4K monitors and 1080p resolution?

[bystander36]

Hold on, aren't you showing a screenshot of what the *video card* is displaying?

I don't think that is the same as what the *display* is displaying.

In other words, it's impossible to see the screen door effect in a screen shot, because it's simply not made of display pixels.

In fact, I tried to zoom in and saw the following JPG artifacts I think

Ah yes, that is true.

If you take a screenshot, it shows what the GPU created, which was a 1080p image. It will look exactly the same as a 1080p image on any other display. Once that image is sent to the display, then it gets upscaled.

You would have to take a picture with a camera for us to see what you see.

 

[angevil]

Yeah, screenshots are useless, we need pictures taken by a camera.

I want to debunk what is retina display. i have a 27" 2560x1440 display 0,6 m away from me (2 feet) and i can see individual pixels at 8x ssaa on native res. Without AA i can make out individual pixels 2 meters away from the monitor, so 3840x2160 isnt retina either. I have no idea why people insist that 1080p looks good. 1080p is so pixelated, i got rid of my 1080p monitor as soon as i could afford a 1440p, and now pixelation on this one bothers me too if i dont use at least 4x AA.

What i mean by retina is a monitor that covers all your field of view, no matter the distance is from your eyes. I had a 20" 1920x1440 crt monitor at one point and having now 27" does nothing to me, its all about resolution and image quality. I would get a hyopthetical cheap 15" 3840x2160 monitor in a heartbeat. A 1080p tv is useless to me, as no matter how you cut it, you see individual pixels. Actually it is a drawback, takes more space, heavier. I was satisfied with the size on my first 15" crt monitor 16 years ago, just that the low max res of 1024x768 bothered me.

l also want to add that my monitor does not do 4:1 downscaling. It is blurry and 1600x900 looks better than 1280 x 720. I set for this reason 1:1 pixel scaling in control panel, so whatever is in fullscreen below native res gets black borders on the side, but the image is crisp.

 

[AkumaX]

Whoops.

According to a few places, Imugr doesn't compress unless the image is >10MB.

Here are the same screenshots in a .png format.

1080p

1080p CCC Screen

4k CCC Screen

I tried getting a complete screenshot at 4k but it was 12MB uncompressed and Imugr changed it to a JPG.

use http://minus.com/ - its the uncompressed imgur

 

[BrightCandle]

What i mean by retina is a monitor that covers all your field of view, no matter the distance is from your eyes. I had a 20" 1920x1440 crt monitor at one point and having now 27" does nothing to me, its all about resolution and image quality. I would get a hyopthetical cheap 15" 3840x2160 monitor in a heartbeat. A 1080p tv is useless to me, as no matter how you cut it, you see individual pixels. Actually it is a drawback, takes more space, heavier. I was satisfied with the size on my first 15" crt monitor 16 years ago, just that the low max res of 1024x768 bothered me.

Pixel resolution is all about angular distance to the eye, we can only resolve so small. A lot of places measure pixels per inch(PPI) but actually what we really need to be comparing is pixels per degree (PPD). Distance is an important factor because the further away we are the less detail we can see. The "retina" branding has very little to do with any one of these measures exceeding the capabilities of the human eye. For us to believe its real the current estimate is a 24" screen at normal viewing distance on a desk will need about 10k vertical resolution. 2048p (aka 4k) is a long way from that although a good step towards it. You'll be able to resolve pixels until we get somewhere around the capability of the eye, which is going to be a long time with the current rate of progress being 2x every 10 years.

l also want to add that my monitor does not do 4:1 downscaling. It is blurry and 1600x900 looks better than 1280 x 720. I set for this reason 1:1 pixel scaling in control panel, so whatever is in fullscreen below native res gets black borders on the side, but the image is crisp.

Most don't scale 4:1 well, my Dell 2410 didn't, none of my Samsung's do and neither does the Benq XL2411T. I have tested everything I have and I didn't find a single one that scaled in that way. They are all trying to add detail with antialiasing and in the process it just looks blurry. But I can also understand why they don't make a special scalar case just for this specific scenario.

