BBC funded), then you are ok.

 

PS, Twitch is another example of "live" broadcast that is not "TV" and not under the scope of the licence collection requirements (unless it's pirate tv stream ).

[J.b091]

On 8/18/2018 at 3:44 PM, Enderman said:

This^

 

Look at the test videos of the high end tvs with hundreds/thousands of zones.

Something like a mouse pointer on a black background will still have a glow around it because there are fewer zones than there are pixels.

When moving the pointer around you can still see the trailing effect as the zones turn off.

The only time local dimming will be good is when there are just as many zones as there are pixels, aka basically plasma or OLED.

Making millions of zones in a backlight is not possible with current LED technology but soon with microLED displays it will basically be just as good as oled but without burn in.

 

Stuff like the windows taskbar, program menus, etc will get burned into OLED.

A lot of things need to be done to prevent burn in (eg auto hiding taskbars), and even then if you use the computer a lot things will definitely get burned in like the top menus in chrome, microsoft word, etc.

Not a good option if you plan to use the tv for more than a few years.

 

 

Thanks, you're absolutely right.

This is definitely not the first time a video has had tons of misinformation

I agree with you about burnin. I have see it with my own eyes on my friend's oled smartphone.

[Amazonsucks]

On 8/18/2018 at 10:34 AM, SolarNova said:

There is no TV or monitor out yet with enough Local dimming zones to properly negate haloing unfortunatly.

 

You would need a micro LED array of like 2750 local dimming zones (1 zone per ~3000 pixels) to get somthing even remotely suitable in a 4k ~40" 110 PPI screen (~12000 PPI² ). Idealy you would want 1 zone per pixel, which is a tad unreaistic atm, so somthing more suitable would be around 1 per 1000 pixels which is about 8295 zones. Nothing comes close to that atm.

Dolby PRM 4220 

 

@Enderman

 

Wouldnt anything above 16ms on a 60Hz monitor technically be undesireable for games because youd miss frames once you go over the refresh cycle time?

[Mihle]

One big TV instead of multple monitors is not the same unless the TV has both 0-255 colour and is higher resolution than the monitors.

 

Also, sit to close to a monitor and the edges wash out or colour shift because of viewing angle. While multiple monitors you can just place on different angles.

 

I personally don't like ultrawide.

[Sauron]

Quote

If you change your computer's resolution to a 21:9 aspect ratio then you can literally have the same experience as with an ultrawide monitor.

I'll just take a moment to comment on the absurdity that is adding black bands to your desktop and saying that it makes the experience "more immersive". Just... no. If you get a 21:9 monitor because it's PHYSICALLY WIDER then fair enough, it may add something to the experience, but artificially reducing the height of your image on a 16:9 screen is literally just cutting out pixels and screen real estate for no reason. At equal width and pixel density, a 16:9 screen is objectively superior to a 21:9 screen, period.

 

Yes, I know you adress this - I just wanted to drive the point home a little harder because this sort of thing drives me nuts.

[J.b091]

Personally I prefer one big monitor over multi monitor setup. Those bezels in between picture would disturb me a lot and I wouldn't feel full picture because of them.