To naysayers of 4k

  • 157 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#51 Edited by Couth_ (10182 posts) -

@hoosier7 said:

Monitors aren't really the problem though it's the fact that the dual 780ti's you'd want is a good £1000 before you even consider anything else and it's not like you can throw those into a budget rig or skimp on cooling.

It's nice but it's still niche. No one has any doubt about it in the future but right now the cost for the performance doesn't add up for the majority.

No one is going to want 780Ti's for 4k gaming. The Maxwell and Volta series and beyond will be much better suited for higher resolutions. Even the middle tier cards.

I'd say GPUs are even ahead of monitors if nvidia can keep to their schedule.. At worst they are right in line with them

#52 Posted by Wasdie (50003 posts) -

@glez13 said:
@Wasdie said:
@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

Maybe if you're 15 feet from the screen but not when it's less than 3 feet away on your desk.

4k is a great resolution for a PC monitor.

The ideal distance for this 28" monitor should be a little less than 2' maybe around 1'10" or something like that. Still a little small but almost near usual PC usage of around 2'-3'. Most probably something like 34" would be ideal for more people.

34" at 2-3' feet? That would be horrible. 40" is fine for 8 feet away.

Very few people want the screen to take up the majority of their field of vision.

#53 Posted by 2Chalupas (5162 posts) -

@nini200 said:

@adamosmaki said:

@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

You actually believe that you wouldnt notice a resolution difference past 720P on a 28" monitor 1 meter from your face ?

With a 28 inch monitor, the difference of 720p or heck even 1080p to 4k, the ppi would be so minimal it wouldn't be noticeable. You do realize that the human eye can only see so many ppi before it becomes unnoticeable right? Regardless of how close to your tv you're sitting lol

You must have really crappy experience with monitors or be blind.

I'm sure like 99% of the population can discern those resolutions up close. It's only sitting back at a distance where you cannot tell, and where the "screen size" vs "resolution" comes into play in the living room. Sitting within a few feet of a monitor, it's quite easy to tell for everyone.

#54 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7325 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

@Cranler said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

It is just a gimmick, and like all other gimmicks, will only gain popularity when it is affordable to the masses.

How exactly is resolution a gimmick?...

gim·mick

[gim-ik] Show IPA

noun

1.

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention orincrease appeal.

If a high end monitor is a gimmick then what technology isn't a gimmick?

yeah. it doesn't meet the criteria of a 'gimmick'.

there are displays available from lower pixel counts to very high pixel counts, once a certain pixel count is exceeded we're not in some magic gimmick land or anything.

for as long as i can remember, display resolution has been increasing. there's a reason why, it's because we want more pixels on the screen because it essentially increases the usable space on the screen for productivity, detailed rendering, etc.

absolutely not a gimmick. a further enhancement of an already existing technology.

4k is novel. It is a product of new technology and not widely used. It is a selling point of high end video cards that are really only necessary if you want to play the same games in 4k that you could play in 1080p with a much cheaper card. The infrastructure for 4k television programming is currently not even close to available, and 4k televisions are ungodly expensive. At this point in time, 4k is a gimmick. It will continue to be as long as it caters solely to high end users. HD was a gimmick at one time, too.

The word "gimmick" gets thrown around here as if it is a bad thing. It's really not. A gimmick is really just a product's selling point.

#55 Posted by 2Chalupas (5162 posts) -

@Shewgenja said:

Wanna know some funny shit? It's actually cheaper for manufacturers to make flat panel TVs than it was for them to make the old CRT TVs. They weren't able to sell flat panels at a premium until they were able to marry the technology with HD.

The biggest reason you are going to see 1080p TVs go the way of the dodo bird in the next five years is because introducing this new super high definition picture format allows them to continue making the kind of money off the markup on price as they were able to do with HD. 720p and 1080p panels are going to hit stupid low prices in the not so distant future.

You can also bet that in 8-9 years, you will start to see 10K TVs start to come out and the process will be repeated. It will still be less expensive to make than CRTs, too. But you will be paying 2-3K for them because it's the new shit. Rinse/repeat.

And this is different from any other technology, how? Or are you posting this via your Pentium 4 desktop with 56k modem?

#56 Posted by _Matt_ (8924 posts) -

@bobbetybob said:
@_Matt_ said:

@GhoX said:

@_Matt_ said:

700 is still more than expensive to the average consumer. Why get a 4k monitor when you can get 2x 1440p monitors for the same price?