 

[Elfear]

I see what you guys are saying about screenshots. Unfortunately you'll have to take my subjective opinion that scaled 1080p looks pretty good since my camera isn't nice enough to capture the finer details of the pixel quality.

On a side note, I fired up Skyrim last night and it looked gorgeous. I wasn't expecting it to look noticeably better than my 30" 1600p monitor but I can definitely see more details. I'll have to play with the ENB settings though because with all the mods I have it dips into the 16-25fps range outdoors on a single oced 290.

 

[KingFatty]

Yeah, screenshots are useless, we need pictures taken by a camera.

I want to debunk what is retina display. i have a 27" 2560x1440 display 0,6 m away from me (2 feet) and i can see individual pixels at 8x ssaa on native res.

For your 27" 2560x1440 display, you'd have to scoot further back from the monitor, another 8 inches, to no longer be able to resolve pixels with your eyeballs, according to:

http://isthisretina.com/

So unfortunately, you are sitting too close and can still see those pixels. But, you still get the benefit of filling up your view with the display, so it's a tradeoff I guess. Or, you need 4K According to that retina website calculator, a 28" 3840x2160 display will appear to achieve retina resolution from a distance of only 22 inches - allowing you to scoot forward by 2" and still not see the pixels. Also, scooting forward 2", and having the screen bigger by 1" would fill your field of view even further.

I have no idea why people insist that 1080p looks good. 1080p is so pixelated, i got rid of my 1080p monitor as soon as i could afford a 1440p, and now pixelation on this one bothers me too if i dont use at least 4x AA.

This discussion is more about whether 1080p looks better on a 4K display or on a 1080p display of the same size, where 4 pixels of the 4K display are used to show one pixel of the 1080p content provided by the GPU. Also, everything is based on distance to screen and pixel size. Your eyeball is limited by physical reality. If you move back enough, you will not be able to resolve individual pixels. This is inescapable physics of how humans see.

What i mean by retina is a monitor that covers all your field of view, no matter the distance is from your eyes.

The issue of field of view is a good point, but you might encounter difficulties if you try to re-define a known term of art (retina display) to also be limited to filling your field of view. But have you considered other ways to increase your FOV, such as eyefinity/surround? It would let you scoot back in your chair, while still fitting lots of display into your FOV.

I would get a hyopthetical cheap 15" 3840x2160 monitor in a heartbeat.

The retina calculator says you can sit 12 inches from that hypothetical display and still not be able to see individual pixels. Personally, I think a 12 inch viewing distance is too close for a computer display, but would be fine for a tablet or cell phone viewing distance. It would feel kind of weird with your face right up to the desktop display while sitting in an office chair.

A 1080p tv is useless to me, as no matter how you cut it, you see individual pixels.

But if you scoot your chair back, you'll not be able to see individual pixels. A 46" 1080p display will appear "retina" at a distance of 6 feet (72 inches). I'm not sure how you arrange your living room, but typical living room layouts have the couch at a distance from the TV of at least 6 ft, probably more like 9 feet?

l also want to add that my monitor does not do 4:1 downscaling. It is blurry and 1600x900 looks better than 1280 x 720.

This is a different issue than the 1080p vs 4K discussion. But I think we all agree that you are correct, that a higher resolution (1600x900) looks better than a lower resolution (1280x720).

Again, it's more interesting to wonder, does the *SAME* resolution content look better on a display with that native resolution, or on a much higher resolution display (4x the resolution capability) while displaying the same content.

In other words, if you have a 28" 1080p display right next to a 28" 4K display, and you connect them to the same computer and mirror a 1080p output to both of them, could you tell the difference between them?

Both displays would be displaying the same 1080p content, and they would both the same inches/size. But would the 4K end up with an ugly screen door effect or weird fuzziness by trying to upscale things in a non-linear way? Can we control how the 4K upscales the 1080p, or would it always look the same?

