8 ms·

Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use ? I am pretty sure from the distance that you usually watch 1080p content, you wont see a diff

by kayoone 13y ago

Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use ? I am pretty sure from the distance that you usually watch 1080p content, you wont see a difference to 4K content at all. Of course for big presentations and conference setups i see the usecase, just not for the consumer mainstream. 4K would also set back game console performance by a huge margin, if they will ever adopt it. So i am not really convinced that the mainstream will go up to 4K, 8K etc, as it also means that all production costs increase and the benefit for the consumer is marginal.

Yhippa 13y ago
Have you seen it in person yet? To me there is most definitely a difference and I personally would enjoy 4K content.
- kayoone 13y ago
  TBH no. But in the livingroom, sitting a couple of meters away from my 42 inch 1080P tv, i can hardly see a difference between 720p and 1080p content. It would make sense for computer monitors though!
papercrane 13y ago
> Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use ? For big monitors I think it does. Even if 4k doesn't make sense, the increased bandwidth is a win as the previous HDMI spec couldn't drive a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor at 60hz, and those resolutions definitely make sense to me for computer monitors.
- kayoone 13y ago
  Yeah you are right, id definately adore it for computer monitors. Still, mainstream is stuck with 22 inch TN panel 1080p screens which are miserable, but consumer dont seem to really care. Theres only a handful of models that offer more than 1080p resolution in todays market.
- mbell 13y ago
  > as the previous HDMI spec couldn't drive a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor at 60hz That has been supported by HDMI since 1.3, since around 2006. 2560×1600p75 @ 24bit is about the highest standard resolution you can pump through HDMI 1.3.
  - papercrane 13y ago
    That's interesting, because most of the high resolution monitors I've seen explicitly say you need to use DL-DVI to drive them at full resolution (for example the 27" Dell Ultrasharps.)
    - mbell 13y ago
      Many companies cheap out on the supporting electronics. In particular single-link DVI is electrically compatible with HDMI but is limited to ~1920 x 1200 @ 60Hz. Basically instead of properly implementing HDMI they route a single-link DVI transceiver through an HDMI connector and call it good.
harpastum 13y ago
I think it's a mistake to assume the existing sizes and viewing distances will remain the same into the future. Yes 1080p is just fine when the thing you're viewing takes up 10 degrees of your vision. However, as screens get larger and/or closer, it's actually pretty easy to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k. I'm really looking forward to getting a 4k computer monitor in the near future, and a 4k tv that's >100 inches in the middle future.
- kayoone 13y ago
  Most certainly right, but i really think sizes of >50 inches wont be mainstream for a long time, if ever. That means huge devices will be low volume and high price. You can see this in the PC monitor space already, as theres basically nothing happening as most people seem to be happy with their 1080p 22-24inch screens. My two 24inch 1920x1200 Dell from 2006 are still better than most of the TN panel Full-HD crap you can buy today, which is pretty sad.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    50"-60" has been "mainstream" for years, in the sense that they take up a substantial percentage of floor space in most TV stores. Apparently it's expected the average for new shipments may exceed 40" this year (late 2012 it was around 37")
    - Yaggo 13y ago
      Video projectors has also been "mainstream" for years and scream for 4K technology. > I think it's a mistake to assume the existing sizes and viewing distances will remain the same into the future. Exactly!
  - arjunnarayan 13y ago
    The 27" 2560x1440 models are going strong recently. I got one off the ebay resellers, and its gorgeous.
  - ddeck 13y ago
    > My two 24inch 1920x1200 Dell from 2006 are still better than most of the TN panel Full-HD crap you can buy today Agreed, I use 3 of the new ones. 16x10 is a MUCH better aspect ratio in my opinion. I really don't understand manufacturers' obsession with 16x9 given that most of what people do on computers involves scrolling vertically, not horizontally. Thankfully Dell are still selling them. And at $260 for 24" 16x10 IPS, I'm sure they're now much cheaper than in 2006. EDIT: Indeed, looks like prices have falled about 70% [1], although I'm sure that was RRP [1] http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/02/dell-2407wfp-goes-on-sale-in-us/ http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/02/dell-2407wfp-goes-on-sale...
