TVs vs monitors

[Petar Petrenko]

Hi,

Is it possible some 4K TV sets which support 100% sRGB colors, to be used as pro monitors?

[Gabe]

I would not personally recommend it, as the pixel density on a TV is usually lower than on a monitor.

[James Ritson]

What Gabriel said, plus there are other factors such as input lag—even in Game mode, where extra pre-processing is disabled for quicker signal processing, most TVs have a response time of anywhere between 30-50ms. Monitor response times tend to be much quicker (mine is 8ms for example), especially if you're using a G-Sync or FreeSync monitor as they typically boast 1-3ms response times. Using a TV for workflow and productivity tasks could soon become quite tiresome due to the lack of instant feedback and response, especially if you're fast with a mouse and need to zip around the screen.

I understand the temptation, since even mid-range TVs can boast wide colour spaces like P3, Rec.2020 etc—the accuracy and gamut coverage is another matter however. When I did a lot of video work I had a TV hooked up to a Blackmagic Intensity card to "monitor" the video output, but that was acceptable since my main editing interface was still on a monitor. Moving your entire workspace to a TV screen, though... you're gonna have a bad time (bonus points if you recognise the meme )

Disclaimer—some people use their TVs as their main computer display without any issues. Your mileage may vary, but there are both technical and productivity-based reasons to prefer an actual monitor.

[Petar Petrenko]

Well, I wouldn't use it for plaing games on it. Just for production work. Like with Designer, Photo...

How accurate the colors could be for this kind of work? And I am talking about 50" or more, 4K, with 100% sRGB (if there is one).

[Gabe]

50 inch TV as a monitor for daily use? You would need at least 2.5m between you and the monitor. And still, it would be a lot of eye-movement as well as head movement to follow the screen properly. I would reconsider the size if I were you. 

[Petar Petrenko]

Of course, I would be so near to it as in front of standard 24" monitor. But, I would use it as a TV, too.

[R C-R]

40 minutes ago, James Ritson said:

you're gonna have a bad time (bonus points if you recognise the meme )

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[MEB]

Petar, 
Getting so close to a TV set would not do any good to your eyes. Televisions are not designed to be seen that close (even considering you can reduce the brightness/saturation/contrast etc) and their quality is not up to a good quality monitor/screen for work. It's also way to big for comfortable use as GabrielM pointed out (too much head/eyes movement) among other reasons.

[James Ritson]

1 minute ago, Petar Petrenko said:

Well, I wouldn't use it for plaing games on it. Just for production work. Like with Designer, Photo...

How accurate the colors could be for this kind of work? And I am talking about 50" or more, 4K, with 100% sRGB (if there is one).

If you're not playing games or watching video then I definitely wouldn't recommend a TV just for production work. As far as colour accuracy, bear in mind that TVs are generally designed to enhance content, not portray it accurately. If you were determined on using a TV you would absolutely need to profile it using a colourimeter like the i1Display Pro and also disable the various features like contrast enhancement, "extended dynamic range", local dimming, etc—the downside is that these features are often used to reach claimed specifications like the high contrast ratio and peak brightness. By the time you have disabled all the TV's picture-based features, you may as well pay the same amount for a decent monitor. There are plenty of 4K 27" options (and some 32") that will cover 99/100% of sRGB and Adobe RGB, plus 60-80% of P3 and Rec.2020—more than enough for image editing.

There's also the size—50" at a desk might look impressive at first, but after the first day will seem a bit ridiculous as you'll basically have to move your head just to pan across areas of the screen. I work on a Dell 32" and that's honestly the maximum I would recommend—I do find myself sometimes moving my head just to look at the right hand side of the screen.

Gabriel also mentioned the pixel density, which is important too. With a typical 21-32" monitor, you'll get denser pixels (especially at 4K) which will give you a better representation of how your images look and allow you to evaluate their sharpness. A 50" isn't going to give you a typical view of how your images actually look—when you think about it, what size do you typically see images at, unless you print them at huge sizes? Definitely not 50"! A large TV may well skew your perception, unless you sit far away from it, but that doesn't sound like a great way to actually do detailed image and design work.