Also they will allow 60 Hz unlike most 4k monitors.

I bought my 1440p monitor for 800, so yeah, monitor prices are dropping like hell and it won't be long before 4K become cheap.

Then again, it's not really the monitor cost that gets expensive. 4K gaming requires quite a beast to power that 4K, and those components will be a much more significant factor than the price of a mere monitor.

I bought mine for £400 a piece about 6 months ago.

$700 is only £420. Of course we'll get screwed over on the conversion so it would be more like 5-600 but these 4K monitors are pretty damn cheap considering 4K has only really been a thing for 2 years or so.

I actually find 1440p monitors way too expensive considering the resolution bump.

They are gorgeous though. £400 for beautiful IPS panels, about twice as many pixels as 1080 too.

#57 Edited by Boddicker (2813 posts) -

@Netret0120 said:

Lets concentrate on getting 1080p/60FPS consistently first.

#58 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (28422 posts) -

lol all the people that just purchased 720p and 1080p tvs in the past 3 years are gonna just drop it in the trash and buy a 4k tv lol.

Also this tv supports 1.4 hdmi...1.4 doesn't support 4k 60hz so there goes any frame rate argument sheens had.

#59 Posted by bobbetybob (19292 posts) -
@_Matt_ said:

@bobbetybob said:
@_Matt_ said:

@GhoX said:

@_Matt_ said:

700 is still more than expensive to the average consumer. Why get a 4k monitor when you can get 2x 1440p monitors for the same price?

Also they will allow 60 Hz unlike most 4k monitors.

I bought my 1440p monitor for 800, so yeah, monitor prices are dropping like hell and it won't be long before 4K become cheap.

Then again, it's not really the monitor cost that gets expensive. 4K gaming requires quite a beast to power that 4K, and those components will be a much more significant factor than the price of a mere monitor.

I bought mine for £400 a piece about 6 months ago.

$700 is only £420. Of course we'll get screwed over on the conversion so it would be more like 5-600 but these 4K monitors are pretty damn cheap considering 4K has only really been a thing for 2 years or so.

I actually find 1440p monitors way too expensive considering the resolution bump.

They are gorgeous though. £400 for beautiful IPS panels, about twice as many pixels as 1080 too.

And 3-4 times the cost :p

#60 Posted by glez13 (8876 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@glez13 said:
@Wasdie said:
@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

Maybe if you're 15 feet from the screen but not when it's less than 3 feet away on your desk.

4k is a great resolution for a PC monitor.

The ideal distance for this 28" monitor should be a little less than 2' maybe around 1'10" or something like that. Still a little small but almost near usual PC usage of around 2'-3'. Most probably something like 34" would be ideal for more people.

34" at 2-3' feet? That would be horrible. 40" is fine for 8 feet away.

Very few people want the screen to take up the majority of their field of vision.

40" at 8' for 4K doesn't even make sense. Hell even FHD only gives the full benefit at like around 5' with a 40" display.

#61 Posted by adamosmaki (9656 posts) -

@WilliamRLBaker said:

lol all the people that just purchased 720p and 1080p tvs in the past 3 years are gonna just drop it in the trash and buy a 4k tv lol.

Also this tv supports 1.4 hdmi...1.4 doesn't support 4k 60hz so there goes any frame rate argument sheens had.

1. its a monitor

2.it supports 60hz via display port

#62 Posted by 2Chalupas (5162 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

@Cranler said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

It is just a gimmick, and like all other gimmicks, will only gain popularity when it is affordable to the masses.

How exactly is resolution a gimmick?...

gim·mick

[gim-ik] Show IPA

noun

1.

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention orincrease appeal.

If a high end monitor is a gimmick then what technology isn't a gimmick?

yeah. it doesn't meet the criteria of a 'gimmick'.

there are displays available from lower pixel counts to very high pixel counts, once a certain pixel count is exceeded we're not in some magic gimmick land or anything.

for as long as i can remember, display resolution has been increasing. there's a reason why, it's because we want more pixels on the screen because it essentially increases the usable space on the screen for productivity, detailed rendering, etc.

absolutely not a gimmick. a further enhancement of an already existing technology.