vidarh 13y ago
You probably won't on a 42" screen used as a TV. Maybe not even on a 50" screen used as a TV. Used as a monitor from short range, is another matter entirely. But Amazon is selling 75" TV's in the UK, and 100"+ projectors. As screen sizes go up, people won't be too happy to see dpi drop again. We are also becoming accustomed to higher DPI on our screens via tablets etc.. After I got my phone (1280x720 on a 4.7" screen) my 1920x1080 on my 17" laptop was suddenly noticeably grainy. My full HD 42" LED TV is no longer nearly as impressive as it seemed when I got it and compared it to my old TV. My next phone will be a full HD 5"+ model, and I expect my next tablet to be in the 2500+xwhatever range or more for a 10", because anything else will look worse than my current phone. For a lot of content, sure, you won't notice much difference - I quite happily still watch my DVD's on my full HD TV. In other words there are plenty of situations where we will notice the difference to 4K, even if we'd be perfectly happy with 1080p if we didn't have a higher DPI device to compare to.
- baddox 13y ago
  Screen size isn't the only relevant factor. Given any size of screen, more resolution means that viewers can sit closer to the TV, thus filling more of their field of view with the screen.
daniel_reetz 13y ago
We can digitally capture images at much, much higher resolution than we can hope to display them. Even my giant 27", 2550x1440 monitor is only 3.7 megapixels. Given the importance of photography in modern culture, it's more than a little weird to be so unbalanced. As someone who builds prototype displays, I can tell you, we can always use more bandwidth and more resolution. Even if we just abuse it to play tricks. the interfaces we have today are horrible for high frame rate, 3D, and anything that needs to sync up.
MichaelGG 13y ago
Well I recently saw a MacBook Retina and was shocked at how amazing it. I dislike the OS, the case design, the keyboard -- everything about it. But wow, that screen. Painted on is a good description. On game performance, I thought pixels were a fairly parallel problem? That is, the Xbox vNext could simply overcome it by not using a low-end video card like the XB1? Just add shaders and whatnot.
SiVal 13y ago
Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use? It's a good question, but my answer is definitely, Yes. My ideal work station would be a room with a wall-sized 8K touch-screen monitor covering the wall in front of me. I would have an adjustable table with a comfy chair and treadmill looking over the table and across the room at the wall screen. Lower the table and sit in the chair. Raise the table and use it as a standing desk or step onto the treadmill. Step out from behind the table and pace around the room, examining the code and how it is running in the four browsers open in windows beside the code. Walk up to the screen and use the browsers via touch. Step back, look at the code, walk up to it and interchange two lines by dragging, then say, "Macro! Run!" and watch it go. Walk back to the treadmill and turn up the speed for a victory lap as you watch your code finally doing what it is supposed to.... I want that 8K touchscreen on the wall.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Have you used multi-monitor setups before? Anything more than about two screens, and I personally find myself getting really annoyed because I have to turn my head instead of moving my eyes. I feel like a full-wall monitor would be even worse.
  - erikig 13y ago
    I've been using a 39" Seiki 4K monitor for my application development 'needs' for about 2 weeks and I have to say 4K is a substantial step forward from 3 or 4 1080p screens. HDMI 2.0 is great because - especially for desktop use - we can increase from the 30Hz limit of HDMI 1.4. Take a look at reviews of the Seiki 4K unit from private users for a feel of how things are coming along: http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/product-reviews/B00DOPGO2G/ref=sr_sp-atf_cr_text_1_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/p...
  - SiVal 13y ago
    Yes, I've used multiscreen setups before and always wanted more. I always have multiple apps running, which means that I have to flip from one to the other if I can't just turn my head. If it's paperwork, I tend to spread it out on my desk rather than keeping it all in one tidy stack and bringing each page to the top as I need it. I'm sure there are large screen setups I wouldn't like, but in general I'd rather turn my head (or my gaze) than repeatedly swap things to the front of the stack.

