![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Current 43" 4K options?
- Thread starter Digital Viper-X-
- Start date
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 17,896
I hope that you'll create a thread and go into depth about that thing. I'm sure it's something that many would be interested in reading, considering how long we've been waiting for a 40"+ 4K @ 120 Hz.
Wonder who will be next to release one?
Only problem is... no motion blur reduction! Personally, I am waiting on 4k/120hz with DyAc/ULMB to come to the table. My eyes can't go back to a non-strobed monitor.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 4,861
Without supplying high frame rates to fill hz, you aren't going to get the motion clarity (blur reduction) and motion definition (more articulated pathing and smoother "glassy" motion, higher animation definition etc).
So obviously a desktop/app use scenario outside game just moving a mouse and windows around should usually supply as many frames of motion as the monitor can handle but when you go into a game, especially a more demanding 1st/3rd person games and at higher resolutions, your frame rate is severely limited.
Even the "frame rate" you meter and quote is a wider range of fluctuating frame rates +/- that that can be graphed.
View attachment 64347
And the image below shows a visual representation of the blur at each persistence amount via persuit camera. However realize that in a 1st/3rd person game you are moving the entire game world full of high detail textures and depth via bump mapping around relative to you in the viewport when mouse looking and movement keying, rather than a simple singular ufo btimap graphic.
I had fw900's . They aren't the answer. More of a pain in the end to keep looking good enough.. and the size of the screen sucks even if you dismiss the size of the monitor itself. I held on to using that for years with a lcd alongside but I'm well past that now.
Most people avoid PWM like the plague. LCD strobing is essentially PWM. It will give you eyestrain. In order to use ulmb/lightboost properly you have to keep really high minimum frame rates. People are all looking to 3440 x 1440 and 4k resolutions now and are looking to HDR luminance ranges and color volumes. Strobing is really not applicable to the bar that modern premium gaming monitors are setting (High resolutions at high Hz, HDR luminance and color volume, VRR with higher graphics settings to avoid judder on dips and potholes, variance).
The real answer is fairly high frame rate to start with multiplied by advanced high quality interpolated (directly repeated not 'manufactured') frames combined with extremely high hz but that is still years off. The hz ceilings are making some progress now though at least.
"So while they are saying 10,000hz fed massive fps at extreme resolutions would be indistinguishable from reality per se.. 1000fps (100fps interpolated 10x) at 1000hz would be essentially zero blur like a high end fw900 crt for the purposes of gaming"
View attachment 76265
As per blurbusters.com 's Q and A:
-----------------------------------------------------
Q: Which is better? LightBoost or G-SYNC?
It depends on the game or framerate. As a general rule of thumb:
LightBoost: Better for games that sustain a perfect 120fps @ 120Hz
G-SYNC: Better for games that have lower/fluctuating variable framerates.
This is because G-SYNC eliminates stutters, while LightBoost eliminates motion blur. LightBoost can make stutters easier to see, because there is no motion blur to hide stutters. However, LightBoost looks better when you’re able to do perfect full framerates without variable frame rates.
G-SYNC monitors allows you to choose between G-SYNC and backlight strobing. Currently, it is not possible to do both at the same time, though it is technically feasible in the future.
......
Main Pros:
+ Elimination of motion blur. CRT perfect clarity motion.
+ Improved competitive advantage by faster human reaction times.
+ Far more fluid than regular 120Hz or 144Hz.
+ Fast motion is more immersive.
Main Cons:
– Reduced brightness.
– Degradation of color quality.
– Flicker, if you are flicker sensitive.
– Requires a powerful GPU to get full benefits. <edit by elvn: and turning down settings a lot more at higher resolutions>
--------------------------------------------------------
During regular 2D use, LightBoost is essentially equivalent to PWM dimming (Pulse-Width Modulation), and the 2D LightBoost picture is darker than non-LightBoost Brightness 100%.
--------------------------------------------------------
Once you run at frame rates above half the refresh rate, you will begin to get noticeable benefits from LightBoost. However, LightBoost benefits only become major when frame rates run near the refresh rate (or exceeding it).
