Page 1 of Pointless Question

Does anybody think that the picture on a monitor is better than an actual TV?

Pointless, much like Tottenham`s season

Probably.......

I think good monitors have smaller holes in the shadow mask or something where the coloured dots are hit by the guns - closer together means a sharper pic - .28 or .25 pitch springs to mind, also the srceen being that much smaller will look sharper than a monster T.V not sure what the ratios are - but someone here more knowledgeable will know the answer...

Ray

Advice of the day...

Don`t Play Leapfrog With a Unicorn...

Technically they are better as they are progressive video (tvs are interlaced) but you won`t benefit from anamorphic widescreen dvds on a computer with 4:3 monitor.

TVs have a resolution which is less than 800x800, so computer monitors can easily beat this, but it all depends on the quality of the software/hardware decoder.

there`s the funny aliasing issue too - tv`s automatically smooth things slightly just because of analogue signal paths whereas monitors are dot for dot spot on

while this should be good thing it usually isn`t as it means images get the "jaggies" much more easily.

The picture is better on a monitor than on TV because the monitor has a higher definition, more pixels and because as it is progressive it has not Kell effect that reduces the resolution about the 30%. Also the TV`s are overscanned, that means part of the picture is not visible.
But the TV has an advantage: The images are more brilliant and the natural colours are better rendered on a TV.
Thus if you are going to read small letters it is better a monitor on the hand a scene about nature is more real on a TV.