 

[bystander36]

I see what you guys are saying about screenshots. Unfortunately you'll have to take my subjective opinion that scaled 1080p looks pretty good since my camera isn't nice enough to capture the finer details of the pixel quality.

On a side note, I fired up Skyrim last night and it looked gorgeous. I wasn't expecting it to look noticeably better than my 30" 1600p monitor but I can definitely see more details. I'll have to play with the ENB settings though because with all the mods I have it dips into the 16-25fps range outdoors on a single oced 290.

Was that played at 4k resolution, or 1080p?

 

[blackened23]

Some folks will not be convinced no matter what. I'm not saying all PC panels will have this scaling tech, but some of the high end UHDTVs do in fact have special scaling hardware built in to improve 1080p.

Now no matter what anyone says, there will be skeptics. Go to best buy. Look at the 65 or 80+ inch UHDTVs playing 1080p content. I have seen it side by side with actual 1080p HDTVs, and the "scaled" 1080p looks fantastic.

There is no arguing with what you see in person. EVERYONE HERE realizes that scaling in the past has SUCKED. WE ALL KNOW THIS. We're not idiots. We have used it. We have seen it. So no one has to explain, in full retard style, how scaling works. We know. Come on man. I'm pretty sure we've all used LCDs for something like near 8+ years now and we have all tried non native resolutions. And we've all seen the blur effect. So no one has to explain this crap. Again, we all know. The difference is in how 1080p is able to scale to 4k with more pixel density, it is exactly 1080p times 2. 3840*2140 versus 1920*1080. Exactly double. As it was explained to me, new scaling hardware takess advantage of this and can make the scaling better as a result. Whereas, 1080p to 720p is not exactly times two. 1080p to 480p is not exactly times two. Because these resolutions did not "map" to each other so precisely in the past, scaling looked awful. So what may is possible now wasn't possible in the past because of this.

This feature will not be on your 24 inch monitor. This is new scaling hardware found in 4k because of how 4k maps to 1080p so precisely. It isn't possible with 1080p to lower resolutions because it doesn't "map" to 720 or 480p so precisely, it isn't exactly resolution doubled. Where 1080p to 4k is.

But don't take my word for it. DO NOTE. Not all 4k panels have this, i'm near certain of this. Go view it in person. Then talk about it. I've seen a 65 inch samsung UHDTV and 1080p on it looked amazing at Best Buy. And 4k content was just unreal on it. But 1080p was also specifically shown on it to show off the scaling hardware. It was not blurry. It was excellent. Will this quell the naysayers? No. I'm sure it won't. We all are aware of how scaling has worked in the past. What i'm saying is, skepticism is cool. You should be a skeptic. But go see it in person. I think some will be surprised, now I don't know which panels will feature this or what have you, but it looks great in person. Go see it in person at a Best buy.

Now, none of this really changes the big problem with 4k right now. The cost trade-offs. For reasonable cost you must get a TN panel or 30hz. That really does suck. If you want a good IPS or IZGO, you're paying a lot more money. That also sucks. And for 4k you need a ridiculously good GPU times two. For a lot of people, that may also suck.

So it isn't an ideal situation. I'm not saying this makes 4k the thing to get. 4k isn't ready for consumers yet, the price just aint there. Unless you make tradeoffs for TN panels or 30hz. Which, again, sucks. But it should be pretty cool once the tech normalizes in price and is within reach of everyone. I see that happening 2-3 years from now, absolutely.

 

[toyota]

you keep referring to TVs where that is not really the discussion here. I don't see anyone arguing that this will not be likely on a TV. I've personally said over and over that I'm referring to monitors.

 

[blackened23]

That's not an unfair point. It's entirely possible that PC panels won't have this type of scaling. I don't know. With so many 30hz PC 4k panels floating around, and TN panels, it wouldn't be surprising.