Put it this way—speaking from personal experience, if you're only wanting to do production work in apps like Photo and Designer, I would honestly recommend a decent 24-32" monitor—there are plenty of options available. Profiling them is easy if you have a decent colourimeter, and you would be able to have a conventional desk setup where everything is within easy reach. A big TV just isn't the answer—and if you're looking at a smaller TV (eg the 24-32" range), then an actual computer monitor at an equivalent price would likely be just as good if not better.

[Petar Petrenko]

Thanks everyone for your time and helping me to clear some facts.

[Fixx]

2 hours ago, GabrielM said:

50 inch TV as a monitor for daily use? You would need at least 2.5m between you and the monitor. And still, it would be a lot of eye-movement as well as head movement to follow the screen properly. I would reconsider the size if I were you. 

UHDTV would allow high enough pixel density for close placement. And in CAD and graphic work it is better to have too big a screen than too small. 30" is considered quite ideal. That said, there are some problems in TV set quality as mentioned above.

[Pšenda]

2 hours ago, Petar Petrenko said:

helping me to clear some facts

I would also consider the aspect ratio.
TVs are standard 16: 9, which is noodle. Optimal for PC/work is 16:10 (but unfortunately, it is also significantly more expensive).

[SrPx]

23 " NEC Spectraview (A NEC European only line, I believe, focused in color accuracy,  although surely very far from a pro Eizo), and  i1 Display Pro calibrator here, neutral lighting (a bit cold for print, maybe, 6500k... but works great...) and , with the proper calibration software, and a book of CMYK mixes samples that helps me to keep it "kind of" sane (anyway, most of my work ends up too often in very careless POD digital printers, lol... ). Quite a joy. I could go up to 27, but I don't think I'd go for more... unless planning a very different organization (vesa mounting on the wall, at enough distance. Could have its advantages, too (at the exact distance, you don't see the dot, and indeed it allows good detailing, if don't get too far). Maybe better of the eyesight, but it depends also in the type of TV. I am not sure if those can be easily calibrated, tho, never did that.  I wouldn't go for it.. The neck pain effect is real if a huge screen is closer... Plus this sensation of not fully getting your global view of the illustration, like when painting at fine arts, you had to constantly be giving 3 large steps backwards to get the global idea....). And yep, like in the ipad 10'5, one has to remove all the light/contrast(or even color) auto balance, the flashy blue lights of the frames in some monitors, of course never to leave it in any enhanced color mode (once into calibration, it simply has to be discarded)

I really wish I had a professional Eizo...   (not that I see now any special lack for my current workflows, though)

[InfoCentral]

Should you Buy THIS Monitor.. or a TV?

[SrPx]

Yeh, it lost me at color calibration, not too good (watched all vid, as I like Linus, Hardware Unboxed, Jay, and a few more, I'm a regular (well, not really) for those, at least for the hardware pieces am interested on). 43 inches, lol.... I vote for matte screens too, as well. Ye good olde Linus.... didn't physically drop anything in that one...Is almost a brand matter... I guess a 43" LG is not sth to drop happily...

One other consideration is the side of the wacom tablet (pen-tablet, or display-tablet if used as  the former)...to some people it affects if the wacom is too small and the screen is huge (due to how the hand/arm movement reproduces the line in the monitor... related to hand-eye-screen coordination, an issue that makes a bunch of ppl to go for cintiqs and alternatives).... I am not sure if that affects me (been with an xl too long, and back the times I handled an A6  (2001, I think)   I believe screens were quite low res...)

All that said, I believe (maybe not to be 10 hours non stop) a cintiq 27 QHD (and I prefer not to try to imagine what is gonna be to paint over a Cintiq Pro latest (no parallax, for example), 32 inches...) must be the closest sensation to painting on a traditional canvas, I hope to allow myself one day to purchase that thing....Ideally to work half day with that, half day with a regular intuos pro. But larger than that....? I'm even not sure if a 32 is too big for my own drawing distance..... Maybe yep if... painting standing up ! As we did at college.... a canvas, you don't sit down -now they say it's healthier, but I can't get used to that now...-  and walking back constantly to check the entire piece...LOL....Nah, larger than 32 is too big. OR...we may start to paint sitting on the living room coach, have a 65 inches professional color monitor at usual TV distance. That must rock.

[InfoCentral]

Here is Linus using a big screen in his test lab...