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

houkouonchi said:
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.
.
Click to expand...


You must be some kind of mutant.

I have 20/15 BCVA, and I can barely see 27" 2560x1440 display pixels from 2.5feet away.
 
Snowdog said:
You must be some kind of mutant.

I have 20/15 BCVA, and I can barely see 27" 2560x1440 display pixels from 2.5feet away.
Click to expand...

People always over-exaggerate. If I say I can see the laser reflectors on the moon from my backyard with my naked eye, that holds as much weight as anyone else making a claim that they can see X from X. In objective A-B tests, most would surely find out how poor their subjective analysis is.
 
Vega said:
People always over-exaggerate. If I say I can see the laser reflectors on the moon from my backyard with my naked eye, that holds as much weight as anyone else making a claim that they can see X from X. In objective A-B tests, most would surely find out how poor their subjective analysis is.
Click to expand...

Well I used a IBM T221 or Viewsonic VP2290b for a lot of years as my primary display from around 2 feet from my face. It was 3840x2400 on a 22 inch monitor with x-windows set at 75 DPI (compared to windows 96 DPI) so it was smaller fonts than what windows uses (native pixel wise) and the pixels were 1/4 the size of pretty much any other display back then and I never had a problem with it at all.
 
well I guess maybe I should put it this way... On a 22 inch monitor at 4k with fonts put down to basically as small as they can go I can see jaggedness in the text and they are still big enough that I can read them without any problems.

It seems to me that either 1) It should be high enough pixel density that if I am drawing the fonts as small as what is possible by the pixel sizes it should either be to small for me to read and thus upping the font size (and still be small but have a lot of pixels to make the fonts clean/not jagged) where I don't notice the text is created with pixels at all.

For me that would probably take about twice as many pixels as 4k on a 22 inch display so the display would need to be somewhere between 16 and 20 megapixels.

I can even see the pixels on my iphone 5 as well, they aren't completely invisible, for me. they are just way less noticeable than before and its closer to my face. My macbook pro retina is getting to the point where its getting close to my limits when its sitting in my lap (vs a table) but still not quite there yet. I think around 250 PPI for ~2 feet would be my optimal resolution where I am not getting much of a benefit anymore but I do see a benefit for even higher PPI stuff for scaling and other things.
 
houkouonchi said:
well I guess maybe I should put it this way... On a 22 inch monitor at 4k with fonts put down to basically as small as they can go I can see jaggedness in the text and they are still big enough that I can read them without any problems.

It seems to me that either 1) It should be high enough pixel density that if I am drawing the fonts as small as what is possible by the pixel sizes it should either be to small for me to read and thus upping the font size (and still be small but have a lot of pixels to make the fonts clean/not jagged) where I don't notice the text is created with pixels at all.

For me that would probably take about twice as many pixels as 4k on a 22 inch display so the display would need to be somewhere between 16 and 20 megapixels.

I can even see the pixels on my iphone 5 as well, they aren't completely invisible, for me. they are just way less noticeable than before and its closer to my face. My macbook pro retina is getting to the point where its getting close to my limits when its sitting in my lap (vs a table) but still not quite there yet. I think around 250 PPI for ~2 feet would be my optimal resolution where I am not getting much of a benefit anymore but I do see a benefit for even higher PPI stuff for scaling and other things.
Click to expand...

Things like fonts and font hinting as regards visible pixelation are entirely dependent not only on your eyes, but on what font typeset you're using ,as well as sub-pixel hinting, as well as how poorly the OS has been set to render fonts.

Certain fonts, for example just about any serif font, simply suck on LCDs and might look better on higher PPI screens. Otherwise sweeping generalizations are simply that.
 
I agree. Simply using font size/type vs PPI to determine clarity is flawed. You can have fonts look crappy no matter how high the PPI is. Too many factors there to skew the results.
 
Vega said:
I agree. Simply using font size/type vs PPI to determine clarity is flawed. You can have fonts look crappy no matter how high the PPI is. Too many factors there to skew the results.
Click to expand...

The main on a high-ppi monitor would be a coarse anti reflection coating. But in order to produce text that doesn't look like this at normal display size we need a display with more PPI to start with, making it look crappy is an optional addition.

Most fonts have rounded forms, serif or not so a benefit will a apparent independent of typeface as long as it's not a raster/pixel based one.
this , this and this is basically all turned into a modified version of this when displaying them as we usually do on our current monitors like this this this this.
 
Skripka said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem comes when YOU ARE the creator of the content.

I'm hoping that this panel shows up in hardware LUT displays as well (and that perhaps one day I can afford it).
 
Benny said:
Most fonts have rounded forms, serif or not so a benefit will a apparent independent of typeface as long as it's not a raster/pixel based one.
this , this and this is basically all turned into a modified version of this when displaying them as we usually do on our current monitors like this this this this.
Click to expand...

^ this.

(Sorry, couldn't resist)
 
Vega said:
People always over-exaggerate. If I say I can see the laser reflectors on the moon from my backyard with my naked eye, that holds as much weight as anyone else making a claim that they can see X from X. In objective A-B tests, most would surely find out how poor their subjective analysis is.
Click to expand...

LMAO... the ownage in this post is quite strong. :D
 
NCX said:
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.
Click to expand...

1) It's fairly concrete that the new 4K standard will be 10-bit or even 12-bit colour.

2) 2.4 has been the optimal gamma for movies for years now. So stop with the 2.2 which is only optimal for pre 2005 or so.
 
Oh this bad boy just may have competition for my desk against the 5K 27" Dell. Although Sharp did make the 31.5" IGZO 4K panel which was just horrible.
 
imho sharp's wasn't that horrible per se. It simply was released 1st from 4K displays (i know, i know, there were like those 22" ibm before), thus was plagued by only electronics that were available back then, forcing to use MST mode with tearing and mode switch / support bugs. Unfortunatelly high price tag also didn't let many from early adopters simply ignore those flaws.
 
Church said:
imho sharp's wasn't that horrible per se. It simply was released 1st from 4K displays (i know, i know, there were like those 22" ibm before), thus was plagued by only electronics that were available back then, forcing to use MST mode with tearing and mode switch / support bugs. Unfortunatelly high price tag also didn't let many from early adopters simply ignore those flaws.
Click to expand...

W R O N G! Sharps lackluster IGZO had horrendous PWM which caused uncontrollable fapping
must-not-fap.jpg
 
My 31.5" IGZO sample also had horrendous back light bleed, panel uniformity, just about everything bad under the sun in addition to the worst implementation of PWM I've seen. On a $3500 display!!
 
Benny said:
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)
Click to expand...
I think you're overexaggerating just a little bit here... Unlike something in print the pixels on a display are interpolated and antialiased, so you can't directly compare something printed at 300 DPI to a display that is 100 PPI.
 
I don't get the 30-31" size for 4K monitors.

Too small for people just wanting more display real estate (40" makes more sense), and too big for for those who want increased dpi. (23-24" is ideal IMO)

My ideal monitor is 23-24", 3840x2160, IPS, and no MST.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top