New Samsung 4k for everyone.

[wirk]

Definitely to each their own. Now with 3 days of using the 48", I love it. I did lower my monitor shelf about 2 inches and my eye line is now approx 1in from the center of the display (with the mfg stand). Part of the "big" feel is the imersion factor. The 48" is feeling so good because it is overwhelming. That is what I want. My triple 30" displays were nice, but the center one by itself did not give that feeling. Personally I thought the 40" would be what I would want, but since my local store did not have stock of them and they did of teh 48", I decided to give it a try. I won't be going back! Do what you want for you - those of us that like the 48" are certainly doing what we want for ourselves.

I am trying to figure out what would be best for me judging from the experience of others . I also do simulations with my existing 27" monitor raising it to dfferent heights.
So please tell me what is the height of the upper edge of the screen over the desk, what is your eye level over the desk and what is your viewing distance to the the center of the screen. My primary application is not gaming, maybe with gaming an overwhelming screen reaching high over the head adds to the immersion effect, especially if the upper part of the scene is sky, high-rise streets etc. But when I simulate even the 40" screen lowered to the desk level to see the areas closer to the upper edge of the display I have to raise up my eyes and/or head and this is not comfortable.

Hi all,
I signed up on the forum a little earlier today just so I could thank you all for all of these really informative posts. I decided to pull the trigger on a Sammy (Samesung lol) 65" 7500 as a PC gaming monitor. I know, you all think it's too big. But I plan on sitting 4-5 feet away from it and at that distance, it should be perfect for not only immersion, but at 4k I will (should?) not see any pixels.

The problem is not in pixels. Do you intend to put the 65" on the normal desk??? Basic prinicple of using a display as monitor says that eye level should be well above the center line of the display. Otherwise the display feels being located too high which forces to raise head up which results in chronic pains.

 

[Agent00F]

The size of pixels is dependent both on resolution and screen size, PPI combines the two to give relevant information on pixel density and that is really necessary information, not just marketing mumbo jumbo. A 4k television and a 720p phone could have the same PPI and so for all intents and purposes be the same screen. but the 4k is flashy and new.

This is exactly the sort of mumbo jumbo alluded to. There is absolutely no comparison between a 4k monitor and 720p phone other than a PPI number to somehow imply that the latter is just as good or better. Hey that 20" 1080p display is in every way cheaper to make and should cost less than the 30" one, but it's got the "better" PPI! All other things equal, higher PPI implies smaller display. Of course nobody is going to advertise their *smaller* display unless it's a portable, so they emphasize *bigger* PPI instead.

That's what happens when people get stuck on specifications. A couple years ago no one knew anything about 4:4:4 Chroma subsampling and wouldn't have cared. Now its all the rage. Like microstutter and frame pacing before that.

I am not saying some of these things aren't important but I agree that it might be an overblown issue. I am not an expert on TV's or LCDs in general but as I understand it the PWM issue only comes up at high frequencies when the brightness is near the lower end of the spectrum for the given display. I don't turn the brightness down to those levels on any display I've got so that will be a non-issue for me. It hasn't been a problem so far.

PWM only became an issue with bright LED backlighting (to boost artificial contrast ratios) which have less phosphor persistence than its predecessors. It's not a big deal for people insensitive to it, but the effect can be subtle enough (strain over longer periods of use) as not to be obvious. Full chroma was only ever a problem with TV's used as monitors and has been from the start.

In my opinion the 65" is too big for use as a computer monitor outside of pure gaming. The PPI on it would look horrible I think at the distances typically used for monitors. I haven't as of yet connected a PC to it, but based on the PPI of the 48", I wouldn't have gone bigger.

Unlike what the interests of the (small) monitor industry would like users to believe, they don't have to be used at a short fixed distance. If your product is too small to used at greater more relaxed distance, of course you're going to emphasize other numbers which distract from this.

The problem is not in pixels. Do you intend to put the 65" on the normal desk??? Basic prinicple of using a display as monitor says that eye level should be well above the center line of the display. Otherwise the display feels being located too high which forces to raise head up which results in chronic pains.

