New Samsung 4k for everyone.

Cyph

Gawd
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
812
Great thing about the Samsung, there's a size for everyone. Get a 75" and sit 20 ft away. Why? Because.
 

wirk

Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
811
I had a 50" JU6500 that I sold last week. New owner loves it. BUT ......... 50" is a tad too big, for me and I suspect most others. I was about 3 1/2 + pushing 4' from it and it was still a bit too much. I honestly think the best size to get is 48" curved.
Don't mind him; I see the village idiot got out again. Same guy that uses hashtags (lol) and ignores everyone who doesn't agree with him. I tried having a friendly debate, proved him wrong, and he went psycho. There is a reason why 99% of the people in this thread opted for the 40"-48"...anything larger is pushing it IMO, but may be manageable depending on your setup. So yeah, there might be someone here and there with the 55", but like 6FD said...for most people that's too large for a PC monitor and they'll be better served by the 40"-48".

Heh, you will now be called the village idiot by those who are pushing for 55", 60" and 65" telling that 48" is really a microdisplay and overall this will be coold display of ergonomic ignorants :cool:.

If you cannot lower the TV or lean back to get the height right, you have a point. But the definition of a monitor isnt right, any display is a monitor. With a 4K screen you have to have it close enough to read the text so there is less wiggle room with height. With 1080p you can have it further away which reduces the amount you have to look up. Ultimately the size doesnt matter if you can put the TV far enough away and at the right height. An 85" TV user can push the TV further away and lower it a bit to compensate. Or use it from a sofa and lean back a little on cushions instead of lowering it. The further away the TV is the better if you can position it right, larger TVs are easier on the eye when set up well. If you place it on a desk, you will be size limited.

Here is the crux of misunderstanding what means the monitor viewing condition. By monitor viewing it is understood *personal* desktop condition with the viewing distance 1-2 picture heights. If you think it does not matter since one can take bigger display, increase the viewing distance and it will be the same you do not take the *personal* space condition into account. Personal space means that device is within private space intended for exclusive use. Think about it e.g. in terms the distance people keep at conversion, somebody getting closer than customary feels intusive and this is because of intrusion into personal space. Same with the monitor viewing, it is in the personal space. Big display at larger distance moves into public space. In other words another person could come and see what is on this display while in the monitor viewing it is private and feels very obtrusive when somebody looks at it. Thus not every display is monitor.

Is there not an inherent contradiction in the idea that the bigger the monitor, the farther away from it you must sit in order to use it comfortably for computer work? Seems there has to be a point of diminishing returns at which too big ends up being too far away.

Not only this as explained above. There is huge psychological difference between the private and public space.
 

Masejoer

Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2001
Messages
698
Thinking in this way you can hang 85" 4K TV on a wall and tell this is your monitor. But it is not, monitor is something which is at your private viewing distance. Reason also tells not to neglect potential health problems in particular for those who make living from staring in the monitor. When ergonomy recommends upper edge of the display not far from eye level there is research behind it.

You are making up your own definitions of a "monitor". It's simply a device that allows you to MONITOR/observe the operation of a machine. Even the LCD in my keyboard is a monitor. A television is a monitor. Just because you think a monitor means private, it doesn't make it so. Does installing a privacy filter on your tv make it a monitor?

If you go beyond the definition of what a monitor is, the general understanding is that monitor = display that shows something, and a television is a device that can tune in on broadcast signals on different frequencies, over the air or by wire. No more or no less.

Again, you perceive a monitor as being private since historically they were small. An old 13" tv was best for personal viewing - does that mean it was a monitor by your definition? Even standard livingroom 19-25" tvs were as big as people's computer monitors today. Were those monitors by your definition? They were small enough to be considered ideal for personal viewing.

There are no "health differences" between a 24" LCD or a 85" LCD. Ergonomics, they matter in the livingroom also. Sitting static for 8-hours a day, in any job, you shouldn't be looking upward. Nothing to do with monitors, but when at a desk, below 50" with a standard desk height would keep a person's body in a more neutral position, but the bottom edge of the screen would be very close to desk-level.

You must really hate portrait mode on smaller computer monitors.
 

TARDIS

n00b
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Messages
19
Then you have surely read this post from Cyph..

Sorry, I do not put much value in Cyph's posts. He thinks a 1080p picture (2,1 million pixels) on a 4k display with pixel doubling should always look better than a scaled 1440p picture (3,7 million pixels) on a 4k display. I mean.. lol...

