Jump to content
Glenwing

Display Technology FAQ / Mythbuster

Recommended Posts

@Glenwing Can you post a topic about viewing distance for monitors and if people will really notice a difference for 4k. Like this article http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ Most people don't have 20/20. Great article and thanks.


Love cats and Linus. Check out linuscattips-fan-club. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Z9QDVn and Asus ROG Swift. I love anime as well. Check out Heaven Society heaven-society. My own personal giveaway thread http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/387856-evga-geforce-gtx-970-giveaway-presented-by-grimneo/.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
On 12/30/2014 at 11:26 AM, GrimNeo said:

@Glenwing Can you post a topic about viewing distance for monitors and if people will really notice a difference for 4k. Like this article http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ Most people don't have 20/20. Great article and thanks.

Thanks :)

 

I discussed this with a friend actually. We have both a 50" 4K screen and 50" 1080p screen, and I must disagree with the article here, the difference between the resolutions is quite apparent. The problem is that a simple mathematical approach won't work here, since it's not as simple as how "far until you can't distinguish individual pixels anymore". Even when are too far to see the pixels, you can still make out greater details on the 4K screen that are simply not visible on the 1080p one. It also depends on a person's vision of course.

 

Although maybe I should write a topic just to explain the relationship between pixel density and viewing distance though, and the diminishing returns you get, just as a general concept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks :)

I discussed this with a friend actually. We have both a 50" 4K screen and 50" 1080p screen, and I must disagree with the article here, the difference between the resolutions is quite apparent. The problem is that a simple mathematical approach won't work here, since it's not as simple as how "far until you can't distinguish individual pixels anymore". Even when are too far to see the pixels, you can still make out greater details on the 4K screen that are simply not visible on the 1080p one. It also depends on a person's vision of course.

Although maybe I should write a topic just to explain the relationship between pixel density and viewing distance though, and the diminishing returns you get, just as a general concept.

Yeah I agree. Maybe like what is good for 1080p at this many inches and 1440p and 4k and so on. I hear people say 24" for 1080p and 27" for 1440p but I have not heard 4k. Im not sure for pixel density. If you know would be appreciated. Thanks again.


Love cats and Linus. Check out linuscattips-fan-club. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Z9QDVn and Asus ROG Swift. I love anime as well. Check out Heaven Society heaven-society. My own personal giveaway thread http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/387856-evga-geforce-gtx-970-giveaway-presented-by-grimneo/.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually going to create a thread very similar to this that would've been called "The Monitor Buying Guide" and have it pinned like you've done. But you, obviously, beat me to it, damn it! Ya ninja! :ph34r::D:P

@Glenwing


ON A 7 MONTH BREAK FROM THESE LTT FORUMS. WILL BE BACK ON NOVEMBER 5th.


Advisor in the 'Displays' Sub-forum | Sony Vegas Pro Enthusiast & Advisor


  Tech Tips Christian Fellowship Founder & Coordinator 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that needs to be mentioned, @Glenwing, is that often the dynamic contrast ratio is listed as the static contrast ratio or sometimes just as Contrast Ratio. This often leads to people comparing various monitors saying things like "This monitor has a 10,000,000:1 contrast ratio but this other one only has a 500,000:1 contrast ratio". This is a situation that I had with a particular member on here that I had to clear up with him.

Could you mention about this and set people straight?

Because it can be quite tiring to explain this all because websites won't bother to

list the real static contrast ratio because the dynamic one looks more impressive.

FYI: Please excuse the badly written post. I'm writing this @ 1:00am and I'm quite tired.

Edited by Geekazoid

ON A 7 MONTH BREAK FROM THESE LTT FORUMS. WILL BE BACK ON NOVEMBER 5th.


Advisor in the 'Displays' Sub-forum | Sony Vegas Pro Enthusiast & Advisor


  Tech Tips Christian Fellowship Founder & Coordinator 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

Yeah I agree. Maybe like what is good for 1080p at this many inches and 1440p and 4k and so on. I hear people say 24" for 1080p and 27" for 1440p but I have not heard 4k. Im not sure for pixel density. If you know would be appreciated. Thanks again.

Well, "optimum" pixel density doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. The whole "1080p looks bad at 27in." I'm pretty sure is another one of those things people repeat because they heard other people saying it. It doesn't look that bad to me, and of course it depends on viewing distance. Preferred pixel density is a matter of preference. Some people are fine with 1080p at 27" or higher, depending on their eyesight, and likewise some people can't deal with 4K at 24", but then again it depends on your software as well. If the OS can effectively scale everything so that instead of things being tiny or disproportionate, you just get the AA effect on everything. Then suddenly ultra-high densities become a lot more comfortable. My opinion on this topic is that there is no rule. It is absolutely preference, and also depends on how the software you use handles high pixel density. I do wish people would stop saying 1080p looks bad at 27", I have a feeling the majority of these people haven't actually tried it.

 

Could you compare the display technologies such as CRT, LCD, OLED, maybe even DLP and Plasma?

Thanks for the information, it really cleared up my misconceptions! :)

Not planning to do that right now, that can turn into a pretty big topic. I may cover that at a later point in time though, I'm working on a thread talking about display technology and how it works. It's a more science-focused and comprehensive thread than this one, which is more about shopping advice and clearing up misconceptions than explaining the basics of what everything is and how it works.