How does angling the head up slightly result in chronic pain?

 

[ritterbutzke]

It's basic ergonomics that the top of the screen should be at eye-level.

 

[Agent00F]

Short people must've all suffer a lot of chronic pain even well before computers came along.

 

[ritterbutzke]

Their neck-muscles are trained for it

 

[Chrisv006]

It's basic ergonomics that the top of the screen should be at eye-level.

How do you accomplish that? With a decent size monitor you gotta have a bar stool or something.

 

[qkslvr221]

Over 32" it's next to impossible unless you have a freakishly long torso.

In my experience with 40-47" displays, as long as my eye-level was above midline of the display, there's been no craning or cramping involved.

The difference in height between the 40" and 48" is negligible in this respect, but forget the 65". You'd have to sit so far that the difference between 1440p and 4k would be severely hampered.

 

[geok1ng]

How do you accomplish that? With a decent size monitor you gotta have a bar stool or something.

You wioll not know how much a proper monitor stand and ergonomics can improve your life until you have one. I suffered years with the ACD 30" and laetr with the Seiki 39".

Now i am the very happy user of a fully adjustable Dell 2515h. Sure i use it at only 2 inches lower height, but it is night and day for my neck > i abandoned the 2560x1600 30" for the 2560x1440 25" and never look back.

 

[Chrisv006]

Over 32" it's next to impossible unless you have a freakishly long torso.

In my experience with 40-47" displays, as long as my eye-level was above midline of the display, there's been no craning or cramping involved.

The difference in height between the 40" and 48" is negligible in this respect, but forget the 65". You'd have to sit so far that the difference between 1440p and 4k would be severely hampered.

I've always done the same, midline to eye level. Many years with no problems.

 

[Nenu]

I prefer to have the screen top around eye level too, sometimes lower.
When I used a 42" TV for PC, I placed it on a lower table.
Using a PJ makes me prefer a slightly leant back sitting position so my head is no longer vertical.
This puts my eye angle in my head at a similar position to viewing my computer display.

When I went round a friends house who has his TV mounted high up a wall, I found it awkward to watch.
Especially as his sofa is short height and has no head support.
My sofa is short but is close to a back wall, cushions against the wall work very well.

 

[Brahmzy]

Interesting that the 40 is the EXACT same height as my 2560x1600 30"er. I've been staring at 30s for almost a decade now. Stuffing 560 more vertical pixels in the same area is going to wreak havoc with my eyes. I already have to use scaling to some extent now. I think I'm changing my mind and going with the 48. The width is going to be a serious adjustment - 15 inches wider (7.5"/side). That's going to be crazy on my desk. Doable though.

 

[vorpel]

I am trying to figure out what would be best for me judging from the experience of others . I also do simulations with my existing 27" monitor raising it to dfferent heights.
So please tell me what is the height of the upper edge of the screen over the desk, what is your eye level over the desk and what is your viewing distance to the the center of the screen. My primary application is not gaming, maybe with gaming an overwhelming screen reaching high over the head adds to the immersion effect, especially if the upper part of the scene is sky, high-rise streets etc. But when I simulate even the 40" screen lowered to the desk level to see the areas closer to the upper edge of the display I have to raise up my eyes and/or head and this is not comfortable.

Here are my numbers for my desk setup with the 48" JU6700

Top of desk - 30 3/8"
Monitor shelf - 3 3/8" (this is so I can slide my keyboard under the stand, KVM, etc. KVM is only used to switch keyboard/mouse)
Monitor stand/support - 2 1/4" to the bottom of the bezel
Monitor display area - bottom - 2 13/16"
Monitor display area - top - 26 1/4"
Monitor - top of bezel - 26 13/16"
Eye level off the top of the desk - sitting comfortably - not slouching or super good posture - 16 3/4" (I'm 6' 0" with normal torso proportions)
Eye level is at 13 15/16" on the monitor's viewable area
Monitor viewable area height - 23 3/8" - makes viewable center of monitor at 11 11/16"
My eye level is at 2 1/4" above the viewable area center line

For me this is comfortable. I certainly have to look up to focus on the top of the monitor as well as look down for the bottom. That is just due to the size.

