New LG 4K 'Cinema' Format 4096x2160 Panel Now In Production

kache

Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
723
Finally.

Though, 31" is really small. Hopefully they'll start producing a 42" or above version soon as well.
 

XiP

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
136
I'm excited about this panel :)

A little wider than 16:9 panels.... I likey :)
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,710
Too small imo. You would have to get really close to that screen to get the full effect.
 

Mark Rejhon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
1,395
I'd like to see some videogames start to support wide-gamut support and higher color depths, so we can enjoy the extra color "properly". Games properly supporting wide gamut, will eventually become very important especially as OLED monitors arrive.
 

Mr.Pixel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
138
Definitely not too small. It's only 150PPI, and you'd need to double that to get into diminishing returns for viewing from 20-24 inches away. It's a step in the right direction resolution-wise.

Curious if the panel can handle 120Hz 4k with the proper controller, and if it can be driven PWM-free.
 

NCX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
6,224
Wide gamut. I think I just heard NCX swearing.

Guessing you have never drawn, painted, created or carefully photographed anything in your life so you have absolutely no appreciation for the time & effort artists put into their works.

Too small imo

31" will completely fill my field of view from my 60-85cm viewing distance. Perfect size for me.
 

kache

Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
723
31" will completely fill my field of view from my 60-85cm viewing distance. Perfect size for me.

Good luck reading anything on it without increasing DPI. :D
And good luck with Windows' (lack of) support for proper DPI scaling. :D
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
Good luck reading anything on it without increasing DPI. :D
And good luck with Windows' (lack of) support for proper DPI scaling. :D

150 ppi is a cakewal IMHO. I use my 204 PPI 22 inch monitor and 220 PPI macbook pro retina at native resolution with no scalling with no problems either and that is significantly smaller than 150 ppi.
 

NCX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
6,224
Good luck reading anything on it without increasing DPI. :D
And good luck with Windows' (lack of) support for proper DPI scaling. :D

Can't afford one & I will only buy a wide gamut display if it can be hardware calibrated or does not have locked color controls in the sRGB mode.

If the LG is anything like the Asus 4K monitor then my 300$ Qnix is better black level, response time and lag wise. It will likely take a few years for these 4k monitors to catch up to 1440p PLS monitors.

Wide Gamut Only 4K monitors=2007 IPS+S-PVA cycle all over again, can't wait for all of the consumers with too much money to spend to be blown away by 4K display colors like they were when the 2408/Samsung 2x5T/3007, U2410, ect came out. We will once again likely enjoy a period where TN panels have more accurate colors vs. high end (4K) monitors. Exciting!
 
Last edited:

Skott

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,198
31" is perfect for the gaming enthusiasts who want desktop screens. Imagine the day when you can get enough GPU power to triple screen a set. Anyway, you know they'll build larger versions. They won't ignore the segment for larger TVs. I doubt it will take them long before production starts. LG just decided to start small first for whatever reason. Probably pricing/cost.
 

Skripka

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
10,792
Guessing you have never drawn, painted, created or carefully photographed anything in your life so you have absolutely no appreciation for the time & effort artists put into their works.

Oh contraire, piston-puss.

Unlike ye who loves to bitch about always needing 100% accurate color gamut ;) , it doesn't bother me personally that much if a monitor otherwise performs well that the color is not 100% as the CGI crew programmed it on their workstations for my own usage.
 

isp

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
3,067
you guys who say it's too small must be the ones buying 27" 1920x1080 displays

i look at 150ppi on a notebook daily and it's not bad at all imo.

those old t221s were criminally small though.
 

Ubiquity

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
259
Can't afford one & I will only buy a wide gamut display if it can be hardware calibrated or does not have locked color controls in the sRGB mode.

If the LG is anything like the Asus 4K monitor then my 300$ Qnix is better black level, response time and lag wise. It will likely take a few years for these 4k monitors to catch up to 1440p PLS monitors.

Wide Gamut Only 4K monitors=2007 IPS+S-PVA cycle all over again, can't wait for all of the consumers with too much money to spend to be blown away by 4K display colors like they were when the 2408/Samsung 2x5T/3007, U2410, ect came out. We will once again likely enjoy a period where TN panels have more accurate colors vs. high end (4K) monitors. Exciting!

Someone should teach you how to use color profiles so you can quit complaining about wide gamut monitors.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,710
you guys who say it's too small must be the ones buying 27" 1920x1080 displays

i look at 150ppi on a notebook daily and it's not bad at all imo.

those old t221s were criminally small though.

No, it's that PPI is completely relational to viewing distance when dealing with clarity. I would wager most people's eyes would only be 18 inches away or less from a 15" retina laptop display. No one is going to sit with eyes 18 inches away from a 31" 4K monitor, so you need less PPI.