-------------------------------------------------------
If you have a sufficiently powerful GPU, it is best to run at a frame rate massively exceeding your refresh rate. This can reduce the tearing effect significantly.Otherwise, there may be more visible tearing if you run at a frame rate too close to your refresh rate, during VSYNC OFF operation. Also, there can also be harmonic effects (beat-frequency stutters) between frame rate and refresh rate. For example, 119fps @ 120Hz can cause 1 stutter per second.
Therefore, during VSYNC OFF, it is usually best to let the frame rate run far in excess of the refresh rate. This can produce smoother motion (fewer harmonic stutter effects) and less visible tearing. Alternatively, use Adaptive VSYNC as a compromise.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-requisites
Frame rate matches or exceeds refresh rate (e.g. 120fps @ 120Hz).
Sensitivity to input lag, flicker, etc. (You benefit more if you don’t feel any effects from input lag or flicker)
Computer Factors That Hurt LightBoost
Easier to render games with very high fps work pretty well with ulmb.
Running 1440p or higher rez with any kind of high to ultra settings on the most demanding games won't let you sustain high fps, only average it.
So obviously a desktop/app use scenario outside game just moving a mouse and windows around should usually supply as many frames of motion as the monitor can handle but when you go into a game, especially a more demanding 1st/3rd person games and at higher resolutions, your frame rate is severely limited.
Even the "frame rate" you meter and quote is a wider range of fluctuating frame rates +/- that that can be graphed.
This is the blur reduction you get at different frame rates at 1000hzThe article talking about 1000hz realizes that 1000fps gaming outright is unrealistic and says that advanced interpolation of 100fps x 10 would be a likely scenario for 1000hz monitors (mathematically, 125fps x 8 would also work). Even then, in fururistic 180 degree VR at extreme resolutions you'd sense the difference due to strobostropic effect unless it was 10,000 hz. So while they are saying 10,000hz fed massive fps at extreme resolutions would be indistinguishable from reality per se.. 1000fps (100fps interpolated 10x) at 1000hz would be essentially zero blur like a high end fw900 crt for the purposes of gaming.
View attachment 64347
And the image below shows a visual representation of the blur at each persistence amount via persuit camera. However realize that in a 1st/3rd person game you are moving the entire game world full of high detail textures and depth via bump mapping around relative to you in the viewport when mouse looking and movement keying, rather than a simple singular ufo btimap graphic.
Note that while many of these replies are focused on blur reduction, higher frame rate on a high hz monitor (without using duplicated/interpolated frames) also provides greatly increased motion definition, motion path articulation, smoothness (and even animation cycle definition) of individual objects and of the entire game world moving in relation to you while mouse looking and movement keying in 1st/3rd person games So even if you had a 1000hz monitor using advanced interpolation, you would still need to run it at 100fps x 10 (or 125fps x 8, 200fps x 5) in order to get the greater motion definition benefit aspect of higher hz.
I had fw900's . They aren't the answer. More of a pain in the end to keep looking good enough.. and the size of the screen sucks even if you dismiss the size of the monitor itself. I held on to using that for years with a lcd alongside but I'm well past that now.
Most people avoid PWM like the plague. LCD strobing is essentially PWM. It will give you eyestrain. In order to use ulmb/lightboost properly you have to keep really high minimum frame rates. People are all looking to 3440 x 1440 and 4k resolutions now and are looking to HDR luminance ranges and color volumes. Strobing is really not applicable to the bar that modern premium gaming monitors are setting (High resolutions at high Hz, HDR luminance and color volume, VRR with higher graphics settings to avoid judder on dips and potholes, variance).
The real answer is fairly high frame rate to start with multiplied by advanced high quality interpolated (directly repeated not 'manufactured') frames combined with extremely high hz but that is still years off. The hz ceilings are making some progress now though at least.
"So while they are saying 10,000hz fed massive fps at extreme resolutions would be indistinguishable from reality per se.. 1000fps (100fps interpolated 10x) at 1000hz would be essentially zero blur like a high end fw900 crt for the purposes of gaming"
View attachment 76265
As per blurbusters.com 's Q and A:
-----------------------------------------------------
Q: Which is better? LightBoost or G-SYNC?
It depends on the game or framerate. As a general rule of thumb:
LightBoost: Better for games that sustain a perfect 120fps @ 120Hz
G-SYNC: Better for games that have lower/fluctuating variable framerates.