I hope the numbers help. I think your best bet is to find a store where you can purchase the display with a good return policy, and get it setup and see how it works in your environment.

When I was trying to determine which size (40 or 48) to go with I took mat board and cut it to the dimensions of the 48" and use it to get a feel for the size of the monitor (it is easy to simulate a curved display with the mat board). I used a white mat board and this was very overwhelming. What I would do in the future is get a black mat board, and then a mid-tone gray one and make the gray one the viewable area of the display and tape it in place on the black one. I think that would give a good illustration.

Anyways - good luck with whatever you decide.

 

[Brahmzy]

Great idea with the mat board. Is it about a 5/8" border (bezel)?

 

[Chrisv006]

Great idea with the mat board. Is it about a 5/8" border?

Great idea, im going to swing by target on the way home today.

 

[Brahmzy]

And is the JU7500 really a 120hz native refresh panel? Hmmmm. $949 is turning into $1,600...

 

[Lateralus]

Interesting that the 40 is the EXACT same height as my 2560x1600 30"er. I've been staring at 30s for almost a decade now.

Are you talking about your Z30i?

HP's specs show the panel height as 17.7", vs 21.1" for the 40" Samsung. Just want to make sure you're measuring apples to apples because I recently had a 30" Dell and that doesn't sound right to me.

 

[wirk]

How does angling the head up slightly result in chronic pain?

Ergonomists recommendations abou the placement of the monitor, e.g.: If you use a large monitor (20" or larger), position your monitor so that the top of the viewing area is about 3" above eye level.. For smaller monitors the recommendation is: Position the top of your screen level with your eyes. What may happen if the recommendations are not kept: If it's too high, you may have to tilt your head back, leading to neck and shoulder pain - and increasing the likelihood of glrae from overhead lights (a common cause of headaches).

Here are my numbers for my desk setup with the 48" JU6700
Top of desk - 30 3/8"
Monitor shelf - 3 3/8" (this is so I can slide my keyboard under the stand, KVM, etc. KVM is only used to switch keyboard/mouse)
Monitor stand/support - 2 1/4" to the bottom of the bezel
Monitor display area - bottom - 2 13/16"
Monitor display area - top - 26 1/4"
Monitor - top of bezel - 26 13/16"
Eye level off the top of the desk - sitting comfortably - not slouching or super good posture - 16 3/4" (I'm 6' 0" with normal torso proportions)
Eye level is at 13 15/16" on the monitor's viewable area
Monitor viewable area height - 23 3/8" - makes viewable center of monitor at 11 11/16"
My eye level is at 2 1/4" above the viewable area center line
For me this is comfortable. .

Thank you for the extensive measurements. Monitor top display area is 9 1/2" from the eye level. This is way over the 3" in the recommendation above which I am already finding too high for me. Do you use this monitor ocassionally or do you spend life in front of it (which is hard to me to imagine due to the potential health problems)?

 

[WorldExclusive]

And is the JU7500 really a 120hz native refresh panel? Hmmmm. $949 is turning into $1,600...

Why???

Here's my plan. Use the 40" for productivity and single player games and buy a real competitive gaming monitor on the side for multiplayer.
It doesn't make sense to invest hundreds more for a TV that will never match a dedicated 144Hz G-Sync gaming monitor.

 

[Lateralus]

Where was it even discussed that the 7500 series is capable of 120 Hz refresh rates with PCs? I thought all of these TVs were 4:4:4 @ 60 max. Even if HDMI 2.0 has the bandwidth to support 4:4:4 @ 120 fps, I really don't think these TVs support that.

 

[vorpel]

Thank you for the extensive measurements. Monitor top display area is 9 1/2" from the eye level. This is way over the 3" in the recommendation above which I am already finding too high for me. Do you use this monitor ocassionally or do you spend life in front of it (which is hard to me to imagine due to the potential health problems)?

