2015 Samsung 4k TV as a Monitor Set Up Guide

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,385
Did you enable UHD Color on the HDMI External settings on the TV?
This.

Also note each time you unplug the HDMI cable you will need to change the setting again.
This is so it always fails safe and you get an image on none HDMI 2.0 devices.
 

Porter_

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
8,011
Did you enable UHD Color on the HDMI External settings on the TV?

This.

Also note each time you unplug the HDMI cable you will need to change the setting again.
This is so it always fails safe and you get an image on none HDMI 2.0 devices.

no option for UHD Color on the Q60 as far as i can tell. when i drop the refresh rate from 60hz to 30hz it allows me to select RGB and Full dynamic range. i'm starting to suspect the HDMI cable but it worked fine with my KU6300...odd.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
6,349
I've had problems with previously working cables before.

Might be a good idea to buy a new HDMI 2.0 cable to test with.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,385
no option for UHD Color on the Q60 as far as i can tell. when i drop the refresh rate from 60hz to 30hz it allows me to select RGB and Full dynamic range. i'm starting to suspect the HDMI cable but it worked fine with my KU6300...odd.
The problem is exactly as stated.
There is an option where you can select each of the HDMI ports to enable HDMI 2.0 on them.
On my Q9FN it is under the "General/External Device Manager" area of settings.
Find it.

If you dont change this you will be limited to HDMI 1.4 bandwidth no matter which cable you use, resulting in exactly the behaviour you have got.
 

Porter_

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
8,011
The problem is exactly as stated.
There is an option where you can select each of the HDMI ports to enable HDMI 2.0 on them.
On my Q9FN it is under the "General/External Device Manager" area of settings.
Find it.

If you dont change this you will be limited to HDMI 1.4 bandwidth no matter which cable you use, resulting in exactly the behaviour you have got.

You’re the man Nenu. On the Q60 it’s called “Input Signal Plus” and it’s in Settings > General > External Device Manager > Input Signal Plus
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
6,349
For the price looks decent. But you definitely won't be gaming at 4K on a 1050 Ti.
 

nwrtarget

Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
882
I should have been more verbose.
I wouldn't plan to use it as a gaming monitor/setup. Life keeps me from doing much of that these days anyway.
It would be replacing 3 27" 1920X1080 GW2760HS monitors I have presently sitting in a widescreen row on my desk. I find I don't use the far edges of the monitors as much and this setup would be narrower than my current setup meaning i would probably use the whole thing.

I work from home so I spend both work and pleasure hours at my desk, but pleasure tends not to be gaming.

It also looks like that my current monitor is on sale for 119 at tigerdirect so for roughly equal money I could upgrade to 6 monitors. I really don't think that would be terribly useful to me.
 

alaricljs

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
307
You're used to a dot pitch higher than even a 48" 4k would provide. Depending on your eyes and scaling preference that means you're losing even more real estate than you might suspect. I went with a 48” to maintain the DPI I'm used to coming from 2x 24" 1200p panels as best I could.

Something to think about.
 

nwrtarget

Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
882
I was looking at that, around 85 something right now, and a 42.6 4k would be 105.

What 48" did you go with?
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,894
You're used to a dot pitch higher than even a 48" 4k would provide. Depending on your eyes and scaling preference that means you're losing even more real estate than you might suspect. I went with a 48” to maintain the DPI I'm used to coming from 2x 24" 1200p panels as best I could.

Something to think about.


Yeah, at 48" the PPI of 3840x2160 is a tad low at 48". Here is a screenshot of some example pixel densities of different resolutions and screen sizes, dating back to the old days (since the forums won't let me attach a spreadsheet)

upload_2019-11-8_12-14-26.png


Judging by this, for productivity type work, my conclusion has been that the ideal screen size for 4k would be in the 43" to 45" range. At 48" you are down at the level of an SVGA 1024x768 on a 14" CRT ppi. :p

For typical desktop use, ~95 - 105 ppi seems to be the sweet spot range. I personally always found 1440p on a 27" screen a tad small, but liked my old 30" 2560x1600 screen, so even small differences here can throw you off.
 

alaricljs

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
307
Got a Sammy UN48JU6700 in Jan 2016. Only thing that I would upgrade to is a burn in proof oled in the same size.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,032
Got a Sammy UN48JU6700 in Jan 2016. Only thing that I would upgrade to is a burn in proof oled in the same size.

