What do you think about 4K?

[Lairlair]

On a general note I find it interesting that 4K has been around for a good decade and yet it's still up for debate how useful it is.

 

I don't know, I try to be a bit critical about it all because invocation isn't always going the way it should in my book. I've once asked a salesperson what the benefit of HDR was on a specific TV and he explained to me that it had more detail and that this model was even greater because it was 8K. I probably should have asked him who the f needs 8K because I'm really curious about what his answer would have been now. I think I'd be a lot more excited about a more robust / modular design that's easy to repair locally than having more pixels.

[wolfmcbeard]

Having seen a few 4k displays in action, I have to say, it doesn't make me want to move away from 1080p.
Not much better for a much larger price imo.

[ewitte]

5 hours ago, Lairlair said:

I guess it depends on the use you make of it. I play many games in full HD on my 27" monitor and it's perfectly fine. I do appreciate the quad HD definition for media creation and daily use though.

It is mostly a text/clarity issue.   1080p games may be ok if its native resolution.

[Donut417]

18 hours ago, Lairlair said:

On a general note I find it interesting that 4K has been around for a good decade and yet it's still up for debate how useful it is.

Its because high quality 4K is a lot of data. Thats the reason Cable Co's dont have 4K channels and why we dont have 4K OTA TV even though ATSC 3.0 could handle it. Also you got people like me still running 720p TV's. Though my main monitor at my desk is 1440p. Too bad that never took off in TVs. 

[rrats]

Aside from display differences, there's a big difference when it comes to media. 4k blurays and 4k streaming on Netflix tend to look much better than in 1080p, for different reasons. There's also 4k cable which looks miles better than 1080p because it's full hd streams aren't 1080p but 1080i. The i stands for interlacing and it sucks

[Zando_]

I use a 4K 27" Monitor. I can crop screenshots in games without nuking the detail. When I work in Excel I can put scale/zoom down further so I can see far more data, while still having everything sharp so I can zoom down a list and pick out exact words or values I'm looking for. Those are the main reasons I run it. 

[JLCitadel]

I'll be candid and say it's extremely apparent. I can immediately tell the difference between anything 4K and below. Same with anything under 144hz refresh rate. Same with anything above 1-2ms response time. I've got more displays kicking around then most people and it's very apparent to me.

 

I'd also argue your average consumer can tell. They can tell somethings off but if you ask them what they'll shrug and give you a guess or say they cant put their finger on it.

 

I can absolutely agree with you on 8K though. I've tried my best but I can't tell the difference between 4k and 8k in a blind test.

 

It's also worth mentioning that I think they generally tie better tech to newer TV's IE OLED. Which also makes a substantial difference and blurs the lines in the conversations. I've one is interested in upgrading from LED to OLED then they might as well do 4K and not upgrade ever again. The LG C2 Tv is a end game product for your general consumer IMO.

[8tg]

[VesperMoirai]

My wife and I have a 4K LG 55" TV sitting at the end of our bed. So we are about 6 Ft maybe 6.5 Ft away from it. Playing consoles or watching movies/YouTube it looks great. Sometimes depending on video it's meh. However, the upscaler in the TV can only do so much for a 1080p rendered video or less. My 1440p monitor on my desk is 37" and it looks about as great at a closer distance and more smooth but higher Hz range will do that. Guess it just matters how far away you are I enjoy both of them. Plus our 4K TV was only like 550$ on-sale for Christmas. It was her gift from me. She always wanted one in our room... but there are still better ones out there.

[VesperMoirai]

3 hours ago, Old School Gamer said:

...

I'm almost with you there. I would still think 1440p is the sweet spot peraonally. For the price, performance, and generally most GPUs out now can run almost everything maxed out even with RTX on with no DLSS for the 3070 series onward. But for 1080P it would also depend on if your CPU can help push max frames at Lower resolutions. Instead of more of a load getting thrown into the GPU. 1440p offers a Balance between the both of them. Fidelity, framerate, and needed processing from GPU and CPU.

[IPD]

On 8/1/2022 at 8:19 AM, Obioban said:

There is an optimal range of TV sizes for a given viewing distance:

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

 

It may change when I'm older, but at this stage in my life I can still easily tell the difference between 4k and 1080p if I'm in optimal size/distance TV range.

Anywhere between 1:1 and 1:2 - size:distance (in inches) is where 99.999% of users will be.  And usage will vary the distance somewhat.

On 8/2/2022 at 4:39 AM, Arika S said:

content consumption: 4k is fine

gaming: 4k is overrated

I think it's almost the other way around, but I can understand why some feel the cost isn't worth it....yet

On 8/2/2022 at 6:23 PM, Roswell said:

I can immediately tell the difference between 1080p and 4K on my 50 inch TV, even across the room. Same goes for computer use.

 

If improved image quality isn’t desirable for someone for whatever reason, so be it. But that doesn’t mean said improvement in image quality doesn’t exist.

Agreed.

On 8/2/2022 at 8:15 PM, rikitikitavi said:

DPI vs viewing distance vs reality.

 

Movies/TV: atm 1080p is still great. 4K is overrated. Waiting when 4K is fully utilized.

 

Gaming: up to 1440p depending on the screen size is the only reality, cause 4K is not worth the $$$, especially on consoles that lack performance. Waiting when 4K is cheap.

 

Productivity: 720p or 8K - doesn't matter as long as it all looks smooth (DPI vs viewing distance). This is the only REAL (aka fully utilized) usage of very high resolution atm.

At this point, the cost difference is a moot point.  1440p is only for PC's--so your living room will have either 1080p or 2160p--and the price between those isn't remarkable (and probably 2160p being cheaper at this point, given how 1080p is virtually dead in the segment).

 

-Content availability hampers media consumption somewhat--but again, cost is irrelevant, so 2160p makes sense.

-Gaming may not be up to snuff at 160hz for 2160p--but it will get there.  And I'm not one who wants to buy another monitor because I bought "only just enough" for the current gen of devices to drive.

-Productivity has yet to find a point where resolution increase doesn't improve user experience.  Even stupid stuff like aliasing of text becomes much smoother and fluid when you are using the EXACT SAME FONT at a higher resolution.

 

On 8/4/2022 at 3:41 AM, Lairlair said:

On a general note I find it interesting that 4K has been around for a good decade and yet it's still up for debate how useful it is.

 

I don't know, I try to be a bit critical about it all because invocation isn't always going the way it should in my book. I've once asked a salesperson what the benefit of HDR was on a specific TV and he explained to me that it had more detail and that this model was even greater because it was 8K. I probably should have asked him who the f needs 8K because I'm really curious about what his answer would have been now. I think I'd be a lot more excited about a more robust / modular design that's easy to repair locally than having more pixels.

100% would have 8k right now--if it were offered in my price point and in the displays I need.  8k would get the PPI of the Odyssey Ark up to about 160--which is ideal.  It would also improve the PPI of my 110" projector display.  The salesman is an idiot--because you need CONTENT to drive the pixels.  But the point remains.  And until you are above ~180 PPI, there is absolutely, most definitely room for visible improvement in image quality.  I can personally attest to that.

On 8/4/2022 at 5:18 AM, wolfmcbeard said:

Having seen a few 4k displays in action, I have to say, it doesn't make me want to move away from 1080p.
Not much better for a much larger price imo.

It sounds like you haven't seen many big displays--or ever used a big display as your primary monitor.

[wolfmcbeard]

21 hours ago, IPD said:

It sounds like you haven't seen many big displays--or ever used a big display as your primary monitor.

Maybe, but I'm the kind of person who's fine with a 1080p 60 display.
TV's are the only thing I actually see a justifiable uplift in, I'm just not keen on using a tv as a monitor, I already do that for my secondary display and the difference between a 1080p tv (at probably 18-20 inches diagonal) and a 24" monitor is night and day in terms of just about every metric of quality.
And a 4k monitor just costs way to much for me to justify it, especially at 24", when I could just get a second hd monitor for cheaper and still have a greater viewing experience than what I'm getting out of my second display.
I'm sure at larger sizes, the differences get more noticeable, but anything bigger than a 27" and I may as well just replace my living room tv, but that's just me.

