Do you have a 4K display?

[Fleetie]

20/20 vision is by definition average. I'm a little better than that, but when I say that the difference between 1080p and 4K is blatantly obvious, I have confidence that it will be just as obvious for the average person reading this.

I also find the difference to be blatantly obvious.

I checked out the 4k TV display at an electronics store, and I was floored.

Unfortunately, at least for upgrades, my current set still works (and I hope it keeps working for a while).

The next one will have to be bigger... 63" isn't big enough. So glad I didn't buy a smaller set.

Viewers can't tell the difference at normal viewing distance, you have to be close, like 5 ft or less. That's why video stores arrange them so that you will be close to the screen. At 10 ft, it makes no difference.

http://www.displaymate.com/news.html#7

But, but 9VIII is a special person who can resolve 0.05mm from 3ft away. So it must make a difference to him.

 

[9VIII]

20/20 vision is by definition average. I'm a little better than that, but when I say that the difference between 1080p and 4K is blatantly obvious, I have confidence that it will be just as obvious for the average person reading this.

I also find the difference to be blatantly obvious.

I checked out the 4k TV display at an electronics store, and I was floored.

Unfortunately, at least for upgrades, my current set still works (and I hope it keeps working for a while).

The next one will have to be bigger... 63" isn't big enough. So glad I didn't buy a smaller set.

Viewers can't tell the difference at normal viewing distance, you have to be close, like 5 ft or less. That's why video stores arrange them so that you will be close to the screen. At 10 ft, it makes no difference.

http://www.displaymate.com/news.html#7

I'm betting the numbers those people use came from tests that do not represent what is possible with a computer monitor.
However it was that they came up with those results, they're wrong.

It's easy to test limits for yourself. Open a pant program and draw a straight line at a slight angle (make sure the program does not apply smoothing, so look really close or use a magnifying glass to ensure that transitions from one column of pixels to another happen without half shaded pixels). See the jaggies. Now back away from your screen until the line is blurred smooth. Note that a line at a 45 degree angle will look smooth sooner than one just a few degrees off vertical.
In order for a screen "look" perfectly smooth, I should not be able to see any stepping on a line of any angle.
On my 100PPI laptop screen I have to stand 9 feet away before jagged edges start to blur. At that distance I should be using a 45" 4,000x2,000 screen. For a 60" TV I would want 5,400x2,700 resolution.
That's a minimum number, higher would be better to give margin for error.
But wait, that's not actually the limit of what I can see. If I place one white dot (ensuring it's a single RGB cluster) on a black background, in a dark room, I can still see it from 18 feet away. At 20 feet it blurs in with the image noise in my eyes. For a display to perfectly reproduce the image that I see when I look at something, it's going to have to match that level of detail. That would be 200PPI at 9 feet, or a 60" 10,800x5,400 screen.

Some might say that those numbers are unreasonable. As noted in the Displaymate article (and by me earlier), detail is as much about contrast as resolution. How often you would be able to take advantage of that level of detail depends largely on what type of content you're consuming. Games in particular are very good at producing high contrast imagery, and the amount of detail in digitally produced content is inherently tied to your display. If we have cameras that produce images of similar resolution as well I don't see a reason not to use matching monitors. For pictures and games I'll take all I can get. Movies, as noted, tend to look terrible to begin with. That application probably wouldn't be as demanding.
For all the practical reasons you normally hear people whine about, 8K sounds like a good sticking point until we figure out better ways to shoot images into your brain.

 

[Hannes]

For my TV I don't mind if it stays 1080p for a bit longer but for my computer screen I wouldn't say no to a higher ppi count. 24" and 4k still isn't great at a little over 180 ppi but it is far closer to the print output. It is silly really we don't have higher res screens yet, most modern phones will have better resolution at 5" than my 24" monitor has

 

[danski0224]

Viewers can't tell the difference at normal viewing distance, you have to be close, like 5 ft or less. That's why video stores arrange them so that you will be close to the screen. At 10 ft, it makes no difference.

http://www.displaymate.com/news.html#7

I'm not so sure I agree. One set had a demo video of some sort that showed 1080 on one side and 4k on the other and the difference was clearly noticeable from about 8 feet out.

I suppose that each of these sets had demo content that was optimized. As I understand it, native 4k content is pretty scarce.