The newer Samsung QLEDs would probably be a decent upgrade from that, but yeah, OLED would be a massive upgrade. I went from a UN48JS9000 to a 55" OLED and it's magical.
 

nwrtarget

Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
882
Just running the math and a 55 3840x2160 is effectively the same PPI as my current 27 1920x1080 and I have no issue with this setup. This is also very interesting as the quality of sets gets much better with 55" presently and wanders into the OLED area. I find this intriguing. For the OLED gang here, what sort of things do you do to reduce burn in and all that?
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,894
Just running the math and a 55 3840x2160 is effectively the same PPI as my current 27 1920x1080 and I have no issue with this setup. This is also very interesting as the quality of sets gets much better with 55" presently and wanders into the OLED area. I find this intriguing. For the OLED gang here, what sort of things do you do to reduce burn in and all that?


I'm curious. How far away do you sit from that screen? That's a PPI of 81.6. I can't imagine usi g a pixel density that low, but I also sit about arms length from my screen (~2ft)
 

nwrtarget

Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
882
I'm curious. How far away do you sit from that screen? That's a PPI of 81.6. I can't imagine usi g a pixel density that low, but I also sit about arms length from my screen (~2ft)

I can't touch my display, looks like 33 to 34 inches based on my tape measure.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/b9-oled
I am seriously considering this...

(if it doesn't work out my theatre room will get a new display )
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,032
Just running the math and a 55 3840x2160 is effectively the same PPI as my current 27 1920x1080 and I have no issue with this setup. This is also very interesting as the quality of sets gets much better with 55" presently and wanders into the OLED area. I find this intriguing. For the OLED gang here, what sort of things do you do to reduce burn in and all that?

Black background (can also set many wallpapers to rotate, I just prefer the pitch black background for working)
Auto-hide taskbar
I don't run anything except games and movies/videos in full screen mode because 55" Excel spreadsheets and browser windows are crazy at this size...I typically resize my browser window to roughly the equivalent of a 40-43" monitor and move it around occasionally just so it's not sitting in the same spot for hours every day
Set the Ribbons screensaver to kick in within a couple of minutes of me walking away
The single biggest thing that you can do IMO is to keep the OLED light level at 20 or below. Many people do not realize this but that tip was given to me by one of the earliest PC OLED users here. Note that the OLED level is separate from the brightness control. High brightness settings don't accelerate burn-in but high OLED light levels do since it changes how hard the pixels are driven. For my room, a setting of 8-12 works very well (out of 100, which is blinding!).

I just passed the two year mark of using this thing as a monitor and I have zero burn-in. I've been working from home since last December and have used it for 6/8/10+ hours a day almost every day (plus whatever gaming I decide to do). I did get a very mild case of image retention once when I had a Remote Desktop session open and forgot to move the window for a really long time, but it went away shortly after the screensaver kicked in. Heck, even some LCDs get image retention. It's completely normal.

Mine is a B7 and supposedly the newer sets are even more robust because they've made changes/improvements to the OLED structure. The newer ones (9 series and up) have VRR/G-Sync compatibility and should also do 120Hz at 4K when cards with HDMI 2.1 come out. Mine does 120Hz but only at 1080 or 1440. LG is supposed to release a 48" version next year and I'll be jumping all over that. Can't go back to LCD.
 

nwrtarget

Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
882
My $300 to $400 monitor upgrade is starting to look like a $1200 monitor upgrade.

Time to check the Black Friday ads to see if I can find a 55" OLED.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
6,349
I wouldn't get a 55" to use as a monitor. It is impractical and uncomfortable for working on.

I used to have a 40" Samsung 4K and that was manageable, but not ideal, for desktop usage. Then I upgraded to a 55", which looked great for gaming, but was too big for anything else.

You'll have to make windows smaller and physically turn your head around to see parts of the screen. It is not very comfortable.

If you're set on a 4K TV, probably stay in the 40-43" range, I think that will be better.
 

nwrtarget

Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
882
My current set up is 60 inches (5 feet) wide. The outer monitors are angled towards me which makes it ONLY 5 feet wide. I like the setup, but want more vertical pixels, and ideally would like my monitors to be a bit taller, but not wider, assuming I stay triple head. I sit farther away from my monitors than many of you.

There are other triple head setups that I would consider and I am looking for at least 1440 pixels instead of my current 1080. I wouldn't go down to one single 32 as that just doesn't work for how I use my monitors. I do have to turn my head now to use the far edges and don't find that annoying. I tend to use the outer panels for monitoring things, and then bring the active windows more central for work. The downside of triple head is that means the central monitor gets overloaded with windows where in the case of a large TV I could just fan out from the central focus point. If I had a single large TV I would be farther back from it, probably 35 to 40 inches. I am getting older so being only 24 inches from my monitor is getting more difficult and I expect that to get worse over the next few years.

