4K monitors and 1080p resolution?

[AkumaX]

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.

I'm betting it's a Yoga 2

 

[AkumaX]

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.

Dell 24" 4K IPS 60hz for $849 - 10% off VZ9FXQVT70N0TF = $764

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=860-BBCD

 

[MongGrel]

looks nice, but bought a Dell 2560 C1080 29 inch last thanksgiving for 399.

Not going there, if I was spending that these days I'd get a good projector.

 

[UaVaj]

http://isthisretina.com/

nice calculator. totally understand the concept behind this.

question. once beyond retina distance and pixel cannot be differentiated. does that mean one can skip AA?

baseline 23" 1920x1080p requires 36" for retina.
currently sitting about 24" to display.
personally - needs 4x aa.

consider 27" 2560x1440 requires 32" for retina. this would suggest what 3.5x aa?
consider 30" 2560x1440 requires 35" for retina. this would still need 4x aa?
consider 28" 3840x2160 requires 22" for retina. this would suggest no aa?

 

[KingFatty]

I am curious if there is a way to calculate how big the aliasing jaggies will be for a given resolution and different angles of lines you try to display on that size of pixels.

I wonder if the aliasing jaggedness can appear to be "bigger" than the native resolution somehow, maybe it's how our eyes notice the discrepancy between the grid of pixels and a slanted line? What I mean is that a veritcal line can be perfectly smooth, but once you slant the line you'll see aliasing, so it will be more perceptible than a mere pixel?

 

[KingFatty]

Here's what I mean. If you display a line at a 45 degree angle, it will just be individual pixels and appear retina, because each single pixel is not resolvable.

But look at the following, see how the individual pixels along the curve can form "clumps" that pretty much represent a series of blocks that are each bigger than one pixel?

That's what I mean, your eyeball will pick out each individual blocks or clumps along the curve or slanted line, whenever you form a block that is a nice blocky geometrical shape that is larger than one pixel, assuming the pixel size is where detail disappears:

 

[Skurge]

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.

No, iGZO is not as good an TN for response times. I had my U2713HM for a year before I switched to the 950D and I can tell you the IPS panel looked much better. The Samsung, wasn't bad bud it was no comparison. The 950D though was much much faster. my K/D in BF4 rocketed up. Aiming was much better. So whenever my 590D gets here and if it's anywhere as fast as as my 950D iGZO will have to come a lot closer before I consider it as gaming is primary.

From the one thorough review the 590D is excellent for a TN monitor. It's even holds it's own against PLS/IPS panels in that review. It's only downfall being contrast ratio. All else being very good

ofcourse if there was an iGZO panel with a 1ms response time and very little input lag for less than U$1000 than great, but alas there will always be compromises. So you can't pre-judge someline like the 590D or the Asus monitor with the same panel with comments like "you get what you pay for".

 

[Ferzerp]

I'm betting it's a Yoga 2

Precision m3800

 

[AkumaX]

Precision m3800

Wow, looks nice!

 

[x3sphere]

No, iGZO is not as good an TN for response times. I had my U2713HM for a year before I switched to the 950D and I can tell you the IPS panel looked much better. The Samsung, wasn't bad bud it was no comparison. The 950D though was much much faster. my K/D in BF4 rocketed up. Aiming was much better. So whenever my 590D gets here and if it's anywhere as fast as as my 950D iGZO will have to come a lot closer before I consider it as gaming is primary.

From the one thorough review the 590D is excellent for a TN monitor. It's even holds it's own against PLS/IPS panels in that review. It's only downfall being contrast ratio. All else being very good

ofcourse if there was an iGZO panel with a 1ms response time and very little input lag for less than U$1000 than great, but alas there will always be compromises. So you can't pre-judge someline like the 590D or the Asus monitor with the same panel with comments like "you get what you pay for".

Indeed. From what I've seen the response times for IGZO are below the top performing IPS panels right now. Look at the Ananadtech reviews, Asus PQ321Q scored 28ms, and the Dell for some reason was at 47ms.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7906/62309.png

Coupled with the MST issues, it's very hard to recommend any of the IGZO 4K panels for gaming even if the 32" models were under $1000.

 

[AkumaX]

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?

It doesn't look as good

 

[KingFatty]

It doesn't look as good

Would you agree it can depend on what 4K display you are using, and what 1080p display you are using?

Or is it categorically that all 4K displays will not look as good as an equal-sized 1080p display, when they both are showing 1080p content?

