Going from 1080p to 4k today! :)

Rav3n said:
I agree actually. I returned my 28" 4K and went back to triple 27" 1440P's
Click to expand...

Except I do not own 1440p monitors and do not want to buy those. What about the questions I have in the last post I made before this one? Please remember that motion sickness is one of the reasons I have not played my games much on my PC until I picked up this 4k monitor. (Reduced motion blur and increased sharpness seems to have helped that a lot.)

If I get motion sick with one 1080p monitor, 3 in Eyefinity would probably make it worse, right?
 
Wiz33 said:
1080 should look perfect as it's just 4:1 in pixels with no scaling artifacts. That's what I do on Witcher 3 as I can only run it in low graphics at 4K.
Click to expand...

Saw this the other day and sent a message to Rtings; they apparently have yet to encounter a TV that pixel doubles 1080p content perfectly. My message is is at the bottom of the JU7100's page. They answered it after posting their reviews of the JS9500 + JS9000 (granted I sent this days in advance, or else I would've asked on that page), so it appears none of the Samsung TVs actually do this.


Does the JU7100 upscale 1080p in a direct one pixel to four pixels way?
No. We haven't encountered any TVs that do.
Click to expand...

MrMike said:
I wrote something similar in another thread, but 4k has completely changed the monitor landscape. It hasn't been since 1080p that there has been such a wave of monitors from 24"-48". There's something for everyone's preference.



It's because not all of the 4k monitors do pixel doubling. I was kind of concerned for OP when I read that he was going for the 28" (likely TN) variety, because many of those do not. The Samsung TVs do, the 32" Benq does, and the 27" Dell does for certain. Some of the 32"/27" IPS even do 1440p surprisingly well which I don't think is an option at all on other 4k displays.
Click to expand...

I also really doubt that the BL3201PT does this...it's probably safer to say that all of these monitors just have excellent interpolation/scalars.
 
Nikyo said:
Saw this the other day and sent a message to Rtings; they apparently have yet to encounter a TV that pixel doubles 1080p content perfectly. My message is is at the bottom of the JU7100's page. They answered it after posting their reviews of the JS9500 + JS9000 (granted I sent this days in advance, or else I would've asked on that page), so it appears none of the Samsung TVs actually do this.






I also really doubt that the BL3201PT does this...it's probably safer to say that all of these monitors just have excellent interpolation/scalars.
Click to expand...

Well, it is a good thing I am not using a Samsung 4K TV then. :) So far, I have had no issues other than I still need to sit down and adjust the brightness to my liking. Also, as far as a Vesa compatible mount goes: VESA Compatible mount.
 
Nikyo said:
Saw this the other day and sent a message to Rtings; they apparently have yet to encounter a TV that pixel doubles 1080p content perfectly. My message is is at the bottom of the JU7100's page. They answered it after posting their reviews of the JS9500 + JS9000 (granted I sent this days in advance, or else I would've asked on that page), so it appears none of the Samsung TVs actually do this.

.
Click to expand...

What is their proof of that? On the Samsung, 1080P defaults to full screen. 1440P is letter boxed. If it's not pixel doubling, then why does it not send any other resolution through it's scaler but just 1080P? They need to check for scaler artifacts. No scaler is that good that a scaled image doesn't leave smoothing artifacts.

Also, they're wrong that no TV's does it, as I know the one of the high end Panasonic explicitly states that 1080P mode is 1:4 pixel doubling. So if they're already wrong on that fact, what else are they wrong on?
 
Cyph said:
What is their proof of that? On the Samsung, 1080P defaults to full screen. 1440P is letter boxed. If it's not pixel doubling, then why does it not send any other resolution through it's scaler but just 1080P? They need to check for scaler artifacts. No scaler is that good that a scaled image doesn't leave smoothing artifacts.

Also, they're wrong that no TV's does it, as I know the one of the high end Panasonic explicitly states that 1080P mode is 1:4 pixel doubling. So if they're already wrong on that fact, what else are they wrong on?
Click to expand...