My desk is a 6 foot by 8 foot corner desk, not facing into a corner. It is like a massive V standing out from the wall. I could mount the TV on the Wall which would put it about 4 feet from my eyes. I would use a full motion mount (if I went that way) to make it easy to adjust and connect stuff.

The reason I am posting in this thread though is because I find this option intriguing. I have massive space for my desk and can build things in that space as required. I have a 9 foot ceiling and at least a 12 foot wall. I would rather spend less than a grand, but to get an OLED setup, it would be worth the extra few hundred.

I am trying to get a feel for how dumb this is, within the context that I already have a big setup that would be considered dumb in it's own right.

I appreciate the feedback, keep it coming. I am not set on a TV as I know it has downsides, however the cost to performance ratio is intriguing especially looking at $1500 for a 55inch OLED C9 (or the cheaper $1300 B9 as my usage may not benefit from GSync). I do value good color and black level performance.
 
Last edited:

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,032
That's plenty of distance. And if you can do away with some bezels by going to the TV, even better. At 4K there is lots of room for applications.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
6,349
I used to run triple 27" 1440p. It was very nice for programming, I could have multiple apps open on each screen. Not sure anything beats that for productivity.

Also had a 40" Samsung 4K and then a 55" QLED on my gaming rig. The 40" was nice, and I jumped to 55" to get HDR and FreeSync, but it was only really good for games and movies (I've since moved this screen to the living room).

If you are not doing a lot of gaming/movies, you may want to consider an ultrawide. That is what I use now on my main rig (34" 2560x1080). I would not recommend 1080p, it's pretty skimpy for working on, but I do like a single larger screen.

I would say take a look at the 3440x1440 or 3840x1600 35" kits. That should be more than enough space for working on, but not so huge that it is an ergonomic issue. Looking side to side is fine (like triple head) but looking up is uncomfortable.

With the ultrawide, the vertical space is all within your vision mostly so it is easier to work with. Or, if you want the 4K TV, maybe start with a cheaper one like the Vizio and see if you like it before dropping a grand.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,385
I wouldn't get a 55" to use as a monitor. It is impractical and uncomfortable for working on.

I used to have a 40" Samsung 4K and that was manageable, but not ideal, for desktop usage. Then I upgraded to a 55", which looked great for gaming, but was too big for anything else.

You'll have to make windows smaller and physically turn your head around to see parts of the screen. It is not very comfortable.

If you're set on a 4K TV, probably stay in the 40-43" range, I think that will be better.
Sit further away, this is the advantage of a larger screen.
Its much much easier on the eyes for long sessions.
The TV doesnt need to be on the same table as your mouse and keyboard.
Get a table/surface for the TV that is slightly lower so its further away and you can put the bottom of the bezel at the height of your desk.
You see more detail despite being further away if you keep the same screen size in your view.
Thank me later.

It baffles me why so many people think you must put the TV in front of your nose, disregarding really good options.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
6,349
Well my eyesight is not what it used to be, I mostly have the screen within 1 foot from my face.

Yes, you can move the screen further out, but then you'll need to increase the scaling to make it usable (unless you have really good vision).

I guess everyone's setup is different. For me 55" was way too big, but I know some people here make it work.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,385
Well my eyesight is not what it used to be, I mostly have the screen within 1 foot from my face.

Yes, you can move the screen further out, but then you'll need to increase the scaling to make it usable (unless you have really good vision).
A major point of a larger screen is you dont have to change anything when you put the screen further away.
It appears the same size in your field of view, because thats what you are used to and what you want. It is how you will set it up.
You can even put it a bit closer than that without inducing eyestrain.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,894
A major point of a larger screen is you dont have to change anything when you put the screen further away.
It appears the same size in your field of view, because thats what you are used to and what you want. It is how you will set it up.
You can even put it a bit closer than that without inducing eyestrain.


Depends on what you are buying and why.

Every time I have increased screen size starting with my 13" 640x480 VGA screen until today with my 48" 4k TV it has been at the same time as increasing resolution because I wanted more desktop real estate.

Why would you want your screen further away anyway?
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,385
Hmm. I've never experienced eye strain from a screen. Or from anything else

At least I think so.