Then he criticises the non-square pixel of the Philips - but ignores the fact, that the Samsung has non-square pixels, too. It's exactly the same 40" panel.

This is actually a recurring picture in this thread - at least the impression I got: The Philips has a flaw - OMG, it's a huge GARGANTUAN FLAW. The Samsung has the same flaw - oh, that doesn't matter, it's irrelevant, a tiny flaw, nobody cares, it's actually better with this flaw.

And talking about the "Image retention". This was a rumor with some blurry pictures that did not even show image retention. Why aren't any of the other users complaining about the image retention - like they are complaining about non square pixels or other stuff, so they aren't fanboys?

He states a superior video quality without compression artefacts. And a quad-core processor for superior picture quality. For a PC display? Lol. What a BS. I could go on forever.

To me, most of your points seem vague, irrelevant or simply invalid..

Yeah, many things which are relevant elsewhere are irrelevant in this thread. Like chroma 4:4:4 - but no, in this thread chroma 4:2:2 is good enough. Here chroma 4:4:4 is irrelevant.

An input lag of 48ms for a PC display (= chroma 4:4:4) would make people laugh everywhere else, but not here. Here 48ms input lag is pretty much zero. Here a super high input lag is irrelevant.

And TFT Central, Prad, Rtings with their measurements they are all invalid, too.

First two points look like BS... DP vs HDMI, whatever, I don't care.

Not everybody owns a HDMI 2.0 graphics card.

Philips is also not cheaper in Europe, despite being longer on the market, as you can get a flat version of Samsung (model 6400) for 700-750€, which is the same as Philips...

The Philips costs little more than 600 Euro in Italy and 676 Euro in Germany (at amazon it's price is oscillating between 676 and ~750 Euro).



Given the low supply, this price will most likely drop once the display is in stock in higher numbers. The recommended sales price is 699 Euro so it should sell for little over 600 Euro street price.

The cheapest price I found for the Samsung UE40JU6400 in Europe was 799 Euro in Austria. In Germany they charge 870 Euro and more. Did I pick the wrong 6400?

Philips perhaps has a bit lower input lag, but that's just about it, I believe.

Yeah, that and the other irrelevant stuff, like higher contrast, blacker blacks (and this was measured, it's not an exited fanboy stating BS - it's measured), the PWM frequency, DP...

This is from my 40" JU6700

I hope these blue shadows...



...are chromatic aberration from your camera and not a chroma 4:2:2 artefact. Because ist looks horrible in the picture.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,984
I'll be honest, I miss my 40" at times for general use...but the 48" wows in gaming so much, I'm willing to live with the massiveness of it. I definitely can't see going any bigger, but for someone else it might work.

SGSeeker makes some very valid points. Monitors have traditionally been fairly small, with 27" at one time considered large (when most were using 19"-24" displays). Only during recent years has 27" become common, with 30" and 32" considered large (remember when the Dell 3007 came out? It was thought of as huge at that time). We are kind of conditioned to think PC monitor = smaller because it's for personal use in a personal space.

As resolutions have increased, larger sizes were needed in order to prevent text from being too small. As 4K matured, Philips introduced their 40" monitor which again, at the time, was considered huge. It's just not practical to pack 4K pixel density into a 24" monitor; otherwise you'd be seeing a lot of them on the market. That's why we have bigger displays now and whey they continue to trend upward in size. So now we have to get used to the idea that 40", 48" and larger can be monitors because anything smaller isn't really practical for ultra high resolutions. My 48" Samsung is no more or less a monitor than the 20" Dell that I had back in 2004.

It does make me wonder, though...when 4K gets old and we're running 8K+ resolutions and beyond, what size will be needed to ensure readable text? Let's say that things continue and we're at 16K years down the road. Will we all then need 70" monitors? :confused: What are your thoughts on that, wirk? I don't see resolutions stagnating any time soon, so what happens when the current 48"-55" sizes that we think are on the edge of being too large (due to ergonomic issues) are not capable of displaying readable text without scaling? There will have to be another solution, because one can only move back so far due to room constraints and I can't imagine having a supermassive screen 2-3' from my face.

Despite our little tiff, I have agreed with Mako in the past when he has raised valid points and I agree with his post on the previous page: buy as big as is comfortable for you. Why can't we all just agree that it comes down to personal preference? A 20" Dell is no more right or wrong as a PC monitor than a 65" Samsung. It's all about your individual setup and what works for you.
 
