should i care about 4k tv's

[EFD307]

I love my 2560x1440 monitor but i dont see how a 4k tv will matter at this point. Maybe i just dont understand how cable works or something but it seems to me that most if not all content being created at this point is going to be 1080p. i can play 1080p youtube videos on my hd+ monitor but its still just 1080p. i could understand making the purchase in a few years when higher resolution is the standard but right now, unless im getting this wrong, there isn't even going to be much content created in 4k until it really catches on. and by the time it catches on the price of a 4k tv will be significantly lower.  4k monitors make sense but i just don't see why anyone should be excited about 4k tvs.... at least not yet.

[Thebman712]

no becuae nothing is in 4k

[Morpheus]

you're right, tvs aren't exciting yet because you can't really watch much 4k content yet

[JAKEBAB]

i dont think anyone is excited for 4k tvs? lol

[CJPowell27]

Nope haha

[xyza]

Having a huge desktop space or watching House of Cards are probably the only reasons to have a 4k display at this stage, however it will probably become standard in the coming years.

[Enderman]

Yes.

[Enderman]

i dont think anyone is excited for 4k tvs? lol

 

 

you're right, tvs aren't exciting yet because you can't really watch much 4k content yet

 

 

no becuae nothing is in 4k

 

 

Nope haha

 

I AM excited for them. I use a 55in 1080p samsung tv as my primary monitor. It has a ton of screen real estate which increases my productivity by a lot. Also it is not try that there is no 4k content. Youtube supports 4k content. Linus will soo be uploading 4k content. browsing the web is basically 4k content. Playing games is 4k content. Obviously many people are thinking that tvs are only useful for watching tv, and since tv is not 4k it would be useless. I can tell you all right now that a tv is a lot more than something you watch tv shows on. When I switched from a 24in monitor to this tv I decided I would never go back to such a tiny piece of crap. Now my peripheral vision is filled with screen, basically mimicking a surround screen setup without the bezels. a 1080p tv is also cheaper than 3 monitors, and also easier for your GPU to run games on. Now about 4k, the only problem with my tv is the pixel density. Obviously 1080p spread across a 55in screen makes the pixels really noticeable. This makes text a litle hard to read unless the font is bigger. Also it is easy to notice the individual pixels when looking at an image. Gaming and videos is fine at 1080p because the imgae moves too quickly for you to notice each pixel. With the large drop in prices for 4k tvs (with some at about $3000 each, not including the cheap seiki stuff) I will be buying one very soon. Basically as soon as HDMI 2.0 is released, because I do not like 30hz. Maybe other people don't care about 4k tvs, but they are exactly what I need to perfect my computing experience.

[MrYuriy]

With a lot of experience with 4K TV's, currently, the answer is simple: No.

 

There's no 4K content. And don't let anyone reel you in with the bogus "zomg but dontcha worriez, it'll upscale to 4K!!" - No, no actually the technology isn't even close to being set in stone to where this tech even matters. 4K upscaling is like 1080p to Blu-Ray quality upscaling; you barely see it unless you know what you're looking for.

Put simply, even if the best 4K 55" TV was only $1,500 - I still wouldn't recommend getting it. As I said, for the two reasons above and more. On top of that, if you DO add price into the equation.. That just sours everything beyond.

[EFD307]

I AM excited for them. I use a 55in 1080p samsung tv as my primary monitor. It has a ton of screen real estate which increases my productivity by a lot. Also it is not try that there is no 4k content. Youtube supports 4k content. Linus will soo be uploading 4k content. browsing the web is basically 4k content. Playing games is 4k content. Obviously many people are thinking that tvs are only useful for watching tv, and since tv is not 4k it would be useless. I can tell you all right now that a tv is a lot more than something you watch tv shows on. When I switched from a 24in monitor to this tv I decided I would never go back to such a tiny piece of crap. Now my peripheral vision is filled with screen, basically mimicking a surround screen setup without the bezels. a 1080p tv is also cheaper than 3 monitors, and also easier for your GPU to run games on. Now about 4k, the only problem with my tv is the pixel density. Obviously 1080p spread across a 55in screen makes the pixels really noticeable. This makes text a litle hard to read unless the font is bigger. Also it is easy to notice the individual pixels when looking at an image. Gaming and videos is fine at 1080p because the imgae moves too quickly for you to notice each pixel. With the large drop in prices for 4k tvs (with some at about $3000 each, not including the cheap seiki stuff) I will be buying one very soon. Basically as soon as HDMI 2.0 is released, because I do not like 30hz. Maybe other people don't care about 4k tvs, but they are exactly what I need to perfect my computing experience.

