Seiki SE50UY04 3840x2160 50" TV ($1300)

FTS

n00b
Joined
Jul 28, 2017
Messages
2
I've only registered recently, but I have been following this thread for a few years now. My excitement is immense. I'm interested in purchasing at minimum 2 kits. If compatibility with the 50" Seiki is present, I would love to get my hands on a 3rd kit. Thank you for your efforts, cirthix. Keeping hope alive!
 

Zangmonkey

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
4,382
Please tell me we're not going to get fucked by some HDMI licensing bullshit.

Please please please please.
 

Enhanced Interrogator

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
1,250
geok1ng

He's not calling the monitor jank, just the handwritten letter. He's just making a joke, since apparently he was dealing with other "janky" stuff for his other reviews.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,839
Hah, not to rag on cithrix, but that hand written note was a bit sloppy. You know what they say about first impressions...
 

EniGmA1987

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
429
sounds laggy. one idea behind Cirthix work is ZERO LAG



by the time GPUs can drive 4k at these refresh rates, we will be running holodecks using visual cortex brain chips



they can't. even 240Hz is something that the Tn panel requires overdrive to achieve



please note that the kit now accepts both scanning and strobing modes



agaiin, the kit has 2 LMB modes: scanning and strobing.

Looks like you picked apart my post and responded to things out of context without really understanding what was being suggested at all.

GSync modules have RAM to buffer a frame and it introduces no extra lag. The RAM idea here wasnt even in the path of the frame at all nor would it delay a frame being displayed at all. So it would not increase latency like you seem to think. The RAM could just be used to store the currently displayed frame as a copy of it, so that when in a really high refresh rate mode it can display the same frame again when it hasnt received any new frame data from the PC. The higher refresh would lower latency compared to a lower refresh rate. GSync does this exact same thing and it does not introduce lag at all, when GSync doubles the Hz compared to the incoming frame data. No one has ever complained and only praised the "ingenius idea" for how much it increases smoothness. The rest of your psot has nothing to do with anything I was talking about so I wont bother even addressing it.
 

geok1ng

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,130
GSync does this exact same thing and it does not introduce lag at all

FALSE.
blur-busters-gsync-101-gsync-vs-vsync-off-60Hz.png


blur-busters-gsync-101-vsync-off-w-fps-limits-60Hz.png
 

kalston

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,335
The delay is completely neglibile. Note that this was done at 60hz as well (and with a frame limiter on top of that). 5ms lag at 60hz? Someone call the police. Where the hell did you see "1-1.5 frames for scanout"?

I mean, from your own link :

"how much of an input lag advantage can be had over G-SYNC, and how high must the framerate be sustained above the refresh rate to diminish tearing artifacts and justify the difference?

Quite high. Counting first on-screen reactions, V-SYNC OFF already has a slight input lag advantage (up to a 1/2 frame) over G-SYNC at the same framerate, especially the lower the refresh rate, but it actually takes a considerable increase in framerate above the given refresh rate to widen the gap to significant levels. And while the reductions may look significant in bar chart form, even with framerates in excess of 3x the refresh rate, and when measured at middle screen (crosshair-level) only, V-SYNC OFF actually has a limited advantage over G-SYNC in practice, and most of it is in areas that one could argue, for the average player, are comparatively useless when something such as a viewmodel’s wrist is updated 1-3ms faster with V-SYNC OFF."
 
Last edited:

EniGmA1987

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
429
I am glad you conceded that there is a gsync induced lag. 2-3 ms on average on best case scenario, more often than not at least 1-1.5 frames for scanout. in any case, a far cry from "no lag at all" you claimed at first.


I think now you are confusing people you are arguing with too :p


Anyway. You are trying to argue the wrong thing again. The charts you posted show a 1-3 millisecond difference between using Gsync and not using GSync, but the charts and that argument are not comparing what I am talking about. Your charts show full Gsync, in gsync mode, with Nvidia drivers doing GSync stuff. We are not talking about adding a GSync module to this project. My question was: "Could we add a RAM chip on the board to receive a copy of the current frame, just in case we need to display the frame again because a refresh came up and we received no frame data from the PC yet." This could be used in a situation where we enable a refresh rate that is 2x the input fps for instance in the same way GSync does. Then you went off about all this GSync stuff making a straw man argument. But all your charts are comparing is Nvidia's implementation of driver overhead to bypassing that section of the driver. Nothing more, nothing less. The argument you are trying to put out is basically "this apple is the same as this bannana" which is not true and makes no sense.
 

aeliusg

Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
798
G-Sync doesn't really matter if you're pushing 240-480 fps anyway. It's a pity Freesync wasn't so easy to implement, but it'd only be the icing on the cake. Now to find one of the 27" monitors...
 

cirthix

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
223
Just ordered a 39" kit. :cool:

Strange thing about costs: the 28" kit costs $80 more than the 39" kit, thanks to something called X28 BL CABLE:nailbiting:. The 39" kit has no BL cable included, go figure.

there are other differences in the kits. 28" uses a power adapter, while the 39" kit uses the seiki power supply. 28" mounting plate is much more complicated to make and larger to ship. 39" does not require a backlight cable because it is a flatflex type built directly into the panel.