This is because G-SYNC eliminates stutters, while LightBoost eliminates motion blur. LightBoost can make stutters easier to see, because there is no motion blur to hide stutters. However, LightBoost looks better when you’re able to do perfect full framerates without variable frame rates.
G-SYNC monitors allows you to choose between G-SYNC and backlight strobing. Currently, it is not possible to do both at the same time, though it is technically feasible in the future.
......
Main Pros:
+ Elimination of motion blur. CRT perfect clarity motion.
+ Improved competitive advantage by faster human reaction times.
+ Far more fluid than regular 120Hz or 144Hz.
+ Fast motion is more immersive.
Main Cons:
– Reduced brightness.
– Degradation of color quality.
– Flicker, if you are flicker sensitive.
– Requires a powerful GPU to get full benefits. <edit by elvn: and turning down settings a lot more at higher resolutions>
--------------------------------------------------------
During regular 2D use, LightBoost is essentially equivalent to PWM dimming (Pulse-Width Modulation), and the 2D LightBoost picture is darker than non-LightBoost Brightness 100%.
--------------------------------------------------------
Once you run at frame rates above half the refresh rate, you will begin to get noticeable benefits from LightBoost. However, LightBoost benefits only become major when frame rates run near the refresh rate (or exceeding it).
-------------------------------------------------------
If you have a sufficiently powerful GPU, it is best to run at a frame rate massively exceeding your refresh rate. This can reduce the tearing effect significantly.Otherwise, there may be more visible tearing if you run at a frame rate too close to your refresh rate, during VSYNC OFF operation. Also, there can also be harmonic effects (beat-frequency stutters) between frame rate and refresh rate. For example, 119fps @ 120Hz can cause 1 stutter per second.
Therefore, during VSYNC OFF, it is usually best to let the frame rate run far in excess of the refresh rate. This can produce smoother motion (fewer harmonic stutter effects) and less visible tearing. Alternatively, use Adaptive VSYNC as a compromise.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-requisites
Frame rate matches or exceeds refresh rate (e.g. 120fps @ 120Hz).
- LightBoost motion blur elimination is not noticeable at 60 frames per second.
Sensitivity to input lag, flicker, etc. (You benefit more if you don’t feel any effects from input lag or flicker)
Computer Factors That Hurt LightBoost
- Inability to run frame rate equalling Hz for best LightBoost benefit. (e.g. 120fps@120Hz).
- Judder/stutter control. Too much judder can kill LightBoost motion clarity benefits.
- Framerate limits. Some games cap to 60fps, this needs to be uncapped (e.g. fps_max)
- Faster motion benefits more. Not as noticeable during slow motion.
- Specific games. e.g. Team Fortress 2 benefits far more than World of Warcraft.
- Some games stutters more with VSYNC ON, while others stutters more with VSYNC OFF. Test opposite setting.
==================================
Easier to render games with very high fps work pretty well with ulmb.
Running 1440p or higher rez with any kind of high to ultra settings on the most demanding games won't let you sustain high fps, only average it.
GnatGoSplat
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 62
The Vizio E43-F1 sounds interesting. Rtings says (in the comments of the review) it's the overall best 43" TV right now, better than the TCL 43S517. Compared to the Samsung NU7100, they say, "The Vizio E Series 2018 is somewhat better than the Samsung NU7100." One commenter's post is titled, "Much better than the NU6900".
A commenter did post about the dithering issue that Kdawg has posted about.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/discussio...ed-to-create-solid-colors-can-this-be-changed
However, a later post is titled, "E43-f1 Chroma 4:4:4 fixed"
https://www.rtings.com/tv/discussions/KJ1mzTD7fP2oGSim/e43-f1-chroma-4-4-4-fixed
So what I'm unsure about, is if the chroma 4:4:4 also fixes the weird dithering? Is it due to broken chroma 4:4:4 that it was doing the weird dithering? Or is that just a Vizio thing and unrelated to broken chroma 4:4:4?
D
Deleted member 89018
Guest
Hi GnatGoSplat , I haven’t noticed dithering on my e43-f1, and I can also confirm the chroma 4:4:4 is working just fine.