by kayoone 13y ago

Yhippa 13y ago

Have you seen it in person yet? To me there is most definitely a difference and I personally would enjoy 4K content.

kayoone 13y ago
TBH no. But in the livingroom, sitting a couple of meters away from my 42 inch 1080P tv, i can hardly see a difference between 720p and 1080p content. It would make sense for computer monitors though!

papercrane 13y ago

> Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use ? For big monitors I think it does. Even if 4k doesn't make sense, the increased bandwidth is a win as the previous HDMI spec couldn't drive a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor at 60hz, and those resolutions definitely make sense to me for computer monitors.

kayoone 13y ago
Yeah you are right, id definately adore it for computer monitors. Still, mainstream is stuck with 22 inch TN panel 1080p screens which are miserable, but consumer dont seem to really care. Theres only a handful of models that offer more than 1080p resolution in todays market.
mbell 13y ago
> as the previous HDMI spec couldn't drive a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor at 60hz That has been supported by HDMI since 1.3, since around 2006. 2560×1600p75 @ 24bit is about the highest standard resolution you can pump through HDMI 1.3.
- papercrane 13y ago
  That's interesting, because most of the high resolution monitors I've seen explicitly say you need to use DL-DVI to drive them at full resolution (for example the 27" Dell Ultrasharps.)
  - mbell 13y ago
    Many companies cheap out on the supporting electronics. In particular single-link DVI is electrically compatible with HDMI but is limited to ~1920 x 1200 @ 60Hz. Basically instead of properly implementing HDMI they route a single-link DVI transceiver through an HDMI connector and call it good.

harpastum 13y ago

I think it's a mistake to assume the existing sizes and viewing distances will remain the same into the future. Yes 1080p is just fine when the thing you're viewing takes up 10 degrees of your vision. However, as screens get larger and/or closer, it's actually pretty easy to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k. I'm really looking forward to getting a 4k computer monitor in the near future, and a 4k tv that's >100 inches in the middle future.

kayoone 13y ago
Most certainly right, but i really think sizes of >50 inches wont be mainstream for a long time, if ever. That means huge devices will be low volume and high price. You can see this in the PC monitor space already, as theres basically nothing happening as most people seem to be happy with their 1080p 22-24inch screens. My two 24inch 1920x1200 Dell from 2006 are still better than most of the TN panel Full-HD crap you can buy today, which is pretty sad.
- vidarh 13y ago
  50"-60" has been "mainstream" for years, in the sense that they take up a substantial percentage of floor space in most TV stores. Apparently it's expected the average for new shipments may exceed 40" this year (late 2012 it was around 37")
  - Yaggo 13y ago
    Video projectors has also been "mainstream" for years and scream for 4K technology. > I think it's a mistake to assume the existing sizes and viewing distances will remain the same into the future. Exactly!
- arjunnarayan 13y ago
  The 27" 2560x1440 models are going strong recently. I got one off the ebay resellers, and its gorgeous.
- ddeck 13y ago
  > My two 24inch 1920x1200 Dell from 2006 are still better than most of the TN panel Full-HD crap you can buy today Agreed, I use 3 of the new ones. 16x10 is a MUCH better aspect ratio in my opinion. I really don't understand manufacturers' obsession with 16x9 given that most of what people do on computers involves scrolling vertically, not horizontally. Thankfully Dell are still selling them. And at $260 for 24" 16x10 IPS, I'm sure they're now much cheaper than in 2006. EDIT: Indeed, looks like prices have falled about 70% [1], although I'm sure that was RRP [1] http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/02/dell-2407wfp-goes-on-sale-in-us/ http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/02/dell-2407wfp-goes-on-sale...