Need to get pictures up to make things more clear.
 

geok1ng

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,130
Need to get pictures up to make things more clear.

I see myself more as an enthusiast crowdfunder than a meticulous consumer. I trust your work and you hear my desires. The end product is quite similar to what i suggested [H]ere:

- Freesync would be a good perk, but having 4k 120hz on sale as fast as possible was about as important. In the end, Vega RX failed to deliver 4k gaming anyway:cry:
- Scanning and strobing backlights added a lot of value to both kits. Looking forward to see pursuit camera images of LMB modes.
 

Marm0t2

n00b
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
7
Cirth, would the 39 kit work with the SO50uY04?

If so, i'll jump on that. Otherwise ill just get the full smaller kit.
 

cirthix

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
223
Cirth, would the 39 kit work with the SO50uY04?

If so, i'll jump on that. Otherwise ill just get the full smaller kit.

No, the tcon does not fit.

See how there are four FFCs going off to the V500DK1-CS1 panel here: http://www.shopjimmy.com/cmo-35-d085502-t-con-board.htm
It physically won't fit.

I haven't tested it yet (and don't plan to, unless someone buys me a panel), but the kit should fit on the V500DK2 panels, which use the same connections as the smaller models. http://www.shopjimmy.com/vizio-4s-lx477-pr3-t-con-board.htm
 

Zangmonkey

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
4,382
While I'm super excited I am still so confused about this whole project.

I understand why a budget brand like seiki didn't ship with a capable and expensive PC board but there are tons of companies pushing expensive enthusiast-focused monitors.

How is it that a new motherboard on an older panel achieves the 4k120 holy Grail? Why isn't anybody else producing retail devices? I always just assumed it wasn't technically feasible yet.


Don't get me wrong. I'm definitely a but of these kits but how have the other brands failed so hard to deliver?
Cirthix, are you planning to try and license your hardware design? Is there some secret sauce you applied here?

Either way bravo, sir. Truly [H]ard.
 

cirthix

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
223
While I'm super excited I am still so confused about this whole project.

I understand why a budget brand like seiki didn't ship with a capable and expensive PC board but there are tons of companies pushing expensive enthusiast-focused monitors.

How is it that a new motherboard on an older panel achieves the 4k120 holy Grail? Why isn't anybody else producing retail devices? I always just assumed it wasn't technically feasible yet.


Don't get me wrong. I'm definitely a but of these kits but how have the other brands failed so hard to deliver?
Cirthix, are you planning to try and license your hardware design? Is there some secret sauce you applied here?

Either way bravo, sir. Truly [H]ard.

It is a matter of drawing lines in the sand. When a company buys a panel, it comes with a TCON that has a standard interface and limitations of its own. Everyone accepts these limitations, as engineers usually do, abide by the specifications.

I recognized that the limit was in the TCON and made my own. I'm not the first to make a TCON, but I am the first to make a TCON with the intent of pushing the panel to its limits (afaik).

After the TCON, it was just a matter of slapping on some generic format converter chips to the system to allow for fast dp1.2 input. There isn't anything special going on in input side of the system, the magic is in the TCON.

The backlight driver was purpose-designed for lab use and finds a nice home with the rest of the electronics. Putting it all together results in an interesting solution.



There is the other theory that panel vendors and monitor vendors do not want to move too quickly because of planned obsolescence.
 

EniGmA1987

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
429
Cirthix, Would the kit be compatible with the AMH 399U which from what I remmeber uses the same panel as the Philips bdm4065uc?

This is what it looks like behind the panel on the 399U:
86fb10d79280d6f10e4bc25c99400c3960328c7d.jpg



c3a5d9ec436eb28940d704232626569522545a36.jpg



If your TCON is physically too large and wont fit between those bottom mounting feet, then I could probably remvoe the feet mounts since I use a Monoprice mount in the VESA holes anyway. Am I right in thinking that the TCON must be mounted somewhere close to that area because it needs to plug into the existing cables on the bottom and doesnt come with extensions or its own?
 
Last edited:

cirthix

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
223
Cirthix, Would the kit be compatible with the AMH 399U which from what I remmeber uses the same panel as the Philips bdm4065uc?