It's the same thing with high resolution and your living room and how close you sit to the display. You put a 4K 50" and 1080P 50" display at 8 feet away from your eyes you won't even be able to see the difference. That's why most are saying 4K is only really worth it for large 70+ inch sets.

IMO the best size for a 4K computer monitor is in the 35-40 inch range. That allows you to put the display a nice 3 feet or so from your eyes with it sitting further back on your desk, yet large enough to get the immersion and clarity benefits. Sitting really close to a desktop monitor is neither pleasant or ergonomically feasable.
 

maarten12100

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
186
No, it's that PPI is completely relational to viewing distance when dealing with clarity. I would wager most people's eyes would only be 18 inches away or less from a 15" retina laptop display. No one is going to sit with eyes 18 inches away from a 31" 4K monitor, so you need less PPI.

It's the same thing with high resolution and your living room and how close you sit to the display. You put a 4K 50" and 1080P 50" display at 8 feet away from your eyes you won't even be able to see the difference. That's why most are saying 4K is only really worth it for large 70+ inch sets.

IMO the best size for a 4K computer monitor is in the 35-40 inch range. That allows you to put the display a nice 3 feet or so from your eyes with it sitting further back on your desk, yet large enough to get the immersion and clarity benefits. Sitting really close to a desktop monitor is neither pleasant or ergonomically feasable.
Vega is correct though higher density is always nice since you can go ultrasharp for entertainment and do pixel doubling for work (like the macbooks do)
Of course there is the human factor which differs but little people can make out the difference at a higher distance.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,043
No one is going to sit with eyes 18 inches away from a 31" 4K monitor, so you need less PPI.

In my normal upright sitting position, my eyes are about 22 inches away from the top of my Asus PQ321. Of course this varies, if I lean forward it might be even closer than 18 inches, and if I lean back it's probably more like 30-35 inches.

But I don't find this viewing distance uncomfortable or ergonomically unfeasible :)
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
No, it's that PPI is completely relational to viewing distance when dealing with clarity. I would wager most people's eyes would only be 18 inches away or less from a 15" retina laptop display. No one is going to sit with eyes 18 inches away from a 31" 4K monitor, so you need less PPI.

It's the same thing with high resolution and your living room and how close you sit to the display. You put a 4K 50" and 1080P 50" display at 8 feet away from your eyes you won't even be able to see the difference. That's why most are saying 4K is only really worth it for large 70+ inch sets.

IMO the best size for a 4K computer monitor is in the 35-40 inch range. That allows you to put the display a nice 3 feet or so from your eyes with it sitting further back on your desk, yet large enough to get the immersion and clarity benefits. Sitting really close to a desktop monitor is neither pleasant or ergonomically feasable.

35-40 inch range? That is what I am at (around that) with a 50 inch 4k TV as my monitor. With 30 inch montiors and smaller I am more in the 18-30 inches range. I have no problems reading 200 PPI+ at native sizes from 30 inches away.

I guess some people just like to sit way far away from their displays...
 

Benny

Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
582
No, it's that PPI is completely relational to viewing distance when dealing with clarity. I would wager most people's eyes would only be 18 inches away or less from a 15" retina laptop display. No one is going to sit with eyes 18 inches away from a 31" 4K monitor, so you need less PPI.
And as we consider 300dpi to be the minimum for clear text in print at normal reading distance the monitor should have 8k at 30'' or 4k at 15''.
It depends on what you intend to display.
For the way text and graphics are handled since 1983, barely enough pixels used so we can decipher the blocky image to be a letter or icon, your assessment is indeed correct, and an increase in resolution would have to be accompanied by an increase in monitor size for the content to be comfortable to look at.
For those (like me) that only sit further away from a 100ppi screen (27''&30'') when reading a website like this because of the discomforting effect of seeing the RGB subpixels sparkling about in the textfield I'm currently typing in, 150ppi is a small ray of hope that we are slowly moving towards generation of computer displays that don't look like the image is created by tiled lego-blocks, when comparing it to a cheap newspaper print.
(make a screen-shot of a web-page, print it out and behold the horror of what we are used to looking at)
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Decent Aspect for a bigger movie/TV screen.

But for a Monitor this size, I would much prefer 3840x2400.
 

isp

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
3,067
No, it's that PPI is completely relational to viewing distance when dealing with clarity. I would wager most people's eyes would only be 18 inches away or less from a 15" retina laptop display. No one is going to sit with eyes 18 inches away from a 31" 4K monitor, so you need less PPI.

It's the same thing with high resolution and your living room and how close you sit to the display. You put a 4K 50" and 1080P 50" display at 8 feet away from your eyes you won't even be able to see the difference. That's why most are saying 4K is only really worth it for large 70+ inch sets.

IMO the best size for a 4K computer monitor is in the 35-40 inch range. That allows you to put the display a nice 3 feet or so from your eyes with it sitting further back on your desk, yet large enough to get the immersion and clarity benefits. Sitting really close to a desktop monitor is neither pleasant or ergonomically feasable.