4k is novel. It is a product of new technology and not widely used. It is a selling point of high end video cards that are really only necessary if you want to play the same games in 4k that you could play in 1080p with a much cheaper card. The infrastructure for 4k television programming is currently not even close to available, and 4k televisions are ungodly expensive. At this point in time, 4k is a gimmick. It will continue to be as long as it caters solely to high end users. HD was a gimmick at one time, too.

The word "gimmick" gets thrown around here as if it is a bad thing. It's really not. A gimmick is really just a product's selling point.

4K Televisions are already at the point where they are no longer "ungodly expensive". The legit ones are falling under $2000 now, and there have been some cheap/bare-bones ones under $1000 already. This is for the 50-55" screen sizes. It's really only the 70"+ screensizes that are ungodly expensive, although it is really at those largest screen-sizes where 4K is of most benefit. Once those largest sizes start to come down, it will be the mainstream for sure.

I'm not sure how it will work with the cable operators though. Considering they have never offered live 1080p content, my guess is there will only be very few 4K channels reserved (if any). Although as the 4K televisions get more mainstream, there will definitely be at least SOME demand for it, and certainly there will be for 4K movies. So there will have to be 4K format, 4K streaming on Netflix, etc. The cable operators might not really offer much 4K as far as live television goes, and may mostly just offer it for "on-demand" movies.

#63 Posted by scatteh316 (4961 posts) -

@nini200 said:

@adamosmaki said:

@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

You actually believe that you wouldnt notice a resolution difference past 720P on a 28" monitor 1 meter from your face ?

With a 28 inch monitor, the difference of 720p or heck even 1080p to 4k, the ppi would be so minimal it wouldn't be noticeable. You do realize that the human eye can only see so many ppi before it becomes unnoticeable right? Regardless of how close to your tv you're sitting lol

Are you for real? The difference is fucking huge..... It's like moving from an iPhone 3GS screen to the iPhone 4's Retina display.

The difference is mind blowing...

#64 Posted by 2Chalupas (5162 posts) -

@glez13 said:

@Wasdie said:

@glez13 said:
@Wasdie said:
@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

Maybe if you're 15 feet from the screen but not when it's less than 3 feet away on your desk.

4k is a great resolution for a PC monitor.

The ideal distance for this 28" monitor should be a little less than 2' maybe around 1'10" or something like that. Still a little small but almost near usual PC usage of around 2'-3'. Most probably something like 34" would be ideal for more people.

34" at 2-3' feet? That would be horrible. 40" is fine for 8 feet away.

Very few people want the screen to take up the majority of their field of vision.

40" at 8' for 4K doesn't even make sense. Hell even FHD only gives the full benefit at like around 5' with a 40" display.

His point was nobody wants to sit with a 34" screen right in front of their face. Anything above 27" on a desktop gets sort of awkward. At some point, it's better to get an even larger screen and then just sit back from it at a distance, rather than set it on a desk.

#65 Posted by 2Chalupas (5162 posts) -

@WilliamRLBaker said:

lol all the people that just purchased 720p and 1080p tvs in the past 3 years are gonna just drop it in the trash and buy a 4k tv lol.

Also this tv supports 1.4 hdmi...1.4 doesn't support 4k 60hz so there goes any frame rate argument sheens had.

Like when people moved 32" 720P into the bedroom, and 50" 1080p into the living room. They will do the same here.

50" 1080p into the bedroom, 70" 4K into the main room.

#66 Posted by glez13 (8876 posts) -

@2Chalupas said:

@glez13 said:

@Wasdie said:

@glez13 said:
@Wasdie said:
@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

Maybe if you're 15 feet from the screen but not when it's less than 3 feet away on your desk.

4k is a great resolution for a PC monitor.

The ideal distance for this 28" monitor should be a little less than 2' maybe around 1'10" or something like that. Still a little small but almost near usual PC usage of around 2'-3'. Most probably something like 34" would be ideal for more people.

34" at 2-3' feet? That would be horrible. 40" is fine for 8 feet away.

Very few people want the screen to take up the majority of their field of vision.

40" at 8' for 4K doesn't even make sense. Hell even FHD only gives the full benefit at like around 5' with a 40" display.

His point was nobody wants to sit with a 34" screen right in front of their face. Anything above 27" on a desktop gets sort of awkward. At some point, it's better to get an even larger screen and then just sit back from it at a distance, rather than set it on a desk.