[IPD]

20 minutes ago, wolfmcbeard said:

Maybe, but I'm the kind of person who's fine with a 1080p 60 display.
TV's are the only thing I actually see a justifiable uplift in, I'm just not keen on using a tv as a monitor, I already do that for my secondary display and the difference between a 1080p tv (at probably 18-20 inches diagonal) and a 24" monitor is night and day in terms of just about every metric of quality.
And a 4k monitor just costs way to much for me to justify it, especially at 24", when I could just get a second hd monitor for cheaper and still have a greater viewing experience than what I'm getting out of my second display.
I'm sure at larger sizes, the differences get more noticeable, but anything bigger than a 27" and I may as well just replace my living room tv, but that's just me.

I'll be honest.  I was originally planning a 2x2 or 2x3 array of monitors for my desktop when I was designing my setup.  I took a chance and went with a single, 40" curved 4k monitor.  Best decision I could have made.  Since this is functionally the equivalent of a 2x2 array of 20" 1080p monitors--2160p is wholly appropriate.

 

Moreover, since I've measured my eyeball distance to the screen as ranging from 24" to 36"--I'm entirely comfortable with the entire panel being inside my FOV comfotably.  And the curvature prevents eyestrain by keeping the panel somewhat equidistant to my eye--regardless of edges/corners/periphery....meaning that I don't have to move my head/heck to see all of it.  I regret that I hadn't tried to do this sooner--and I"m deeply concerned that the 40"+ segment doesn't have many 16:9 panels available--even fewer that are curved.

[wolfmcbeard]

 

7 minutes ago, IPD said:

I'll be honest.  I was originally planning a 2x2 or 2x3 array of monitors for my desktop when I was designing my setup.  I took a chance and went with a single, 40" curved 4k monitor.  Best decision I could have made.  Since this is functionally the equivalent of a 2x2 array of 20" 1080p monitors--2160p is wholly appropriate.

 

Moreover, since I've measured my eyeball distance to the screen as ranging from 24" to 36"--I'm entirely comfortable with the entire panel being inside my FOV comfotably.  And the curvature prevents eyestrain by keeping the panel somewhat equidistant to my eye--regardless of edges/corners/periphery....meaning that I don't have to move my head/heck to see all of it.  I regret that I hadn't tried to do this sooner--and I"m deeply concerned that the 40"+ segment doesn't have many 16:9 panels available--even fewer that are curved.

Wait, do you mean an ultrawide display?
Now that would be of interest to me, an ultra wide curved display, so I could have the dual monitor utility with only one since I'm pretty sure ultrawides function the same more or less.
unfortunately that's even further from my wallet's cries for mercy, but that is certainly a more justifiable case.

[IPD]

Not UW.  16:9.

 

https://us.amazon.com/AOC-C4008VU8-Curved-LED-Monitor/dp/B01N5LH0Q8

 

I am increasingly not a fan of UW or SUW, as they just feel like monitors with the top half missing (to me).  I used to wonder how a 20" vertical sized display could fit on a desk.  But your average monitor setup is probably 6-9" off the desk surface.  My AOC is only 3" off the desk surface.  And no, it doesn't cause neckstrain, because I'm not looking down at it.  I normally can see everything between my keyboard and the top edge of the monitor without moving my head/neck.  So all I'm effectively doing is "filling in" unused space between the keyboard and monitor....that is normally unused.

[IPD]

p.s.

Size comparison for 20" vs 40" (16:9)

 

http://displaywars.com/20-inch-16x9-vs-40-inch-16x9

 

Size comparison for 40" (16:9) vs 49" (32:9 - i.e. G9)

 

http://displaywars.com/40-inch-16x9-vs-49-inch-d{32x9}

[WildDagwood]

It was worth it to me.

 

I went from a 55", 1080p, to a 65", 4k, and I was able to notice the difference significantly in my games (PS5). Was planning to hold off until the TV died, but after 10+ years it's clearly a champion (donating to my niece and nephew now), and I found it ironic I couldn't make use of what some of my hardware was capable of (little point owning it if you don't).

