New 144hz 4k monitor spotted, INSANE PRICES!!!

[Nexus18]

That chart is very wrong I wouldn't recommend anyone use it. Especially don't setup a TV watching room based on it. I made that mistake and soon undid it just like a lot of people. Where it says 1080p is max/worth it I found most people still benefit and see a noticeable difference with UHD.

How can you say it is wrong when that is what most sites have recommended for viewing distance.... And rtings are a pretty reputable site when it comes to everything to do with displays.....

Even HDTV test have said similar things with regards to viewing distance and resolution.

Yes, it is subjective, just as things like what brightness setting people should be using (i.e. 120 luminance but many rather max brightness out even though they are actually harming the IQ by doing this....) is subjective, but it is recommended for good reasons.

I don't see how you can be someone who notices MADVR algorithms, but think that 4k does not look better than 1080p, sorry but 4k looks MILES better than 1080p!

Again, resolution + size = PPI AND viewing distance is what matters when it comes to different resolutions and the sharpness/clarity of a display, just because a screen is 4k doesn't mean straight away that it's better than a 1080P screen, you have to factor in the size of the display (thus PPI) and your viewing distance.

In terms of sharpness/clarity, my 1080P mobile, heck even my 720P tablet looks far better than any "4k" screen Anandtech did a very good article explaining this, will look for it later and link.

And yes, I notice aliasing, ringing, edge enhancement stuff far more than the sharpness/clarity that 1080 to 4k brings. Maybe when more games are made with proper 4k assets, the difference will be more noticeable but until then, to me and several others who have seen my TV, 4k is a let down (and for what it's worth, I get the best source material there is for each and every single TV show/film)

PS. I should clarify, I'm not saying that there is "no" difference, just that there isn't that much of a difference and certainly not as much as what people make out imo (unless again, you are one of the few who like to sit <4 feet from big 50+" displays.....)

 

[Vega]

lol 1080p looks horrendous on anything outside of a cell phone display or small laptop screen. You have to push the TV so far back to not notice how terrible it is, you're left with a tiny little image in your viewing angle.

What's next, viewing 720p from the next room over is amazing? Sitting closer to a four times higher resolution display is clearer and more immersive. That is an objective fact no matter what someone "prefers".

 

[Nexus18]

lol 1080p looks horrendous on anything outside of a cell phone display or small laptop screen. You have to push the TV so far back to not notice how terrible it is, you're left with a tiny little image in your viewing angle.

What's next, viewing 720p from the next room over is amazing? Sitting closer to a four times higher resolution display is clearer and more immersive. That is an objective fact no matter what someone "prefers".

You say 1080P looks horrendous yet remind me again what most films and TV shows are? And how good do they look?

One game where 4k is a bit more noticeable than most other games is rise of the tomb raider but...... only with the very high setting for textures and even then still meh... Give me the far higher FPS of 1080P over a slightly sharper image which runs like a slideshow.

And once again, I'm not arguing that point underlined, as I've said, if you are one of the few who like to sit very close to a big display in order to be immersed more, then higher resolution is beneficial.........

 

[Pottsey]

How can you say it is wrong when that is what most sites have recommended for viewing distance.... And rtings are a pretty reputable site when it comes to everything to do with displays.....

Even HDTV test have said similar things with regards to viewing distance and resolution.

Yes, it is subjective, just as things like what brightness setting people should be using (i.e. 120 luminance but many rather max brightness out even though they are actually harming the IQ by doing this....) is subjective, but it is recommended for good reasons.

Experience & blind tests tell me that graph is wrong. I have setup 100’s of screens from 22” to 100”+ over lots of rooms and I almost always found for myself and the people I am setting up for that graph is wrong. I also tested out 720p v 1080p on a 100” screen and that graph failed for almost everyone in a blind test. So I question how accurate it is. A fair number of people in the forum and others have confirmed the same thing.

 

[Nexus18]

Experience & blind tests tell me that graph is wrong. I have setup 100’s of screens from 22” to 100”+ over lots of rooms and I almost always found for myself and the people I am setting up for that graph is wrong. I also tested out 720p v 1080p on a 100” screen and that graph failed for almost everyone in a blind test. So I question how accurate it is. A fair number of people in the forum and others have confirmed the same thing.

Horses for courses at the end of the day, I can't see myself sitting any closer to a 55" display, certainly not with HDR content either due to the extreme brightness and potential eye strain from sitting closer than 7 feet.

In my experience, I agree with the advice of rtings, HDTV tests, crutchfield as well as the pro calibrators and enthusiasts on the likes of avsforums and avforums.

Got a link to the posts who disagreed with that graph on here?

 

[Vega]

I actually generally agree with the chart. A 4k 55" TV I like to sit four feet from it. So that is right on the border of worth it, to upgrading to even a higher resolution like 8K. My point is pushing 1080p 55" 8 feet sure makes it less blurry, but it also makes the screen much smaller in your viewable area. 55" at 8 feet looks tiny and has zero immersion.

 

[Pottsey]

Horses for courses at the end of the day, I can't see myself sitting any closer to a 55" display, certainly not with HDR content either due to the extreme brightness and potential eye strain from sitting closer than 7 feet.

In my experience, I agree with the advice of rtings, HDTV tests, crutchfield as well as the pro calibrators and enthusiasts on the likes of avsforums and avforums.

Got a link to the posts who disagreed with that graph on here?

Just looked back and I was thinking about different chart. So I apologise as I muddle the charts up. I need to take a closer look at your chart and compare it to the one I was thinking off. But I am a little short of time right now.