I can’t figure out how to link my post on mobile but I’ve got my experience with the set posted in this thread on page 8, if you’re using default forum settings.
this isn’t to say I don’t think the dithering is happening, just that I can’t notice it at the distance I’m sitting. Nothing has looked “off” in the near month now that I’ve been using it.
The pictures in the rtings user’s post are extremely zoomed in and I can’t get that level of detail with my camera. But those pics are a big help, now I know what to look for. I tried to eyeball it before and couldn’t tell if I was seeing anything odd, but I’ll give it a close look tonight and see if it’s still there, since there has been at least one major firmware update since those rtings posts.
I can’t figure out how to link my post on mobile but I’ve got my experience with the set posted in this thread on page 8, if you’re using default forum settings.
this isn’t to say I don’t think the dithering is happening, just that I can’t notice it at the distance I’m sitting. Nothing has looked “off” in the near month now that I’ve been using it.
The pictures in the rtings user’s post are extremely zoomed in and I can’t get that level of detail with my camera. But those pics are a big help, now I know what to look for. I tried to eyeball it before and couldn’t tell if I was seeing anything odd, but I’ll give it a close look tonight and see if it’s still there, since there has been at least one major firmware update since those rtings posts.
D
Deleted member 89018
Guest
Following up - using those pictures as guides, I can't see any with my eyes, even when my face is up to about 6 inches away from the screen (closer than that it really hurts to try to focus and identify the pixels, but I couldn't see anything). That's not to say it isn't happening, but I don't notice it from close up or my normal viewing distance, in regular use.
I messed around with the settings on my old camera and I think I've gotten some okay pictures. I'm not sure if they'll be helpful; my digital camera is from late 2004 (seriously). It has a macro setting and I forced it to center focus, and set it 3" from the screen.
Output is set to 4:4:4 RGB Full via Radeon settings. HDR / WCG is turned off in Windows. TV is set to "Computer" picture mode. Three images show the desktop background set to a solid color - RGB FF0000, 00FF00 and 0000FF. The fourth one I set to 808080 to try and mirror what the rtings user mentioned about grey. I've also attached an image of the [H] forum header, also from about 3". I also have the TV's backlight set to 20, which is plenty bright for me, but these pictures make it look significantly brighter than it is.
The 3 solid background colors, from what I can see, look exactly like I would have expected (solid all the way through). The grey appears to match what the rtings user posted although there's obviously a big difference in whatever equipment they were using compared to my old camera. The forum header image displays something similar in the grey, although I'm not sure what I would have expected otherwise (since anything outside of a solid R, G or B is going to have to use some mix of the three I would expect to see some combination of all three when zoomed in that close).
Mostly though I want to point out: while my camera might pick this up on a timed still shot from 3" away, in regular viewing with my eyes it all looks solid. I'm not seeing anything that looks like dithering or odd checkerboard patterns, and in a month-ish of regular use (browsing, some games, some spreadsheets, little image editing) nothing has been noticeable to me as "off" about the display's output.
Hope that helps!
I messed around with the settings on my old camera and I think I've gotten some okay pictures. I'm not sure if they'll be helpful; my digital camera is from late 2004 (seriously). It has a macro setting and I forced it to center focus, and set it 3" from the screen.
Output is set to 4:4:4 RGB Full via Radeon settings. HDR / WCG is turned off in Windows. TV is set to "Computer" picture mode. Three images show the desktop background set to a solid color - RGB FF0000, 00FF00 and 0000FF. The fourth one I set to 808080 to try and mirror what the rtings user mentioned about grey. I've also attached an image of the [H] forum header, also from about 3". I also have the TV's backlight set to 20, which is plenty bright for me, but these pictures make it look significantly brighter than it is.
The 3 solid background colors, from what I can see, look exactly like I would have expected (solid all the way through). The grey appears to match what the rtings user posted although there's obviously a big difference in whatever equipment they were using compared to my old camera. The forum header image displays something similar in the grey, although I'm not sure what I would have expected otherwise (since anything outside of a solid R, G or B is going to have to use some mix of the three I would expect to see some combination of all three when zoomed in that close).
