New Samsung 4k for everyone.

I just tested 1080P vs 1440P with Crusader Kings and Desktop. 1440P is good, however, 1080P is better and sharper. I take back what I said earlier. I believe 1080P is a true 1:4 doubling of pixel. I can definitely wait a year for the release of Pascal as 1080P gaming looks great!

Sharp 1080P gaming was not possible on the BL3200 (not sure about the Philips) as 1080P and 1440P both looked similarly scaled. 1080P scaled definitely looked sharper on this panel over 1440P. 1440P still looked good but you can tell that it is not as sharp as 1080P.
 
Breaking Bad @4k on Netflx looks amazing.

I've already decided to upgrade to at least a 70" 4K display within the next 2 years once prices drop to around $1500 for such a TV.

I have a new Vizio 70" ( 1 year old ) that I'm not ready to replace just yet.
 
Cyph said:
I just tested 1080P vs 1440P with Crusader Kings and Desktop. 1440P is good, however, 1080P is better and sharper. I take back what I said earlier. I believe 1080P is a true 1:4 doubling of pixel. I can definitely wait a year for the release of Pascal as 1080P gaming looks great!

Sharp 1080P gaming was not possible on the BL3200 (not sure about the Philips) as 1080P and 1440P both looked similarly scaled. 1080P scaled definitely looked sharper on this panel over 1440P. 1440P still looked good but you can tell that it is not as sharp as 1080P.
Click to expand...

Of course 1080p is pixel perfect on all 4k displays, 1920x1080p is half of 3840x2160. LCD scaling perfection has always been about exact multiples of the panel's base resolution, hence why if you set your BL3200 to run at 1280x720 it will look sharp as a tack, while 1080p on the BL3200 looks clearly scaled.

Welcome to "news about LCD scaling from 2007"...;)

SixFootDuo said:
Breaking Bad @4k on Netflx looks amazing.

I've already decided to upgrade to at least a 70" 4K display within the next 2 years once prices drop to around $1500 for such a TV.

I have a new Vizio 70" ( 1 year old ) that I'm not ready to replace just yet.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I promised myself that the main room TV won't be upgraded until even the lowest basic cable channels are broadcast in 4k. At least 3-5 years away.

Last time, with 1080i, I early adopted in 2000 and it was so difficult to get any content lol, I remember watching the Salt Lake Winter Olympics in 2002 and thinking "damn, if only everything else looked like this". I think the only real daily 1080i content I got at that time was off of an OTA HDTV tuner, we were in the LA market so the three majors usually had something each day...none of which you wanted to watch of course lol. :D

This time I'll wait until the bitter end. Hell cable providers don't even do 1080p right still, it looks like compressed shit at 90", so I can wait a long while on that one.
 
Last edited:
Mako360 said:
Of course 1080p is pixel perfect on all 4k displays, 1920x1080p is half of 3840x2160. LCD scaling perfection has always been about exact multiples of the panel's base resolution, hence why if you set your BL3200 to run at 1280x720 it will look sharp as a tack, while 1080p on the BL3200 looks clearly scaled.

Welcome to "news about LCD scaling from 2007"...;)
Click to expand...

He stated earlier that it may NOT look like 1:4 pixel mapping. Many displays never scale 1/4 resolutions up pixel-perfect, but instead they try upscaling the same way they do every other resolution - by making up data. You shouldn't assume they all scale up the way many of us would like (pixel-perfect), especially on TVs.
 
Mako360 said:
Of course 1080p is pixel perfect on all 4k displays, 1920x1080p is half of 3840x2160. LCD scaling perfection has always been about exact multiples of the panel's base resolution, hence why if you set your BL3200 to run at 1280x720 it will look sharp as a tack, while 1080p on the BL3200 looks clearly scaled.

Welcome to "news about LCD scaling from 2007"...;)


.
Click to expand...