Last edited:

wirk

Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
811
You are making up your own definitions of a "monitor". It's simply a device that allows you to MONITOR/observe the operation of a machine. Even the LCD in my keyboard is a monitor. A television is a monitor. Just because you think a monitor means private, it doesn't make it so. Does installing a privacy filter on your tv make it a monitor?

If you go beyond the definition of what a monitor is, the general understanding is that monitor = display that shows something, and a television is a device that can tune in on broadcast signals on different frequencies, over the air or by wire. No more or no less. Again, you perceive a monitor as being private since historically they were small. An old 13" tv was best for personal viewing - does that mean it was a monitor by your definition? Even standard livingroom 19-25" tvs were as big as people's computer monitors today. Were those monitors by your definition? They were small enough to be considered ideal for personal viewing. There are no "health differences" between a 24" LCD or a 85" LCD. Ergonomics, they matter in the livingroom also. Sitting static for 8-hours a day, in any job, you shouldn't be looking upward. Nothing to do with monitors, but when at a desk, below 50" with a standard desk height would keep a person's body in a more neutral position, but the bottom edge of the screen would be very close to desk-level. You must really hate portrait mode on smaller computer monitors.

You can call a dog monitor but this just shows you do not grasp the difference between the private space and public one. There is essential psychological difference between a display at 1-2 PH viewing condition and TV in the living room condition. It is not a matter of size: one obviously can have a very small TV in the living room and one can have a TV on the desk serving as a monitor. What is essential here is the viewing distance which in the case of computer monitor fits within the private psychological space (think about uneasiness which people have when somebody is staring on their display, there is no such effect when viewing TV in the living room). So it is not the same having 32" monitor and the desk and 96" display hanging on the wall at 3 time bigger distance: physics of viewing is the same but the psychology is different.

Another point is that I consider monitor viewing scenario for people who make living from staring in the monitor, at least 8 hours per day but often much more, day after day, whole life.
Not for somebody playing games after day job of cutting trees in the forest. You agree that one should not be looking upward all time which I consider absolutely essential. I have my 32" monitor indeed lowered such that it touches the desktop (I am using special professional desk with recess for the monitor stand). It is a piece of cake to raise it higher (which would also simulate having bigger/higher monitor but I found that touching the desk is best. Additional advantage of the touching the desk position is that if fills better visual area which starts from the desktop level and nothing is seen underneath.
 

Cyph

Gawd
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
812
Sorry, I do not put much value in Cyph's posts. He thinks a 1080p picture (2,1 million pixels) on a 4k display with pixel doubling should always look better than a scaled 1440p picture (3,7 million pixels) on a 4k display. I mean.. lol...

Then he criticises the non-square pixel of the Philips - but ignores the fact, that the Samsung has non-square pixels, too. It's exactly the same 40" panel.

I thought you won't bring this up again. The Samsung is proof that pixel doubling 1080P looks better than interpolated 1440p. The Internet proves that when you're proven wrong, you just don't shut up.

I have links to the thread as well as data from written articles. He will ignore the evidence and argue with his made up beliefs. He also can't tell artifacts from cameras versus actual artifacts. I already know he will turn this thread into a flame war. I suggest everyone put this guy on ignore.
 

Nitemare3219

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
206
Let us know what dvi/pc on input 2 looks like with instant on as off if you get the chance. Thank you!!

All of my tests with the 40" have been with Smart TV features, such as Smart Hub, disabled. I turned instant on to off for today's test.

I've noticed situations where even my 48" starts to lag. It's pretty rare, but it can happen. Both displays were set to PC mode here (fresh boot on the 40", 48" was lagging) and they were pretty much equal.

17272919098_9e5a8f6947_z_d.jpg


16838142764_90115556c6_z_d.jpg


But then I rebooted both of them and the gap went up to a 3 frame difference, even on DVI/PC mode.

16840424453_71f7d0ffef_z_d.jpg


I have no idea how or why the lag is so variable on these things. I am getting annoyed at the stock firmware though on PC mode because it keeps resetting the color temperature setting on the TV to standard every time the graphics driver crashes (from overclocking) but also even when going full-screen for games and such. Game mode/TV mode doesn't appear to do this, so I am going to test if there are any noticeable differences between game/TV mode chroma and PC mode chroma in game.
 