Mostly though I want to point out: while my camera might pick this up on a timed still shot from 3" away, in regular viewing with my eyes it all looks solid. I'm not seeing anything that looks like dithering or odd checkerboard patterns, and in a month-ish of regular use (browsing, some games, some spreadsheets, little image editing) nothing has been noticeable to me as "off" about the display's output.
Hope that helps!
Attachments
GnatGoSplat
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 62
Thanks so much for posting the photos,deruberhanyok. Your photos are very good, much better than I was able to take with a slightly newer digital camera.
There is definitely dithering going on, even with the latest firmware. It's most visible in the first and last photos. Especially on the first one, you can see in the reds that the red subpixels are staggered. If there were no dithering, all the red subpixels would be lit, but in your photo you can see that only every-other-one is lit per row. The gray and yellow are similar. Looks like only time there's no dithering is when only a solid color is displayed. You can compare to mine (Samsung UN43MU6300 VA version). My photo is a bit blurry, but you can see the same pixels are lit on every row; the red subpixels of the red parts are all aligned vertically.
There is definitely dithering going on, even with the latest firmware. It's most visible in the first and last photos. Especially on the first one, you can see in the reds that the red subpixels are staggered. If there were no dithering, all the red subpixels would be lit, but in your photo you can see that only every-other-one is lit per row. The gray and yellow are similar. Looks like only time there's no dithering is when only a solid color is displayed. You can compare to mine (Samsung UN43MU6300 VA version). My photo is a bit blurry, but you can see the same pixels are lit on every row; the red subpixels of the red parts are all aligned vertically.
Attachments
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 89018
Guest
That is an excellent comparison picture, GnatGoSplat , thank you for posting it! With the side by side it’s pretty clear that this set is doing some dithering.
I’m curious if anyone with the TCL or Samsung 43” screens could post a similar closeup of the [H] forum header? That could be really useful for anyone who is comparison shopping and is sensitive to this sort of thing.
I wonder if it’s a firmware-fixable thing? if it is, if Vizio would even bother with it. I’m not sure I’d see a difference but maybe I’ll email their support and see if they have anything to say about it.
I’m curious if anyone with the TCL or Samsung 43” screens could post a similar closeup of the [H] forum header? That could be really useful for anyone who is comparison shopping and is sensitive to this sort of thing.
I wonder if it’s a firmware-fixable thing? if it is, if Vizio would even bother with it. I’m not sure I’d see a difference but maybe I’ll email their support and see if they have anything to say about it.
GnatGoSplat
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 62
My photo is from a VA version of Samsung UN43MU6300, btw. Not sure how the NU6900 or 7100 look, but I would imagine they are similar.
I'd think it's firmware fixable, but I have doubts Vizio would bother to fix it unless enough people complained. I bet they don't think it's a problem, they probably consider it some kind of deliberate enhancement. Total guess, but maybe it's some a way to simulate 10-bit color on an 8-bit panel. They really should make it a setting, or at least disabled in Computer mode.
I've read the 43" TCLs don't do any dithering, but some of the larger models do.
I'd think it's firmware fixable, but I have doubts Vizio would bother to fix it unless enough people complained. I bet they don't think it's a problem, they probably consider it some kind of deliberate enhancement. Total guess, but maybe it's some a way to simulate 10-bit color on an 8-bit panel. They really should make it a setting, or at least disabled in Computer mode.
I've read the 43" TCLs don't do any dithering, but some of the larger models do.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 89018
Guest
GnatGoSplat I had a fun email conversation with Vizio support, but the takeaway was this:
1) they wouldn't call it dithering, and they kept insisting "since you don't notice it from normal viewing distance it's fine; when you zoom in that close you should expect to see the pixels aren't uniform". I don't know if the reps I spoke with just didn't understand what I was asking (I tried explaining it multiple times, but seems every email got a different rep responding to it, instead of being able to have a conversation with just one of them) or if they were intentionally not acknowledging it.
2) They very clearly stated that the screen does NOT support full RGB, only limited. I switched my output to limited and I can't see a difference, so, not sure what that's all about?
Anyways, nearly two months in and I'm still really happy with this TV. And Vizio's support was extremely responsive, really nice to see that.