I wasn't there to do an evaluation, I just looked while I was there- not in the market for a new TV at this time.

I didn't view "normal" HD content upscaled for the resolution, either. That could be pretty cool if it smooths out pixels on larger screens.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Not yet, but I can hardly wait!!!!

I hope the new Dell 2414Q proves to be good since it seems like NEC may be some years away still . I still can't get a solid answer as to whether the Dell has the 14 bit 3D LUT that a few recent Dells have had or not and whether it has any of the old over-drive and other issues some Dells have had.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I prefer a full hd monitor with wide dynamic range and color reproduction. I do not want to spend $ 15,000 for a 4K monitor. That seems a real need for Hollywood filmmakers, or pixel peepers.

15k? no wide gamut?

They is already a $1299 99% AdobeRGB 4k monitor out (from Dell).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I work for a very large US motion picture rental company which is global so lets talk 4K.

Canon, Sony, Red (they also have 5K), Black Magic make 4K cameras and will be joined by Phantom in the new year. The most popular camera in Hollywood is the Arri Alexa its a 3.5K camera that outputs 2K and most movies in theaters are 2K NOT 4K. The 4K cameras actually dont output 4K and most dont employ lossless compression but thats another story the real issue is a 4K TV to see 4K you need to sit considerably closer to the TV than 2K (1080P / i) for the same given size and the majority of broadcast content is NOT 4K but 2K even if shot on a 4K camera. In the pipeline are 8K cameras theoretically your would need to be even closer to the screen to get the benefit so is this a case of technology over common sense yes and no. A down sampled image would give cleaner images after compression from say 8K or 4K file after allowing for concantination through the broadcast pipeline for 2K but a pure 4K file will still require a closer viewing distance for a given screen size to get the benefit the same applies to a movie theatre.

You forget things such as:

consumer 4k video cams are coming out so people can produce and watch their on 4k videos

4k is wayyyy better for viewing still photography than 2k or less

4k (or simply higher pixel pitch, like on tablets) is wayyy better for text, so much better for reading electronic books, newspapers, magazines and heck much nicer text to look at on the web, for programming, anything

unless you sit too far away, 1080p looks pretty blocky on an HDTV set, nothing like looking out a window, and when you sit that far away it still doesn't feel like looking out a window since the detail scale doesn't match up to the FOV

oh and how about this, how come people scream bloody murder when a game doesn't offer AA, whether they view it on a 20" screen or a 60" 2k screen, they all scream about the nasty jaggies, well if you see nasty jaggies you sure as heck do not have too much res for the screen size!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

20/20 vision is by definition average. I'm a little better than that, but when I say that the difference between 1080p and 4K is blatantly obvious, I have confidence that it will be just as obvious for the average person reading this.

I also find the difference to be blatantly obvious.

I checked out the 4k TV display at an electronics store, and I was floored.

Unfortunately, at least for upgrades, my current set still works (and I hope it keeps working for a while).

The next one will have to be bigger... 63" isn't big enough. So glad I didn't buy a smaller set.

Viewers can't tell the difference at normal viewing distance, you have to be close, like 5 ft or less. That's why video stores arrange them so that you will be close to the screen. At 10 ft, it makes no difference.

http://www.displaymate.com/news.html#7

10'+ back is getting to be pretty far and no you don't have to be 5' or less

it's ridiculous all the talk about how you need 55" for even 1080p to matter, utter nonsense, the same people go on about how their 24" print looks so much better at 300ppi. My 24" 1920x1200 monitor looks grainy as hell after using my retina ipad for a little bit or looking at any printed magazine or book for a little bit.

and if you really want the full impact from video the screen should be fov filling, not a little box taking up a fraction of your vision from 20' away

 

[danski0224]

10'+ back is getting to be pretty far and no you don't have to be 5' or less

it's ridiculous all the talk about how you need 55" for even 1080p to matter, utter nonsense, the same people go on about how their 24" print looks so much better at 300ppi. My 24" 1920x1200 monitor looks grainy as hell after using my retina ipad for a little bit or looking at any printed magazine or book for a little bit.

and if you really want the full impact from video the screen should be fov filling, not a little box taking up a fraction of your vision from 20' away

I'm 9' away from a 63" set. I wouldn't mind being a bit closer.