They never stated that no TV does it - they don't even review Panasonic LCDs. Their apparent test is posted on the X850C's page. But really, I'd like to see owners post actual evidence of pixel doubling their selves. It makes little sense to go around telling people that it does, all on an assumption, because the scalar happens to 1:1 pixel map 1440p.
 
Nikyo said:
They never stated that no TV does it - they don't even review Panasonic LCDs. Their apparent test is posted on the X850C's page. But really, I'd like to see owners post actual evidence of pixel doubling their selves. It makes little sense to go around telling people that it does, all on an assumption, because the scalar happens to 1:1 pixel map 1440p.
Click to expand...

If anyone has the knowledge and equipment to test, I'd like to find out as well.

The reason for wanting pixel doubling is clean, non-interpolated scaling. It's already achieved by either pixel doubling, or using a superior scaler. PS4 looks as good in 1080P on the Samsung as my 1080P Plasma. Having used and returned various 4K and 1440P monitors for having bad 1080P scaling, the Samsung in 1080P looks as good as native. So I guess the question is does it matter if it achieves the same end result?
 
Cyph said:
If anyone has the knowledge and equipment to test, I'd like to find out as well.

The reason for wanting pixel doubling is clean, non-interpolated scaling. It's already achieved by either pixel doubling, or using a superior scaler. PS4 looks as good in 1080P on the Samsung as my 1080P Plasma. Having used and returned various 4K and 1440P monitors for having bad 1080P scaling, the Samsung in 1080P looks as good as native. So I guess the question is does it matter if it achieves the same end result?
Click to expand...

Well, judging by the testing they use it should be accurate to say that it doesn't. And no, if the interpolation is so close that it's impossible to concede a difference, then it shouldn't really make a difference to the end-user at all. My BL3201PH has really good interpolation as well - and it's pretty difficult to spot a difference when you're playing a game, or watching something. You'll of course notice decreased sharpness on the desktop and text; however, I can't really attribute that to the interpolation, so much as that could just be me being used to 140 ppi. I was really just interested in whether or not the Samsung actually did this, though. I also wasn't aware that the Panasonic TVs were capable of doing it, I'll have to check them out - thanks for the heads up!

Regarding the 1:1 pixel mapping: I'd assume this is just an idiosyncrasy of the manufacturer - it likely scales 1080p and 720p to full screen as a courtesy to the user, since they'll likely be using it for such content.
 
Just wanted to bump this thread to say, one month later and I am very happy with this monitor. Have not been gaming much because my time is limited. However, it looks fantastic and for me at least, I have found a keeper for a long time to come. :)
 
I swear some games there doesn't feel like much of a difference between 1440p and 4k besides performance. Others, you're like holy crap, there's so much more detail, especially in other characters and such. I had an example image comparing two characters zoomed in at 1080p and 4k, you could definitely make out A LOT more at 4k.

There's also the desktop, with no to minimal scaling you have so much more room. If you zoom in the text to make it look the same size it's much clearer.
 
Wiz33 said:
Not bullshit at all. Unless you have perfect eyesights. You can't use a 28" 4K without scaling up the font size which basically defeat the one of the purpose of getting a 4K (more screen real estate to work with). I have tried the 28" for work, gave it up in a day and went for a 32" Acer B326HK which works well at about 22" distance. I went with a 40" at home at 32" distance and it was Ok but would have been better if I have gotten something in the 42"-45" range.
Click to expand...

The point of 4K, for me at least, is higher DPI not more screen real estate.
 
hajalie24 said:
I swear some games there doesn't feel like much of a difference between 1440p and 4k besides performance. Others, you're like holy crap, there's so much more detail, especially in other characters and such. I had an example image comparing two characters zoomed in at 1080p and 4k, you could definitely make out A LOT more at 4k.