1) they wouldn't call it dithering, and they kept insisting "since you don't notice it from normal viewing distance it's fine; when you zoom in that close you should expect to see the pixels aren't uniform". I don't know if the reps I spoke with just didn't understand what I was asking (I tried explaining it multiple times, but seems every email got a different rep responding to it, instead of being able to have a conversation with just one of them) or if they were intentionally not acknowledging it.
2) They very clearly stated that the screen does NOT support full RGB, only limited. I switched my output to limited and I can't see a difference, so, not sure what that's all about?
Anyways, nearly two months in and I'm still really happy with this TV. And Vizio's support was extremely responsive, really nice to see that.
cybereality
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,790
I think this is what we were waiting for.
Astral Abyss
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 3,014
I'm waiting for the sticker shock.
Mad Maxx
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 6,677
Agreed. I'd give it a shot at that price.
chimera991
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,168
I'll be waiting for one of y'all to sell yours!!
D
Deleted member 89018
Guest
That Asus looks amazing, but I would have a really hard time justifying that price - if it came in at $1500 that’s nearly five times these 43” TVs we’ve been discussing. I admit I also don’t like the premium that’s Asus charges for its products.
I’m thinking if they’ve got this screen coming there may be others that haven’t announced yet, though.
Also not sure if anyone was watching CES news for new TVs, but a couple of changes:
Vizio’s done some reworking of their product line, the E-series is going to be V-series and now the M-series for 2019 will include a 43” model and supports “quantum color” - haven’t seen any details on other specs.
TCL seems to have some big changes coming too but I’m just now trying to sift through all the news.
Anyways, as always, I’d suggest at least waiting to see what new things will be available before jumping on what will probably be the most expensive option.
I’m thinking if they’ve got this screen coming there may be others that haven’t announced yet, though.
Also not sure if anyone was watching CES news for new TVs, but a couple of changes:
Vizio’s done some reworking of their product line, the E-series is going to be V-series and now the M-series for 2019 will include a 43” model and supports “quantum color” - haven’t seen any details on other specs.
TCL seems to have some big changes coming too but I’m just now trying to sift through all the news.
Anyways, as always, I’d suggest at least waiting to see what new things will be available before jumping on what will probably be the most expensive option.
Noetic
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 1,286
I have a 28" Dell 4K monitor, but wanted to go for a 40-43" model for work purposes (spread sheets).
Best buy had sales on their insignias, tcls and now Toshibas. I want to keep it under 300 if possible. I read good things about the TCL (for the price point...it is no Sony 720 series), what about the new Toshiba, available at BB for 199?
TYIA
David
Best buy had sales on their insignias, tcls and now Toshibas. I want to keep it under 300 if possible. I read good things about the TCL (for the price point...it is no Sony 720 series), what about the new Toshiba, available at BB for 199?
TYIA
David
I've had an Acer 4k 43' Monitor ET430K
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824011128&Description=4k 43" monitor&cm_re=4k_43"_monitor-_-24-011-128-_-Product
for well over a year and am very pleased with it.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824011128&Description=4k 43" monitor&cm_re=4k_43"_monitor-_-24-011-128-_-Product
for well over a year and am very pleased with it.
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 17,896
Can you provide a link or model # for the ones you're referring to?
Several of us were able to snag the Samsung KU6290/KU6300 for under $300 a couple of years ago...that was a solid deal but I have no idea how these BB sets compare. Post more info and maybe we can find out more about `em (particularly the Toshiba - I'm curious as those don't get mentioned much).
They're going to have to price monitors more competitively if they want to compete with televisions this year. There's simply no reason to buy larger monitor over a smaller TV given the current market.
If Nvidia would stop being bitches and support Adaptive Sync over HDMI, there'd be absolutely no question about this, but they need to push their stupid BFG monitors and make TVs look the least attractive as they can for as long as they can. Nvidia sure sucks a lot of cock.
If Nvidia would stop being bitches and support Adaptive Sync over HDMI, there'd be absolutely no question about this, but they need to push their stupid BFG monitors and make TVs look the least attractive as they can for as long as they can. Nvidia sure sucks a lot of cock.
Noetic
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 1,286
The TCL was the 43S405 which had been mentioned in this thread. Also the 43s515 is available for 20 dollars more,
The Insignia, NS-43DF710NA19
And the Toshiba 43LF621U19
Samsung has a NU6900 for 299 at BB.