But, too close and the individual pixels start appearing. I don't think I could comfortably watch it much closer than 8'.

If 4k could smoothly upscale HD content and give me a clean ~60" display at ~8', that would be nice.

If I was to replace my current set with a 4k display and keep the existing arrangement, the new one would have to be bigger. Probably won't be happening anytime soon.

Having experienced ~40" panels at ~10', I often wonder: what's the point? And it becomes worse when watching letterbox content.

 

[jrista]

If it sells cameras, it will come. There is a lot of discussion about the visual benefits, but that's not relevant, profit is what drives new technology.

But profits are only attained when the consumer sees a benefit. Given that the primary talk about 4k screens among photographers is the visual benefits...finer detail, less ability to "pixel peep", higher microcontrast, 10-bit support/wider gamut, etc. Those are all the reasons photographers would buy a 4k screen. Without the visual benefit, there are no profits.

 

[kaihp]

But profits are only attained when the consumer seesthinks there is a benefit.

There, I fixed it for you

I will seriously consider a 4K monitor when it comes down in price .... not necessarily for photos, but for the need of "screen real estate" for general usage. I was recently comparing a UHD TV vs a FHD TV for work (as a replacement for a projector), and the ability of the UHD to do render more details just for text etc was quite convincing.
The RMB19,000 price tag for the 65" version kept me at bay, though.

 

[IMG_0001]

20/20 vision is by definition average. I'm a little better than that, but when I say that the difference between 1080p and 4K is blatantly obvious, I have confidence that it will be just as obvious for the average person reading this.

I also find the difference to be blatantly obvious.

I checked out the 4k TV display at an electronics store, and I was floored.

Unfortunately, at least for upgrades, my current set still works (and I hope it keeps working for a while).

The next one will have to be bigger... 63" isn't big enough. So glad I didn't buy a smaller set.

Viewers can't tell the difference at normal viewing distance, you have to be close, like 5 ft or less. That's why video stores arrange them so that you will be close to the screen. At 10 ft, it makes no difference.

http://www.displaymate.com/news.html#7

But, but 9VIII is a special person who can resolve 0.05mm from 3ft away. So it must make a difference to him.

I like consistent units better than 4k .

 

[dolina]

A tad out of topic but...

My 5yo 46-inch Samsung LCD TV's panel needs to be replaced. This happened after 24 hours attached to a IPTV box.

Parts and labour will cost me $850 and a week's wait.

Went TV shopping yesterday and my takeaway is that the most basic of 46-inch LED TVs can be had for $850. Add $100 and I get a 50-inch LED TV. Add $500 and I get a 60-inch LED TV.

Power consumption of LED is a fraction of what I am getting with LCD.

Smart TVs are nice if you dont have a smartphone, tablet or computer. Wish Apple would make one, I'd be more inclined to buy a solution from them.

Of course this isn't a 4K display. I was initially planning to wait 3-5 years before picking up one. In time for a slim Xbox One & slim PS4.

Now I'm back to my 8yo 32-inch Samsung LCD TV and 4yo 40-inch Samsung LCD TV. Which is really sad considering we switched to HD cable this year.

=======================

Now for the 4K TV part.

I auditioned the following

LG 65LA9700 (65-inch LED)
Sony Bravia KD-65X9004 (65-inch LED)

Both look awesome with a 2048px on the longest side JPEG even zoomed in at 200%

Playing a 1080p & 720p MP4 with a low bitrate looks like a SD content

 

[Don Haines]

Apparantly, someone at CES has announced a $999 4K tv.....

 

[dolina]

Don: From a name brand like LG, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic or Philips?

I've tried TCL, Devant, Haier & "My View" and the image quality has a lot to be desired. GUI is uhhhhh.

======

Some fun facts that I learned on TV upgrade cycle for a typical household

- New display is bought every 6.9 years on average
- Replacing an aging CRT TV
- Replacing a first generation LCD TV
- 32-inch is the most popular screen size for developing countries
- 44-inch is the most popular screen size for developed countries
- $940 tends to be the budget for new TVs in developed countries
- Declining price is a motivation to buy
- Newer technology
- More sizes available

Source:

http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/120529_global_tv_replacement_cycle_falls_below_7_years_as_households_continue_to_replace.asp
http://gigaom.com/2012/01/05/tv-replacement-cycle/

==============

I like the LED TVs with WiFi and Ethernet as I can stream my vids directly to the TV. A USB plug is also useful when networking is not practical.