This was what I was thinking off. http://i68.tinypic.com/2mzd1qc.jpg

 

[NirK]

I understand completely about PPI and distance etc. I think those charts are a veryrough guideline. But all I can say is sorry but 1080p looks absolutely nowhere near as good as 4k on a 55" at any distance!

 

[NirK]

One game where 4k is a bit more noticeable than most other games is rise of the tomb raider but...... only with the very high setting for textures and even then still meh... Give me the far higher FPS of 1080P over a slightly sharper image which runs like a slideshow.

.

I think this is the key here, 4k looks miles better if you can use 4k60. If you get a slideshow then obviously it is no good.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

lol 1080p looks horrendous on anything outside of a cell phone display or small laptop screen. You have to push the TV so far back to not notice how terrible it is, you're left with a tiny little image in your viewing angle.

Never heard so much nonsense in these forums, HD films especially on Blu ray (not streaming) look fine even on a big TV. People are still buying stuff on DVD as well, guess they like buying unwatchable stuff then if 1080p is "horrendous" right? This is why i never take half the posts here seriously because of rubbish like this.

 

[Nexus18]

I think this is the key here, 4k looks miles better if you can use 4k60. If you get a slideshow then obviously it is no good.

And that there is the problem.

Sharpness/clarity is better but it's not that much better and certainly not worth the massive performance hit.

This will always be a problem unless you are someone who buys the best GPU there is on a yearly basis or at least every 2 years or are happy to settle with a 30 fps lock like consoles.

I understand completely about PPI and distance etc. I think those charts are a veryrough guideline. But all I can say is sorry but 1080p looks absolutely nowhere near as good as 4k on a 55" at any distance!

Well then you must have eagle eyes

Last night, I flicked between 4k and 1080P in a few other games i.e. middle earth, prey, gta 5 and apart from middle earth (highest texture setting) and certain areas of gta 5 (mainly helped with the aliasing more than sharpness/clarity), 4k really just wasn't that much of an improvement at 7/8 feet viewing distance, move to <6 feet then it starts to become noticeable.

 

[B1gbeard]

On reflection I would be surprised if anyone is making a huge amount of money on these whether Acer/Asus or OCUK. The costs of everything combined probably hasn't left a lot of wiggle room.

These are more brand advertising I suppose. "Look at what we can do", rather than, "Let's make loads of money". Teething issues aside I guess this is the cost of bleeding edge tech.

 

[sadbuttrue]

It's all subjective and mainly dependent on your eyesight. I understand Vega is better than 20/20?

Maximum ideal viewing distance can be calculated by setting Windows to default scaling. The point at which you can no longer read standard text is your limit.

 

[kedge]

That is an objective fact no matter what someone "prefers".

Sitting closer to a four times higher resolution is more immersive.

That's a preference, lol.

 

[Phixsator]

The biggest flaw with this discussion about 1080p vs 4k is the source. There is no point in arguing over which is fine and which isn't if you do not include the source material you are using to compare the 2 resolutions. I can perfectly understand why someone would say that a 1080p source would look just fine on a 1080p screen and why a 4k panel to view the 1080p source wont be of interest and i can understand why someone with a 4k minimal compressed source would argue that it looks absolutely best on a proper 4k panel. Problem is if you do not include what source you are using then people are bound to not fully understand your point of view.

 

[Nexus18]

It's all subjective and mainly dependent on your eyesight. I understand Vega is better than 20/20?

Maximum ideal viewing distance can be calculated by setting Windows to default scaling. The point at which you can no longer read standard text is your limit.

Well if his eye sight is better than 20/20 then it's not a wonder!

Not many people have 20/20 eye sight let alone better than that....

The biggest flaw with this discussion about 1080p vs 4k is the source. There is no point in arguing over which is fine and which isn't if you do not include the source material you are using to compare the 2 resolutions. I can perfectly understand why someone would say that a 1080p source would look just fine on a 1080p screen and why a 4k panel to view the 1080p source wont be of interest and i can understand why someone with a 4k minimal compressed source would argue that it looks absolutely best on a proper 4k panel. Problem is if you do not include what source you are using then people are bound to not fully understand your point of view.

So true.

I have got many great 720p media files (mainly older films from 80/90s) but they are great versions and are often better than some of my lesser 1080p content.

 

[Stu]

Lots of good points here, and everyone must agree that there are different factors to consider that make up picture quality, including resolution, contrast, colour reproduction, and viewing distance; and that source material can also make a difference... and even then, different people will have different opinions and what aspects are more important.

I also spend time on the AVForums... this discussion is tame compared to threads in the projector sub-forum, and that includes projectors ranging from a couple of hundred pounds up to £30k

 

[Quartz]

One of the big things I've learned from this and other threads is that DP 1.4 doesn't have the bandwidth required for this monitor. So I'm wondering why they didn't follow the route taken by the Dell 8K monitor and use two DP 1.4 cables?

 

[melmac]

I understand completely about PPI and distance etc. I think those charts are a veryrough guideline. But all I can say is sorry but 1080p looks absolutely nowhere near as good as 4k on a 55" at any distance!

Those charts are a rough guideline as it depends on your eyesight but I would bet any money from 12ft away you would not be able to tell the difference between 4K and 1080P. People are brilliant at claiming they see a difference when they know which TV is 4K and which is 1080P. I haven't found anyone yet who actually could when they didn't know.

If you really want to see the full benefit of 4K you should sit as close to the recommended distance as possible. As you move further away from that, you will still be able to see more detail than 1080P but less than 4K until you move far enough away so that 4K and 1080P look the same.

 

[JediFragger]

So I'm wondering why they didn't follow the route taken by the Dell 8K monitor and use two DP 1.4 cables?

At a complete guess I'd say that more than likely the Gsync module wasn't compatible with such a technique.