But where available, 1080p scaling can look excellent due to how well it maps to 4k. As I mentioned, 1080p > 720p > 480p didn't map properly and couldn't produce ideal scaling, the situation is a bit different with 1080p. But we'll see how it pans out in actual 4k units. So I think this is the main reason why 1080p scaling on 4k will be "different". But it still does require special scaling hardware to my understanding.

We're just not at a point where 4k is ideal on the PC yet, I don't see that changing for a couple of years. On top of this scaling hardware potentially not being available on all monitors (I agree w/ you that it is entirely possible for this to be the case), To get a good price you have to get TN or 30hz. And like I said that sucks. So. I'm going to wait it out for a couple of years in all likelihood. When 4k hits the current price points that 1440/1600p are at WITH an IPS panel, then i'll bite. But I won't have trade-offs just to get a sub-par 4k, screw that.

 

[Elfear]

Was that played at 4k resolution, or 1080p?

Played at 4k. I have been playing at 1600p and the difference is noticeable. Just need to figure out what settings I can run now to get good performance. I still can't get Crossfire to play nice with ENB so I'm using one GPU for now.

 

[bystander36]

Played at 4k. I have been playing at 1600p and the difference is noticeable. Just need to figure out what settings I can run now to get good performance. I still can't get Crossfire to play nice with ENB so I'm using one GPU for now.

That sounds cool, though the wording, "the difference is noticeable" from going from 1600p to 4k doesn't sound that exciting I wonder what would be more appealing, 1440p @ 144hz and possibly G-sync, or 4k at 60hz?

 

[KingFatty]

you keep referring to TVs where that is not really the discussion here. I don't see anyone arguing that this will not be likely on a TV. I've personally said over and over that I'm referring to monitors.

What factors do you typically consider on a display when you decide to put it in the "TV" category vs the "monitor" category?

I think even with a display that the manufacturer labels as a TV, if it has the right resolution, refresh, size, etc. for connecting to my computer, then I don't give a crap what label is slapped on the box.

Soon I'm thinking we'll just refer to everything as a display, and not care if we call it a TV or a monitor. I mean yeah, maybe your display has a "tuner" attached to it, so you can connect your rabbit ear antennas and watch broadcast television. But nowdays I dunno, still sounds better to call it a display with an integrated tuner. Which you'll probably not use because you connect it to a set top box or other streaming source of content that doesn't need a tuner.

 

[Elfear]

That sounds cool, though the wording, "the difference is noticeable" from going from 1600p to 4k doesn't sound that exciting I wonder what would be more appealing, 1440p @ 144hz and possibly G-sync, or 4k at 60hz?

I'm rather conservative in my opinions so perhaps saying the difference is noticeable doesn't really convey the real impact. Skyrim looks gorgeous at 4k. The vanilla textures don't really look any better from 1600p but the hi-res textures look a lot better. The text in the menus looks sharper too and I was surprised it wasn't super tiny script.

I'll test some other games when I get a chance to try and give you a better feel for the difference. Some games I think the higher refresh rate would be more desirable (FPSs) but some genres lend themselves to the higher resolution (RPGs, non-twitch single-player FPS, etc.).

I have a 1080p 144hz monitor too so I know why the dilemma is there.

 

[amenx]

The scaling is done differently on some 4k screens. I've seen a super big screen 4k UHDTV in person and 1080p actually looked amazing on it. It looked better than actual 1080p on other HDTVs, it was gorgeous even up close a couple of feet away. I don't know what the technical explanation is, per se, but some 4k panels have different scaling which can actually make 1080p appear somewhat close to native 1080p. Basically, 4k panels are exactly 1080p times two so this helps. Whereas, any prior resolution halved was an off kilter resolution that wasn't even applicable. Half of 1080p wasn't 720p. Neither is 480p. So what is possible at 4k > 1080p, wasn't possible with 1080p > 720 or 480p. It's exactly 4x the pixels.

I've stated this before and have always been of the opinion that 4k TVs should look excellent at 1080p. It would have to be a top priority of manufacturers to insure the scaling is well executed. All buyers of 4k TVs over the next few years will still overwhelmingly be watch regular HD content, so if 4k TVs are to sell well, they would have to perform very well at HD res.

