The thing is, I bought mine years ago for $600 because HDTVs have a vastly superior economy of scale. It kind of bothers me that we don't see more HDTVs with a slightly different firmware being sold as monitors. They're usually a lot cheaper.
The thing is, I bought mine years ago for $600 because HDTVs have a vastly superior economy of scale. It kind of bothers me that we don't see more HDTVs with a slightly different firmware being sold as monitors. They're usually a lot cheaper.
A buddy of mine worked at a computer store back around '78 (if you're from Cambridge MA this was next to Heffron's near MIT). They got broken into one night, unfortunately after receiving a big shipment of hard drives (2 MB behemoths probably costing over a $2K in today's dollars). The thieves had all night to clean the place out and took...all the monitors.
I wonder what happened when they tried to fence those things.
I think it was as least as much to increase video quality as to save money. The antenna signal stage limited displays to the low resolution of televisions, that signal was designed for moving images, not for static text, and converting to the antenna signal and back added noise.
Once you decide to want to improve the use as a monitor, choosing slower phosphors (for a more stable image) and leaving out color (for cost cutting, and because technology for producing, say, 640x480 pixel full-color monitors at consumer prices didn’t really exist) were logical choices, and once you did that, using the tube to display a television signal doesn’t make sense anymore.
- backlight pwm. tv is huge and covers most of your fov at monitor distances. pwm burns my eyes off, and it goes away only at ~100%
- some funny sharpening that shows as halo aroud small text, but is not perceivable otherwise. annoying.
if at all possible, test tv with your source before buying.