 

The colour improvements I've noticed are obviously from a better/modern panel, but I do notice a lot more detail in scenes as well. I also feel 4k content has caught up to the technology, so you're not in that early adopters phase. That said, if you still aren't watching much 4k content, or sit super far away from your TV, maybe wait until you make that jump since panels and other tech will continue to develop while you wait.

[straight_stewie]

Viewing things at 4k resolution on a sanely sized TV isn't what the switch to 4k was supposed to do.

A higher resolution enables more accurate edge detection, which improves video smoothing, image sharpening, and certain parts of HDR.

 

It also enables you to watch a larger TV in a smaller space.

[venomtail]

Really want to try 4k. Thinking of a 32'' 4k monitor for about 1.5 arms lengths away from where I sit. That seems reasonable?

 

About people wanting high refresh rate over resolution, high refresh rate is a monumental ball game with far more things to account that many people realize to actually have a quality experience. So many have their first experiences of high refresh rate with smudgy, blurry, overshooting monitors that they don't even know it's meant to be way better, clearer, smoother than what they experience on the daily.

And then there's the diminishing returns. Not in terms of physical product but the fact that many games simply rarely are able to utilize anything more than 144hz. Unlocked framerates often give you more issues than locking it, from micro stutters to just straight up somehow breaking in-game elements.

Prime example would be Apex Legends. Lock the game to 144fps and you'll comfortably sitting 120-144fps most of the time. Unlock the fps or lock it to 145fps and the game will struggle to get more than 100fps... No idea why it works the way it does but often you yourself have to surrender the Hz you just paid for just to have a playable game.

 

At least on the surface level of someone who's never had a 4k monitor, the performance loss at least seems linear. Would probably even have greater gain from upscaling technology.

[Dracarris]

I have this direct comparison:

 

2x 27" 1440p at work

2x 27" 4K at home

 

the 4K screens are notably sharper, and, at 125-150% scaling, fit a not insignificant amount of additional content. For example, three columns in a code editor are a tight fit with 1440p but fit nicely with 4K.

[Pickles von Brine]

I went from a shitty vivio tv that was 1080p, crap color and only 2 HDMI prots to a Hinese u6G 50 Inch. One hell of an upgrade. 

I also get a 4k 60 monitor. Rich color and the high res lets me see a lot more detail. I use my 144hz for high refresh gaming. Love it. 

[gaetanocostanza]

Think it's good, but 8k 16k better 

[Lairlair]

Let's put some more wood in this fiery discussion. I just borrowed a 17" 4K laptop, and tried playing Control on it. I couldn't notice any meaningful difference between Full HD and 4K.

I've now decided that 4K was useless in laptops. Either you have a 17" screen or smaller and it makes no sense to have 4K, or you have a bigger screen and it makes no sense for the PC to be a laptop

[IPD]

5 minutes ago, Lairlair said:

Let's put some more wood in this fiery discussion. I just borrowed a 17" 4K laptop, and tried playing Control on it. I couldn't notice any meaningful difference between Full HD and 4K.

I've now decided that 4K was useless in laptops. Either you have a 17" screen or smaller and it makes no sense to have 4K, or you have a bigger screen and it makes no sense for the PC to be a laptop

Fair anecdote.  But I did notice the difference between FHD and 3k on a 15.6" laptop--so there's that.

[WildDagwood]

22 hours ago, Lairlair said:

Let's put some more wood in this fiery discussion. I just borrowed a 17" 4K laptop, and tried playing Control on it. I couldn't notice any meaningful difference between Full HD and 4K.

I've now decided that 4K was useless in laptops. Either you have a 17" screen or smaller and it makes no sense to have 4K, or you have a bigger screen and it makes no sense for the PC to be a laptop

Haven't looked into it in depth but maybe there's diminishing returns on PPI above a certain point.

 

As mentioned above, I did notice a difference going from 55", 1080p to 65", 4k, and seems others have noticed the difference going from 1080p-4k in their own scenarios. Not all panels are equal either so there's probably some other factors influencing everyone's perceptions, at least partially.