You can't do that if you want to benefit from the resolution, unless you have superior eyesight or something like that.

#67 Posted by _Matt_ (8924 posts) -

@bobbetybob said:
@_Matt_ said:

@bobbetybob said:
@_Matt_ said:

@GhoX said:

@_Matt_ said:

700 is still more than expensive to the average consumer. Why get a 4k monitor when you can get 2x 1440p monitors for the same price?

Also they will allow 60 Hz unlike most 4k monitors.

I bought my 1440p monitor for 800, so yeah, monitor prices are dropping like hell and it won't be long before 4K become cheap.

Then again, it's not really the monitor cost that gets expensive. 4K gaming requires quite a beast to power that 4K, and those components will be a much more significant factor than the price of a mere monitor.

I bought mine for £400 a piece about 6 months ago.

$700 is only £420. Of course we'll get screwed over on the conversion so it would be more like 5-600 but these 4K monitors are pretty damn cheap considering 4K has only really been a thing for 2 years or so.

I actually find 1440p monitors way too expensive considering the resolution bump.

They are gorgeous though. £400 for beautiful IPS panels, about twice as many pixels as 1080 too.

And 3-4 times the cost :p

Well yeah but.... shh you! shh and soak in the pixels!

#68 Posted by _Matt_ (8924 posts) -

@WilliamRLBaker said:

lol all the people that just purchased 720p and 1080p tvs in the past 3 years are gonna just drop it in the trash and buy a 4k tv lol.

Also this tv supports 1.4 hdmi...1.4 doesn't support 4k 60hz so there goes any frame rate argument sheens had.

Wait, so now you're calling hermits sheens too? Are all the factions 'sheens' to you?

#69 Edited by Shewgenja (9637 posts) -

@2Chalupas said:

@Shewgenja said:

Wanna know some funny shit? It's actually cheaper for manufacturers to make flat panel TVs than it was for them to make the old CRT TVs. They weren't able to sell flat panels at a premium until they were able to marry the technology with HD.

The biggest reason you are going to see 1080p TVs go the way of the dodo bird in the next five years is because introducing this new super high definition picture format allows them to continue making the kind of money off the markup on price as they were able to do with HD. 720p and 1080p panels are going to hit stupid low prices in the not so distant future.

You can also bet that in 8-9 years, you will start to see 10K TVs start to come out and the process will be repeated. It will still be less expensive to make than CRTs, too. But you will be paying 2-3K for them because it's the new shit. Rinse/repeat.

And this is different from any other technology, how? Or are you posting this via your Pentium 4 desktop with 56k modem?

Ah, you think I was saying it like it's a bad thing. It's good business! I, for one, am upgrading to a 4K panel either this year or next. I was going to this year but I don't like the framerate and latency responses on these first gen panels.

#70 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4895 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

@Cranler said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

It is just a gimmick, and like all other gimmicks, will only gain popularity when it is affordable to the masses.

How exactly is resolution a gimmick?...

gim·mick

[gim-ik] Show IPA

noun

1.

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention orincrease appeal.

If a high end monitor is a gimmick then what technology isn't a gimmick?

yeah. it doesn't meet the criteria of a 'gimmick'.

there are displays available from lower pixel counts to very high pixel counts, once a certain pixel count is exceeded we're not in some magic gimmick land or anything.

for as long as i can remember, display resolution has been increasing. there's a reason why, it's because we want more pixels on the screen because it essentially increases the usable space on the screen for productivity, detailed rendering, etc.

absolutely not a gimmick. a further enhancement of an already existing technology.

4k is novel. It is a product of new technology and not widely used. It is a selling point of high end video cards that are really only necessary if you want to play the same games in 4k that you could play in 1080p with a much cheaper card. The infrastructure for 4k television programming is currently not even close to available, and 4k televisions are ungodly expensive. At this point in time, 4k is a gimmick. It will continue to be as long as it caters solely to high end users. HD was a gimmick at one time, too.

The word "gimmick" gets thrown around here as if it is a bad thing. It's really not. A gimmick is really just a product's selling point.

then in that case,

the gimmick of the monitor in the OP, is price.

#71 Edited by PurpleMan5000 (7325 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

@Cranler said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

It is just a gimmick, and like all other gimmicks, will only gain popularity when it is affordable to the masses.