I dont think you understand what "screen real estate" means. you still have a 1920 by 1080 space to work with, your just stretching windows over large spaces which wastes a lot of space on your programs GUI and the task bar. If you like the stretched out wasted space look better than by all means go for it. I wasn't saying anything negative towards 4k monitors, monitors aren't designed to be 55 inches, a computer can utilize the screen real estate where a tv(when used as a tv) can not at this point.

[AlwaysFSX]

I AM excited for them. I use a 55in 1080p samsung tv as my primary monitor. It has a ton of screen real estate which increases my productivity by a lot. Also it is not try that there is no 4k content. Youtube supports 4k content. Linus will soo be uploading 4k content. browsing the web is basically 4k content. Playing games is 4k content. Obviously many people are thinking that tvs are only useful for watching tv, and since tv is not 4k it would be useless. I can tell you all right now that a tv is a lot more than something you watch tv shows on. When I switched from a 24in monitor to this tv I decided I would never go back to such a tiny piece of crap. Now my peripheral vision is filled with screen, basically mimicking a surround screen setup without the bezels. a 1080p tv is also cheaper than 3 monitors, and also easier for your GPU to run games on. Now about 4k, the only problem with my tv is the pixel density. Obviously 1080p spread across a 55in screen makes the pixels really noticeable. This makes text a litle hard to read unless the font is bigger. Also it is easy to notice the individual pixels when looking at an image. Gaming and videos is fine at 1080p because the imgae moves too quickly for you to notice each pixel. With the large drop in prices for 4k tvs (with some at about $3000 each, not including the cheap seiki stuff) I will be buying one very soon. Basically as soon as HDMI 2.0 is released, because I do not like 30hz. Maybe other people don't care about 4k tvs, but they are exactly what I need to perfect my computing experience.

Fun fact... My 23inch monitor has the same screen real estate without taking up an ungodly amount of space.. Also, I would ignore the TV section becauset they're overpriced if you're only going to use it as a desktop monitor and have a lot of useless features.

Side note, please use the default text color, that was impossible to see for us darktheme users.

[Enderman]

Fun fact... My 23inch monitor has the same screen real estate without taking up an ungodly amount of space.. Also, I would ignore the TV section becauset they're overpriced if you're only going to use it as a desktop monitor and have a lot of useless features.

Side note, please use the default text color, that was impossible to see for us darktheme users.

this IS the default text colour...

what are you looking at? the text is black....

[Enderman]

I dont think you understand what "screen real estate" means. you still have a 1920 by 1080 space to work with, your just stretching windows over large spaces which wastes a lot of space on your programs GUI and the task bar. If you like the stretched out wasted space look better than by all means go for it. I wasn't saying anything negative towards 4k monitors, monitors aren't designed to be 55 inches, a computer can utilize the screen real estate where a tv(when used as a tv) can not at this point.

it doesnt become 'stretched out' like you said

obviously you have never attached a computer to a tv

 

everything becomes smaller in a way

the icons, buttons, and everything on the desktop or in programs stays the same size as on a 24in monitor, but now you can fit 20 icons where before you could only fit 10

basically you DO get more screen real estate except with less pixels, which is the problem a 4k tv would solve

[AlwaysFSX]

this IS the default text colour...

what are you looking at? the text is black....

Maybe it's just me but in that specific post the text shows up as black instead of white as it should.

[needmorewood]

no becuae nothing is in 4k

youtube videos, video games. netflix apparently has some content as well.

sure its not everywhere and mainstream but dont say there is nothing

[EFD307]

it doesnt become 'stretched out' like you said

obviously you have never attached a computer to a tv

 

everything becomes smaller in a way

the icons, buttons, and everything on the desktop or in programs stays the same size as on a 24in monitor, but now you can fit 20 icons where before you could only fit 10

basically you DO get more screen real estate except with less pixels, which is the problem a 4k tv would solve

The lab computer i use for research at my school uses a 50 inch tv, i absolutely hate it, each pixel is like a quarter of an inch, having 2 programs sharing the same screen isn't practical because the menus take up 40% of the screen. when you need to actually multitask and are dealing with things like analyzing data using multiple programs its an absolute nightmare, id take 2 17inch monitors any day of the week against that 50 inch tv. and again your not getting the concept of screen real estate. run a game in windowed mode at a lower (720p) resolution, see how it takes up a certain amount of space, I can fit 2 of those windows on my 2560x1440 monitor where as you cant. making the screen bigger doesnt mean you have more screen real estate.

think of it like a fish tank. if you have 10 gallons of water in a 100 gallon tank you still have 10 gallons of water, increasing the size of the tank but not water doesn't give the fish any more room to swim.

