Discover the reasons why a monitor is more expensive than a TV with the same characteristics.
It is an unwritten rule. In full 2020, the main television brands offer options that do not even exceed 450 euros if we talk about screens above 40 inches, IPS technology and 4K resolution. If we talk about monitors, the situation is practically the opposite: the commitment to a 37.5-inch monitor, compatible with HDR and 4K resolution can lead us to pay more than 1,000 euros. The reasons we see below.
TECHNOLOGY MINIATURIZATION ALWAYS ENTAILS A DEVALUATION
We have not discovered America. As with most technology industries, miniaturization usually leads to a devaluation in the final TV price in Bangladesh 2020. Proof of this is smartphones.
The Samsung Galaxy Note 10 Plus has a resolution of 3,040 x 1,440 pixels, which gives us a total of 4,377,600 pixels in a 6.8-inch matrix.
Making a 6.5-inch screen with Quad HD + resolution is generally more expensive than making a 24-inch screen with similar features. The reason is simple: placing a certain number of pixels in a smaller matrix is much more complex than doing it in a 30 or 40-inch matrix. The number of pixels does not vary. Yes, density does per inch.
Something similar happens in televisions and monitors, although the differences are somewhat less tangible because they have sizes larger than those of a telephone. Just check the current catalogue of televisions and monitors to verify that the price/size ratio is infinitely higher on a monitor.
INPUT LAG: THE BIGGEST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEPRECIATION OF TVS
Probably the factor that most depreciates the value of current TVs is the input lag, also known as 'entry delay'. This term refers to the time it takes for the TV or monitor to project on a screen the image emitted by an external source, which can be a computer, a console or a media player.
Broadly speaking, a television usually starts in 5 milliseconds of response if we talk about high-end models. In low-end televisions (around 300 or 400 euros), this figure can increase to 20 milliseconds.
Taking advantage of the figures of the monitors, most low-end options can start even from 1 millisecond if we talk about TN panels. In low-end IPS panels, this figure can be around 3 and 5 milliseconds: quite far from what the cheapest TVs can offer.
The impact on games is direct: the experience of playing on monitors is much more satisfying than doing it on television. After all, the delay in interacting with the remote control or keyboard and mouse will be much less on a monitor.
THE REFRESH RATE, THE OTHER BIG FORGOTTEN
60 Hz, 75 Hz, 144 Hz and even 240 Hz. On monitors, talking about these figures when referring to the refresh rate is normal within ranges oriented to the gaming niche. On TVs, unfortunately, not so much.
While it is true that some models, in particular, have figures that touch 70 Hz and even 120 Hz, most often resort to the interpolation of images. This meets the needs of the industry, rather than economic reasons: today almost no audiovisual production is filmed in such several frames per second.
The figures if we talk about movies and series are around 24 FPS, that is, 24 Hz. In contrast, almost all games are compatible with rates of 60 Hz, 120 Hz or even 240 Hz. To this is added the implementation of different technologies to force the update of the screen based on the frames emitted by the graphics card. Technologies like AMD FreeSync or Nvidia G-Sync.
Needless to say, most televisions lack these features, except for some high-end Samsung models.
IMAGE QUALITY: OPTIMIZATION VERSUS SPECTACULAR
Although the image quality depends entirely on the type of panel (IPS, TN, QLED ...), the paradigm of televisions and monitors usually travels on separate paths. While the image of the televisions is oriented to offer spectacularity in films and series, the image of the monitors is usually much better optimized and calibrated to offer a representation of the colours similar to those of reality, at least in IPS panels.
In monitors for photographers, video editors and audiovisual artists, it is normal to deal with terms such as RGB, sRGB or Rec.709 to assess the calibration of colours. If we look for a monitor with relatively decent colour depth, we will have to go to models with up to 10 bits. The same happens with the contrast: 800: 1 or 1000: 1.
All this ends up influencing, as it could not be otherwise, in the final price of the product. Together with these we usually find integrated software to calibrate the images, which makes the smart TV price in Bangladesh 2020 even more expensive.
CONCLUSION: A MONITOR DOES NOT REPLACE A TV AND A TV DOES NOT REPLACE A MONITOR
Some Samsung TVs have the technology to optimize the input lag and Hz of the screen.
If we opt for a small TV to replace our main monitor, it is most likely that the device will leave enough loose ends along the way. Today, televisions with sizes from 20 to 30 inches tend to have rather limited specifications. Insufficient image quality, very high input lag, poor viewing angles and so on. Not to mention that televisions are designed to be viewed over long distances, as they have a generally higher brightness.
So, can you replace a monitor with a TV? Nothing is further from reality. In addition to having a generally insufficient size for medium-sized rooms, monitors often offer a lower brightness and image quality intended for a good professional use well domestic. Nor will we have antenna output; indispensable if we want to watch television.