Television and computers

>32 inch TV
>computer monitor
why ?

>>61420908
Because anything larger isn't comfortable at the distance I'm sitting at and there are no good normal computer monitors below 600€ available here

>>61420889
Been using few of them over the years but the best one I ever had was a cheap ass Blaupunkt that costed me £150.
Anyway a proper monitor would be much better especially if you plan to play games like fps.

At that size you should get an actual 32 inch monitor, otherwise you'll probably run into issues like ridiculous input lag or lack of 4:4:4 support.

>>61420889
I have a fucking god tier 32" Insigna tv but it's probably out of production now. got it like 7 years ago.

great panel, 60hz, low latency (in "game mode"). basically a big fucking monitor. still works perfect.

>>61421084
/thread

>>61421084
>input lag
Go back to >>>/v/
>lack of 4:4:4 support
Why are you bothered by this but not by lack of 10bit color? Or that mainstream panels at best render only 6bits of color?

>>61420889
none.
just get a 27" monitor.
otherwise get a 43" 4k tv.

>>61421170
it's pseudo 8bit.
4:4:4 is actually important or you'll get chroma jaggies.

>>61421170
>Go back to >>>/v/
Many TVs have bad input lag even for desktop use.
>Why are you bothered by this but not by lack of 10bit color?
Because most are 8bit and you're actively losing information with chroma subsampling whereas most programs/games/etc won't even render 10bit.
>Or that mainstream panels at best render only 6bits of color?
This hasn't really been true for a while now. In fact, much like how many "8bit" panels were 6bit+FRC, many of those "10bit" panels you mentioned are actually 8bit+FRC and not native 10bit.

>>61420889
>1080p
>32"

rip

TV's are shit unless you need something that's cheap or has to be 55-65'. You'd be better off with a 32' monitor.