Mako360

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
336
Thinking in this way you can hang 85" 4K TV on a wall and tell this is your monitor. But it is not, monitor is something which is at your private viewing distance. Reason also tells not to neglect potential health problems in particular for those who make living from staring in the monitor. When ergonomy recommends upper edge of the display not far from eye level there is research behind it.

"Potential health problems", like so much of the uninformed nonsense in this thread, are individual and subjective.

Hmmm, maybe I'll swap my 48" for the 55", you are motivating me as I have no problems whatsoever in any way shape or form despite spending 6+ hours a day for a month now with the 48"...I must be a unicorn, I need to take advantage of it! :D

Another point is that I consider monitor viewing scenario for people who make living from staring in the monitor, at least 8 hours per day but often much more, day after day, whole life.
Not for somebody...blah blah blah uninformed personal opinion and tripe being presented and masquerading as fact, yada yada....

Hey that's me, I make a living each day off this very monitor...unicorn again! I must be 1:10000. Maybe I'll go to 60 inches...why not, we all have our gifts and apparently mine is a titanium neck and resistance to imagined physical weakneses.
 

Mako360

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
336
I have links to the thread as well as data from written articles. He will ignore the evidence and argue with his made up beliefs. He also can't tell artifacts from cameras versus actual artifacts. I already know he will turn this thread into a flame war. I suggest everyone put this guy on ignore.

I'll add TARDIS to the ignore list, clearly a clown who either isn't sharp enough to grasp simple concepts or is just trolling. Either way..buh-bye with the rest. :D

Meanwhile, back to Wolfenstein at 4k @ 60fps in an IMAX-level of immersion. Can't beat it.
 

Wiz33

Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2015
Messages
782
All these talk of screens size is so stupid. Everyone have their own priority. It also depends a lot on your primary use for the monitor. I use a 40" at ~30" because I read a lot text and do a fair bit of work. Since I wear classes (which put a limit to me field of view), I really don't want to be turning my head all the time. If I'm mostly playing games and watching media. I'll probably opt for a 48"
 

Wiz33

Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2015
Messages
782
"Potential health problems", like so much of the uninformed nonsense in this thread, are individual and subjective.

Hmmm, maybe I'll swap my 48" for the 55", you are motivating me as I have no problems whatsoever in any way shape or form despite spending 6+ hours a day for a month now with the 48"...I must be a unicorn, I need to take advantage of it! :D



Hey that's me, I make a living each day off this very monitor...unicorn again! I must be 1:10000. Maybe I'll go to 60 inches...why not, we all have our gifts and apparently mine is a titanium neck and resistance to imagined physical weakneses.

Don't laugh or just wait till you get older. I get neck strain if my monitor is not position right. Every time I get a new monitor, it takes a few day to get the height and angle right, especially if there is a size change. It happens when I went from the 27" to the 32" at the office and it's happening now at home moving from a 27" to a 40". I'm changing the height of Samsung and my chair every day and it's not there yet. My neck gets tired after an evening in front of the 40"
 
Last edited:

Mako360

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
336
All these talk of screens size is so stupid. Everyone have their own priority. It also depends a lot on your primary use for the monitor. I use a 40" at ~30" because I read a lot text and do a fair bit of work. Since I wear classes (which put a limit to me field of view), I really don't want to be turning my head all the time. If I'm mostly playing games and watching media. I'll probably opt for a 48"

It's been ridiculous since the start of the thread. Worried little babies trying to impart their "ergonomic" OPINION as fact, has plagued us from the beginning. It's hilarious.

Bottom line: Buy as big as possible, as bis as is comfortable. Displays shrink over time, badly.
 

Mako360

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
336
Don't laugh or just wait till you get older. I get neck strain if my monitor is not position right. Every time I get a new monitor, it takes a few day to get the height and angle right, especially if there is a size change. It happens when I went from the 27" to the 32" at the office and it's happening now at home moving from a 27" to a 40". I'm changing the height of Samsung and my chair every day and it's not there yet. I neck get tired after an evening in front of the 40"

Yes, fine, but none of that should be presented as you having some sort of advanced knowledge about which size is "right" for everyone else.

That's the point.
 

SlippinJimmy

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
104
Don't mind him; I see the village idiot got out again. Same guy that uses hashtags (lol) and ignores everyone who doesn't agree with him. I tried having a friendly debate, proved him wrong, and he went psycho.

There is a reason why 99% of the people in this thread opted for the 40"-48"...anything larger is pushing it IMO, but may be manageable depending on your setup. So yeah, there might be someone here and there with the 55", but like 6FD said...for most people that's too large for a PC monitor and they'll be better served by the 40"-48".