vidarh 13y ago

You probably won't on a 42" screen used as a TV. Maybe not even on a 50" screen used as a TV. Used as a monitor from short range, is another matter entirely. But Amazon is selling 75" TV's in the UK, and 100"+ projectors. As screen sizes go up, people won't be too happy to see dpi drop again. We are also becoming accustomed to higher DPI on our screens via tablets etc.. After I got my phone (1280x720 on a 4.7" screen) my 1920x1080 on my 17" laptop was suddenly noticeably grainy. My full HD 42" LED TV is no longer nearly as impressive as it seemed when I got it and compared it to my old TV. My next phone will be a full HD 5"+ model, and I expect my next tablet to be in the 2500+xwhatever range or more for a 10", because anything else will look worse than my current phone. For a lot of content, sure, you won't notice much difference - I quite happily still watch my DVD's on my full HD TV. In other words there are plenty of situations where we will notice the difference to 4K, even if we'd be perfectly happy with 1080p if we didn't have a higher DPI device to compare to.

baddox 13y ago
Screen size isn't the only relevant factor. Given any size of screen, more resolution means that viewers can sit closer to the TV, thus filling more of their field of view with the screen.

daniel_reetz 13y ago

We can digitally capture images at much, much higher resolution than we can hope to display them. Even my giant 27", 2550x1440 monitor is only 3.7 megapixels. Given the importance of photography in modern culture, it's more than a little weird to be so unbalanced. As someone who builds prototype displays, I can tell you, we can always use more bandwidth and more resolution. Even if we just abuse it to play tricks. the interfaces we have today are horrible for high frame rate, 3D, and anything that needs to sync up.

MichaelGG 13y ago

Well I recently saw a MacBook Retina and was shocked at how amazing it. I dislike the OS, the case design, the keyboard -- everything about it. But wow, that screen. Painted on is a good description. On game performance, I thought pixels were a fairly parallel problem? That is, the Xbox vNext could simply overcome it by not using a low-end video card like the XB1? Just add shaders and whatnot.

SiVal 13y ago

Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use? It's a good question, but my answer is definitely, Yes. My ideal work station would be a room with a wall-sized 8K touch-screen monitor covering the wall in front of me. I would have an adjustable table with a comfy chair and treadmill looking over the table and across the room at the wall screen. Lower the table and sit in the chair. Raise the table and use it as a standing desk or step onto the treadmill. Step out from behind the table and pace around the room, examining the code and how it is running in the four browsers open in windows beside the code. Walk up to the screen and use the browsers via touch. Step back, look at the code, walk up to it and interchange two lines by dragging, then say, "Macro! Run!" and watch it go. Walk back to the treadmill and turn up the speed for a victory lap as you watch your code finally doing what it is supposed to.... I want that 8K touchscreen on the wall.

sliverstorm 13y ago
Have you used multi-monitor setups before? Anything more than about two screens, and I personally find myself getting really annoyed because I have to turn my head instead of moving my eyes. I feel like a full-wall monitor would be even worse.
- erikig 13y ago
  I've been using a 39" Seiki 4K monitor for my application development 'needs' for about 2 weeks and I have to say 4K is a substantial step forward from 3 or 4 1080p screens. HDMI 2.0 is great because - especially for desktop use - we can increase from the 30Hz limit of HDMI 1.4. Take a look at reviews of the Seiki 4K unit from private users for a feel of how things are coming along: http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/product-reviews/B00DOPGO2G/ref=sr_sp-atf_cr_text_1_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/p...
- SiVal 13y ago
  Yes, I've used multiscreen setups before and always wanted more. I always have multiple apps running, which means that I have to flip from one to the other if I can't just turn my head. If it's paperwork, I tend to spread it out on my desk rather than keeping it all in one tidy stack and bringing each page to the top as I need it. I'm sure there are large screen setups I wouldn't like, but in general I'd rather turn my head (or my gaze) than repeatedly swap things to the front of the stack.