4 ms·

I don’t need 8k for movies and games but I want it for text

• steve1977 3y ago
  But that’s more a monitor then, not a TV I assume?
  • bzzzt 3y ago
    The only reason we have cheap high-resolution 4K monitors is they use the same panels as TV screens. If TV's don't move to 8K, cheap monitors also won't.
    • wruza 3y ago
      Do they? I always thought TV screens are lower pixel quality panels with colors/hdr cranked up for remote viewing and from any angle. And that the only link between them is movie standards, as in viewers >> PC users, so their demand defines the market. PC panels also tend to have low-ms response rates whereas TV panels are okay with 100ms+ range. I mean there must be a common ground for manufacturing <N>K, but aren’t they different beasts?
      • accrual 3y ago
        GP claimed cheap monitors are only possible because they use the same panels as TVs. It's silly to say all 4K monitors are just TV panels with different inputs and vise versa. Panels available today have a vast array of differences. Just check out some reviews on RTINGS. Even similar models from the same manufacturer can have wildly different specs. https://www.rtings.com https://www.rtings.com
        • Two4 3y ago
          I friggin love rtings - I wish all reviews would dive so deep into the technicals and have such consistent processes.
      • bzzzt 3y ago
        There's more to a display than a panel. I don't think the raw panel has latency at all; probably only a pixel transition time which defines the fastest possible response but that is far less than 100ms. The rest is up to the 'panel driving' electronics. I don't believe there are really different panels in a 32" 4K monitor or a 32" 4K TV. (those would be the cheap low-end or 'bedroom' TV's which are sold far more than 65" flagship living room TV's)
        • wruza 3y ago
          Hmm, I didn’t even think of this aspect. Thanks!