[Askew]

it doesnt become 'stretched out' like you said

obviously you have never attached a computer to a tv

 

everything becomes smaller in a way

the icons, buttons, and everything on the desktop or in programs stays the same size as on a 24in monitor, but now you can fit 20 icons where before you could only fit 10

basically you DO get more screen real estate except with less pixels, which is the problem a 4k tv would solve

 

This is not true.

 

A million pixels is a million pixels, if you you have one pixel matrix that is 24 inches, and another that is 70, if they are both the same number of pixels then when you move the image across it will appear larger in proportion to the size of the display.

 

I just measured my Steam icon on my monitor and then dragged it to my on TV, on the monitor it's 14mm, TV 21mm, same resolution on both, only difference is the size of the display.

 

I don't know who told you what you are saying, but it's false.

[catbutts]

it doesnt become 'stretched out' like you said

obviously you have never attached a computer to a tv

 

everything becomes smaller in a way

the icons, buttons, and everything on the desktop or in programs stays the same size as on a 24in monitor, but now you can fit 20 icons where before you could only fit 10

basically you DO get more screen real estate except with less pixels, which is the problem a 4k tv would solve

You do not have "less pixels" and you do not have "more screen real estate"

1920 x 1080 is 1920 x 1080

[ThePcMasterRace]

when a 27 in 4k 60hz ips pannel cost me $300 i will consider 4k.

[AlwaysFSX]

it doesnt become 'stretched out' like you said

obviously you have never attached a computer to a tv

 

everything becomes smaller in a way

the icons, buttons, and everything on the desktop or in programs stays the same size as on a 24in monitor, but now you can fit 20 icons where before you could only fit 10

basically you DO get more screen real estate except with less pixels, which is the problem a 4k tv would solve

You do understand understand a tv with a resolution on 1920x1080 has the same space as every other monitor with that resolution, you're just making the physical size of the screen larger, doesn't mean your 65" TV has more real estate than my 23" monitor.

[catbutts]

If I got a 4K display, it'd have to be above 40" simply because my eyes are going bad lmao

[Admire]

I sometimes wonder if we would have been further along with 4k if the tv manufacturers hadn't spend their time on the stupid 3d thing.

[deafboy]

4k is nice, love my monitor, but I don't honestly think I would ever buy on as a TV.  Unless I wanted something in the 85"+ range.  As a computer monitor though, they are great.  Dropping in price quick and worth the money IMO if you do a lot of work where the extra screen real estate would come in handy.

[JAKEBAB]

I AM excited for them. I use a 55in 1080p samsung tv as my primary monitor. It has a ton of screen real estate which increases my productivity by a lot. Also it is not try that there is no 4k content. Youtube supports 4k content. Linus will soo be uploading 4k content. browsing the web is basically 4k content. Playing games is 4k content. Obviously many people are thinking that tvs are only useful for watching tv, and since tv is not 4k it would be useless. I can tell you all right now that a tv is a lot more than something you watch tv shows on. When I switched from a 24in monitor to this tv I decided I would never go back to such a tiny piece of crap. Now my peripheral vision is filled with screen, basically mimicking a surround screen setup without the bezels. a 1080p tv is also cheaper than 3 monitors, and also easier for your GPU to run games on. Now about 4k, the only problem with my tv is the pixel density. Obviously 1080p spread across a 55in screen makes the pixels really noticeable. This makes text a litle hard to read unless the font is bigger. Also it is easy to notice the individual pixels when looking at an image. Gaming and videos is fine at 1080p because the imgae moves too quickly for you to notice each pixel. With the large drop in prices for 4k tvs (with some at about $3000 each, not including the cheap seiki stuff) I will be buying one very soon. Basically as soon as HDMI 2.0 is released, because I do not like 30hz. Maybe other people don't care about 4k tvs, but they are exactly what I need to perfect my computing experience.

This has got to be one of the biggest facepalm posts ive seen! You really have no idea what u are talking about and have extremely bad eyes!!!

[TacticlTwinkie]

No, 4k tvs aren't worth it quite yet, simply due to the lack of native content. As soon as sports are available to be broadcasted in native 4k, then I will buy a 4k tv. Until then, 1080p is plenty for me. Even now, at least with Time Warner and with my parents cable, sports and most other "HD" channels appear to be broadcasted in 720p and unscaled to 1080p by the tv. The text in the score box isn't sharp at all, even on the other side of the room. Hook a pc up to it and play 1080p content on it, its very clear.