30" 2560x1600 Korean IPS or 27" 1080 120hz TN?

[tidy]

.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Your description is rather vague, and I'm a simple man. Can you lay out what you did more simply so I can understand?

You throw around that term resize like it's crystal clear, but I think you are conveniently leaving out the details.

You also realize that it's possible that by resizing something, destruction of information occurs? *ESPECIALLY* if it's an uneven multiple you are resizing to. So what exactly do you mean? You seem to describe three separate resizing events, right? What do you mean there, by how you resized it, then resized it back, then doubled in size? Whah?

Sorry, I'll try to make that post more straightforward.

http://www.leesaxon.com/forums/Anandtech-Upsampling.jpg

If you captured this image at 600x800, you would get the image on the left. If you captured this image at 300x400 and scaled it 2:1 (or "used 4 pixels to display 1" as you put it, which is the same thing), you would get the image on the right. The rest of the jargon was just explaining how I simulated this and why it was an accurate (not extra-degraded, as you'd theorized) representation of the 2:1 scaling process.

4K TVs must run 2:1 scaling on 24-30 frames each second. However, the algorithm I used in my example would take more than 1/30th second to run a 1080p frame. Therefore, 4K TVs must use a lower quality algorithm and results would actually be a little worse than my example.

Given typical television viewing distances and that most material won't have the small detail of my example above, results will likely be "good enough" for most people who aren't cinematographers or photographers. Nonetheless it's worth knowing, especially since we're on a gearhead/tech forum, that "perfect scaling" isn't actually a thing.

 

[poohbear]

Considering the LG I have is a wide gamut wg-led with proper electronics driving it, they are not nearly the same panel model--having the same panel maker means nothing. The cheap korean monitor I bought was this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Perfect-Pix...3636?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item20cd816874

Now the Korean dude is selling it for an insane price! Back when I bought it, it cost around $400 which was too much given the shoddy quality. Here's a picture of it:

Pure garbage and several forums are littered with similar pictures. Though to be fair, even Dell has some piss poor quality. This LG has by far been the best display I've ever owned.

i have a friend in Korea who swears by a Korean company called "microboard" that you can't buy outside of Korea cause its already pretty expensive ($631). Apparently much better than the common brands you find on Ebay. They use the LG IPS Q5 panels for their 30" model, model name is "I3006WQ". What do you guys think of its specs? check it out:

http://item2.gmarket.co.kr/English/detailview/Item.aspx?goodscode=256802243

 

[KingFatty]

Sorry, I'll try to make that post more straightforward.

http://www.leesaxon.com/forums/Anandtech-Upsampling.jpg

If you captured this image at 600x800, you would get the image on the left. If you captured this image at 300x400 and scaled it 2:1 (or "used 4 pixels to display 1" as you put it, which is the same thing), you would get the image on the right. The rest of the jargon was just explaining how I simulated this and why it was an accurate (not extra-degraded, as you'd theorized) representation of the 2:1 scaling process.

So my point is that when you scale the 300x400 image 2:1, it will look just as good as a 300x400 image, just bigger.

That's what 4K does to 1080p. It scales 1080p to look just as good as 1080p, but bigger.

Are you arguing that 4K TVs are bad because they can't take 1080p source and make it look as good as 4K source?

Because it seems that way, when you compare a 300x400 image and say it doesn't look as good as a 600x800 original when 2:1 scaling is applied to 300x400.

However, my point is that 1080p on a 4K TV looks just as good as 1080p on a 1080p TV, because perfect scaling. There is no reason to avoid a 4K TV if you are using 1080p source material. It doesn't degrade the 1080p quality.

So I cannot see why your example is helpful, all it does is mislead, and I wonder if that's what happened by using it here?