Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
a 32" TV vs a 32" monitor 2017-09-12 03:31:03 Post No. 62382972
[Report] Image search: [Google]
a 32" TV vs a 32" monitor 2017-09-12 03:31:03 Post No. 62382972
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: OriginalPng.png (159KB, 504x350px) Image search:
[Google]
159KB, 504x350px
I'm facing a tough choice here, lads. Help.
>large collection of high quality videos (think 35GB 1080p Blu Ray Remuxes)
>enjoy watching films on properly calibrated screens
>have a ColorMunki calibrator for computer screens
>limited space so 32-36" is enough for me
the choice:
>a 32 inch TV to watch films and regular TV.
Except I literally never watch TV. Has speakers and a USB port to hook up an external drive. Is a bitch to calibrate.
>a 32 inch computer monitor that requires separate speakers and a computer to hook up to. I'd buy a fanless Windows 10 computer to be able to play files without trouble and in highest quality.
Cost-wise a TV and a Windows 10 computer+screen+speakers set are basically the same.
So the question is:
Are TV picture quality and computer monitor picture quality comparable? Which one would /g/ choose?
>>
>>62382972
bump for interest. Was looking for a 43" 4k TV or monitor.
>>
>>62382972
Just be careful you don't scimp out on refresh rate. You can definitely tell the difference and a lot of TV manufacturers lower cost by selling high res but low refresh rate tvs
>>
>>62382972
I would suggest getting rid of the Blu Ray remuxes and instead replace them with encodes from high quality scene groups (DON, EbP, CtrlHD, CRiSC, HiDt, HDMaNiAcS).
It will be nearly indistinguishable from the BD Remux and often they fix a lot of video problems that's available on the Blu Ray. If you're going that screen size I would even suggest getting 720p encodes. It will be almost impossible to tell the difference between 1080/720 at that size.
>>
Buy a tv and blurays if your not poor
>>
Get a projector
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1