 

[AkumaX]

That's not an unfair point. It's entirely possible that PC panels won't have this type of scaling. I don't know. With so many 30hz PC 4k panels floating around, and TN panels, it wouldn't be surprising.

But where available, 1080p scaling can look excellent due to how well it maps to 4k. As I mentioned, 1080p > 720p > 480p didn't map properly and couldn't produce ideal scaling, the situation is a bit different with 1080p. But we'll see how it pans out in actual 4k units. So I think this is the main reason why 1080p scaling on 4k will be "different". But it still does require special scaling hardware to my understanding.

We're just not at a point where 4k is ideal on the PC yet, I don't see that changing for a couple of years. On top of this scaling hardware potentially not being available on all monitors (I agree w/ you that it is entirely possible for this to be the case), To get a good price you have to get TN or 30hz. And like I said that sucks. So. I'm going to wait it out for a couple of years in all likelihood. When 4k hits the current price points that 1440/1600p are at WITH an IPS panel, then i'll bite. But I won't have trade-offs just to get a sub-par 4k, screw that.

I only know Dell to make a 30hz 4k TN monitor - 28" (MSRP $699, has been seen on sale for $~600)

I was also impressed/surprised to see Dell put on sale the 24" IPS 4k 60hz monitor (MSRP $1400), lowest price $900 + (comes with $300 Dell GC) = ~$600

With this Samsung 4k 60hz TN 28" @ MSRP $699, it'll be interesting to see how the quality will compare with the new Lenovo + Asus 4k 60hz TN 28" coming out soon (MSRP $699, $799)

 

[blackened23]

The only thing I'll say is you get what you pay for. Now not all TN's are created the same, but it is still TN. And I say this as someone who generally isn't a snob that hates TN. I use a lightboost panel sometimes. And I enjoy using it. BUT, you notice the difference, and I would not have gotten that lightboost panel if it had not been insanely cheap (bought it used). And linus reviewed the Samsung TN 4k panel, he noted that it is still TN. And not with a good connotation.

I will appreciate it much more when high quality IPS or IZGO panels reach those price points. When they do, I will bite. I don't really want to compromise or get in a situation where its a price race to the bottom. That is generally the case with TN. I don't care how good a TN is, there are many things an IPS does better; this matters TO ME BECAUSE I do more than game on my high resolution panels. On my 1600p panels, I do more than game. I do my work. And that's where I could not bear using a TN. If I were merely gaming? I don't know. I love gaming and all, but it's a balancing act for me.

Therefore, I don't really see myself getting a 4k TN panel. It's going to turn into a price race to the bottom. You'll see crap companies like Acer and others make their TN 4k panels and they will suck. And that will cause the other 4k TN panels to compete on price. Then those samsung 4 k panels will be a price race to the bottom. And quality race to the bottom. That's how low cost tech works, generally speaking. There's a trickle down and domino effect - It's going to suck. And those monitors will suck. Now with that said, I hear the Samsung TN 4k isn't too bad. It's pretty good for a TN. But rest assured, once the crap manufacturers play their hand in 4k panels. Samsung will start compromising to lower that price. Price race to the bottom, quality race to the bottom. It won't be pretty.

Just IMO. I'd rather pay more for quality. Especially where with my work, the IPS or IZGO quality matters. Unfrotunately, IZGO/IPS 4k isn't at a price point that i'm okay with. Yet. But i'm sure that will change with time. Bottom line is you get what you pay for with the 600$ 4k panels. I think i'll wait for something I can appreciate more, when those IPS/IZGO hit sub 1000$ price levels, count me in. IZGO is also similar to TN in terms of response times, IZGO is technically capable of lightboost just like TN is. But it is incredibly expensive, so they're now being marketed more along the lines of professional use. However, once IZGO lowers in price...watch out. They're going to be insanely good IMO, especially for gaming.