This is what it looks like behind the panel on the 399U:


If your TCON is physically too large and wont fit between those bottom mounting feet, then I could probably remvoe the feet mounts since I use a Monoprice mount in the VESA holes anyway. Am I right in thinking that the TCON must be mounted somewhere close to that area because it needs to plug into the existing cables on the bottom and doesnt come with extensions or its own?

Based on what I see, I think it would work. The backlight connection looks the same and from what I can see, the tcon looks a lot like this one, which I have replaced successfully. http://www.shopjimmy.com/vizio-4s-lx477-pr3-t-con-board.htm

This looks like a cheaper variant of the v400 panel. It isnt supported but might work.

Don't order kits for unsupported panels!
 
Last edited:

Marm0t2

n00b
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
7
Based on what I see, I think it would work. The backlight connection looks the same and from what I can see, the tcon looks a lot like this one, which I have replaced successfully. http://www.shopjimmy.com/vizio-4s-lx477-pr3-t-con-board.htm

This looks like a cheaper variant of the v400 panel. It isnt supported but might work.


Fuck me. I have one of those in my closet. I guess I'll jump in for that as well as the 28.
 

cirthix

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
223
Fuck me. I have one of those in my closet. I guess I'll jump in for that as well as the 28.

Order one kit then. it it owrks on the 40", then order a second. Don't order a kit for an unsupported panel without a plan.
 

Marm0t2

n00b
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
7
Order one kit then. it it owrks on the 40", then order a second. Don't order a kit for an unsupported panel without a plan.


Would the 28 kit I ordered be compatible with the AMH 39?

I figured it would be tailored specifically for that one. If it's a case of "plug and play" cross compatibility, then I'll take your advice.
 

cirthix

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
223
Would the 28 kit I ordered be compatible with the AMH 39?

I figured it would be tailored specifically for that one. If it's a case of "plug and play" cross compatibility, then I'll take your advice.

You can use the 28" kit on the 39", or in your case, to test on the 40". Just need to flip the dipswitch and the mounting plate will be wrong. We'll do this together when the time comes.

The 40" panel might behave differently which would require re-tuning it in which case you'd need a jtag programmer and something like a colorhug2 or other display calibrator.

.. this is beginning to sound like more work than it is worth. Maybe just trade the 40" for a seiki 39. whoever is on the receiving end of that trade should be happy haha.
 

portalgun

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
186
I have one of the Seiki sm40unp's. It's the seiki one that natively does 60hz 4:4:4 that they released later from the original 39. Any idea if it would work for this "pro" series monitor. Here's a link to it on amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RVGXZ08/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me=

Amazing work on this either way. It's been fun to watch the progress of your project in this thread and to see it hit the big review sites. Pretty unbelievable to see a single person pulling off something the tech giants still can't manage to do!
 

cirthix

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
223
I have one of the Seiki sm40unp's. It's the seiki one that natively does 60hz 4:4:4 that they released later from the original 39. Any idea if it would work for this "pro" series monitor. Here's a link to it on amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RVGXZ08/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me=

Amazing work on this either way. It's been fun to watch the progress of your project in this thread and to see it hit the big review sites. Pretty unbelievable to see a single person pulling off something the tech giants still can't manage to do!

Same 40" panel as a few posts above, same answer. Not supported, please don't order it. My brother has the same display and it is the laggiest thing I've ever seen haha.

Tell you what, if more than 10 people are interested in that 40" panel, I'll buy one and add support for it.
 
Last edited:

portalgun

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
186
Same 40" panel as a few posts above, same answer. Not supported, please don't order it. My brother has the same panel and it is the laggiest thing I've ever seen haha.

Tell you what, if more than 10 people are interested in that 40" panel, I'll buy one and add support for it.

Hehe, good to know. I've had it since they first came out in like 2015. Thank you for the reply!
 

FTS

n00b
Joined
Jul 28, 2017
Messages
2
No, the tcon does not fit.

When you say the tcon won't fit the V500DK1-CS1 panel, is there anything that can be done to work around this? I am rather ignorant, but I assume the work around would require the engineering/manufacturing of an entirely different tcon. I certainly don't expect that, I'm just coming to terms with retiring my SE50UY04.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,839
Amazing work on this either way. It's been fun to watch the progress of your project in this thread and to see it hit the big review sites. Pretty unbelievable to see a single person pulling off something the tech giants still can't manage to do!

It has nothing to do with monitor manufacturers not being able to do something. Plenty of displays from the Dell 5K to the Dell 8K have multiple combined Displayport inputs. 4K at 120 Hz has technically been possible for many years. For whatever reason, be it market studies etc, display manufacturers have chosen not to do it. cithix has tapped into a real market that display manufacturers either thought didn't exist, or thought was too small to pursue. Display manufacturers get a lot of things wrong and rarely take risks.
 
Top