Need advice on connecting computer to TV

[Aldbaran]

I'm about to buy my very first flat screen TV in about 2 days, and I thought it would be a simple thing--just get a 4K TV to be up to date on the latest technology that won't soon become outdated. I was going to get an LG 43" 4k set. I currently have a laptop computer that's a Dell Inspiron 15 5000 Series which has an HDMI port on it that can supposedly be used to connect the PC to the TV. I looked up the specs for the HDMI port on my computer and it doesn't say which HDMI type it is. Keep in mind I paid $300 for this computer about a year ago.

Here's where the confusion comes in. When I look at the advertised specs for the TV I have in mind, it says it has 3 HDMI ports that are HDCP 2.2 which I looked up the definition of. All the sites I found talk about is that I seem to need special equipment that is compatible with HDCP 2.2 in order to play 4K content. I had hoped to be able to play 4K video files I have on my computer while hooked up to the TV to see it in 4K and on a big screen. Is that not possible? If it's not, then what about other content such as photos and 1080 video? Can I still play those, even though the TV's HDMI port is HDPC 2.2 while my laptop's port is probably an older version of HDMI?

Here's my questions: With the computer I have, would I be able to connect it to the TV and use the TV as a monitor in place of my laptop's monitor? I'd like to be able to see large pictures on a large screen, and be able to watch videos I have in fulll resolution, even if not 4K. However, if buying a 4K TV means not being able to connect it to my laptop which doesn't have HDCP 2.2, then would I be better off buying a 1080 TV that has "regular" HDMI inputs? I'd hate to get a 4K TV only to find out that it won't work with my computer. If that's the case, I would be willing to settle for a 1080 TV.

BTW, here's the 4K TV I'd like to get: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-43-class-42-5-diag--led-2160p-smart-4k-ultra-hd-tv/608...?skuId=6085106

But should I just get this 1080 one instead? https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-43-class-42-5-diag--led-1080p-smart-hdtv/5803102.p?skuId=5803102

[davexnet]

For watching optical media, buy a blu-ray player.
For digital videos on the computer, HDMI not necessary, play them over the network. TV and Windows 7 or
later have everything built in.

[Cornucopia]

First, I would ask why you are buying a 43" 4kTV? You will not get to enjoy the benefit of 4k over 1080p at that screen size, unless you sit ridiculously close to it (which might work if you were only using it as a desktop monitor, not for movies).

Next, the relationship between 4k and HDCP and HDMI is complex, but the gist of it is that if you want to watch in 4k (esp. HDR) and you are watching commercial material, it is going to require you have HDCP 2.2 on both source & destination (sink) and all through the chain. if one or both, or other links/branches, are less than that, it will drop to 1080p, or just cut off.

In order to accommodate that at the best fps and color and with hdr, you need hdmi 2.0 or better. In fact, you can't get hdcp 2.2 without hdmi 2.0+, though you can find hdmi 2.0 devices that hadn't yet implemented hdcp 2.2, so those are out of luck for the full 4k hdr experience.

There is support in hdmi 1.4x for 4k, but it is primarily non-copy-protected content at lower fps and sdr and simple rec709 color, aka not ready for primetime.

If you have hdmi on you laptop (pc preferrably, as macs often engage the copy protect hdcp flag), you should be able to use either a 1080p or 4k monitor with it, though you probably wont gain any REAL detail advantages with the 4k (given same size screen), just maybe better smoothness. The source is the limiting factor as most laptops aren't that high rez.

You may or may not have issues with overscan, but if you have the option to switch the zoom mode to "just scan" or "dot by dot" or "1:1", DO SO!

Scott

[TreeTops]

I have a pretty old Panny flat screen TV. When I hook up my HDMI cable from my old (5yearold) laptop to that TV I have to go into the TV settings and change to COMPUTER in able to play what I see on the laptop. Maybe there is a TV setting on yours that may help.

[usually_quiet]

First, I would ask why you are buying a 43" 4kTV? You will not get to enjoy the benefit of 4k over 1080p at that screen size, unless you sit ridiculously close to it (which might work if you were only using it as a desktop monitor, not for movies).

HDR is the one feature that would make the best of these smaller UHD TVs worthwhile but, as you mentioned, HDR isn't available with an HDMI 1.4 connection. (Unfortunately, Aldbaran's laptop will almost certainly have an HDMI 1.4 connection, not HDMI 2.0a.) Only DisplayPort 1.3, Displayport 1.4, HDMI 2.0a and HDMI 2.0b officially support HDR. HDCP 2.2 and HDR-10 using DP 1.2 is also possible now using the iGPU for some 7th and 8th generation Intel processors, but Windows 10 has to be properly configured and updated for it to work, and the motherboard drivers may need to be updated too.

[Aldbaran]

First, I would ask why you are buying a 43" 4kTV? You will not get to enjoy the benefit of 4k over 1080p at that screen size, unless you sit ridiculously close to it (which might work if you were only using it as a desktop monitor, not for movies).

I figure 43" is about the right size for my living room and for what I watch on TV. My current set is a CRT 27", so this one would be a a noticeable amount bigger. The reason for 4K is because the picture quality is said to get "upscaled" to 4K when watching 1080 content.