How exactly is resolution a gimmick?...

gim·mick

[gim-ik] Show IPA

noun

1.

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention orincrease appeal.

If a high end monitor is a gimmick then what technology isn't a gimmick?

yeah. it doesn't meet the criteria of a 'gimmick'.

there are displays available from lower pixel counts to very high pixel counts, once a certain pixel count is exceeded we're not in some magic gimmick land or anything.

for as long as i can remember, display resolution has been increasing. there's a reason why, it's because we want more pixels on the screen because it essentially increases the usable space on the screen for productivity, detailed rendering, etc.

absolutely not a gimmick. a further enhancement of an already existing technology.

4k is novel. It is a product of new technology and not widely used. It is a selling point of high end video cards that are really only necessary if you want to play the same games in 4k that you could play in 1080p with a much cheaper card. The infrastructure for 4k television programming is currently not even close to available, and 4k televisions are ungodly expensive. At this point in time, 4k is a gimmick. It will continue to be as long as it caters solely to high end users. HD was a gimmick at one time, too.

The word "gimmick" gets thrown around here as if it is a bad thing. It's really not. A gimmick is really just a product's selling point.

then in that case,

the gimmick of the monitor in the OP, is price.

I guess you could make a case for that, but it would be a real stretch, given that it is still priced higher than comparable 1080p monitors. The gimmick is 4k. That's the only feature the monitor has that is listed in the headline. When 4k televisions come out, 4k will still be a gimmick as long as that feature is prominently displayed on the box. I have attached a photo for reference. On this particular tv, all of the gimmicks are listed in the purple bubbles.

#72 Posted by 2Chalupas (5162 posts) -

@glez13 said:

@2Chalupas said:

@glez13 said:

@Wasdie said:

@glez13 said:
@Wasdie said:
@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

Maybe if you're 15 feet from the screen but not when it's less than 3 feet away on your desk.

4k is a great resolution for a PC monitor.

The ideal distance for this 28" monitor should be a little less than 2' maybe around 1'10" or something like that. Still a little small but almost near usual PC usage of around 2'-3'. Most probably something like 34" would be ideal for more people.

34" at 2-3' feet? That would be horrible. 40" is fine for 8 feet away.

Very few people want the screen to take up the majority of their field of vision.

40" at 8' for 4K doesn't even make sense. Hell even FHD only gives the full benefit at like around 5' with a 40" display.

His point was nobody wants to sit with a 34" screen right in front of their face. Anything above 27" on a desktop gets sort of awkward. At some point, it's better to get an even larger screen and then just sit back from it at a distance, rather than set it on a desk.

You can't do that if you want to benefit from the resolution, unless you have superior eyesight or something like that.

That's the point though. You absolutely CAN benefit from these resolution increases at close viewing distances. Even at 24" or 27" screen sizes, if the monitor is on your desk and 3' in front of you would have to be near blind to not see differences from 720p > 1080p. Hell, you can tell pretty easily from 1080p>1440p on a 27"..you don't need substantially larger screen size to appreciate that.

I get your point that there are diminishing returns. But you are way off to think that point is only 720p or 1080p. Certainly not in the realm of PC monitors when the output can literally be just inches (or at most a few feet) from your face.

Your point has more merit with television viewing, when you are 8' or 10' (or more) away from the display. That is where you need a much bigger screen to appreciate the resolution differences. (i.e. instead of a 55" in 4K TV, you might neeed a 75" to appreciate the greater resolution).

#73 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

@Cranler said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

It is just a gimmick, and like all other gimmicks, will only gain popularity when it is affordable to the masses.

How exactly is resolution a gimmick?...

gim·mick

[gim-ik] Show IPA

noun

1.

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention orincrease appeal.

If a high end monitor is a gimmick then what technology isn't a gimmick?

yeah. it doesn't meet the criteria of a 'gimmick'.

there are displays available from lower pixel counts to very high pixel counts, once a certain pixel count is exceeded we're not in some magic gimmick land or anything.

for as long as i can remember, display resolution has been increasing. there's a reason why, it's because we want more pixels on the screen because it essentially increases the usable space on the screen for productivity, detailed rendering, etc.

absolutely not a gimmick. a further enhancement of an already existing technology.