I will be using this monitor (and I've used my previous setup) about 3-4 hours a day. Occasionally I get to work from home which would mean 9-11 hours. I've been using the 3x30" setup for the last 3-4 years and the top of the monitors were approx 4" lower than my current setup. Keep in mind that I also cut the legs down on my monitor shelf last Friday to accommodate the new setup.

One thing to keep in mind is that you do not have to run your windows (your browser if that is your main app, etc) all the way at the top of the display. My browser that I'm typing into right now is positioned 8 inches from the top of the screen. The extra space above is either open (background photo) or have a remote desktop, etc.

My advice to you is try the mat board deal, or just pick one up and try it. You will know pretty quick if it is something that you want to do. Specs are great, but they lead to over-analyzing and endless speculation. Give it a try and you will know one way or the other.

Enjoy!

Edit: If you run the display flush with the top of your desk and use a stand that can lower it all the way to the desk, you would adjust my measurements down nearly 5". Personally I don't want to do that, but it is a way to get the top of the display lower.

 

[vorpel]

Great idea with the mat board. Is it about a 5/8" border (bezel)?

Yes - the bezel is right at 5/8". Looks fantastic on this size of screen!

 

[Chrisv006]

Just FYI - Looks like Sears will have these in stores on 4/9. The 48" for sure.

 

[Brahmzy]

Are you talking about your Z30i?

HP's specs show the panel height as 17.7", vs 21.1" for the 40" Samsung. Just want to make sure you're measuring apples to apples because I recently had a 30" Dell and that doesn't sound right to me.

They're both at just over 23" in height on their respective stands. And that 23" height has worked fine for me. Though the 48 is 27" high - that 3.5-4" diff could be pretty significant in the upper corners, because of the increased width.

 

[dpoverlord]

So I'm in a similar boat and looking for guidance but I'm considering to spend 3k for the 9000 55" as I want 50±" anyone have any ideas on this monitor or if I should wait on the oled. I have a microcenter by me as well.

 

[Brahmzy]

^^^

OLED's out of the picture for me. I've got a 70 now and need an 80. No way I'm dropping $24K for an 77" OLED. It'll probably be the 2015 80" edge-lit UH30 Sharp for me around June - should be around $4,500-$5,000 street price.

If 50/55 is all you need, I'd be looking hard at an OLED.

 

[shadow85]

Are there any 40" OLED TVs

 

[Lateralus]

They're both at just over 23" in height on their respective stands. And that 23" height has worked fine for me.

Right, right...we're on the same page there. The total height of both displays (with stand) will be roughly the same at ~23", but you mentioned cramming 560 more pixels into the same vertical space which isn't necessarily so because the height of the panel on the Samsung (sans stand) is greater than the height of the HP w/o stand, so it'll help to offset some of the difference.

The difference between the two will be roughly 10ppi, which isn't that significant.

Though the 48 is 27" high - that 3.5-4" diff could be pretty significant in the upper corners, because of the increased width.

Exactly what I thought. It doesn't sound like a lot, but when I did my mock-up measurements I felt like it was a big difference as far as looking up and to the corners.

 

[Brahmzy]

^^^
Gotcha about the PPI - that makes sense.

 

[Seinfeld]

Between the 40" inch Sammys and the new Panasonics, which one seems a better choice spec wise?

http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN40JU7100FXZA#key-specs
http://www.panasonic.com/se/consumer/viera-tv/alla/tx-40cx800e.specs.html

I am thinking whether to go for the flat Sammy or wait for the TX-40CX800E, even thought there is no information about 4:4:4 and PWM.

I have been reading that the Panasonic is also VA panel. Too bad it will lack 2 features.

4K Studio Master Processor - professional technology for accurate picture processing true to the directors intentions (excluding 40" size)

Local Dimming Pro - adaptive backlight technology for enjoying added dynamics with robust blacks and delicate gradation (excluding 40" size)

 

[Darwin32]

Looks like Sony's are coming also. Pre-order for now, but in a few weeks we should have another candidate..