So if my computer only has a "standard" type of HDMI output port, and the TV's input is HDCP 2.2, can I connect the two together and use the TV as a computer monitor? I just don't want to buy a TV with HDCP 2.2 ports and find out it's not compatible with my computer.

As for why I'd be using HDMI instead of "playing it over the network", I'm not sure how that would be done. I don't have internet, except from a neighbor's unreliable Wi-fi from 2 houses away. Otherwise, I don't have any network. Also, I'm using an antenna to get signals for the TV.

From what I've read so far, I'm starting to lean toward getting a 1080 TV instead of 4K, although it's just a $50 difference in price. Would there be any advantages to the 1080 other than the cost savings? I'd hate to not get 4K just for that reason since a TV should last for a decade or more.

[usually_quiet]

From what I've read so far, I'm starting to lean toward getting a 1080 TV instead of 4K, although it's just a $50 difference in price. Would there be any advantages to the 1080 other than the cost savings? I'd hate to not get 4K just for that reason since a TV should last for a decade or more.

Don't bother with a small 4K TV unless it has HDR for UHD Blu-ray and some streaming services (or even YouTube) which offer UHD HDR video. You may not like a 4K TV as a PC monitor for your laptop, which can only provide UHD resolution at 24Hz or 30Hz.

Looking at Best Buy's website, the least expensive small UHD models with HDR are the Sony XBR43X800E and the Samsung UN40MU7000FXZA. Neither of the small $330 LG 4K TVs offers HDR, so they can't provide a good 4K experience. Buy a 1080p TV if $330 is the most that you are willing to pay for a TV.

[davexnet]

To stream over the network all you need is a router to connect the TV + computer. Don't even need to install anything,
Windows has a media server built in, which the TV can access, you can also right click the video in windows and select "cast to .." to send it to the TV.
Perhaps for the future when you get a router.

I have a recent LG TV myself, I bought the 49 inch in the uj6500 line. It has Netflix, Amazon, Youtube and other apps, also a web browser.
TV does a great job upscaling content, will keep files to the proper aspect ratio. I'm happy with mine.

[Aldbaran]

To stream over the network all you need is a router to connect the TV + computer. Don't even need to install anything,
Windows has a media server built in, which the TV can access, you can also right click the video in windows and select "cast to .." to send it to the TV.
Perhaps for the future when you get a router.

I have a recent LG TV myself, I bought the 49 inch in the uj6500 line. It has Netflix, Amazon, Youtube and other apps, also a web browser.
TV does a great job upscaling content, will keep files to the proper aspect ratio. I'm happy with mine.

I suppose I could get a router, but I don't mind just using an HDMI cable since I wouldn't be using it with the computer full time.
I've clicked on items in my computer and saw the "cast to" option and never knew what that meant before. Now I know! But how does it get sent to the TV? Does it do it via Bluetooth? The TVs I'm considering don't have Bluetooth. They do have Web OS 3.5. Is that the item that allows something to be "cast" to the TV?

[usually_quiet]

Some of the LG UHD TVs, including the UJ6200 series and the UJ6300 series, have a RGBW (Red Green Blue White) pixel structure instead of the normal RGB pixel structure. The picture quality when using them to watch TV/movies is good, but the RGBW pixel structure makes them less than ideal as computer monitors because text won't be as crisp as with an RGB pixel structure.

I went to LG's website which says the LG 43UJ6200 and LG 43UJ6300 have "active HDR" and "HDR effect", and yet BestBuy didn't include them in its HDR category. Mabe the brightness is insufficient or the color gamut isn't wide enough for true HDR.

[davexnet]

Some of the LG UHD TVs, including the UJ6200 series and the UJ6300 series, have a RGBW (Red Green Blue White) pixel structure instead of the normal RGB pixel structure. The picture quality when using them to watch TV/movies is good, but the RGBW pixel structure makes them less than ideal as computer monitors because text won't be as crisp as with an RGB pixel structure.

I went to LG's website which says the LG 43UJ6200 and LG 43UJ6300 have "active HDR" and "HDR effect", and yet BestBuy didn't include them in its HDR category. Mabe the brightness is insufficient or the color gamut isn't wide enough for true HDR.

Yes you're right about the RGBW in these low end 4K TV's. I knew that going in, but I bought it anyway. The picture quality is still good on
regular material, but it does result in a small loss in resolition, hence the comments re: computer monitor usage. I think overall,
the picture is a little less vivid than the equivalent Samsung, for example.
To play the video from the computer to the TV over the network uses regular Ethernet or wiifi not Bluetooth
using technologies provided by the LG WebOS, DLNA/upnp and the Windows media server.

I don't get any HDR over my Time Warner (Spectrum) calble TV, but the demo videos I've played activate the TV's capabilities
and a small logo in the top right appears right at the start of the video for one or two seconds to telll you HDR has been activated.
It looks stunning. I don't bother with "HDR effect"

[Aldbaran]

Some of the LG UHD TVs, including the UJ6200 series and the UJ6300 series, have a RGBW (Red Green Blue White) pixel structure instead of the normal RGB pixel structure. The picture quality when using them to watch TV/movies is good, but the RGBW pixel structure makes them less than ideal as computer monitors because text won't be as crisp as with an RGB pixel structure.