4k is novel. It is a product of new technology and not widely used. It is a selling point of high end video cards that are really only necessary if you want to play the same games in 4k that you could play in 1080p with a much cheaper card. The infrastructure for 4k television programming is currently not even close to available, and 4k televisions are ungodly expensive. At this point in time, 4k is a gimmick. It will continue to be as long as it caters solely to high end users. HD was a gimmick at one time, too.

The word "gimmick" gets thrown around here as if it is a bad thing. It's really not. A gimmick is really just a product's selling point.

then in that case,

the gimmick of the monitor in the OP, is price.

I guess you could make a case for that, but it would be a real stretch, given that it is still priced higher than comparable 1080p monitors. The gimmick is 4k. That's the only feature the monitor has that is listed in the headline. When 4k televisions come out, 4k will still be a gimmick as long as that feature is prominently displayed on the box. I have attached a photo for reference. On this particular tv, all of the gimmicks are listed in the purple bubbles.

Gimmicks and features aren't the same thing. Not being widely used yet doesn't make something a gimmick either.

#74 Posted by ShadowDeathX (10676 posts) -

The internet is filled with a bunch of negative people who will down everything one says. Anyways, I really can't wait until a 4K IPS (or something of similar quality) monitor hits the $999 price point. I'll buy one when that happens! :)

I remember buying a 720p HDTV back in 2006 for $800.

#75 Posted by nini200 (9827 posts) -

Lol wow this thing really took root and blew up LOL

#76 Edited by glez13 (8876 posts) -

@2Chalupas said:

@glez13 said:

@2Chalupas said:

@glez13 said:

@Wasdie said:

@glez13 said:
@Wasdie said:
@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

Maybe if you're 15 feet from the screen but not when it's less than 3 feet away on your desk.

4k is a great resolution for a PC monitor.

The ideal distance for this 28" monitor should be a little less than 2' maybe around 1'10" or something like that. Still a little small but almost near usual PC usage of around 2'-3'. Most probably something like 34" would be ideal for more people.

34" at 2-3' feet? That would be horrible. 40" is fine for 8 feet away.

Very few people want the screen to take up the majority of their field of vision.

40" at 8' for 4K doesn't even make sense. Hell even FHD only gives the full benefit at like around 5' with a 40" display.

His point was nobody wants to sit with a 34" screen right in front of their face. Anything above 27" on a desktop gets sort of awkward. At some point, it's better to get an even larger screen and then just sit back from it at a distance, rather than set it on a desk.

You can't do that if you want to benefit from the resolution, unless you have superior eyesight or something like that.

That's the point though. You absolutely CAN benefit from these resolution increases at close viewing distances. Even at 24" or 27" screen sizes, if the monitor is on your desk and 3' in front of you would have to be near blind to not see differences from 720p > 1080p. Hell, you can tell pretty easily from 1080p>1440p on a 27"..you don't need substantially larger screen size to appreciate that.

I get your point that there are diminishing returns. But you are way off to think that point is only 720p or 1080p. Certainly not in the realm of PC monitors when the output can literally be just inches (or at most a few feet) from your face.

Your point has more merit with television viewing, when you are 8' or 10' (or more) away from the display. That is where you need a much bigger screen to appreciate the resolution differences. (i.e. instead of a 55" in 4K TV, you might neeed a 75" to appreciate the greater resolution).

But that is what I was saying. At 2' you need around 34" display to fully benefit from 4K. That 28" 4K would probably have some advantage over QHD at that distance, but still it wouldn't be the complete 4K experience.

Also I never mentioned 720p, it was some other dude and he was probably trolling or is deluded.

#77 Posted by edidili (3449 posts) -

@nini200 said:

With a 28 inch monitor, the difference of 720p or heck even 1080p to 4k, the ppi would be so minimal it wouldn't be noticeable. You do realize that the human eye can only see so many ppi before it becomes unnoticeable right? Regardless of how close to your tv you're sitting lol

Fact is I can tell pixels, especially on text in a 1080p 23" screen let alone in a 720p 28". The closer the screen is to your eyes the more you can notice the pixels. A 720p 28" screen would look blurry as hell.

#78 Posted by nini200 (9827 posts) -

LOL

#79 Posted by LustForSoul (5887 posts) -

What good looking games are you going to play 4k on max? None as of now. It will takes years to get that kind of gpu.