 

[UaVaj]

1k image on 4k screen

same size screen for both 1k and 4k (for ppi)
same type of panel for both 1k and 4k (for color)
true 1 to 4 scaling without processing (for interpolation)

1k image on 1k screen will be near identical on 4k screen

 

[Railgun]

What factors do you typically consider on a display when you decide to put it in the "TV" category vs the "monitor" category?

Granted there's a marketing aspect there.

But generally, you're not going to see the features/electronics in what's typically a TV vs a monintor, hence why this thread is suggesting that a monitor will not have the same scaling capabilities as a TV.

There's been a review already of, maybe the new 28" Dell that wasn't exactly a raving review of the upscaling performance.

 

[Ferzerp]

As someone who uses a 3200x1800 resolution laptop running at 1600x900 to play games on a few times a week, I will tell you these claims that good 1/4 scaling doesn't exist in practice are completely false.

 

[AkumaX]

As someone who uses a 3200x1800 resolution laptop running at 1600x900 to play games on a few times a week, I will tell you these claims that good 1/4 scaling doesn't exist in practice are completely false.

I had to read that a couple times: so in other words, assumptions that good 1/4 scaling exists in practice are completely true!

 

[Lepton87]

I've seen people try to tell Toyota what we mean, but he's incapable of getting it, so there's no point in arguing with him.

And as for the OP, yeah, it's just gonna vary by monitor.

My monitor acts exactly as he says, 720p doesn't look like it would on a native 720p 27'' screen, there's no 4:1 pixel mapping. I'm not saying every monitor is the same but I haven't seen a monitor that would do 4:1 mapping right but I haven't yet seen any 4k monitors.

That's not an unfair point. It's entirely possible that PC panels won't have this type of scaling. I don't know. With so many 30hz PC 4k panels floating around, and TN panels, it wouldn't be surprising.

But where available, 1080p scaling can look excellent due to how well it maps to 4k. As I mentioned, 1080p > 720p > 480p didn't map properly and couldn't produce ideal scaling, the situation is a bit different with 1080p. But we'll see how it pans out in actual 4k units. So I think this is the main reason why 1080p scaling on 4k will be "different". But it still does require special scaling hardware to my understanding.

You are omitting two very popular resolutions that also map perfectly. 720p and 2560x1440, those are very popular resolutions and unfortunately I have yet to see a 2560x1440 monitor that would display 720p properly without scaling artifacts, blurring etc. Frankly it was quite puzzling to see that 720p looked so bad on my monitor because I thought that the monitor would just map four pixels to one and be done with it alas I was mistaken. I hope 4k monitors won't have the same problem.

 

[Throckmorton]

I was arguiging with a friend over 4k resolution. I claimed that you can use a 4k monitor , as a 1080p monitor too, and it would be as good as a native 1080p monitor . Because all 4k monitor have to do is ,to map 4 pixels to 1 pixels colour data. No resizing is necessary.

He claimed that lcd monitors only work at native resolutions ,and if we try a 4k monitor at 1080p, it would be all blurry.

Which one is true?

What you're talking about is impossible. Graphics card makers have the capability to enable that function, but they don't because they say "there is insufficient demand". There was a thread on the nVidia forum a few years ago.

If they had recognized the need with 2160p monitors, they would have done it, but they still refuse.

Stupid because it would take mere minutes to program.

 

[Throckmorton]

if it was true that 1080 always looked good on 4k then we would not even have to discuss it. does 960x540 look good on a 1080 screen? nope. does 1280x720 look good on a 1440 screen? nope. I have never seen this 1/4 claim ever pan out. just people claiming in theory that it "should" look good is all I have ever seen.

It doesn't work because no monitor manufacturer or graphics card maker has enabled it for some insane reason.

 

[Throckmorton]

As someone who uses a 3200x1800 resolution laptop running at 1600x900 to play games on a few times a week, I will tell you these claims that good 1/4 scaling doesn't exist in practice are completely false.

Yet you didn't even post what laptop you have. I call shenanigans.

Even if your computer can do it, no other screen can do 4:1.