Something that needs to be mentioned, @Glenwing, is that often the dynamic contrast ratio is listed as the static contrast ratio or sometimes just as Contrast Ratio. This often leads to people comparing various monitors saying things like "This monitor has a 10,000,000:1 contrast ratio but this other one only has a 500,000:1 contrast ratio". This is a situation that I had with a particular member on here that I had to clear up with him.

Could you mention about this and set people straight?

Because it can be quite tiring to explain this all because websites won't bother to

list the real static contrast ratio because the dynamic one looks more impressive.

Thanks, I added a paragraph to the contrast ratio section to clarify.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you add a section detailing the differences between TN and IPS, like a TN vs IPS section, please?

This would eliminate me having to explain it a lot.

Thanks!


ON A 7 MONTH BREAK FROM THESE LTT FORUMS. WILL BE BACK ON NOVEMBER 5th.


Advisor in the 'Displays' Sub-forum | Sony Vegas Pro Enthusiast & Advisor


  Tech Tips Christian Fellowship Founder & Coordinator 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

Can you add a section detailing the differences between TN and IPS, like a TN vs IPS section, please?

This would eliminate me having to explain it a lot.

Thanks!

For more "general knowledge" topics like how an LCD works or a crash course on TN, VA, and IPS, I may make a separate topic in the future ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you add a section detailing the differences between TN and IPS, like a TN vs IPS section, please?

This would eliminate me having to explain it a lot.

Thanks!

For more "general knowledge" topics like how an LCD works or a crash course on TN, VA, and IPS, I may make a separate topic in the future ;)

Or...you could just add it here. Just a basic difference would even be good to cover all bases. ;)


ON A 7 MONTH BREAK FROM THESE LTT FORUMS. WILL BE BACK ON NOVEMBER 5th.


Advisor in the 'Displays' Sub-forum | Sony Vegas Pro Enthusiast & Advisor


  Tech Tips Christian Fellowship Founder & Coordinator 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Added a Quantum Dot section at the bottom.

What about a flux capacitor section? :P JK


ON A 7 MONTH BREAK FROM THESE LTT FORUMS. WILL BE BACK ON NOVEMBER 5th.


Advisor in the 'Displays' Sub-forum | Sony Vegas Pro Enthusiast & Advisor


  Tech Tips Christian Fellowship Founder & Coordinator 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That could very well be be the next one. Who knows what the TV marketing people will come up with next.

Exactly! :D


ON A 7 MONTH BREAK FROM THESE LTT FORUMS. WILL BE BACK ON NOVEMBER 5th.


Advisor in the 'Displays' Sub-forum | Sony Vegas Pro Enthusiast & Advisor


  Tech Tips Christian Fellowship Founder & Coordinator 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this thread, very useful information there. :)

 

I was asking number 12 myself. I Just got my PB278Q very recently, before the announcements of 144 HZ IPS G-Sync, or even G-Sync on IPS at all. Looking back this makes me very sad because i went with the Asus over a G-Sync panel because i dislike TN panels. I hope i can trade my PB278Q + some money for a good IPS G-Sync screen once the market has settled. :D


who cares...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

Thanks for this thread, very useful information there. :)

 

I was asking number 12 myself. I Just got my PB278Q very recently, before the announcements of 144 HZ IPS G-Sync, or even G-Sync on IPS at all. Looking back this makes me very sad because i went with the Asus over a G-Sync panel because i dislike TN panels. I hope i can trade my PB278Q + some money for a good IPS G-Sync screen once the market has settled. :D

Thanks, glad you found it helpful :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Added a section (number 8) to address the whole "1080p 4K exact scaling" thing.

Yes. Funny thing is that last week I did the test with a 4K monitor at work, and it was indeed not sharp. It wasn't blurry as a non native resolution, but it looked more like displaying text on a TV. I think the problem is the panel grid is not thin enough. Assuming that the grid was non existent in monitor technology, then it will appear correctly.

What is interesting however is that Apple, when they introduced their Retina display, they set the monitor to 1440x900, basically double the pixels as software were not high DPI ready at the time, essentially making that payed the premium price waste their money.

But Apple did manage to have good sharpness (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-scaling). My guess is that the panel grid is even smaller due to the size of the screen being only 15inch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

Yes. Funny thing is that last week I did the test with a 4K monitor at work, and it was indeed not sharp. It wasn't blurry as a non native resolution, but it looked more like displaying text on a TV. I think the problem is the panel grid is not thin enough. Assuming that the grid was non existent in monitor technology, then it will appear correctly.

What is interesting however is that Apple, when they introduced their Retina display, they set the monitor to 1440x900, basically double the pixels as software were not high DPI ready at the time, essentially making that payed the premium price waste their money.

But Apple did manage to have good sharpness (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-scaling). My guess is that the panel grid is even smaller due to the size of the screen being only 15inch.

 

Pretty sure Apple's software was high-DPI aware on the retina MBPs. They were scaled to 1440x900 effective desktop space as far as the size of the UI goes, but they did use the extra pixels to smooth everything out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×