SlippinJimmy, I can understand you wanting to go larger if it's going to serve double duty as a TV. How far away from it will you sit when using it as a monitor?

I was thinking about 3.5ft for 55" and 4ft for 65".
 

WorldExclusive

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
11,419
I'm using 100% scaling now on the 40".
Probably very comfortable with the TV because when I first used it 125% was the lowest I could go.
 

Mako360

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
336
I'm using 100% scaling now on the 40".
Probably got vey comfortable with the TV because when I first used it 125% was the lowest I could go.

Perfect, nice job. That's exactly what all should aspire to...why the hell would we buy displays that offer massive desktop working area only to then scale the DPI up again to the point where there's no net space gain over a 32"?

All should work towards 100%, even on the 40", to get the most value out of the increased resolution. Yes it looks small AT FIRST. But your brain will adjust quite nicely and soon enough you'll wonder why you needed 125% in the first place.

As with just about everything in this thread: Man up, push yourself, and be amazed at what you can do.
 

SlippinJimmy

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
104
Of course you're not crazy. Don't listen to the limp-necks in this thread when it comes to size, these little ladies get alllllllll up in a tizzy just from the thought of anything above 40"...:rolleyes:

I have the 48", and am now wondering if I should have gone larger. That's at a 30-inch view distance btw, and no my eyeballs haven't burned out, my back hasn't developed scoliosis, my neck isn't stretching like an African ring tribe initiation, and the overall adjustment/transition was fast.

It's shrinking by the day lately...is it larger than my old Dell 30"? I'm not sure anymore...by the end of the month I may believe it's smaller than the old Dell....:D

Go as big as is comfortable for you, and as others have said, get your chair/desk/eye height right and you won't even notice the height.

Thanks for the advice. Bonus points for making me laugh.
 

Brahmzy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
4,958
Drama Queen thread this has turned into. It must be the display sub-forum on [H]ardFroum! Never fails. Soap Opera mode in full effect.
 

rufio

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2003
Messages
1,361
I have the UN40JU6700 , 40" Curved 6700 model.



That's another issue, each time I try to select YcBcr444 in the nVidia control panel and click apply, the screen goes black for a few seconds, then it's back to the RGB setting. For some reason the YcBcr setting won't apply.

This happens to me too. I think it may be because I have a secondary 30in screen hooked up as well. Are you using another screen other than the Samsung?
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,984
I was thinking about 3.5ft for 55" and 4ft for 65".

I just measured, and that sounds good to me! Just be mindful of the height - you don't want to be staring halfway towards your ceiling when viewing the top of the screen. If your setup makes it possible, I say go for it.

Mako360 said:
If only NCX were here...would be even better. :D

LOL, yup. You probably can't see this, but it's funny how the hardcore PWM detractors NCX and Nikyo have been notably absent from the thread after proclaiming early on how "unusable" these displays would be due to the low freq. PWM. Yet here we are, 70 pages later (140 if 20ppp), enjoying the hell out of them. Yep, clearly these are terrible, awful displays unsuitable for the eyes of mere mortals. :D
 

Dahkoht

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
450
Couple questions here if don't mind from you experts.

I'm going to run down to Best Buy and pickup the JU6500 40" they have in stock. It's going to be replacing the Benq 3201 ( which I like a lot , I just want the bigger one for gaming).

Will be moving the Benq to the side for work uses.

Anyway could anyone give a quick rundown on settings to use if it's going to be hooked up only to my Titan X sli setup. As in after all of you have been playing around with the various inputs and color settings , what's the consensus to use for PC gaming use and tricks to get the best input lag and color ( not going to need any smart features and want the colors to pop I'm not worried about photo accuracy on this one)

Would be much appreciated as I have been researching today and chuckling at those upset over folks wanting to use this as a monitor , just hard to get a handle on which settings would be best for me.
 

Cyph

Gawd
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
812
All of my tests with the 40" have been with Smart TV features, such as Smart Hub, disabled. I turned instant on to off for today's test.

I've noticed situations where even my 48" starts to lag. It's pretty rare, but it can happen. Both displays were set to PC mode here (fresh boot on the 40", 48" was lagging) and they were pretty much equal.

17272919098_9e5a8f6947_z_d.jpg


16838142764_90115556c6_z_d.jpg


But then I rebooted both of them and the gap went up to a 3 frame difference, even on DVI/PC mode.