And guess what? It's 43", so for anyone jumping between 40 and 48, this could be it, should it support 4:4:4.. As for the input lag, Sony always excels in this department.

Than again, it has no curve, Gawd dammit.

 

[Dan_D]

As some of you know I purchased the JU6700 48" this weekend. I wanted to spend some time with it doing work and play before weighing in on my thoughts about it too much. I answered some direction questions about it but I didn't really want to review it. I'm not a monitor or a TV expert either so reviewing it is a bit beyond my skill set. So I'm going to give my informal impressions on it and talk about my experiences using this as my only monitor for an entire weekend. I also used my test bench 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC as I went back and fourth between the test bench and my desktop a lot as this is something I do while writing reviews. So I worked with another monitor, just not on my desktop.

After spending a weekend with this monitor and working on a board review and playing games I think I've reached a preliminary decision regarding this monitor. My current graphics cards aren't HDMI 2.0 compliant so until my Titan X's get here I can't experience this monitor in 4:4:4 mode.

As a piece of equipment it is aesthetically pleasing. The curve is probably not important on the 40" model but on the 48" model I think it may in fact help immersion at the very least.

Inputs, well I hate the fact that DisplayPort isn't present and your basically stuck with HDMI 2.0/1,4a devices. Not the end of the world really as most consumer devices and even graphics cards all have HDMI on them. The biggest flaw in this is naturally when using this TV as a computer monitor.

The size of the display and general picture quality is superb. Since I have the 65" model in my home theatre room this wasn't a surprise to me. My 3x ROG Swifts came in right around 47" as a display in portrait mode so the Samsung puts me in the same area in terms of display size. I think that the display is about perfect for immersion as it fills up your peripheral vision nicely. I don't find I have to turn my head to see all of the display, but rather I use my eyes a little here and there to focus on corners if necessary. I was used to this anyway as I came from 3x 30" Dell 3007WFP-HCs and then the ROG Swifts. Of course without 4:4:4: chroma subsampling I'm not entirely sure how accurate the colors were. And most recently I came from the ROG Swifts and TN panels aren't known for color accuracy anyway.

I don't have the greatest eyesight and I sit a little more than arms length from the display. Roughly about where I'd position monitors.

The quality of the image is sufficient for desktop use and productivity. The only real problem here is that in gaming mode the image quality suffers as all the TV's processing and effects aren't used to clean up the image. So for productivity it takes a hit for having some perceivable input lag outside of gaming mode. In gaming mode the image quality is fine for playing games and the input lag drops a noticeable amount and makes the display fairly capable as a gaming device. I think its best paired with adaptive V-Sync in games to help avoid tearing below 60Hz and to keep the frame rate more or less locked in. I don't feel that this monitor especially needs font scaling outside of game mode. Text is sharp and clear enough. The PPI is roughly what it is for 2560x1600 30" panels. In game mode font scaling would be nice to help avoid the grainy look of the text.

For brightness this thing can scorch your eyes if you set it to high. I have it on 45/100 I think most of the time. I generally don't go much below that and never above it. I haven't seen any issues with PWM and this device.

In short, it isn't the perfect monitor for productivity but it is definitely workable. The desktop space provided at 4k resolutions is nice and the aspect ratio gives you a perfect balance of height and width that isn't overwhelming in any one direction. As a gaming display it isn't quite perfect either but I would say its the perfect trade off between refresh rate and size. With adaptive V-Sync and trying to hit 60FPS in games at 4K I don't find I miss G-Sync as much as I thought I would. Yes gaming on my ROG Swifts was a little smoother but I don't think I can overstate my feeling the trade offs were worth it.

 

[Seinfeld]

Looks like Sony's are coming also. Pre-order for now, but in a few weeks we should have another candidate..

And guess what? It's 43", so for anyone jumping between 40 and 48, this could be it, should it support 4:4:4.. As for the input lag, Sony always excels in this department.

Than again, it has no curve, Gawd dammit.