I went to LG's website which says the LG 43UJ6200 and LG 43UJ6300 have "active HDR" and "HDR effect", and yet BestBuy didn't include them in its HDR category. Mabe the brightness is insufficient or the color gamut isn't wide enough for true HDR.

How about things like photos? Would they look as good as they do on the laptop screen? I was hoping 4K would make things look better, assuming the "upscaling" to 4k as advertised is a real thing.

[Aldbaran]

Yes you're right about the RGBW in these low end 4K TV's. I knew that going in, but I bought it anyway. The picture quality is still good on
regular material, but it does result in a small loss in resolition, hence the comments re: computer monitor usage. I think overall,
the picture is a little less vivid than the equivalent Samsung, for example.

Do you think a 1080 TV might actually display things better when used in this way than the 4K one would?

[davexnet]

Yes you're right about the RGBW in these low end 4K TV's. I knew that going in, but I bought it anyway. The picture quality is still good on
regular material, but it does result in a small loss in resolition, hence the comments re: computer monitor usage. I think overall,
the picture is a little less vivid than the equivalent Samsung, for example.

Do you think a 1080 TV might actually display things better when used in this way than the 4K one would?

It's possible, I don't know for sure. But assuming the 1080p models do not use RGBW, it's probably true.

[usually_quiet]

Some of the LG UHD TVs, including the UJ6200 series and the UJ6300 series, have a RGBW (Red Green Blue White) pixel structure instead of the normal RGB pixel structure. The picture quality when using them to watch TV/movies is good, but the RGBW pixel structure makes them less than ideal as computer monitors because text won't be as crisp as with an RGB pixel structure.

I went to LG's website which says the LG 43UJ6200 and LG 43UJ6300 have "active HDR" and "HDR effect", and yet BestBuy didn't include them in its HDR category. Mabe the brightness is insufficient or the color gamut isn't wide enough for true HDR.

How about things like photos? Would they look as good as they do on the laptop screen? I was hoping 4K would make things look better, assuming the "upscaling" to 4k as advertised is a real thing.

Color fidelity is slightly worse with RGBW and there is a small loss of detail compared to an RGB UHD TV.

[Aldbaran]

Yes you're right about the RGBW in these low end 4K TV's. I knew that going in, but I bought it anyway. The picture quality is still good on
regular material, but it does result in a small loss in resolition, hence the comments re: computer monitor usage. I think overall,
the picture is a little less vivid than the equivalent Samsung, for example.

Do you think a 1080 TV might actually display things better when used in this way than the 4K one would?

It's possible, I don't know for sure. But assuming the 1080p models do not use RGBW, it's probably true.

To make things more confusing, there seems to be other factors that affect picture quality. I went to Best Buy today to compare the TVs and was ready to buy one, but then noticed some weird things. I was looking at the 4K I wanted on display next to other TV's nearby, most of which were 1080, and I thought the 4K looked the worst! It wasn't nearly as sharp as the 1080s, even ones of lesser brands such as Insignia and Sharp. I asked a salesman about it and he said that the TV's on that wall were hooked up using coaxial cable and that's why they weren't as sharp of a picture. But that doesn't explain why the TV's other than the 4K looked better on the same wall. At worst, they should have all looked about the same. Are there settings that can be changed to correct this?

As a result, I'm leaning a little more toward a 1080. There was this one: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-43-class-42-5-diag--led-1080p-smart-hdtv/5803102.p?skuId=5803102 that I thought looked the best. Kind of strange that a 1080 that costs less looks better than a 4K, huh?

The salesman also suggested getting an Insignia because there would be less chance of "burn-in" with it when using it with my computer. Any thoughts about that? It's not a brand that stands out as being something that will last for 10 years.

[usually_quiet]

As a result, I'm leaning a little more toward a 1080. There was this one: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-43-class-42-5-diag--led-1080p-smart-hdtv/5803102.p?skuId=5803102 that I thought looked the best.

The salesman also suggested getting an Insignia because there would be less chance of "burn-in" with it when using it with my computer. Any thoughts about that? It's not a brand that stands out as being something that will last for 10 years.

I wouldn't worry about image retention on LED TVs. See the review for a similar TV at https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/lj5500. When a static image is displayed, this LG TV, which is similar to the one you want, exhibits temporary image retention after about 10 minutes of burn-in time. After about 2 minutes of recovery, the retained image is very faint.

[Aldbaran]

[QUOTE=usually_quiet;2515814]

I wouldn't worry about image retention on LED TVs. See the review for a similar TV at https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/lj5500. When a static image is displayed, this LG TV, which is similar to the one you want, exhibits temporary image retention after about 10 minutes of burn-in time. After about 2 minutes of recovery, the retained image is very faint.

Thanks for showing me that ratings website! I'm looking through it now at the TV's I've been considering, but most of them aren't there. A couple are though. Good to know about that burn-in issue. Doesn't seem to be an issue at all on that particular TV.