I'm not that hot with Smart TVs unless they sport a more uniform GUI like that of iOS or Android for phones/tablets.

 

[9VIII]

A tad out of topic but...

My 5yo 46-inch Samsung LCD TV's panel needs to be replaced. This happened after 24 hours attached to a IPTV box.

Parts and labour will cost me $850 and a week's wait.

Went TV shopping yesterday and my takeaway is that the most basic of 46-inch LED TVs can be had for $850. Add $100 and I get a 50-inch LED TV. Add $500 and I get a 60-inch LED TV.

Power consumption of LED is a fraction of what I am getting with LCD.

Smart TVs are nice if you dont have a smartphone, tablet or computer. Wish Apple would make one, I'd be more inclined to buy a solution from them.

Of course this isn't a 4K display. I was initially planning to wait 3-5 years before picking up one. In time for a slim Xbox One & slim PS4.

Now I'm back to my 8yo 32-inch Samsung LCD TV and 4yo 40-inch Samsung LCD TV. Which is really sad considering we switched to HD cable this year.

=======================

Now for the 4K TV part.

I auditioned the following

LG 65LA9700 (65-inch LED)
Sony Bravia KD-65X9004 (65-inch LED)

Both look awesome with a 2048px on the longest side JPEG even zoomed in at 200%

Playing a 1080p & 720p MP4 with a low bitrate looks like a SD content

Remember that there are no "true" LED TVs out right now. The difference in power consumption is between using a florescent backlight and an LED backlight. Both displays use an LCD panel to produce colours.
This will become immensely confusing once they actually start producing displays that use LEDs to produce the image.

 

[dolina]

Remember that there are no "true" LED TVs out right now. The difference in power consumption is between using a florescent backlight and an LED backlight. Both displays use an LCD panel to produce colours.
This will become immensely confusing once they actually start producing displays that use LEDs to produce the image.

Yes if you want to be pedant about it, but no one sells flat screens as CCFL TVs do they?

For the general public who wil go to the manufacturer websites they will be presented with TVs divide into LED, LCD, Plasma, OLED, etc etc. So using a generally accepted term is correct. It is about communicating effectively.

And AFAIK they do sell "true" LED displays already but for industrial/commercial use for outdoors. Very visible during the day and blinding at night.

======

Looking online a no-name 16-inch LED TV sells for $80 inclusive of 12% VAT. It can play media plugged into a USB port. I expect it to work for 6 months after which you will need to buy a new one.

 

[9VIII]

Remember that there are no "true" LED TVs out right now. The difference in power consumption is between using a florescent backlight and an LED backlight. Both displays use an LCD panel to produce colours.
This will become immensely confusing once they actually start producing displays that use LEDs to produce the image.

Yes if you want to be pedant about it, but no one sells flat screens as CCFL TVs do they?

For the general public who wil go to the manufacturer websites they will be presented with TVs divide into LED, LCD, Plasma, OLED, etc etc. So using a generally accepted term is correct. It is about communicating effectively.

And AFAIK they do sell "true" LED displays already but for industrial/commercial use for outdoors. Very visible during the day and blinding at night.

======

Looking online a no-name 16-inch LED TV sells for $80 inclusive of 12% VAT. It can play media plugged into a USB port. I expect it to work for 6 months after which you will need to buy a new one.

It's good to see that you're aware of the difference, a significant majority of the people I talk to are completely unaware. In my opinion it basically amounts to false advertising.

 

[dolina]

It's good to see that you're aware of the difference, a significant majority of the people I talk to are completely unaware. In my opinion it basically amounts to false advertising.

Bravo I'm informed of the lies of the industry. Dude, get over it! It's just a marketing term to highlight a new feature that I am particularly thankful for.

Lower power consumption is _always_ welcome.

 

[David_in_Seattle]

I'm debating on pulling the trigger on a couple new Dell 24" 4k displays, but have been hesitant to do so since I've heard issues with their display working on 60 Hz. Other displays are currently out of the question since the company I work for gets a sweet discount on these monitors.

The added resolution would definitely help with the type of photo and video editing I do on the job.