There's also the desktop, with no to minimal scaling you have so much more room. If you zoom in the text to make it look the same size it's much clearer.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, I just forgot to respond to this post. :D

Jumpem said:
The point of 4K, for me at least, is higher DPI not more screen real estate.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I cannot see why someone would want to buy such as big monitor and have it so close that they would be swinging their head back and forth all day long. (Kind of like watching a tennis game. :D )
 
When people take issue with some of the suposed shortcomings with respect to 4K it's more then likely IMO that they simply cannot see past their own narrow intended use case.

The reality is that not everyone uses monitors in the same way and if they cannot see differing use cases that is the issue right there.

So is a 28" 4K monitor too small? Yes and No.

Is 50" 4K monitor too big? Yes and No.

Is a TN 4K monitor garbage? yes and No,.....

It all depends on your use case and preferences which are not universal.

For what it's worth, I have two 28" 4K monitors, a 39" 4K UHD TV (used as a monitor) and a 55" 4K UHD Smart TV.
 
So are there any 4k monitors or TVs that have been confirmed to do perfect pixel doubling?
 
ManofGod said:
Well, so far, I only tested it at 1080p on one game: Medal of Honor: Warfighter. It looks great and runs at 60fps without issue. However, it looks immensely better at 2160p and plays very smoothly at 30fps. (VSync on though so I imagine it would be higher without VSync.) I am not sure I can go back to just plain old 1080p now.

The strange thing is, I have no issue and love my XBox One even at the lower resolutions playing on my Sony 50 Inch TV. However, I am also 12 feet back from it compared to 30 inches back from my 4k monitor.

However, I do have a question: I just noticed a thread that lists Easymount LCD stands that are inexpensive but good. I could go with 3 x 27 inch LG 1080P IPS monitors at home since I already have 2 at home and 1 at work. Then I could just pick up another 1080p monitor for work. However, I am not sure I would enjoy that as much since I would be twisting and turning my head with Eyefinity games and I am not even sure all games would support it anyways.

What do you guys think? I also have a Planar 24 inch monitor at work and I could get 2 other 24 inch monitors instead for 3 x 24. However, I am not sure I would like that since I am already used to the larger size and the 4k res is incredible! (Windows 10 scaling works really well.)

The other thing is, if I stay with the 4k monitor, I will have a good reason to upgrade my videocard in a year or so. At 1080p however, anything more than my R9 290 would be a waste in my opinion. I am also thinking that the near eliminated motion blur on this 4k monitor helps keep me from getting motion sick which really hurts my head and stomach after a bit. (Maybe Eyefinity would cause me greater motion sickness?)

Otherwise: I am just going to sell my 2 x 27 inch monitors and keep the 4k one. I had used a 28 inch Hanspree 1200p monitor for about 7 years but it is now dying which is why I replace it at work with an LG 27 inch back in January.
Click to expand...

I had a Dell 30" 2560 x 1600 and then I added two dell 20's on the side. After that I traded my Dell 30" for 3 x 23" Samsung IPS panels in eye infinity. Then I traded sold them and got 2 x 27" Planar IPS panels with 2 additional dell 20"s in a quad mount. I recently sold them and bought a 40" crossover 4K monitor. Considering I went from a dell 30" to multiple 1080p's. Workspace is definitely worth it in a higher resolution versus multiple monitors at a lower resolution. I have tried my friends' 1440p 27" monitor and it has a good work space but going back to one monitor was very nice. :D It just depends on your applications. I use photoshop generally and the real estate is nice considering everything is on one monitor again. The motion sickness will go away eventually. But gaming in a 3 monitor setup definitely gave me more motion sickness versus the 30" monitor since your peripheral vision is surrounded more in a eye infinity setup. It gave more motion sickness and took some time to get used to. The 40" 4K since I sit so close to it. It also giving me sickness as well but I'm still getting used to it considering I just got it like 3 days ago. :p
 
