Computer monitor as a TV?

[Aric Mannion]

I was thinking of getting a 20inch LCD computer monitor for varied purposes. For one thing I'd like to hook my laptop up to it. But I am wondering if I could also use it as a TV. The reason I ask is because I have an HDMI to DVI, and I can't see any reason why I would not be able to attach my DirecTV box with that cable? Also: I would like to attach a video camera up to it but that only has component out, and monitors never seem to have that option.
I obviously know nothing about computer monitors, I'm used to the TV monitors.

[Shaun Roemich]

Aric, I went the OTHER way and bought a 19" LG 19LG30 HDTV. It has analog component (SD and HD compatible), HDMI and analog RGB (15 pin) connectors. That way I can use it on the road as a second computer monitor as well as it's primary purpose of monitoring my JVC HD200 camera in HD. It's quite easy to get analog RGB out of a DVI connector. All you need is the right cable/adaptor.

Just my .02

[Aric Mannion]

The TVs are more expensive though. I'm looking at these cheapos now:

Hanns-G | 22" Widescreen LCD Computer Display | HG216DPB

HP / Hewlett-Packard | w2207h 22" Widescreen | GM757AA#ABA

I am told that these and all other computer monitors will in fact work as a "TV"

[Shaun Roemich]

Well, both monitors you list accept HDMI as an input. If your DirecTV box has HDMI out, go nuts. As for the component camera, there are 5 BNC to VGA cables out there. Connect the "right" 3 BNCs to your camera (using BNC-RCA adaptors if necessary) and the VGA end to the monitor, it MAY work. Cables and adaptors plus the purchase price of the monitor... I think I'd rather just buy the TV. Oh wait, I did! <laughs> I DO earn a living doing video though so for me it was a no-brainer. I get to write the whole thing off at tax time. Your ability to justify the purchase may be different than mine.

[Gints Klimanis]

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

I get to write the whole thing off at tax time. Your ability to justify the purchase may be different than mine.

The advantage of the tax write-off is only the discount by your tax rate. I'm sure you know that, but just about every time I read about tax write-offs, the tone implies that such a purchase has no cost.

[Dylan Pank]

The issue is interlacing. Does a computer monitor have the ability to render 1080i material (or 480i/576i material for that matter) correctly.

If it can't, that would be a deal breaker for me personally.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Gints Klimanis

The advantage of the tax write-off is only the discount by your tax rate. I'm sure you know that, but just about every time I read about tax write-offs, the tone implies that such a purchase has no cost.

Yes Gints. As I'm a sole proprietor, the combination of my tax rate and straight line depreciation over 5 years ESSENTIALLY makes these purchases cost-free over the LONG run (ie. 5 years) with the "up front" investment of the entire purchase price. Yes, I pay the full shot up front but then x% (marginal tax rate) of 20% of the unit's cost is applied as a credit against my tax burden each year for 5 years.

I make this point only to indicate that I have the ability to justify purchases that a hobbyist or part-time non-registered producer may not be able to justify. I DO make a living doing this. For the 17 year old who is working pumping gas to make enough money to fund his or her first indie film, the start-up and capital costs can be crippling, even with just how attractive technology pricing in our industry has become in the past 10 years.

[Gints Klimanis]

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

Yes Gints. As I'm a sole proprietor, the combination of my tax rate and straight line depreciation over 5 years ESSENTIALLY makes these purchases cost-free over the LONG run (ie. 5 years) with the "up front" investment of the entire purchase price. Yes, I pay the full shot up front but then x% (marginal tax rate) of 20% of the unit's cost is applied as a credit against my tax burden each year for 5 years.

I'm not an accountant, but something doesn't seem right about free gear. This implies that you can acquire gear to lower taxes but not lower your net income for five years, then you can sell the gear after five years and pocket that, too. Spending less on gear should leave you with greater profits than spending more on gear, right? I'll read up on this, but I would guess that the missing piece is that the 20% is not applied only to the "tax burden" but as a deduction from gross income. Correct me if I have this all wrong as I've never been in a position to use this model myself.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Gints Klimanis

I'm not an accountant, but something doesn't seem right about free gear. This implies that you can acquire gear to lower taxes but not lower your net income for five years, then you can sell the gear after five years and pocket that, too. Spending less on gear should leave you with greater profits than spending more on gear, right? I'll read up on this, but I would guess that the missing piece is that the 20% is not applied only to the "tax burden" but as a deduction from gross income. Correct me if I have this all wrong as I've never been in a position to use this model myself.

You may be right, Gints. All I know is I spend a large percentage of my gross revenue on gear and amortize it over 5 years (as per my accountant) and with the rolling deductions from previous years, my tax load is low. I don't do my books, I just make and spend the money, typically more on gear than on myself. Perhaps I'm doing a bad job of explaining the taxation side of it (I make pretty pictures; I let someone else sort out the paperwork). All I know is the more I spend on gear, the less I pay in tax so I spend a lot on gear.

[Aric Mannion]

Spending more money for less pixel resolution is my problem with getting ANOTHER TV.

[Larry Vaughn]

started new question

[Bill Ravens]

Two comments:
First, regarding a computer monitor as a TV, I use a Samsung 20" as both a monitor and TV with seperate tuner. It has component inputs and works quite well, in that regard, monitoring progressively scanned images straight from my JVC HD110.

Second, regarding depreciation for tax purposes and resale. If you take an annual depreciation on your equipment, then sell for a value above the level to which you've depreciated the equipment, you are liable for income tax on the realized profit. In other words, if you've depreciated a camera to zero, then seel it for $1500, the business is liable for $1500 worth of income..

[Gints Klimanis]

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

All I know is the more I spend on gear, the less I pay in tax so I spend a lot on gear.

You're lowering your income in a quest to lower taxes. But with all of cool gear, it's hard to avoid that justification.