#80 Posted by Bigboi500 (30106 posts) -

1080p is just becoming the standard now, with a lot of people just getting 720p sets. They're right, 4k wont be any kind of standard for many years.

#81 Edited by santoron (7775 posts) -

Computer monitors come in all sorts of funky resolutions, so seeing 4k (maybe) gain traction with desktops isn't going to necessarily impact the TV arena. Especially since 4k - for almost all consumer TV purposes - is stupid.

#82 Posted by NFJSupreme (5379 posts) -

the price of tvs and monitors will come down but the price of GPUs to run games at that resolution is still high but that will come down with the next gen. No not console next gen but the REAL next gen of GPU hardware. These new consoles didn't exactly introduce nextgen hardware. GCN is like three years old now. With the next gen of GPU hardware coming gaming at ultra resolutions should be a little cheaper.

#83 Posted by Pray_to_me (2880 posts) -

No thanks. You can keep that trash. And you can keep the $1000 gpu it would take just to play last gen 360 ports at that rez.

#84 Posted by Xplode_games (527 posts) -

The adoption rate of 4K TVs is extremely low. That means 4K gaming is non existent. In 10 years it may be ready.

To bring it up now is just people who want to justify spending $500 on a GPU and shiny new 4K monitor. Doesn't mean anything and it's a moronic point to criticize consoles or even the average PC gamer with that crap.

#85 Posted by Mozelleple112 (6695 posts) -

People who say 4K is a gimmick haven't seen a proper 4K display, period. Don't judge 4K by a $1000 chinese-made SEIKI LCD tv. Try demoing the Sony VW1000ES and tell me 4K doesn't like a gajillion times better than 1080p, I double dare you. the difference between a regular Macbook Pro and a Macbook pro Retina is like night and day. 2880x1800p looks absolutely GORGEOUS on a 15" screen, as does 2560x1600p on a 13" screen. I can only imagine 4K on a 28" will look beautiful. Not seen one in person. Asus does have some 4K IPS monitors costing $5000 lol

#86 Posted by thageneral2 (595 posts) -
@Xplode_games said:

The adoption rate of 4K TVs is extremely low. That means 4K gaming is non existent. In 10 years it may be ready.

To bring it up now is just people who want to justify spending $500 on a GPU and shiny new 4K monitor. Doesn't mean anything and it's a moronic point to criticize consoles or even the average PC gamer with that crap.

TV is another story. A 4k TV is literally useless. Even if a 4k TV was $500, you still would have no use for it because cable TV is still 720p, console games are 720-1080 and there's no 4k movies yet..

4k Monitors will have a much better adoption rate because there are many uses for a 4k monitor from games(just turn up the resolution) to work. They just need to hit the proper price point.

@LustForSoul said:

What good looking games are you going to play 4k on max? None as of now. It will takes years to get that kind of gpu.

You mean months? Nvidia's Maxwell line should be out within a few months

#87 Posted by zeeshanhaider (2607 posts) -

LOL at consololites calling 4K a gimmick. A year back they were calling 1080p a gimmick too.

#88 Edited by littlestreakier (2931 posts) -

@musicalmac: his rule applies when you take distance into consideration. The closer you sit to the tv to more you'll notice "flaws" but the further you sit the less you notice "flaws". I see your point though. But the truth is most people that game on consoles and sit further from TVs won't notice a difference compared to people that game on PC and sit close to the monitor.

#89 Posted by musicalmac (23036 posts) -

@littlestreakier said:

@musicalmac: his rule applies when you take distance into consideration. The closer you sit to the tv to more you'll notice "flaws" but the further you sit the less you notice "flaws". I see your point though. But the truth is most people that game on consoles and sit further from TVs won't notice a difference compared to people that game on PC and sit close to the monitor.

The other problem is that it's unlikely too many users are sitting in front of a fused 1440p 27" IPS LED monitor, and the differences don't stand out as much on a smaller, lower resolution monitor (referencing my images).