This is definitely not true. You'd be surprised at this "conventional wisdom" that all 4K scalers scale 1:4. Most monitors, and I can attest to this through many returns, does NOT scale 1080P this way. The BL3200 I believe does not scale 720 at 1:4 either as far as I know.
 
Cyph said:
Thanks.

To summarize:
7100, better reflective screen .7% vs .16%, glossy vs semigloss on 6500, 60fps motion interpolation, 4ms difference input lag in PC mode, virtually the same in game mode, higher max brightness, less black uniformity than 6500, 3100 to 2950 contrast ratio, cost 30% more.

I don't need the 60fps interpolation (adds input lag), I don't need 24fps as I don't watch movies on my monitor, I turn my brightness down to around 10-12, so don't need higher max brightness, and I can live with 4ms input lag difference (in PC mode).

In any case, 30% savings in picking the 6500 works for me.
Click to expand...

So does the 7100 and 6500 use the same panel? Same picture/colour quality? Or is one better than the other?
 
coolhandm3 said:
GUYS!!

HDTV review of the 48JU7500:

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ue48ju7500-201504074038.htm

Just went up, game mode is 21ms with Leo Bodnar!! Incredible!!

PC mode with 4:4:4 is 36ms ( still really good!!) with Leo Bodnar!!

Looks like this tv is a winner and we chose wisely!!

"More impressive was the UE48JU7500′s screen uniformity, helped perhaps by its likely direct LED underpinning. We ran various shades of full-field grey patterns on the 4K TV, and detected no visible banding; nor did we witness any significant dirty screen effect (DSE) in panning shots during live football broadcast."

"Watch out Sony, Samsung is going after the “best gaming TV” crown you’ve comfortably held since 2013. The 48in JU7500 delivered the lowest input lag we’ve recorded yet from a 4K Ultra HD TV, coming in at 21ms according to our Leo Bodnar tester device.
Input lag
Owners who care about full 4:4:4 chroma reproduction when playing PC games will also be pleased to know that input lag in [PC] mode measured an acceptable 36ms. "
Click to expand...

igluk said:
New rtings review of the JU6500
looks like its not quite as good as the JU7100 in terms of motion blur and it lacks 24p support, input lag is identical

some review links:
JU6500 (55'')
http://www.rtings.com/reviews/tv/lcd-led/samsung/ju6500
JU7100 (55'')
http://www.rtings.com/reviews/tv/lcd-led/samsung/ju7100
JU7500 (48'')
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ue48ju7500-201504074038.htm
JS9000 (65'')
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ue65js9000-201503154027.htm
https://www.avforums.com/review/samsung-ue65js9000-js9000-s-uhd-curved-4k-tv-review.11257
JS9500 (65'')
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ue65js9500-201502234012.htm
https://www.avforums.com/review/samsung-ue65js9500-js9500-s-uhd-4k-led-lcd-tv-review.11232
Click to expand...

Input lag in pc mode is stated as 48ms for the JU6500. I've been using a U3011 for a few years, so input lag is not a big issue for me. I am just surprised that the difference form the JU7500 (36ms) is so large.
 
pvc said:
Input lag in pc mode is stated as 48ms for the JU6500. I've been using a U3011 for a few years, so input lag is not a big issue for me. I am just surprised that the difference form the JU7500 (36ms) is so large.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if we can compare the results between two different review sites. Personally I don't believe there is that big of a difference. If one site uses the Leo Bodnar, whereas the other site uses a different method, there may be a difference of 10ms. Someone mentioned that the Bodnar test is at least 10ms higher.

The SMTT is the one that TFTCentral uses and the results are consistently lower than other sites. Toms hardsware uses a high speed camera to test lag. The BL3200PT scores a 76ms input lag on Tom's Hardware, but a 23ms on TFTCentral.

Are we comparing Apples to Apples here?
 
Well, this is weird.