16840424453_71f7d0ffef_z_d.jpg


I have no idea how or why the lag is so variable on these things. I am getting annoyed at the stock firmware though on PC mode because it keeps resetting the color temperature setting on the TV to standard every time the graphics driver crashes (from overclocking) but also even when going full-screen for games and such. Game mode/TV mode doesn't appear to do this, so I am going to test if there are any noticeable differences between game/TV mode chroma and PC mode chroma in game.

I think you just confirmed there's a bug in the firmware. They are equal when it's working that's the key. Firmware is in its infancy. Samsung will fix it. The important thing is, do you notice it when you play games? I don't and I can't wait to play 4K Witcher 3 on this baby.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,984
I think you just confirmed there's a bug in the firmware. They are equal when it's working that's the key. Firmware is in its infancy. Samsung will fix it. The important thing is, do you notice it when you play games? I don't and I can't wait to play 4K Witcher 3 on this baby.

It's odd how Nitemare is the only one (I think) who noticed the input lag increasing after a while.

I've had my fair share of gaming sessions lasting several hours on all 3 of the Samsungs that I purchased, and I haven't noticed input lag increasing on any of them. So either mine aren't doing it, or it's not enough to be noticeable, or I don't have a setting enabled that would be causing it. I'm at a loss, but if it were a widespread issue I would think that more people would be noticing it.

Interested in his comparison of Game/TV mode chroma to PC mode chroma in games on the stock firmware, though. I remember trying to use Game mode before they made it look so much better with firmware 1207, and to me it was not very visually pleasing...PC mode looked significantly better.
 

Mako360

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
336
The important thing is, do you notice it when you play games? I don't and I can't wait to play 4K Witcher 3 on this baby.

Not at all. SmartHub on/off, reboot tv on/off, whatever, it's all unnoticeable.

Have spent at least 50+ hours gaming with ALL of the various firmware revisions over the past month, in BOTH game mode and PC mode...and all are indistinguishable from one another in-game.

Tempest in a teapot, as usual.

I somehow got a Witcher 3 steam code mailed to me from Amazon this week, I guess it was for that temporary 980 GTX I "borrowed" from them before the Titan X arrived? Either way I'm with you, can't wait to play that game.
 

Cyph

Gawd
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
812
Couple questions here if don't mind from you experts.

I'm going to run down to Best Buy and pickup the JU6500 40" they have in stock. It's going to be replacing the Benq 3201 ( which I like a lot , I just want the bigger one for gaming).

Will be moving the Benq to the side for work uses.

Anyway could anyone give a quick rundown on settings to use if it's going to be hooked up only to my Titan X sli setup. As in after all of you have been playing around with the various inputs and color settings , what's the consensus to use for PC gaming use and tricks to get the best input lag and color ( not going to need any smart features and want the colors to pop I'm not worried about photo accuracy on this one)

Would be much appreciated as I have been researching today and chuckling at those upset over folks wanting to use this as a monitor , just hard to get a handle on which settings would be best for me.

I recommend you set it on PC mode, warm 2 on TV, set ycbcr444, adjust contrast and color in Nvidia panel until the colors look good to you. I like to push my contrast up. Don't get infatuated with a bunch of numbers. Play your games and see if you notice anything strange. I'd bet dollars to donuts that you won't.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,065
It's odd how Nitemare is the only one (I think) who noticed the input lag increasing after a while.

I've had my fair share of gaming sessions lasting several hours on all 3 of the Samsungs that I purchased, and I haven't noticed input lag increasing on any of them. So either mine aren't doing it, or it's not enough to be noticeable, or I don't have a setting enabled that would be causing it. I'm at a loss, but if it were a widespread issue I would think that more people would be noticing it.

Interested in his comparison of Game/TV mode chroma to PC mode chroma in games on the stock firmware, though. I remember trying to use Game mode before they made it look so much better with firmware 1207, and to me it was not very visually pleasing...PC mode looked significantly better.

iirc, he said lag starts adding up when he changes inputs.
He didnt say it happens over time but wondered if it also did that.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,984
iirc, he said lag starts adding up when he changes inputs.
He didnt say it happens over time but wondered if it also did that.

Ahh, maybe that's it then. If so, that would be why I haven't noticed it. I never change inputs. :D
 

ssj92

n00b
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
26
This happens to me too. I think it may be because I have a secondary 30in screen hooked up as well. Are you using another screen other than the Samsung?