The Insignia, NS-43DF710NA19
And the Toshiba 43LF621U19
Samsung has a NU6900 for 299 at BB.
Last edited:
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 17,896
I agree for the most part. Most of the previous issues that people had with using TVs as monitors -- namely lack of proper 4:4:4 and input lag -- have largely been solved. Despite that, many gamers hooked on high frame rates and variable refresh technologies were pretty much forced to go the monitor route. Now that those features are making their way into the TV realm, we are reaching a level of near-parity that was previously unheard of.
With that being said, there will still certainly be a big market for monitors as it's getting harder to buy a TV less than 40" these days and not everyone wants a display that large sitting 2' in front of them (not to mention some people prefer that ultrawide 21:9 aspect ratio that's only available with monitors) but yeah, for the most part I agree and have for years. It was mind-boggling to me that people were paying nearly $1000 for those 34" 60Hz ultrawides and 32" 4K monitors a few years ago when you could get a 40" 4K that did 4:4:4 with very acceptable input lag for 1/3 of the price.
Thanks man, I'll take a look at those when I get a chance. Without knowing anything about the others I would lean toward the Samsung just because I've used a few of their TVs and have been very happy, but it never hurts to compare.
D
Deleted member 89018
Guest
FYI That model is the Toshiba FireTV. It runs Amazon's FireOS if that matters to you.
Also, relevant rtings review:
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/toshiba/amazon-fire-tv-2018
The 43" model doesn't support motion interpolation but otherwise0 seems like an alright set. I'd highly recommend looking over the section on inputs and supported resolutions though:
For $300 I'd lean towards the TCL 5 series or Samsung 6900 instead, with the Vizio E43-F1 being another option (I've posted extensively about thatt model here but I expect a lot of people will be turned off by the dithering, even though it does not bother me). The various input restrictions they have listed would put me off of the Toshiba, even at $200.
And I don't know that Sony's 720 is a useful comparison anymore - the few places I've seen it in stock it's usually $500 ish, and I don't think it's so much better than other sets that it's worth the extra cost.
Also, relevant rtings review:
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/toshiba/amazon-fire-tv-2018
The 43" model doesn't support motion interpolation but otherwise0 seems like an alright set. I'd highly recommend looking over the section on inputs and supported resolutions though:
For $300 I'd lean towards the TCL 5 series or Samsung 6900 instead, with the Vizio E43-F1 being another option (I've posted extensively about thatt model here but I expect a lot of people will be turned off by the dithering, even though it does not bother me). The various input restrictions they have listed would put me off of the Toshiba, even at $200.
And I don't know that Sony's 720 is a useful comparison anymore - the few places I've seen it in stock it's usually $500 ish, and I don't think it's so much better than other sets that it's worth the extra cost.
I mean, even the niche ultrawide monitors are worthless, because they're so small, if you just run larger TV at 3840x1440 or something, you essentially have the same visible space AND the option to run larger stuff at full 4k.
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 17,896
True, but then ultrawides started becoming available that could run at high refresh rates just like the previous gaming-focused 27" monitors, so that was a draw for people who valued high Hz over resolution. Otherwise I agree they were largely pointless and overpriced (though they're finally much more reasonable in terms of cost) and with the rollout of HDMI 2.1, TVs will start catching up in terms of refresh rate.
To each his/her own and I know a lot of people like those ultrawides, but you could not pay me to go back to one with 120Hz 4Ks finally here (not to mention OLED picture quality for those of us willing to cough up the $ for it).
The reason I keep watching monitors and will be buying on eventually is calibration and accuracy.
I've never seen a TV with hardware LUT.
Now someone just needs to make a VRR capable display that can also be calibrated well enough for my hobby and side job needs.
I've never seen a TV with hardware LUT.
Now someone just needs to make a VRR capable display that can also be calibrated well enough for my hobby and side job needs.
Gatecrasher3000
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 516
Can you expand on that? What about the picture is off? I was considering getting one myself, but I really want to avoid a washed out color and picture in my next screen.
Noetic
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 1,286
I opted for the 40" Samsung 7100.