Got the 48JU6700 set up and it cuts to black every few seconds with a bit of video corruption as it's doing it. Occasionally it will display the message that there is no input on HDMI1. Again, it's like a problem with the HDMI cable, but if I swap back to my 40JU6700 all is well again.

So...ruling out the obvious...is there a setting that I may have missed that would cause this?

If not, is there any reason one TV would be pickier about the HDMI cable that's connected to it?

And I guess there's the possibility that the HDMI input on the TV is flaky.
 
imyourzero said:
Well, this is weird.

Got the 48JU6700 set up and it cuts to black every few seconds with a bit of video corruption as it's doing it. Occasionally it will display the message that there is no input on HDMI1. Again, it's like a problem with the HDMI cable, but if I swap back to my 40JU6700 all is well again.

So...ruling out the obvious...is there a setting that I may have missed that would cause this?

If not, is there any reason one TV would be pickier about the HDMI cable that's connected to it?

And I guess there's the possibility that the HDMI input on the TV is flaky.
Click to expand...

It is possible the newer one is flaky, but I'd change the cable and see what happens.
 
Cyph said:
I'm not sure if we can compare the results between two different review sites. Personally I don't believe there is that big of a difference. If one site uses the Leo Bodnar, whereas the other site uses a different method, there may be a difference of 10ms. Someone mentioned that the Bodnar test is at least 10ms higher.

The SMTT is the one that TFTCentral uses and the results are consistently lower than other sites. Toms hardsware uses a high speed camera to test lag. The BL3200PT scores a 76ms input lag on Tom's Hardware, but a 23ms on TFTCentral.

Are we comparing Apples to Apples here?
Click to expand...

Ah, I hadn't realised there are multiple methods of measuring input lag and not one standardised method.
 
There are others out there saying it's 36ms .........

I've been playing BF4 for the last year and then some .... I have thousands of hours.

Input lag? I sure as hell can't tell between 28ms LG 42" and my new Samsung 6500

In fact it feels more responsive that the LG 42" ... just a bit.

I wouldn't read too much into the numbers until someone can show us matter of fact via a video where latency is actually test before our eyes on this set. There is too many numbers out there and no real proof
 
Last edited:
HDTV uses Leo Bodnar. I have found two reviews of the Samsung H8000 from both sites.
Rting measured it as 46ms, whereas HDTV measured it as 34ms, a 12 sec difference.

So if the methods are off by 10-12 sec, it would make sense to infer that under the Leo Bodnar device, the 6500 should be closer to 36ms than 48ms.
 
SixFootDuo said:
There are others out there saying it's 36ms .........

I've been playing BF4 for the last year and then some .... I have thousands of hours.

Input lag? I sure as hell can't tell between 28ms LG 42" and my new Samsung 6500

In fact it feels more responsive that the LG 42" ... just a bit.

I wouldn't read too much into the numbers until someone can show us matter of fact via a video where latency is actually test before our eyes on this set. There is too many numbers out there and no real proof
Click to expand...

Well as others have said; there are latency issues in the whole gaming process that factor into the experience. Any online game to me feels slower than the single player campaign of the same game. Internet latency definitely plays a factor and I think its far more important than the latency the JU6700 produces.
 
dpoverlord said:
So in other words I placed an order for the 55" 9000 http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN55JS9000FXZA

Figured it would make a worthwhile upgrade over my 32" Acer 4k and my 4 30" Dell monitors

what do you guys think????
Click to expand...

Are you just using it for PC use? The 9000 seems overpriced for what you get honestly, the big deal is that has HDR support but that's not useful for PC games, and HDR movie content is quite sparse for now.

Not to mention you can get the 55" 4K OLED for around $1000 more... granted I would be wary of using such an expensive display as a monitor with the possible IR issues of OLED. But for just gaming, I'd be less concerned about IR.
 