18" is basically the viewing distance for my laptop every day...2-2.5ft is even fine with me. I think I sit closer to displays than you is all. You don't need to explain to me the relationship between dpi and distance....I have 150 dpi and I'm looking at it from various distances. I wouldn't object to it being 35" though, but IMO 40" is too much.
 

Skott

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,198
If this unit is currently in production as they say it is would I be correct in assuming out to public by Xmas? Not sure how tv production times are figured.
 

kabobi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
271
If this unit is currently in production as they say it is would I be correct in assuming out to public by Xmas? Not sure how tv production times are figured.

Well, we still don't know of any monitors that are actually using this panel. So I wouldn't be too optimistic.

A few manufacturers have already announced/released 4K monitors but all of those use Sharp's panel.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,043
When Sharp introduced their panel, it was months before another manufacturer got a monitor to market, and so far it's just Asus and Sharp -- the Dell panel->monitor process seems to be even longer, for example.
 

kache

Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
723
And as we consider 300dpi to be the minimum for clear text in print at normal reading distance the monitor should have 8k at 30'' or 4k at 15''.
It depends on what you intend to display.
For the way text and graphics are handled since 1983, barely enough pixels used so we can decipher the blocky image to be a letter or icon, your assessment is indeed correct, and an increase in resolution would have to be accompanied by an increase in monitor size for the content to be comfortable to look at.
For those (like me) that only sit further away from a 100ppi screen (27''&30'') when reading a website like this because of the discomforting effect of seeing the RGB subpixels sparkling about in the textfield I'm currently typing in, 150ppi is a small ray of hope that we are slowly moving towards generation of computer displays that don't look like the image is created by tiled lego-blocks, when comparing it to a cheap newspaper print.
(make a screen-shot of a web-page, print it out and behold the horror of what we are used to looking at)

Seriously, what kind of absurd sight do you have? I can't see the pixels even on a 27" 1080p screen... :eek:
 

Benny

Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
582
Seriously, what kind of absurd sight do you have? I can't see the pixels even on a 27" 1080p screen... :eek:

Normal average vision, try printing out a screen-shot of the normal windows UI the same size it is displayed on your monitor, ideally using a quality laser printer, as well as text of the same size form a normal office software.
You, like almost anyone, are biologically able to see the pixelation at normal reading distance. You're simply to used to the miserable resolution to notice it.
Many won't notice the difference between a grainy anti-reflection coating and a glossy screen, others can't stand it.
The sup-pixels are much larger than the grain of such a coating and the coating turns a pure white screen which actually is a striped red-green-blue pattern into a more random sparkling rainbow-colored noise harder to get used to...
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,043
Seriously, what kind of absurd sight do you have? I can't see the pixels even on a 27" 1080p screen... :eek:

I have 20/30 vision and I can easily see the pixels on a 24" 1920x1200 display, let alone a 27" 1080p. Those have pixels the size of boulders...
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,710
Here is an interesting chart:

resolution_chart_610x416.jpg


To really maintain all the advantages of 4K, you would have to sit about 2 feet or less for a 31" screen, and around 4 feet for a 65" screen.
 

Michaelius

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
4,684
Here is an interesting chart:

resolution_chart_610x416.jpg


To really maintain all the advantages of 4K, you would have to sit about 2 feet or less for a 31" screen, and around 4 feet for a 65" screen.

That chart seems suspicious.

I can clearly tell diffrence from 480p to 720p 3-4 meters in my living room
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,710
That chart seems suspicious.

I can clearly tell diffrence from 480p to 720p 3-4 meters in my living room

Firstly, you really can't make a statement like that without giving a screen size. Secondly, a lot of 480 content is really poor versus 720P. So there may be other factors at play in image quality simply besides resolution making the 720P look a lot better.
 

Michaelius

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
4,684
Firstly, you really can't make a statement like that without giving a screen size. Secondly, a lot of 480 content is really poor versus 720P. So there may be other factors at play in image quality simply besides resolution making the 720P look a lot better.

Yes I know. I forgotten to add at my 32" TV ;)
 

Reikon

n00b
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
42
Hopefully PC monitors will finally start catching to the DPI race, though the GPUs needed for gaming on them scares me.
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
That chart is total bs. I really hate when people use it. According to it you have to be 2.5 feet away from a 50 inch display.. what a joke. I can see the pxielation in text on my 22 inch 4k display from 2.5 feet away so its crazy if it thinks you need to be that close on a display so much larger.

Even without using my glasses I can see the pixelation on a 50 inch 4k display from 3 feet away and that is with almost a diopter of astigmatism and like 20/35 vision (where as I am always 20/15 corrected). With correction its more like 6+ feet for me.

I don't think that chart was made for people who are considered to have average (IE, 20/20) vision, more like 20/40 so its way off.
 
Top