On AVS Forum they say new Sony TVs does not support 4:4:4.

 

[wirk]

Are there any 40" OLED TVs

No, smallest is 55". I would not expect smaller (4K) OLED TV any time soon. Due to limited manufacturing capabilities of LG they concentrate on premium segment of bigger TVs.

 

[rinaldo00]

Why???

Here's my plan. Use the 40" for productivity and single player games and buy a real competitive gaming monitor on the side for multiplayer.
It doesn't make sense to invest hundreds more for a TV that will never match a dedicated 144Hz G-Sync gaming monitor.

I know you considered both the Philips and the Seiki, why did you pick the Samsung?

 

[rinaldo00]

This is exactly the sort of mumbo jumbo alluded to. There is absolutely no comparison between a 4k monitor and 720p phone other than a PPI number to somehow imply that the latter is just as good or better. Hey that 20" 1080p display is in every way cheaper to make and should cost less than the 30" one, but it's got the "better" PPI! All other things equal, higher PPI implies smaller display. Of course nobody is going to advertise their *smaller* display unless it's a portable, so they emphasize *bigger* PPI instead.

I got the impression that PPI gives a way to try and compare screens of differing sizes and resolution. For example if a 27" monitor and a 40" monitor have the same PPI text will look the same on both.

 

[WorldExclusive]

After spending a weekend with this monitor and working on a board review and playing games I think I've reached a preliminary decision regarding this monitor. My current graphics cards aren't HDMI 2.0 compliant so until my Titan X's get here I can't experience this monitor in 4:4:4 mode.

4:4:4 improves the colors a lot. The monitor colors look richer and the blacks are deeper.
When you receive your Titans, test again. I've been playing games in PC mode and the picture is better than game mode.
I only use game mode for multiplayer, everything else I game in PC mode.

I know you considered both the Philips and the Seiki, why did you pick the Samsung?

Seiki has flaky quality and warranty service so I eliminated that from my list. The Phillips monitor suffered from panel quality issues overseas and we are also starting to see that in the US. At this price point, I'm looking for A grade quality and the Sammy has that. Along with having most of the features of a PC monitor, it's also a Smart TV, something I've been using quite a lot i.e. Netflix and Prime Video with UHD. The Sammy offers more for $1000.

When the Sammy is on, the power light is off!
Also using the TV remote instead of pressing monitor buttons is also a welcome relief.

 

[poetik]

Was proven wrong, so happy that the 980 has hdmi 2.0!!!

 

[Lateralus]

Man, I really wanted one of these samsungs as my computer monitor but having only hdmi kinda makes it hard to upgrade. The titan x is the only card with hdmi 2.0 and It makes no sense to get the samsung since the colors will be washed out (no 4:4:4: chroma) unless you spend an extra 1k on that video card.

I just upgraded to a 980 so I could use a 3440x1440 monitor with display port. Looks like my only choices at the moment are the phillips and the seiki. I really thought this was the answer. Looks like I either need to spend a lot more than I intended to.

No. 960/970/980 have HDMI 2.0 also. You will be fine doing 4:4:4/60 with your 980.

Source: me and plenty of others using 9xx series cards with the Samsungs

 

[poetik]

No. 960/970/980 have HDMI 2.0 also. You will be fine doing 4:4:4/60 with your 980.

Source: me and plenty of others using 9xx series cards with the Samsungs

Omg no shit? I seriously thought I was assed out! YESSSSSS!!!!!!!!

 

[Nenu]

Man, I really wanted one of these samsungs as my computer monitor but having only hdmi kinda makes it hard to upgrade. The titan x is the only card with hdmi 2.0 and It makes no sense to get the samsung since the colors will be washed out (no 4:4:4: chroma) unless you spend an extra 1k on that video card.

I just upgraded to a 980 so I could use a 3440x1440 monitor with display port. Looks like my only choices at the moment are the phillips and the seiki. I really thought this was the answer. Looks like I either need to spend a lot more than I intended to.

980 has HDMI 2.0