I have a second HDMI going to my receiver for audio so technically I'm running two monitors (extended mode) as far as windows is concerned.

Maybe that's why it won't stick. Have you tried disabling the secondary monitor to see if it fixes the issue? I'll give it a shot after work tonight.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,065
I have a second HDMI going to my receiver for audio so technically I'm running two monitors (extended mode) as far as windows is concerned.

Maybe that's why it won't stick. Have you tried disabling the secondary monitor to see if it fixes the issue? I'll give it a shot after work tonight.

It could be related to which output you have selected as the primary.
 

Nitemare3219

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
206
It's been ridiculous since the start of the thread. Worried little babies trying to impart their "ergonomic" OPINION as fact, has plagued us from the beginning. It's hilarious.

Bottom line: Buy as big as possible, as bis as is comfortable. Displays shrink over time, badly.

I actually haven't noticed any "shrinking" even when I used the 40". These displays are huge - there is no shrinking from my perspective LOL.

Perfect, nice job. That's exactly what all should aspire to...why the hell would we buy displays that offer massive desktop working area only to then scale the DPI up again to the point where there's no net space gain over a 32"?

All should work towards 100%, even on the 40", to get the most value out of the increased resolution. Yes it looks small AT FIRST. But your brain will adjust quite nicely and soon enough you'll wonder why you needed 125% in the first place.

As with just about everything in this thread: Man up, push yourself, and be amazed at what you can do.

I prefer a slight bump in scaling just because I have those extra pixels to make things sharper. I don't do desktop work (done with school, and that was it before) - only browsing and such.

Couple questions here if don't mind from you experts.

I'm going to run down to Best Buy and pickup the JU6500 40" they have in stock. It's going to be replacing the Benq 3201 ( which I like a lot , I just want the bigger one for gaming).

Will be moving the Benq to the side for work uses.

Anyway could anyone give a quick rundown on settings to use if it's going to be hooked up only to my Titan X sli setup. As in after all of you have been playing around with the various inputs and color settings , what's the consensus to use for PC gaming use and tricks to get the best input lag and color ( not going to need any smart features and want the colors to pop I'm not worried about photo accuracy on this one)

Would be much appreciated as I have been researching today and chuckling at those upset over folks wanting to use this as a monitor , just hard to get a handle on which settings would be best for me.

What Cyph said above me... I use 60% vibrancy and 60% contrast in NVIDIA Control Panel to make the colors a little better (on par with IPS, if not better for sure). Set HDMI black level to NORMAL. Warm 2 is the most accurate white point, but I prefer Warm 1 for browsing at least - don't like the warm whites.

It's odd how Nitemare is the only one (I think) who noticed the input lag increasing after a while.

I've had my fair share of gaming sessions lasting several hours on all 3 of the Samsungs that I purchased, and I haven't noticed input lag increasing on any of them. So either mine aren't doing it, or it's not enough to be noticeable, or I don't have a setting enabled that would be causing it. I'm at a loss, but if it were a widespread issue I would think that more people would be noticing it.

Interested in his comparison of Game/TV mode chroma to PC mode chroma in games on the stock firmware, though. I remember trying to use Game mode before they made it look so much better with firmware 1207, and to me it was not very visually pleasing...PC mode looked significantly better.

I don't know what to tell you. coolhand noticed it too once I kept talking about it. RTINGS also noticed it in their test which I requested. I only notice it when it gets worse because I am very used to using a fast responding display. It actually becomes HARDER for me to use my mouse on the desktop because of the 32~ ms increase in lag. It's EASY for me to spot.

Not at all. SmartHub on/off, reboot tv on/off, whatever, it's all unnoticeable.

Have spent at least 50+ hours gaming with ALL of the various firmware revisions over the past month, in BOTH game mode and PC mode...and all are indistinguishable from one another in-game.

Tempest in a teapot, as usual.

I somehow got a Witcher 3 steam code mailed to me from Amazon this week, I guess it was for that temporary 980 GTX I "borrowed" from them before the Titan X arrived? Either way I'm with you, can't wait to play that game.

They may be indistinguishable to you, but if you do an actual test... I bet it would show otherwise. That's not what you should do though, or anyone else who is happy with the display. If it works for you, great. For me, I had to use the stock firmware. I couldn't deal with the lag on the latest version.

iirc, he said lag starts adding up when he changes inputs.
He didnt say it happens over time but wondered if it also did that.

I've also noticed it increase even without changing inputs... I think. Even my stock firmware has done it at least once. Maybe I did switch inputs on that one, but I know that lag increases for sure on the latest firmware with input switches. I feel like I noticed it once or twice as well just using the display over the course of a few hours. Once I rebooted, it was gone.

I have done the chroma tests on the STOCK firmware which has worse chroma in game mode than does the latest firmware. I don't believe TV mode is any different, as I only tested one image, and it looked the same as game mode.

So, are they any different? In short: not really, and I'd say not noticeably.

I examined aliased edges as I figured this will give the best representation of resolution reduction based on color. Game/TV mode almost appear to be slightly anti-aliased compared to PC mode, and a touch of different color (despite same picture settings). The difference is very hard to spot. The best representation I could find is the image of the plane in GTA 5 you'll see below. I didn't do the extremely close up images of the actual pixels because I can see a slight difference in these images. It'd have been way more work for no better result. I used screenshots below (except for the very last set) as they have zero difference (based on game time of day, shadows, movement, etc.) The effect was the same as the images I took while actually in-game.

I think the reason most of you thought game mode/TV mode looked atrocious, particularly on older firmware, was because of not adjusting the sharpness setting. In game and TV mode, sharpness has to be at 0. In PC mode, this is still up for debate, but it looks best to me around 45-50.

PC mode is first, game mode is second.

17463153432_0a83ddcb11_k_d.jpg


16842641744_116804765f_k_d.jpg


17464840581_ebb5fc05d0_k_d.jpg


In game mode below, the lines of the plane, such as the wings, appear smoother... it seems the reduced chroma in games actually acts as a form of anti-aliasing. It's very subtle, yet functional.
17277531640_0ade4e64da_k_d.jpg


17464810191_037445f1c6_k_d.jpg


16842586064_0248081517_k_d.jpg


17464901111_675d8db753_k_d.jpg


17463155072_7f13a90ba0_k_d.jpg


16845050183_1e95729eb3_k_d.jpg


17464986811_f2a9bbb42b_k_d.jpg
 
Last edited:

Wag

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
1,130
Is the YouTube app working for anybody? I have the 47" 6700 model.
 

Cyph

Gawd
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
812
Is the YouTube app working for anybody? I have the 47" 6700 model.

Youtube works great for me. There are TONS more 4K videos since a month ago. Google is converting all of the MP4 4K videos to VP9 at a rapid pace.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,984
I don't know what to tell you. coolhand noticed it too once I kept talking about it. RTINGS also noticed it in their test which I requested. I only notice it when it gets worse because I am very used to using a fast responding display. It actually becomes HARDER for me to use my mouse on the desktop because of the 32~ ms increase in lag. It's EASY for me to spot.

It's cool man, I wasn't trying to imply that you were imagining things. If mine is affected by this, then I simply must not be that sensitive to input lag. In fact, a couple of days ago I switched back to PC mode (had been using Game mode) and, despite the lag in PC mode increasing in every firmware, it still feels great to me. Maybe if I played a bunch of twitch shooters (or if I was your age again :) ), it would be bothersome, but it's not...not at all. I just wondered if it was possible that only some sets were affected by this, because I hadn't seen anyone else posting about it. Carry on. :cool:

Your chroma tests are interesting, because that wasn't my experience at all prior to firmware 1207. For whatever reason, Game mode looked very visibly degraded. Enough to where I definitely preferred PC mode despite the increase in lag. I'm not talking just a slightly smoother/anti-aliased look. You know the "touch of different color despite same picture settings" that you described? It was like that, except it was far more than a touch. Like colors weren't nearly as rich or I was missing a lot of color information. Had nothing to do with the sharpness setting, as I had already reduced that to 0. What's crazy is that it was very apparent to me when flipping back and forth between PC and Game mode, and all of that changed with 1207 when the huge improvement to Game mode was introduced, but my experience was much different than what your screenshots depict. If my Game mode had always looked like that, I'd have been happy to use it. So maybe my set's Game mode was just borked and fixed with the firmware update. I have no clue.

Oh well, all that matters is that things have been gravy since 1207 and I couldn't be happier, really. :)
 

Wag

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
1,130
Youtube works great for me. There are TONS more 4K videos since a month ago. Google is converting all of the MP4 4K videos to VP9 at a rapid pace.

I guess I'm going to have to give Samsung support a call.
 
Top