Last edited:
Got mine today. First off - anyone looking at that Ergotron arm I linked earlier, so not buy it! It is incompatible with this monitor. The Samsung wall-mount system which uses strange cylinders between the arm bracket and the back of the monitor, has changed with this model - its deeper. As you'll see when unpackaging the monitor, the VESA holes on the back are not even - the top two are flat, and the bottom two are sunken. I am in contact with Ergotron, and their engineer has spoken with Samsung. Out of the box they are not compatible. They've hinted at modifications I can make myself and when I get more info I will attempt them and let you know. Til then I am using its normal stand, with which my 40" is a bit too low for my taste, but not uncomfortable.

I have the UN40JU6700.

I was worried right out-of-the-box because there was serious input lag, however after switching from 30hz to 60hz modes and setting the input as PC, it got a lot better. I can barely detect (but still can detect) a difference between this and my 7ms input lag Overlord 270OC 27" 1440p. I just got done with several hours of Call of Duty, and I could not notice any real differences. There were some unregistered shots, so maybe it had a slight impact, but I was running at 100ms server ping anyway. I am quite happy with it. This was all in PC mode with UHD set.

Its kind of interesting, when its firmware automatically updated to the 1200 version, I actually got fewer features. While using the default firmware there are core functions available that are reported as "in development" with the up to date firmware. They include being able to connect through my home network to my DirecTV DVR and stream my recordings locally.

Only real flaw I am seeing right now, is that on my desktop (not games) programs are all oversized and blurry - natively taking up the entire screen until changed, but even once shrunk stay oversized in text. Manually scaling down reduces size but does not increase sharpness. Reading text is quite annoying right now. I am assuming this is a Windows issue. Anyone have ideas? The desktop itself is quite sharp, with shortcuts, the taskbar, etc. being perfect. Programs though are not, from Chrome to Windows Explorer to my media player, all oversized and under-defined. Fullscreen games look great though. I've attempted several methods to "unlock" DPI upscaling withing Chrome, to no avail.

Overall I'm quite glad I got the 40" as there just isn't room on my 6x3' desk for something more in addition to my 27 and 23" displays and my bookshelf loudspeakers. I wouldn't say the 40" provides an IMAX experience right now, but it is certainly "Movie Theater" good. Bringing it a little closer and I can definitely see the IMAX comparison.

Anyhow, anyone have tips on the overscaling / underdefined productivity programs?
 
Dan_D said:
It is possible the newer one is flaky, but I'd change the cable and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Yep. Too bad the only other one that I have is that crappy 6ft. one (probably a leftover pack-in cable from one of the many monitors I've purchased over the years). I'm too tired to fool with it any more tonight...but from what I've seen, if it would work it'd be pretty damn impressive.

I'm going with the "shorter is better" mantra and ordered 3 different 6' HDMI cables from Amazon (all claim to support the newest standard). I don't want to take any chances. That should be sufficient to let me know if it's the cable or not.
 
Also, just to add to the cable discussion, I am currently using a 10 ft Mediabridge and it works perfectly. Their cables are tier 2 rated or what not, to 18 Gbps bandwidth for all lengths. Signal degradation does occur at 15' and over though. I have both 6' and 10' and there is no difference between them.
 
I might go Netflix 4k just for Daredevil. I don't know if I'll have the patience to sit at my computer desk for all 12hrs though. Wish my big screen was 4k, but I'm really waiting for large screen HDR sets to come down in price.

I assume the Netflix app forces 60fps output. That's a shame. I see no reason why it can't do 24fps. I also looks like they employ the soap opera effect on the Netflix app (or at least it looks that way to my eyes).
 
Has anyone tried calibrating or measuring the color accuracy of any of these Samsung models? The input lag is not as important to me as color fidelity.
 
ubernaut said:
Called in sick to work. Waited all day. Package showed up at 6:59 and what do I get?

http://imgur.com/a/tHDmH
Click to expand...

Interesting, mine was on the other side. I wonder if something about the curve makes these vulnerable to shipping damage.

ZNAPClA.jpg
 
Ack. The Netflix app (or TV) doesn't support DD+, just DD. Why not? I'm using an HDMI cable out of the ARC output to my receiver's ARC input. That's pretty shitty in this day and age.
 
Dang. I think Samsung needs some better packing/boxing on the curved units. Mine's in the mail and I'm starting to worry a bit.
 
Luckily I received mine intact but the packing material was all broken.
 
Brahmzy said:
Dang. I think Samsung needs some better packing/boxing on the curved units. Mine's in the mail and I'm starting to worry a bit.
Click to expand...

I think it's something to do with the design of the packaging and how stresses from impacts are distributed onto the TV due to the curve. The box it itself was not dented or damaged at all. And logically, looking at how the styrofoam was holding the panel on the inside, the TV should not have been damaged at all.

Anyway, this is how carriers treat packages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3SRG7D21Y

There are also videos of people throwing stuff around distribution centers. I'm amazed anything survives :)
 
I have no issues with the Twisted Veins 15ft cable I linked earlier in the thread.

If you need a longer run, definitely try that one since it's so inexpensive.
 
Seeing the input lag? Where? From the numbers that are being posted? The different numbers?

Have you played any games yet? I have .... a lot .. and like many others on this thread none of us have seen or could tell a difference from what we've come from.
 
PC mode: monitor on the left has 18ms lag. so adding the difference in the images yields 51ms lag.
lxf70jD.jpg


This one is with game mode on. Pretty much can't tell the difference. and I can't seem to get another image as clear as the last one lol.
dPBPyHV.jpg
 
SGSeeker said:
A cable could be marked as 10GB but be built in a way that allows for 50GB of bandwidth. Without measuring and/or dis-assembly of both cables, it would be impossible to know why there is a difference. It could also be difference in videocards, or manufacturing differences in the specific circuitry of each television. One may be running borderline while the other fails. This is where digital signals have their drawbacks over analog - it either works or it doesn't.

Either way, a heavier-gauge hdmi cable from a reputable brand and model/length is the cheap and simple solution.
Click to expand...

At these speeds the signals are very much analog and prone to low-probability bit errors. That's why the first visible sign of problems is "speckles" on the screen from bits being mis-recieved and not total failure.

Heavier gauge for "low impedence" (which isn't technically true since the impedance is spec) also not much of any guarantee. At these freqs the cables are not only transmission lines but preferably need TDR (time domain reflectometry) to characterize (basically like a "radar/sonar" scan along the length of the line). That's why compliance is done with a VNA (vector network analyzer), which is a freq domain instrument but equivalent to TDR via freq<-->time domain fourier transform.
 
Cyph said:
I'm not sure if we can compare the results between two different review sites. Personally I don't believe there is that big of a difference. If one site uses the Leo Bodnar, whereas the other site uses a different method, there may be a difference of 10ms. Someone mentioned that the Bodnar test is at least 10ms higher.

The SMTT is the one that TFTCentral uses and the results are consistently lower than other sites. Toms hardsware uses a high speed camera to test lag. The BL3200PT scores a 76ms input lag on Tom's Hardware, but a 23ms on TFTCentral.

Are we comparing Apples to Apples here?
Click to expand...

Probably not. There are a lot of things happening in the system as the "bit" goes from the computer to a visible dot on the screen, and timing from one "start" to another "end" can be somewhat arbitrary.

---

On the size discussion, the 40" due to its PPI is more like a bigger standard PC monitor. You view it at standard monitor distance or maybe tad more by scaling things up, etc. The 48"+ allows the display to be pushed back closer to table's rear edge, which is easier on the eyes and also gives back considerable desk space.

I had the 4k 45" seiki for a bit (terrible flaw in the panel for desktop use) and if anything UI elements looked small coming from a 37" 1080p. Regardless bigger is where things are going. I project to a ~120in "screen" for movies across a midsize room and honestly it doesn't look that big after a while, even if actual theaters other than IMAX are somewhat of a disappoint now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top