The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

Wed Sep 1 20:11:14 UTC 2021

> On Sep 1, 2021, at 11:25 , bzs at theworld.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several
> people who'd tried would say don't do it. I think the gist was that
> the image processors in the TVs would fuzz text or something like
> that. That it was usable but they were unhappy with their attempts, it
> was tiring on the eyes.

That was definitely true of 480 TVs and older 1080p units, but modern sets
are almost designed to be monitors first and everything else second.

> Maybe that's changed or maybe people happy with this don't do a lot of
> text? Or maybe there are settings involved they weren't aware of, or
> some TVs (other than superficial specs like 4K vs 720p) are better for
> this than others so some will say they're happy and others not so
> much?

There are some tradeoffs… For example, sitting normal computer monitor
distance from a 44” 4K screen, you can damn near see the individual pixels
and that can make text look fuzzy, especially if your GPU or OS are stupid
enough to use a technique called anti-aliasing on text (which is the most
probable source of the fuzziness in your originally quoted complaint).

Older TVs would try to smooth some aspects of the analog signal they were
using through anti-aliasing pixels that occurred on the edge of a change in
the color signal to “smooth” the image. (The extent of this action was what
was controlled by the “Sharpness” knob back in the analog days).

Turning off this capability (Sharpness to the left most or lowest setting) would
often improve things greatly.

> Or maybe the unhappy ones were all trolls/sockpuppets from companies
> manufacturing/selling $500+ 24" **GAMING** monitors.

Possible, but unlikely.

Owen

> 
> On September 1, 2021 at 09:48 nanog at nanog.org (Owen DeLong via NANOG) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 31, 2021, at 18:01 , Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>>>> On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I ended up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K monitor than the 27” alternatives that weren’t televisions. (It also ended up being cheaper than the 27” televisions which didn’t do 4K only 1080p, but I digress).
>>> 
>>> Back when 4k just came out and they were really expensive, I found a "TV" by an obscure brand called Seiki which was super cheap. It was a 39" model. It's just a monitor to me, but I have gotten really used to its size and not needing two different monitors (and the gfx card to support it). What's distressing is that I was looking at what would happen if I needed to replace it and there is this gigantic gap where there are 30" monitors (= expensive) and 50" TV's which are relatively cheap. The problem is that 40" is sort of Goldielocks with 4k where 50" is way too big and 30" is too small. Thankfully it's going on 10 years old and still working fine.
>> 
>> Costco stocks several 44” 4K TV models (like the one I got) that are relatively cheap. It’s a little larger than your 40” goldilocks, but I think still within range.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
> 
> -- 
>        -Barry Shein
> 
> Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             | http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*