The state of the monitor and TV market

jaybee

jaybee

jaybee

Soldato
Joined
10 Jul 2008
Posts
8,301
We're at a point in time where it feels pointless buying a new TV that's not an OLED, unless you have a specific use case which means you will use it in a particularly bright room most of the time, or you will spend a lot of time on a certain channel or game which would cause image retention/burn issues.

Yet, not everyone wants a 55 inch OLED TV. Some want smaller for a bedroom or wherever. Obviously cost is still an issue as manufacturers want to drip feed the technology to make money for many years.

Do you see OLED sizes coming down to where they can be used on desks as monitors or is OLED flawed for desktop use due to retention and burn issues when using apps / windows task bar etc.

It seems for the last decade plus, we've had to live with really poor quality control in panel technology. Dead pixels are less of a thing these days, but it seems almost expected now to get bleed and glow issues with IPS. Every technology we have is a compromise between the main types of TN, VA and IPS. Even OLED due to the possible issues one could encounter. Buying a 4K monitor now means you have to spend large amounts on a graphics card if you want to be able to game at native res. Ultra wide monitors are ridiculously expensive since they are more niche and less economy of scale applies.

The above is why I haven't replaced the monitor I use at home now, which I bought 10 years ago. A basic Dell TN panel 16:10 1920 x 1200. I just don't see the point, nor have the motivation to spend hundreds on what will be a compromise. This is a sad state of affairs in 2019.

I am also using a 46inch TV which I consider one of the better LCD ones from again about 10 years ago! It feels like we've gone backwards in image quality from Plasma days. Response times and refresh rates are another matter though.

Do you agree? What is the future? Will 21:9 ultra wide monitors start to take off more for productivity bias users? Will 4K become as adopted as 1080p has been?
 
OLED tech does seem to be largely missing from the monitor market, it's true. It's not a case of not being able to make them smaller though - a lot of smartphone screens are OLED now and have been for a few years. It looks like there are OLED monitors planned in the 20-22" range next year, the tech is still developing.

I think what we're seeing is growing pains, not really things going backwards. We have a lot of 'almost' solutions but nothing perfect yet. But AFAICT that's because everything is moving *very* rapidly in terms of HDR, VRR, ultra-wides, backlight tech etc. Samsung's QLEDs keep getting better and are growing FALD, and they may eventually make self-emissive ones. There did seem to be a stagnant period from about 2010 to 2015 or so, but now new things and new capabilities seem to be rocketing out.

The point, for me, for upgrading from 1080p monitors to 4k was coding work, my 32" 4K screen is amazing for that and I wouldn't ever want to go back. It's beautiful, and I'll easily get a few more years out of it.
 
Jimmy Weirdarms said:
The point, for me, for upgrading from 1080p monitors to 4k was coding work, my 32" 4K screen is amazing for that and I wouldn't ever want to go back. It's beautiful, and I'll easily get a few more years out of it.
Click to expand...

Talk to me goose...

Been weighing up my options as I work from home a lot and also code. I've generally been putting off full 4K screens because I do still want to game occasionally and just don't have the money for a card that can push full 4K right now. Even if I did, I cannot justify it with the state of the GPU market...could make that thread as well actually ;)
So I looked at Ultrawides and I love the idea of them but a couple of things made me question whether I would be doing the right thing.

1: The curve - some people have said the curve affects their work in Photoshop/editing for the worse when working with lines, rotating, cropping etc. I know you can get them without a curve, but I think it helps a lot with making them more usable.
2: The cost.

I probably want the screen suitability bias to be something like 20% gaming, 20% photo/video editing, 60% productivity/coding. Obviously IPS is good for working with colours. They seem to have good response times these days.
I'd also love a built in KVM so I can simplify my setup.

Then I looked at the possibility of turning my current TN panel to portrait for coding (did that before at one job and liked it) and then just buying another "MAIN" monitor which wouldn't have to be widescreen and therefore would be the cheaper option.

Do you not find 4K too small on the old eyes? I have a full HD laptop 1920 x 1080 screen which is at about my limit but this is a very small 13.3 inch screen so high pixel density.
I also sit very close to my screen due to limitations of desk size. I'm about 2.5 feet from my screen. I can't imagine having much bigger than 27 inch without having to physically move my head too much.
 
Well, 32" is pretty big but even so, yes you have a point about things being too small if left at 1:1 scaling. It's the scaling that makes it pretty.

Most OS's support some sort of hi-dpi related setting so for me the 4K isn't providing me 4x the desktop real estate of 1080p, more like twice *and* everything is just much better drawn and smoother, so I find it easier on the eyes. I have a 1200p Dell something-or-other as a secondary beside a BenQ EW3270U.

My Macbook (2013 pro retina) can just about apply retina scaling to the 4k screen as it does with its internal screen. Linux took a lot of messing with xrandr but got there in the end. Windows was pretty easy and has some sort of setting.

The monitors both auto-switch between inputs so whichever machine I have on outputs to both. But I still have to meas around with moving the mouse and keyboard dongle between machines :/
 
40" OLED would be perfect as a monitor. I got my 55" LG B9 for £999 so if they would be able to make the 40" for say £600-700 (on sale) it would be awesome.

Until the above happens I will just keep my current monitor.
 
32"4k is the perfect size monitor for being on your desk at normal distance and having great ppi.

40" is doable if you have a big desk and can move it back an extra foot.
 
I prefer 32" 1440p as same PPI as 24" 1080p (which I have read more than once was ideal PPI, not too blocky, not too small), 34-35" ideally for 4k for me.

I cannot rely on Windows scaling esp for 3rd party apps but why would I want a 4k screen to run Windows at say 150-200%, seems pointless unless you are gaming all the time where as you are looking at the screen at 4k.
 
b00merang69 said:
It is not the same as native though, so again IMO it does not look nice so I am not missing out on the 4k "hype/be all and end all" for now.
Click to expand...

No, it's better than 'native' as it can use extra pixels to make things look better. It still uses the panel's native resolution.

I mean, that's the whole point of Apple's "Retina" push and High DPI support in general, you get extra pixels to render things like fonts, icons and windows better and smoother. It's not just blind zooming.
 
Last edited:
Apple use Vector Scaling which MS cannot do as well for now and again making a screen bigger than it is is not ideal so you can keep your 4k+need to scale for normal use for now.
 
b00merang69 said:
Apple use Vector Scaling which MS cannot do as well for now and again making a screen bigger than it is is not ideal so you can keep your 4k+need to scale for normal use for now.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you have it precisely backwards, "making a screen bigger than it is" is *better* than having a lower res screen doing the same sized stuff.
It's not a 'need' to scale, as if that somehow makes it worse, it's that using higher DPI *allows* you to scale, and get the benefits from higher pixel-density when you do.

Windows and Linux have both used vector icons, fonts and windowing components for some time now.
 
Last edited:
Well as I said I am not jumping on the 4k bandwagon (I am not alone here in this forum on this view) to then set scaling to 150-200% so no need to preach to me any further on matter thanks.

Windows 10 promised better scaling but it still is not that good.

I game and current GPU's are not 4k GPU's quite yet, if someone needs the extra RES for content work like photo editing etc that is fine by me but I will stick to 1440p and high HZ for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom