New Samsung 4k for everyone.

Nitemare3219 said:

I forgot to mention that! It does have that auto brightness panel saving feature still present, but it is much less affected by it for just about everything short of a full white screen. I think having 4x the pixels helps it be a lot brighter. Comparing side by side with the JS9000, only white screens such as web browsing ever really look any better. I did notice in 2 specific marketing screenshots of GTA 5 (desert was one) that the JS9000 was barely brighter, looking better to me, but I use the JS9000 at 20 backlight which most probably wouldn't do anyway, so it's really not a big deal.

The lag almost makes me want to return the OLED. It's not bad, but knowing it's there is going to bother me. It could probably be fixed in firmware, but I doubt LG will do so. I'm not a competitive gamer, but I love to win... and it's a lot easier for me in FPS games when my mouse response is as crisp as it is on the JS9000. I don't struggle at all with the OLED lag, but I certainly have to adjust to it and it causes my aiming to be a little slower.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. Although I'm not ready to jump yet, I do love reading about others' experiences with different products. I kinda wished that some other people would have tried some of the 2015 Panasonic sets with DisplayPort to see how those compared to the Sammies. And that's not even counting Sony, Sharp, Visio, Hitachi, etc...though I've been so caught up in the Samsung discussions, I haven't done enough research to know which 4K sets they offer and how they fare for PC use. I suspect that if there were any gems out there, we'd have heard about them here, but I guess it's possible that no one here has tried them yet. Maybe over at AVS forum?

One thing's for sure: between the fact that 4K is steadily maturing and becoming more widely adopted, competition in the high-Hz G-Sync/FreeSync monitor sector is heating up, and OLED finally becoming a feasible option, it's going to be a very exciting time in the tech world.

Hi, my first post here, and wish to thank everyone for all their posts providing valuable information that helped me decide to make my purchase and help any other prospective buyers.

It helped me decide to get one of this TVs, my choice being the 40" 7100.
I do have one question, but would like to first express my experience with the unit.

First off, do excuse me if I refer to it as a monitor, yes, it is a TV, but I use it solely as a monitor

Regarding size,
48" would have simply not fit at my desk, and buying a new desk and putting a screen bigger than our current TV would have likely been questioned and audited by my wife
I was a little worried about the dpi, and text being too small, having previously tried a 32" 4K monitor BL3201, that I ended up returning several months ago. I returned that one because for me the text on 100% was unreadable (well .. requiring way too much effort to read), and scaling the font was kind of against the point of having 4K in the first place. To my pleasant surprise, the text on the 40" is right on the fence where it is easily readable at 100%, but still small enough to be crisp and convey a feeling of that 4K magic, knowing you have something special in front of you whenever you sit at the desk.

Regarding the 6xxx / 7xxx / 8xxx / 9xxx
I was watching the demo material in the store, on the 6500 and 7100 back and forth several times. and to me the 7100 had a more clear and crisp picture enough to persuade me towards stepping up for the better model, that and I prefer glossy screens. I also looked at the JS8500, and from the looks in the store, did not do enough to blow me away. I just knew I would be perfectly happy with the 7100 series, .. and I was already pushing it above my budget. Also there was the size problem, 48" being the smallest 8500.

Curve vs flat,
Ah well, they did not have the 7500 in the store, so that was that.
I kind of think a curve might have been better for me, even at this size, given that when at 2 feet distance, I sort of feel the edges are already at too much of an angle. Not talking about any picture quality issue, it kind of just feels like you are reading from a surface that should not be as angled as much, when reading text near the sides.
Also If I did decide to step up for the 7500, I am sure that in that price range I would have started debating about the 8500 again, so size and budget would have been a problem .. and .. you get it though, was fairly easy decision for me

Previous monitor / switching experience
Not much to say, I love this TV / monitor, coming from a TN panel that I was using just before, (a 144Hz panel to be honest), I am extremely happy that I have switched. To each his own, but I just could not stand reading a web page, where at the bottom of the screen the text was bluish, and scrolling the page up it was becoming yellowish .. yuck, and then also the dpi, it was a 27" 1080p. so .. just terrible (for me)
Quality is near pefect, near being the one dead pixel I have
No backlight bleeding that I can see, perfect uniform black screen, but unfortunately I do have one dead / stuck pixel. I can only see it on a fully black screen, and it is sort of a bright cyan color. It is in the lower part of the screen, midway horizontally. During normal usage, I usually don't see it unless I am curious and go looking for it. I tried stuff like Undead Pixel, or the LCD repair web page, as well as applying pressure with my Note 2 spen, but nothing really worked, it is still there. If anyone has any more ideas do let me know.

I could have gone to the store to exchange it, but to be honest, I am from Canada and bought it from the US (40" 7100 not available here, plus in general it would have been much more expensive anyway). The time to drive to the nearest store and back, where they have this model, would be about 3 hours, and I already had to drive back once (well to a closer Best Buy) to get a price adjustment when it dropped from $1099 to $999. That and the hassle when crossing the border .. also not knowing what kind of problems the new screen might have .. not worth the trouble I think
To be honest, I don't normally see it, even now typing this and looking at the black background, I have to go look for it to see it, so I can just get used to living with it (hoping no new pixels end up dying )

Which brings me to my question

If someone wants to run a 1440p resolution on this monitor (or even a 1080p), e.g. you want to play a game that just has terrible FPS at 4K, is it possible to run it perfectly pixel mapped (e.g. like in a smaller window on the screen), as opposed to stretching the 1440p to the full screen size?
I am not sure yet what would look better, but it would have been nice to have that option.
I can see that there is a setting for picture size in the TV menu, and there is something about Zoom and Positioning, but that option for some reason is grayed out and unavailable for me.

I am connected to a G1 980ti, to the HDMI 2 input on the mini, with the device type set to PC.
I think I am on the latest firmware (1218)

Thanks upfront for any useful information.

imyourzero said:

Thanks for the info. Although I'm not ready to jump yet, I do love reading about others' experiences with different products. I kinda wished that some other people would have tried some of the 2015 Panasonic sets with DisplayPort to see how those compared to the Sammies. And that's not even counting Sony, Sharp, Visio, Hitachi, etc...though I've been so caught up in the Samsung discussions, I haven't done enough research to know which 4K sets they offer and how they fare for PC use. I suspect that if there were any gems out there, we'd have heard about them here, but I guess it's possible that no one here has tried them yet. Maybe over at AVS forum?

One thing's for sure: between the fact that 4K is steadily maturing and becoming more widely adopted, competition in the high-Hz G-Sync/FreeSync monitor sector is heating up, and OLED finally becoming a feasible option, it's going to be a very exciting time in the tech world.

Click to expand...

I still have a lot of research to do. I haven't calibrated it yet, and I sent an email to LG with the hopes of them possibly fixing the input lag a bit more later. Who knows...

I guess I'm sort of justifying the extra cost by getting to use the new tech now, and not spending $2,000 on outdated technology, but instead applying it towards what's the best thing available. Don't get me wrong the JS9000 was the best picture I'd ever seen, until I saw OLED. Contrast really does make that much of a difference.

goldpok said:

Hi, my first post here, and wish to thank everyone for all their posts providing valuable information that helped me decide to make my purchase and help any other prospective buyers.

...

Click to expand...

I won't address everything you said but offer you my experience. I had the 40" JU7500, the 48", and currently still have the 48" JS9000.

40" seemed a bit too small for the price compared to the 48". The curve at 40" is also hardly noticeable, so I wouldn't worry too much. At 48", it's pretty beneficial. I thought 48" would be a hair too much for sitting 2-3 feet away, but it was actually great. I am actually running a 55" now, and it's manageable. I'd like to sit a little further away, but I'll need to find a way to re-arrange my desk situation (probably a new desk).

When I set my display to 1440p, it did a 1:1 pixel match and put black bars on the outside edges, but upscaled 1080p to use all of the pixels.

The difference between the 7000 series and 8000/9000 was pretty noticeable to me. Colors are a lot better on the quantum displays, so I'd offer you to consider it again. The comparison I did side-by-side of the 7000 series and 9000 series blew me away... but what you don't know won't bring you down, so if you're happy with the 7000, leave it at that!

Nitemare3219 said:

Colors are a lot better on the quantum displays, so I'd offer you to consider it again

Click to expand...

Haha, I am sure they are, I am not debating that at all, for my purposes though it was not enough to win me over, considering the rest of the problems +$500 (50% more), as well as the size not fitting.

But .. and I must confess, I might have thought otherwise if I had the budget and the desk for it.

Another thing, I am very impressed with the picture when I see the OLED displays in the stores, and while they are still expensive and have glitches to further resolve / improve, it just kind of makes me feel like that perfect display is still out there for me, just waiting to get in reach, and until that time comes, this TV is going to make me more than happy to use.

Let me just show a couple of pictures of my setup to help demonstrate why a 48 would have been a problem

Nitemare3219 said:

When I set my display to 1440p, it did a 1:1 pixel match and put black bars on the outside edges

Click to expand...

Hmm, ok, not sure why mine doesn't, but upscales instead. Maybe that is another difference between JS and JU.

Ah well, if anyone has the JU series, or even better the 7100, I'd love to hear their experience too.

I have the 7500, which is the curved version of your 7100. I also have a 40" and didn't want anything bigger for computer use. I love this TV/monitor. The image quality is outstanding and gaming is sublime.

I would have gone for a 9000 had there been a 40", but I suspect we won't be seeing anything under 48" in the higher end TVs in the future. Of course, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I tried a 48" 9000 for my main TV, but wasn't as impressed as I hoped. I'm going to see how much 4K OLED prices fall by the holidays before making any more TV decisions.

I say enjoy the hell out of your 7100. These are fantastic computer monitors that happen to have excellent Smart TV capabilities. What's not to love?

goldpok said:

Hmm, ok, not sure why mine doesn't, but upscales instead. Maybe that is another difference between JS and JU.

Ah well, if anyone has the JU series, or even better the 7100, I'd love to hear their experience too.

Click to expand...

You have to turn off GPU scaling under the Nvidia control panel. An alternative to 1440P is 21:9 3840x1440P. You have to make a custom resolution for that.

Cyph said:

You have to turn off GPU scaling under the Nvidia control panel. An alternative to 1440P is 21:9 3840x1440P. You have to make a custom resolution for that.

Click to expand...

Thank you! You're a lifesaver.

Both options (2560x1440p & 3840x1440p) now show up perfectly 1:1 pixel mapped.

Nenu said:

Calm down.
Its for people that want to do large screen 4K desktops and video on the cheap without sacrificing quality, ie productivity use or those HTPC things
It can do 4K 60 4:4:4 which is a must for windows use and it means it can play video at 4:2:2 without having to change to 30Hz like HDMI 1.4 requires to get 4:2:2 chroma.

Not everybody is a gamer.

Click to expand...

These also have low power requirements for those with a corp pc, htpc, etc. If they cut the 960 in half it can be powered by the pci-e slot alone much like the 750 (<75w), or if not it'll still draw less enough from the pci-e aux that it'll easily work with a molex/sata adapter.

goldpok - congratulations and I'm with Tyler...enjoy the heck out of that 7100. It's a great set. I'm impressed with your ability to reason with yourself and talk yourself out of further temptation, lol!

I'm sort of surprised that a few people have compared with the JS series and didn't think the difference was enough to justify the upgrade. To me, it was an immediate, striking difference and I knew that there was no way back after I saw it for the first time. Yet some of you were able to tell a big difference between the 6xxx and 7xxx when comparing them side by side. Me? Not so much. I do think the 7xxx is better, but I thought that most of the differences were rather subtle (aside from the gloss vs. semi-gloss).

Very cool that Samsung has made so many different models to accommodate different tastes and budgets. And someone previously mentioned that they are releasing two additional models - JU6400 and JS7000. Should be interesting, especially if the JS7000 is available in a 40".

imyourzero said:

goldpok - congratulations and I'm with Tyler...enjoy the heck out of that 7100. It's a great set. I'm impressed with your ability to reason with yourself and talk yourself out of further temptation, lol!

I'm sort of surprised that a few people have compared with the JS series and didn't think the difference was enough to justify the upgrade. To me, it was an immediate, striking difference and I knew that there was no way back after I saw it for the first time. Yet some of you were able to tell a big difference between the 6xxx and 7xxx when comparing them side by side. Me? Not so much. I do think the 7xxx is better, but I thought that most of the differences were rather subtle (aside from the gloss vs. semi-gloss).

Very cool that Samsung has made so many different models to accommodate different tastes and budgets. And someone previously mentioned that they are releasing two additional models - JU6400 and JS7000. Should be interesting, especially if the JS7000 is available in a 40".

Click to expand...

There's no real market for 40" TVs. There IS a market for 40" monitors. I don't see Samsung dipping into 40" 4k TVs any time soon.

Samsung will soon launch a new flat JS7000 TV in 50, 55, and 60 inch sizes.

Click to expand...

Source: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1435668282

ForgedReality said:

There's no real market for 40" TVs. There IS a market for 40" monitors. I don't see Samsung dipping into 40" 4k TVs any time soon.

Click to expand...

But they already have with the JU6500/6700/7100/7500. Not sure about the older HU models.

That JS7000 pricing is pretty attractive.

Nitemare3219 said:

Having one heck of a conundrum here...

Picked up the LG 4K OLED 55EG9600 for $3949 + tax + 3 years 0% APR at Best Buy. The display is breathtaking... best picture I've ever seen! There is zero ghosting, and the contrast makes things like Battlefield 4 feel like real life.

But the damn input lag is slightly worse than the JS9000 I have as well . It's about 30ms slower, which sucks because when I first got it and compared the two, it was spot on with my camera test. A day later and now it's about 2 frames behind the JS9000 when both are in game mode, so I don't get it. The lag isn't bad... I'd probably describe it to be like PC mode on the Samsung, but it's a huge difference when comparing them side-by-side. I think I might be able to live with it though.

It also has full 4:4:4 chroma at all times, so I guess that's another plus, and there is basically no bezel with this thing - it's awesome. I hate the thought of dropping $2,000 on a JS9000 when OLED is leagues and bounds better... but the lag is a huge letdown especially when the pixel transition times are instant. For those of you who have the capability, I strongly urge you to even try out the 1080p model from Best Buy which is about $2,300 right now. 1080p at 55" has a huge screen door effect, but 4K looks flawless. Only downside to this panel is since it's 4 pixels, can cause some fringing on text since the pixel layouts are larger. 55" at 28"~ sitting distance is completely doable by the way!

Click to expand...

After spending a few months with my EC9300 (1080p), there's no way I would drop $2K on an LCD regardless of whether it's 4K or not.

I think the JU7100 and JU7500 are a better buy as a stopgap TV.

Otherwise, I'd stick with the OLED, so long as you are fine with it being 50% cheaper next year and possibly vastly improved in the input lag department. I have a feeling we'll be seeing 55" 4K OLEDs for $2-2.5K next year, given the rate prices have been dropping.

The 65" 4K OLED is actually down to $7K now, 'only' $2K more than Samsung's JS9500 flagship. There are going to have to be some big price drops on LCDs, otherwise OLED will start inching closer to price parity with high end LCD...

x3sphere said:

After spending a few months with my EC9300 (1080p), there's no way I would drop $2K on an LCD regardless of whether it's 4K or not.

I think the JU7100 and JU7500 are a better buy as a stopgap TV.

Otherwise, I'd stick with the OLED, so long as you are fine with it being 50% cheaper next year and possibly vastly improved in the input lag department. I have a feeling we'll be seeing 55" 4K OLEDs for $2-2.5K next year, given the rate prices have been dropping.

The 65" 4K OLED is actually down to $7K now, 'only' $2K more than Samsung's JS9500 flagship. There are going to have to be some big price drops on LCDs, otherwise OLED will start inching closer to price parity with high end LCD...

Click to expand...

I'm pretty disappointed in LGs pricing for OLED so far. They need to get it down or they won't be making many sales. Even at $2k, that's a lot for a 50 inch and the input lag numbers on all of the OLED models so far are terrible. I LOVE OLED though and I hope they sort this stuff out asap.

Pastuch said:

I'm pretty disappointed in LGs pricing for OLED so far. They need to get it down or they won't be making many sales. Even at $2k, that's a lot for a 50 inch and the input lag numbers on all of the OLED models so far are terrible. I LOVE OLED though and I hope they sort this stuff out asap.

Click to expand...

I'm going to go with a 40" Samsung 4k for my bedroom but if there was a 40" OLED, I would buy it. There doesn't seem to be any plans to make them smaller than 55".

imyourzero said:

But they already have with the JU6500/6700/7100/7500. Not sure about the older HU models.

That JS7000 pricing is pretty attractive.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant for like the newer technology (OLED, quantum dot). It's not cost-effective for them to do that yet since the larger market is in TV watchers.

I have read through this whole forum and looks like I am deciding between the 40" JU6700 or the 40" JU7500, the only problem is that right now I have a GTX 970. Should I upgrade the card to a 980Ti first or buy the TV first?...I dont think a 970 can game on one of these right?

ForgedReality said:

Sorry, I meant for like the newer technology (OLED, quantum dot). It's not cost-effective for them to do that yet since the larger market is in TV watchers.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. Yep, the flagship lines don't seem to cater to people who want smaller sizes.

wikidlad said:

I have read through this whole forum and looks like I am deciding between the 40" JU6700 or the 40" JU7500, the only problem is that right now I have a GTX 970. Should I upgrade the card to a 980Ti first or buy the TV first?...I dont think a 970 can game on one of these right?

Click to expand...

I'd go with the JU7500 unless 48" is an option, in which case one could make a strong case for the 48JS8500 (upsell! upsell! ).

Gaming on newer titles at 4K with a GTX 970 won't be optimal. If you play mainly older games due to the backlog factor, or are willing to lower your resolution, you could do OK with one. Just depends on the game, really. LIMBO, fine. Call of Duty 4, fine. Arkham Knight or GTA V or The Witcher 3 without lowering resolution or detail? Not so much.

wikidlad said:

I have read through this whole forum and looks like I am deciding between the 40" JU6700 or the 40" JU7500, the only problem is that right now I have a GTX 970. Should I upgrade the card to a 980Ti first or buy the TV first?...I dont think a 970 can game on one of these right?

Click to expand...

Get the TV first. Watch TV, Netflix, stream to Plex, and play games in 1080P while you use the desktop in 4K. Then once you get the itch for 4K gaming, upgrade to the 980TI.

I wouldn't worry too much about Ultra settings in 4K. Games that properly support 4K, medium at 4K looks much better than ultra at 1080P.

Got my second replacement JU9000 from Crutchfield today.

Fingers crossed that 3rd times a charm!

Cyph said:

Get the TV first. Watch TV, Netflix, stream to Plex, and play games in 1080P while you use the desktop in 4K. Then once you get the itch for 4K gaming, upgrade to the 980TI.

I wouldn't worry too much about Ultra settings in 4K. Games that properly support 4K, medium at 4K looks much better than ultra at 1080P.

Click to expand...

Gaming at higher res is largely a pointless marketing exercise. No game looks anywhere near as good as something which "looks good" (eg. 1080p film), and increasing res for perceived sharpness does absolutely nothing to bridge that gap.

If perceived sharpness is the goal then the sharpness control provides 80% results for <1% of the cost.

OTOH oftentimes ownership happiness has a price, which in this case is the cost of an $$ graphics card. YMMV.

Agent00F said:

Gaming at higher res is largely a pointless marketing exercise. No game looks anywhere near as good as something which "looks good" (eg. 1080p film), and increasing res for perceived sharpness does absolutely nothing to bridge that gap.

If perceived sharpness is the goal then the sharpness control provides 80% results for <1% of the cost.

OTOH oftentimes ownership happiness has a price, which in this case is the cost of an $$ graphics card. YMMV.

Click to expand...

Lol. You obviously haven't tried it.

Think of it as surround gaming on one screen. I'm sitting 2.5-3 ft awayf from a 4k 48" screen. The pixel pitch is similar (actually slightly higher) than my 30" 2560x1600 was but the screen just about fills my field of view. except fro the extreme corners of my peripheral vision.

If you sat this close to a 48" 1080p screen, it would look nowhere near as good.

Not only does it look as good, but in some games, (Like Red Orchestra 2, Heroes of Stalingrad) it has proven to be a little bit of an unfair advantage. In long range shooting, what used to just be a few pixels difficult to distinguish as another player, is now clear.

2560x1600 gaming was amazing compared to the 1920x1200 I used before it. 4k gaming blows them both away. No comparison at all.

Zarathustra[H];1041714112 said:

Got my second replacement JU9000 from Crutchfield today.

Fingers crossed that 3rd times a charm!

Click to expand...

Well, at first glance it looked good. Light uniformity is not perfect on a black screen, but I expected that, and can live with it.

On closer examination, there is a stuck dark blue pixel on the top right of the screen. It isn't obnoxious, and it is only visible using the black test screen. I'm running a jscreenfix pattern over it right now, hoping it will fix it, but I don't have high expectations. It has never worked for me before. And even if it doesn't work, I'll probably keep this one, if only because it is the best one I've gotten to date, and I don't want to go through the enormous hassle of returning another one....

I still feel that for a $2000 screen, my uniformity and 100% of my pixels should be perfect. I can't believe they let them escape the factory with some of these imperfections...

Zarathustra[H];1041714182 said:

Lol. You obviously haven't tried it.

Think of it as surround gaming on one screen. I'm sitting 2.5-3 ft awayf from a 4k 48" screen. The pixel pitch is similar (actually slightly higher) than my 30" 2560x1600 was but the screen just about fills my field of view. except fro the extreme corners of my peripheral vision.

If you sat this close to a 48" 1080p screen, it would look nowhere near as good.

Not only does it look as good, but in some games, (Like Red Orchestra 2, Heroes of Stalingrad) it has proven to be a little bit of an unfair advantage. In long range shooting, what used to just be a few pixels difficult to distinguish as another player, is now clear.

2560x1600 gaming was amazing compared to the 1920x1200 I used before it. 4k gaming blows them both away. No comparison at all.

Click to expand...

Much of the "enthusiast" market everywhere consists of elevating tacked on cosmetics/tuning to the level of sophisticated design and engineering which goes into the original product (in this case the quite complex games and computers). If it makes someone personally happy to put a $XX turbo into their POS car, more power to them, but it's not good advice for those looking for return on investment.

In the l33t g4m3r world paying more for a gaming card than the rest (ie 80%) of the computer is about the equivalent.

This is simply an explanation of how/why a lot of money gets spent on these category of largely pointless enhancements. Of course it only seems "dumb" when everyone else does it. Just about every else in a game (design,engine,art,etc,etc) / video (contrast,color,curves,etc) is more important than resolution. It's left to the reader to judge spending the most money on the least consequential thing.

blah...blah...drivel...pablum...drivel...boring...blah.....

says the guy with the Rent-A-Center Compaq who likes to spell the term "elite gamer" in funny letters and shapes combinations...

...I'm just sayin'

Agent00F said:

Gaming at higher res is largely a pointless marketing exercise. No game looks anywhere near as good as something which "looks good" (eg. 1080p film), and increasing res for perceived sharpness does absolutely nothing to bridge that gap.

If perceived sharpness is the goal then the sharpness control provides 80% results for <1% of the cost.

OTOH oftentimes ownership happiness has a price, which in this case is the cost of an $$ graphics card. YMMV.

Click to expand...

An amazingly ignorant post.

PS4 is just a sharper version of the PS1. 1080P is just a sharper version of 720P. Therefore, we should all use 720P monitors.

So, has anyone ever had any luck with jscreenfix on stuck on colored pixels on these things? Am I just wasting my time?

Tyler-Durden said:

An amazingly ignorant post.

Click to expand...

This coming from folks who believe PS4 games are PS1 games with more resolution and that their manhood is predicated on owning certain toys.

Agent00F said:

This coming from folks who believe PS4 games are PS1 games with more resolution and that their manhood is predicated on owning certain toys.

Click to expand...

The truth is, whether you like it or not, with every singe title I have tested, 2560x1600 looks better than 1920x1080, and 4k blows away 2560x1600.

I know "immersive" is an overused marketing term, but the whole point of games is for them to suck you in with immersive graphics. From this perspective, the 4k screen has been a game changer. These games have ever sucked me in the way they are doing now.

If you don't appreciate 4k, you don't have to buy one. It's that simple. Coming in here and thread crapping is just kind of dumb.

Just stumbled on this: http://www.nanosysinc.com/press-rel...unces-rec-2020-readiness-at-display-week-2015

Seems like next year sets with quantum dots can reach upto 93% Rec 2020. LCD's got everything beat in terms of color.

Zarathustra[H];1041714491 said:

The truth is, whether you like it or not, with every singe title I have tested, 2560x1600 looks better than 1920x1080, and 4k blows away 2560x1600.

I know "immersive" is an overused marketing term, but the whole point of games is for them to suck you in with immersive graphics. From this perspective, the 4k screen has been a game changer. These games have ever sucked me in the way they are doing now.

If you don't appreciate 4k, you don't have to buy one. It's that simple. Coming in here and thread crapping is just kind of dumb.

Click to expand...

Objectively every game in existence already looks far worse than any film in existence; the visual defects/artifacts are blatantly obvious. In contrast, a single param in rasterization which is itself one step in a dozen is trite within the overall game, and no amount of tweaking it will affect any of the rest.

Subjectively it's possible to consider super mario bros the most immersive game of all time. At one time "immersive" has certainly been apply to everything since then.

Agent00F said:

Objectively every game in existence already looks far worse than any film in existence; the visual defects/artifacts are blatantly obvious. In contrast, a single param in rasterization which is itself one step in a dozen is trite within the overall game, and no amount of tweaking it will affect any of the rest.

Click to expand...

That is a fair statement, but it ignores the Rumsfeld reality (as adapted to gaming)

You play the games you have, not the ones you wish you had.

And with the games that are currently in existence, all of them, bar none look significantly and objectively better at higher resolution.

Part of this is due to how 3d rendering works. It is much more difficult to tell the differences in resolution on photographic or film content than it is in 3d rendered content, as pixels tend to be better smoothed when acquired through photography.

This is probably the reason why DSR looks so much better on screen even though in theory it shouldn't make a real difference, as all it is doing is rendering at a higher resolution internally and scaling it down to fit the screen.

Also, keep in mind, people sit significantly closer to their computers than to their TV's. That's why DPI is so much higher on phones. You hold them closer to your face!

If there were games out there that tried to accomplish photorealistic effects, but my system were unable to render them at higher resolution, I would have a dilemma, but that isn't currently the case.

I would still argue, that at normal viewing distances, 4k makes at best marginal sense for TV/Film content. My 60" Panny 1080p plasma won't be leaving my livingroom any time soon, but as a computer screen it is a damned thing of beauty

Agent00F is obviously trolling since he's in a thread about 4K monitors and is attempting to convince people 4K gaming is silly. I added him to my ignore list. In reality, his posts are non-constructive to the topic (current gen Samsung 4k TVs) and should probably be deleted.

No sense arguing about games more than playing them.

MrMike said:

Agent00F is obviously trolling since he's in a thread about 4K monitors and is attempting to convince people 4K gaming is silly. I added him to my ignore list. In reality, his posts are non-constructive to the topic (current gen Samsung 4k TVs) and should probably be deleted.

No sense arguing about games more than playing them.

Click to expand...

Agent00F = Troll. So accurate. Re-adding him to the ignore list. Wish he would either add something (which hasn't happened yet and I've been with the thread since the beginning) or go "educate" people in another thread - preferably another forum.

I don't mind all of his posts, but this recurring theme of saying that gaming at high resolutions is only clever marketing designed to get our money because 1080p films look more realistic than games do is just silly. Number one, 4K has uses well beyond gaming. Number two, we still have a looooooong way to go before games look as realistic as movies, AKA "real life" (if we ever get there) so I see that as a pointless comparison. And implying that the sharpness control has the same effect as increasing resolution is at best.

I'm with vorpel in that I don't understand the point of posting in this thread when one clearly has no interest in the product or concepts expressed within.

Zarathustra[H];1041714360 said:

So, has anyone ever had any luck with jscreenfix on stuck on colored pixels on these things? Am I just wasting my time?

Click to expand...

Would really appreciate you guys input on this.

I'm very torn on what to do here.

1.) Being in manufacturing I am well versed in statistics and the difficulty in getting things perfect. Six Sigma is still world class, and it results in 3.4 parts per million defective. There are ~8.3 million pixels on a 4k screen. Having just one that is off, is a defect rate of 0.12 ppm, which should make any manufacturer of anything pretty proud, yet still, once you see a bad pixel, it's tough to ignore, especially after you spent TWO THOUSAND bucks on a TV... (more than my first three cars... COMBINED)

2.) ISO 13406-2 defines the number of defects typically allowable on LCD displays for different classes of displays. Class 1 displays must be perfect, but they are also rare and very expensive. Consumer displays are typically class II, and they allow for a surprisingly high amount of pixel defects. Two grand is a lot for a TV. Does anyone know what class panel is contained in the JS9000?

3.) As far as the TV RMA and exchange thing is going, I'm getting tired of sending them back, and coming home early from work to wait for UPS Freight, so I can be there when they exchange the boxes. It's annoying and highly disruptive to my life. besides, as great as the folks at Crutchfiled have been, I think they are starting to get annoyed with me. Their head of operations called me (to express his concern that they were not doing a satisfactory job) after I sent back my first replacement screen. As amazing as their return and exchange policies are, I wonder how much longer they'd be willing to keep this up. besides, if I send it back, it seems like it is really just a lottery

4.) The defect on the latest screen (my second replacement) is a single dark blue pixel, that most of the time is difficult or impossible to see, but which is visible on black/dark backgrounds.

5.) What would you guys do? Maybe I've just been lucky in the past, but over the countless LCD screens I've had over the years (granted, none of them 4k) I've never had a new one with a bad pixel before. They developed over time on my Dell U3011, but that was after I had it for almost 5 years, and it feels completely wrong that I should ahve to accept even a single bad pixel on any size screen, especially considering how much I've paid for this thing.

6.) Do you guys think a few hours of leaving the little jscreenfix box over the area with the bad pixel as a snowballs chance in hell of doing anything, or do I risk doing more harm than good and getting burn in instead by just having a square box sitting on that part of the screen for hours?

Appreciate any thoughts on this.

My personal opinion? Take it for what it's worth...

Based on what you've described, I would keep it. I can relate to the hassle of sending these back and dealing with UPS Freight. UPS and Crutchfield have been great to work with, but the fact remains that it is a pain to box these back up and take time off from work to deal with the exchanges.

But here is my main concern: that would probably be worth doing one more time if you knew that the next one would be perfect, or at least better. However, based on what we've seen here with others, it would seem that the likelihood of that is slim. What if your next one has one (or more) bright pixels? I think that you should count yourself lucky that your single pixel issue is dark blue, and not in the center of the display at that. It sounds like it's mostly out of the way and only visible when you are looking for it. This is why I didn't spend too much time scanning mine for issues. I have yet to see any bright, dead, or stuck pixels. I do have some sort of minor white/gray clouding or backlight bleed near the top, but it is only visible on a completely black screen (such as when I first start up a game and the screen goes black to load it). I do not see it at all during normal use, so it's not worth bothering with (especially considering a replacement might be better in that regard but worse in another).

I'm not telling you to keep it, but if it were me, I probably would. I'm with you regarding wanting perfection on a $2k display, but with these having so many pixels I think a perfect one is going to be somewhat of a unicorn.

Just my $0.02. I hope that you can achieve happiness one way or another - either by settling or lucking up with an exchange should you decide to go that route.

If you're gonna use screenfix, do it over the entire screen, so that you don't burn in that one spot.

FWIW, I went through 3 flat 6700/7100 and none had a bad pixel. I think curve and/or quantum dots have a higher chance of bad pixels based on the number of issues I've read on the forum. Either that or Crutchfield has tons of units with defects. The one unit I returned to Crutchfield had a defect (feather/hair), but the other three had none. The styrofoam was also broken when I opened the unit. They either inspected it before they shipped it, or they sent me an opened/returned unit. My second unit from Fry's was the same, it was clearly rewrapped and sold as new. I wouldn't put it past any of these sellers to resell returned items as new.