itsukisama said:
I had a Dell 30" 2560 x 1600 and then I added two dell 20's on the side. After that I traded my Dell 30" for 3 x 23" Samsung IPS panels in eye infinity. Then I traded sold them and got 2 x 27" Planar IPS panels with 2 additional dell 20"s in a quad mount. I recently sold them and bought a 40" crossover 4K monitor. Considering I went from a dell 30" to multiple 1080p's. Workspace is definitely worth it in a higher resolution versus multiple monitors at a lower resolution. I have tried my friends' 1440p 27" monitor and it has a good work space but going back to one monitor was very nice. :D It just depends on your applications. I use photoshop generally and the real estate is nice considering everything is on one monitor again. The motion sickness will go away eventually. But gaming in a 3 monitor setup definitely gave me more motion sickness versus the 30" monitor since your peripheral vision is surrounded more in a eye infinity setup. It gave more motion sickness and took some time to get used to. The 40" 4K since I sit so close to it. It also giving me sickness as well but I'm still getting used to it considering I just got it like 3 days ago. :p
Click to expand...

This. I switched from a 27" triple monitor setup to the Crossover 404k and I don't regret the switch one bit. I don't game as much anymore but when I do it is an much more enjoyable experience. I sit about 32" from my screen and don't have to sway back and forth to see the edges so no worries about getting motion sickness. The workflow for lightroom and navisworks is awesome. I love being able to have picture by picture options it makes designing a more fluid process.
 
Climber said:
This. I switched from a 27" triple monitor setup to the Crossover 404k and I don't regret the switch one bit. I don't game as much anymore but when I do it is an much more enjoyable experience. I sit about 32" from my screen and don't have to sway back and forth to see the edges so no worries about getting motion sickness. The workflow for lightroom and navisworks is awesome. I love being able to have picture by picture options it makes designing a more fluid process.
Click to expand...

I don't regret mine as well. It was well worth it. I used to game quite a bit but now I'm more of a casual gamer. Gaming in 4K is quite nice. I using a 1.2 dp powered by a R9 280x. I'm debating to pick up a 2nd card or get another card. What are you using to power the crossover? I'm getting decent frame rates with just one. Windows 8.1 scaling isn't too bad for me. Took some time to get things the way I want but so far it works great. All I know was I was downloading 4K wall paper for the first hour I had it and watched youtube 4k videos. :D
 
itsukisama said:
I don't regret mine as well. It was well worth it. I used to game quite a bit but now I'm more of a casual gamer. Gaming in 4K is quite nice. I using a 1.2 dp powered by a R9 280x. I'm debating to pick up a 2nd card or get another card. What are you using to power the crossover? I'm getting decent frame rates with just one. Windows 8.1 scaling isn't too bad for me. Took some time to get things the way I want but so far it works great. All I know was I was downloading 4K wall paper for the first hour I had it and watched youtube 4k videos. :D
Click to expand...

Currently running 2 Zotac Amp 980 ti. With Windows 10 scaling hasn't been an issue for me. Lol that was literally the first things I did as well, adjust wallpapers then watch youtube 4k videos.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I do not think I could ever go back to anything less than 4k at home on my computer. At work, I have dual 1080p monitors but, I have a different usage scenario there. I like having a R9 290 that does well at 4k but I also now have a reason to upgrade later on down the line. It is almost like when Crysis 1 was released and nothing could run it maxed out. :D
 
In regards to motion sickness when playing games, that's usually about FOV being set too low.
 
Do not worry about it, old or not, new information is a good thing. Besides, I like seeing my threads in use from time to time. Also, my 4k monitor is working great even at 1440p and 1080p when it needs too.
 
ManofGod said:
Do not worry about it, old or not, new information is a good thing. Besides, I like seeing my threads in use from time to time. Also, my 4k monitor is working great even at 1440p and 1080p when it needs too.
Click to expand...

How does 1440 or 1080 look for gaming? What I mean is how does it compare to playing it on a monitor whose native resolution is 1080 or 1440?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top