What is the experience like?
Over a long enough period of viewing time an ache develops.
If it isnt given enough time away, it happens faster and can result in a more serious problem.
I decided when it started happening to me a lot to get a projector and what a difference, so relaxing and easy.
That sold me on large displays at a distance.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,894
Over a long enough period of viewing time an ache develops.
If it isnt given enough time away, it happens faster and can result in a more serious problem.
I decided when it started happening to me a lot to get a projector and what a difference, so relaxing and easy.
That sold me on large displays at a distance.


Interesting.

I've never experienced it.

Is this an issue you've always had, or has it developed over time?
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,385
Interesting.

I've never experienced it.

Is this an issue you've always had, or has it developed over time?
For a long time, not an issue, I used to code until the early hours from age 13 on school days.
Age takes its toll, close focus isnt as easy as it was.
My eyesight is otherwise superb.
 

nwrtarget

Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
882
Getting old isn't fun, but most available evidence says it is better than the alternative. Part of getting old is the cornea loses flexibility and bringing near things into focus gets more difficult. This typically starts in the 40's. Being in my 40's I can say that this is true!
 

nwrtarget

Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
882
I took the plunge. I found a LG OLED 55" B8 (2018 model) on Craigslist for $700. Seller bought it in August from Dell, he provided the receipt.

It is up and running on my desk right now, but I am just getting started setting it up for the purpose. Looks pretty awesome though. More updates once I get it set up closer to reality.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,038
I find that the only issue I have with using the Samsung 43 inch 4K tv (6290FXA) started when I bought a 27 inch 1080p 144hz monitor and 27inch 1440p 144hz monitor, both MSI and both with Freesync. Now I notice that the desktop feels slower on the TV and of course, tearing on games without limiting my fps in the AMD control panel to 60fps.

Oh, and does anyone have a suggestions on how to make it appear smaller than it is? I had to tilt is a bit forward just so I could see it comfortably and it is 3.5 feet in from of me. I have no where else I can put it, either.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
18,529
I'm still really happy with my KS8000 as a monitor. I've had buyers remorse with nearly every TV I've ever owned, but this one is still treating me right. Especially once I was able to calibrate a separate HDR setting that can be quickly toggled.
I'm always at least a little jealous of the Gsync/Freesync folks (free performance + better response time), but I'm also of the opinion that it's tough going to a smaller monitor once you've had a larger one. Ditto with surround sound via a connected AVR. Unless a new model mysteriously falls in my lap, I'm keeping this TV until HDMI 2.1 is a thing and VRR/120Hz are finally a reality for me.
 

Wag

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
1,068
My 48JU6700 is OK but I would like a better, smaller display.

It's too bad none of the 43" displays that have been released so far have appealed to me.
 

Commander Shepard

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
4,718
My 48JU6700 is OK but I would like a better, smaller display.

It's too bad none of the 43" displays that have been released so far have appealed to me.
I have the 43" Q60. It's the best under 49" TV for monitor use, but lacks the advanced features of bigger QLEDs.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,894
Well, I just switched to the Asus XG438Q.

Pixel density is better than on my 48" Samsung. Input lag is MUCH MUCH better. Being able to run games with FreeSync up to 120hz is pretty nice (though there are only a limited number of titles I have enough GPU horsepower to get much above 60 in.)

The screen does have pretty poor text quality. In part because of the BGR layout, but it is more than just that. In Linux, my Cinnamon desktop has an option for BGR text antialiasing, and it is still not ideal. Optimizing cleartype, and turning on the screens shadow-boost function seem to improve things to the point where I can't tell on most text, but certain color combinations are pretty bad. The Hardforums white text on the red background at the top of each post is one such combination, and it looks awful. If I didn't know better, sometimes I'd think it was running in a lower level of Chroma subsampling.

Out of the box, the brightness, contrast and gamma settings are atrocious. Only way I've found to make it usable on the desktop is to switch it to user defined mode, switch gamma to 2.5, and lower the brightness WAY down to 16/100, and set the contrast to about 70/100. This results in a pretty good image.

I'll also say that having a flat screen is throwing me off compared to the curved JS9000. Maybe my eyes just need to get used to it, but right now it almost looks convex to me, to the point where I had to take my long metal ruler and hold it up to the screen to make sure it was actually flat :p

I'm still undecided on this screen. I'm keeping it for now, as I have already moved the JS9000 to another duty as a bedroom TV, and my better half would likely not be happy if I took it back, but I have a sneaky suspicion I'll be selling this one before the ~5 years I usually keep a main monitor when something better comes along.
 
Top