 

[AkumaX]

Would you agree it can depend on what 4K display you are using, and what 1080p display you are using?

Or is it categorically that all 4K displays will not look as good as an equal-sized 1080p display, when they both are showing 1080p content?

Haha, I should say it doesn't look as good for the monitor I'm using

Now I want to see a 4K monitor that can do 1080p good!

I (finally) got the Samsung 28" 4K 60hz TN panel U28D590D.
Considering making a new thread of anyone's got questions on this

 

[Mondozei]

So, it's been a little while. I'm interested in this thread because I myself am using a 144 Hz 1080p monitor and I'd like to a buy a 100+ Hz 4K monitor(which won't happen until DisplayPort 1.3 comes out, so we're still talking 1 year or so at minimum before it even becomes technically feasible, let alone commercially viable).

Nevertheless, I've seen more and more customer reviews of 4K monitors. So Im wondering if anyone that has recently bought one and could share some insight into how 1080p gaming looks like.

 

[Railgun]

It's only been a few weeks. I would hope that someone isn't buying a 4k monitor for the sole purposes of 2k gaming. Might as well also build a server with a Xeon chip just to play Space Quest 2.

 

[Skurge]

So, I can confirm the 590D do not look very good running at 1080p. Looks worse than my 950D even if it is an inch smaller. Seems like it doesn't scale right.

 

[BrightCandle]

No surprises there, they all seem to be coming with terrible scalar algorithms. I think its a real shame, the great benefit of 4k was that it was 4 pixels for every 1 on a 1080p display making it possible to play at 1080p still with a decently sharp image....only somehow the monitor companies didn't get that message and so now 4k is just like any other resolution above 1080p - if the game doesn't perform well its bad luck.

 

[KingFatty]

So, I can confirm the 590D do not look very good running at 1080p. Looks worse than my 950D even if it is an inch smaller. Seems like it doesn't scale right.

Does it give any options, like something that might affect how it scales and/or interpolates, when you scroll through the on-screen menu? Like, does it have a game mode, vs. an internet/photo mode?

 

[bystander36]

It's only been a few weeks. I would hope that someone isn't buying a 4k monitor for the sole purposes of 2k gaming. Might as well also build a server with a Xeon chip just to play Space Quest 2.

I imagine the idea behind getting a 4k monitor, but wanting to know of 1080p looks good is the 4K is for the desktop and easier to run games, with 1080p being a fall back on really demanding games.

 

[Mand]

I imagine the idea behind getting a 4k monitor, but wanting to know of 1080p looks good is the 4K is for the desktop and easier to run games, with 1080p being a fall back on really demanding games.

Or to also use it for things that don't provide 4k source content.

 

[Railgun]

That would only be video generally. And as mentioned previously, monitors, especially the less expensive ones, will not have any processing built in to scale anyway.

If people want a scaler, buy a TV.

The easier solutions would be to incorporate that into the video cards, not the displays.

 

[UaVaj]

So, I can confirm the 590D do not look very good running at 1080p. Looks worse than my 950D even if it is an inch smaller. Seems like it doesn't scale right.

results is only as good as the scaler.

amazing how old school crt scaled perfectly.
SC1 with standard 640x480 resolution scaled look exactly the same on a 1920x1440 21" ViewSonic PF815.

 

[Skurge]

Does it give any options, like something that might affect how it scales and/or interpolates, when you scroll through the on-screen menu? Like, does it have a game mode, vs. an internet/photo mode?

I don't remember seeing anything related to scaling. I will have a look again when I'm home today. The game mode just maxed brightness and contrast which is impractical as the monitor is unusable to me at anything over 20% brightness.

 

[bystander36]

results is only as good as the scaler.

amazing how old school crt scaled perfectly.
SC1 with standard 640x480 resolution scaled look exactly the same on a 1920x1440 21" ViewSonic PF815.

That isn't amazing at all. CRT's don't have a fixed grid of pixels. They just changed their frequency and the monitors showed resolution as it is. CRT's do not have native resolutions, and gamers of the time often choose resolutions like you'd adjust any other setting. Picking the best one for the GPU power you had.

 

[Mand]

CRT's don't have a fixed grid of pixels.

Yes they do. There are three distinct phosphors, one for each color, arranged in a specific pattern, and that pattern determines the pixel count and orientation. You can't just invent phosphors in other locations for different resolutions, they're coated on the inside of the CRT glass.