#90 Posted by Bishop1310 (1109 posts) -

@adamosmaki said:

I have seen topics from anything calling 4k a gimmick or saying it wont take off until a new generation of consoles to prices will not fall that soon. It seems 4k might be closer to become mainstream than we previously thought

Samsung launches a 4k monitor for less than $700 . That is great news not just for us users but for nvidia and Amd as well and their gpu departments

Also mind you this monitor despite been cheap ( for 4k ) is not limited to 30hz only. Using display port not only you get a more desirable 60hz but it also has 1ms response time

IF and it's a huge IF the new consoles have a 4k games on them it's going to be a side scrolling (indy) non graphic demanding game.. These consoles are mid to entry level PC's in terms of computing power. 1.3 tflops for the x1 and around 1.8 for the ps4.. Even those are calculated theoretical numbers, real life performance will be lower, X1 and PS4 just don't have the power to bring 4K to mainstream gaming. The cloud also won't help in this situation either, 4K is an enormous amount of data that can't be transferred quick enough.

PC's is where 4k will become mainstream at first, very slowly. The next gen of consoles (if there is one) is where we may see 4k on a regular basis... maybe.

#91 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7325 posts) -

@Cranler said:

Gimmicks and features aren't the same thing. Not being widely used yet doesn't make something a gimmick either.

Generally speaking, features that have their own logos and are advertised prominently (3Dtv, HDTV, 4K, etc) are gimmicks.

#92 Posted by Xuix (229 posts) -

The programs I work with in film are starting to phase in 4k. I wouldn't necessarily call it a gimmick as editing programs like Avid and Da Vinci have a workflow that allows and supports 4k, and camera's like the Epic Red and Alexi already shoot 4k. There is already 8k available so its just a matter of time when it becames mainstream on the gaming market. Do I think it's necessary to drop a ton on a 4k monitor? Again it's a matter of wanting to spend the extra cash on something that hasn't precisely hit the mainstream. Newer games do support it. To get a refresh rate of 60hz you are going to need two hdmi cables running left and right panel on a 3500 dollar monitor. It's not perfect, and I would still wait 6 months to a year to start investing in one.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pq321q-4k-gaming,3620.html great article on the subject.

#93 Posted by ShepardCommandr (2755 posts) -

You need a tv at least 80" for it to actually make a difference.

Besides you'll need to spend like $1600 minimum on gpus in order to run games with decent frame rates.

#94 Edited by edwardecl (2239 posts) -

4K monitors will be good for viewing pictures and eventually video on. Graphics cards have still some way to go before 4k will be the norm but we have to start somewhere. And not everyone wants 2 overclocked GPUs that need a 800W - 1KW PSU to play 4k games, people like me will wait for something sensible and not horrifically expensive.

I would really like a 4K system, just not with this years tech.

#95 Posted by Kinthalis (5322 posts) -
@ShepardCommandr said:

You need a tv at least 80" for it to actually make a difference.

Besides you'll need to spend like $1600 minimum on gpus in order to run games with decent frame rates.

Uhm, no. a 780ti, $600 GPU cna run a LOT of games at 4K high settings. I would say SLI two of those and you cna run any game fo rthe forseeable future at 4K. That's $1200 not $1600, and that's TODAY.

In 2 years? Drop that price by $300. In 3? Drop it by another $300.

#96 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7325 posts) -

@Xuix said:

The programs I work with in film are starting to phase in 4k. I wouldn't necessarily call it a gimmick as editing programs like Avid and Da Vinci have a workflow that allows and supports 4k, and camera's like the Epic Red and Alexi already shoot 4k. There is already 8k available so its just a matter of time when it becames mainstream on the gaming market. Do I think it's necessary to drop a ton on a 4k monitor? Again it's a matter of wanting to spend the extra cash on something that hasn't precisely hit the mainstream. Newer games do support it. To get a refresh rate of 60hz you are going to need two hdmi cables running left and right panel on a 3500 dollar monitor. It's not perfect, and I would still wait 6 months to a year to start investing in one.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pq321q-4k-gaming,3620.html great article on the subject.

I have a camera that shoots 3D. Do you consider 3D a gimmick?

#97 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25629 posts) -

I still don't think 4K matters as much cows and hermits think it does.

#98 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7325 posts) -

@LegatoSkyheart said:

I still don't think 4K matters as much cows and hermits think it does.

Cows won't think it matters when they collectively figure out that it's going to be well over a decade before any playstation product can actually play games in 4k.

#99 Posted by Ribstaylor1 (713 posts) -

@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

This statement is fucking stupid. Maybe you need your eyes checked if you can't tell the difference.

#100 Posted by MonsieurX (30484 posts) -

Have fun running games on your 4k monitor with current hardware