The TCL was comparable, but I genuinely want a slightly smaller monitor, between 37 and 40,inch for my work space.
So far, I am fairly satisfied with the results. Spreadsheets are so much easier to read than on the 15" 4k laptop screen, and gaming is excellent.
Thank you [H] folks for all the useful info
D
The TCL was comparable, but I genuinely want a slightly smaller monitor, between 37 and 40,inch for my work space.
So far, I am fairly satisfied with the results. Spreadsheets are so much easier to read than on the 15" 4k laptop screen, and gaming is excellent.
Thank you [H] folks for all the useful info
D
Niche for sure, but when I got mine a couple years ago ( first run Acer Predator), they were a great middle ground between the 4k 60 and the 2k 120 monitors. If I recall, they were the closest to maxing out the bandwidth of the DP 1.2 cables at the time, effectively making them the "best" monitors.
That said, I agree 100% with the 40ish" 4k 120hz monitors finally working their way onto the market, No way will I get another ultrawide monitor, but at the time, they were about the best you could get above 27" and below 55" screen size (Note, this is an uneducated opinion)
I've sent back two Philips bdm4350uc both with heavy image retention, heavy backlight bleeding and also banding issues.
Now I'm thinking to buy the LG 43UD79-B but have doubts on how this display is able ti handle 1080p resolution.
Happy Hopping
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 7,572
my 4035UC is just fine all these years, really love it. The next I'll buy is the rollable OLED
Necro thread?
Anyway while I have been googling and lusting from afar I finally did buy a big 4k.... Acer ET430k, on sale at Microcenter for $399. This thing exceeds all expectations. Yeah it won't do over 4k/60hz, but come on be real. My 1080ti doesn't always hit in the ballpark anyway.
https://www.microcenter.com/product/477072/acer-et430k-43-quot
Ask me anything about the monitor and I'll try to answer. Games at 4K/60hz or less have been excellent (Diablo 3, Anthem, Rise of the tomb raider, Ryse son of rome)
If I have to gripe... it does have a little image retention but it's not burn in / permanent... it goes away. But sometimes I can see a "ghost" of something behind a window etc. Note this does not affect games at all, desktop stuff. Also I haven't tried to adjust brightness settings etc
Day 1-3 I was like... woah... too big (coming from 2x 27" 1440) after that... I'm hooked. I can scale websites to see clearly very easily. And Civ 5/6 are fking awesome at 4k, no more laptop play for me.
Even the wifey went from "that's too big, you're a dummy" to a week later "I can see how you like it"... next week she'll say she wants one for work. FYI - if you work at home, Excel on this thing is UNREAL.
Anyway while I have been googling and lusting from afar I finally did buy a big 4k.... Acer ET430k, on sale at Microcenter for $399. This thing exceeds all expectations. Yeah it won't do over 4k/60hz, but come on be real. My 1080ti doesn't always hit in the ballpark anyway.
https://www.microcenter.com/product/477072/acer-et430k-43-quot
Ask me anything about the monitor and I'll try to answer. Games at 4K/60hz or less have been excellent (Diablo 3, Anthem, Rise of the tomb raider, Ryse son of rome)
If I have to gripe... it does have a little image retention but it's not burn in / permanent... it goes away. But sometimes I can see a "ghost" of something behind a window etc. Note this does not affect games at all, desktop stuff. Also I haven't tried to adjust brightness settings etc
Day 1-3 I was like... woah... too big (coming from 2x 27" 1440) after that... I'm hooked. I can scale websites to see clearly very easily. And Civ 5/6 are fking awesome at 4k, no more laptop play for me.
Even the wifey went from "that's too big, you're a dummy" to a week later "I can see how you like it"... next week she'll say she wants one for work. FYI - if you work at home, Excel on this thing is UNREAL.
cybereality
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,790
Nice one! Good buy.
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 17,896
Nice, I bought the same one to hold me over until the high refresh 43" panels release but haven't hooked it up yet because I need to make room on my desk beside of the OLED. Figured the Acer would be nicer to use for productivity stuff as it's a better size for a monitor. Glad to hear the positive feedback. I read about the IR but I don't care about that for what I'll be using it for. Thanks for posting.
Some people think the 40"+ monitors are too big, but you're now as hooked as the rest of us.