State of 4K monitors (discussion and recommendations)

Why hasnt anyone mentioned Wasabi Mango? especially with the 120hz 40" 4k panel that should be shipping now
 
nimer said:
Why hasnt anyone mentioned Wasabi Mango? especially with the 120hz 40" 4k panel that should be shipping now
Click to expand...

Didn't know about that, pretty neat. OP did ask for 27" monitor recommendations though so most of us have been steering towards that size and discussing 32" as a maximum. 43" is full blown TV size.
 
Mode13 said:
Didn't know about that, pretty neat. OP did ask for 27" monitor recommendations though so most of us have been steering towards that size and discussing 32" as a maximum. 43" is full blown TV size.
Click to expand...

Dunno what i was thinking mate, I for some reason thought 40" was the largest size open for consideration.

as you were lol
 
Feel free to talk about whatever you want! :p
I just know that I am not getting anything larger than 30" because there is no room... But as I stated on last page, I am not getting anything after all
 
HiCZoK said:
Hey everyone!
Since 4k is where things are going in long terms, I am thinking about upgrading to 4k... so I started digging again (just months ago I've had 240hz, gsync, 144hz, multiple ips montiors and now have simple hp 27ea as a nice stop gap) and the market is still in a weird/bad place.
TV's are 5 years ahead but only if we talk about 42"+ and that is too big almost for any desk and defeats purpose of high ppi monitor. Unless there are smaller good tv's which I don't know about. It's crazy anyway that 4k 42" hdr is cheaper than 27" monitor.

I think that when talking about 4k we should consider 27-32 monitors and mainly 60hz for now due to there not being much else and pc specs not being there yet and ppi doing the best work at those sizes.

There is also a question of HDR and FALD. There are already HDR10 monitors on the market that properly "accept" hdr 10 signal like LG 27UK line or dell U2718Q. There are also monitors with fald zones from Dell or Asus but they suck, are very expensive and create halos around brighter objects. Nowhere close to oled or hdr on ips tv's.
So there might not even be a point of getting fald or even a 4k monitor that accepts hdr10 signal if it cannot properly display it.

So... that said, any recommendations for 27" 4k monitor? Probably ips without fald zones or hdr10 since it's useless anyway. I want to use it on ps4 and pc.
Anyone experienced with those? I'v seen some reviews and 600:1 contrast does not sound good... if these were at least 1200/1300:1 like 1080p ips monitors are, it would not be so bad. But being that I am used to 27" 1080p, 6bit monitor... 4k, 10bit should at least be some upgrade right?!
Click to expand...

I wish there was 4k TV's on market!, Tv's with HDR will always be cheaper then gsync monitors, 27-32 inch monitor are too small these days for gaming think big.
 
IMO, 4K looks really bad on a 27". The fonts are way too tiny. I've had that Dell U2715Q, did not like it.

4K looks really good on a 32" display. It just works. the PPI is a useful 137 on a 32" versus an impossible 163 on a 27".

I like my PPI to range from 115 on the lower end to 140 and 137 is perfect.

I realize you can use the scale function and get it to 140% or something but then why get a 4K 27" when you can just get a QHD (2.5K) 27" which looks just as good?
 
datum said:
IMO, 4K looks really bad on a 27". The fonts are way too tiny. I've had that Dell U2715Q, did not like it.

4K looks really good on a 32" display. It just works. the PPI is a useful 137 on a 32" versus an impossible 163 on a 27".
Click to expand...

I think I ragged on you a bit in a different thread; I want to expound a bit here:

For the same person, whether or not a particular PPI is comfortable is also going to depend on viewing distance. I think you are right about 4k at 32" at closer viewing distances, but it needs to be pretty close for most people.
 
FYI, IMO means "In my opinion". You don't have to get one if you don't want to. I tried both 27" and 32" in 4K and I liked 32" a lot better, it just works for me.

isthisretina.com

The_more_you_ know.jpg
 
datum said:
IMO, 4K looks really bad on a 27". The fonts are way too tiny. I've had that Dell U2715Q, did not like it.

4K looks really good on a 32" display. It just works. the PPI is a useful 137 on a 32" versus an impossible 163 on a 27".

I like my PPI to range from 115 on the lower end to 140 and 137 is perfect.

I realize you can use the scale function and get it to 140% or something but then why get a 4K 27" when you can just get a QHD (2.5K) 27" which looks just as good?
Click to expand...

Because using scaling with that many pixels gives you better results. More pixels to render text means text that is better to read regardless of size. To me it makes no sense to use a 4K display without scaling.
 
I know what scaling is. If I am going to use scaling, to buy an expensive 4K or 5K machine and then scale it down to something else, I might as well just buy the specs that I will be scaling down to.
If I won't use the native resolution, I won't buy it.
 
datum said:
I know what scaling is. If I am going to use scaling, to buy an expensive 4K or 5K machine and then scale it down to something else, I might as well just buy the specs that I will be scaling down to.
If I won't use the native resolution, I won't buy it.
Click to expand...

lol...

Scaling is also the future, most especially for UIs and text.
 
datum said:
I know what scaling is. If I am going to use scaling, to buy an expensive 4K or 5K machine and then scale it down to something else, I might as well just buy the specs that I will be scaling down to.
If I won't use the native resolution, I won't buy it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, you like your fonts rendered pixely. Others work with text all day and want crisp text, there 27" 4k, 32" 4/5k, etc. shines. The standard 96PPI just doesn't cut it for text rendering, and that we were stuck with it for so long is a shame really. Now the options are here, you don't like them, don't buy them.
 
I can definitely see why Apple pushed the DisplayPort standard a bit to get 5k in 27"- it works out extremely well with various forms of scaling, whereas I found that scaling on my 32" 4k was less than optimal. Probably need 6k for 32" to get reasonably sharp scaling results.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I can definitely see why Apple pushed the DisplayPort standard a bit to get 5k in 27"- it works out extremely well with various forms of scaling, whereas I found that scaling on my 32" 4k was less than optimal. Probably need 6k for 32" to get reasonably sharp scaling results.
Click to expand...
Apple was smart about it but their closed garden approach helped them a lot here. They could afford to push for 2x scaling in their products since they control what resolutions those ship with. Microsoft mostly didn't have this luxury. The good thing about 2x scaling is you can just show same content in 4 pixels instead of 1 where proper resolution content is not available, so at the worst it will look the same as the user remembered it, never worse. Personally I find 4k adequate for 32" and text is sharp enough. 5k would be nice to have the 2x scaling for old applications but those are few and for most you have alternatives that are PPI aware so it's not really a problem anymore. However we would also need monitor or GPU integer scaling (or both) for 5k to be really useful, so 4k will probably be where they stop for now.
 
Yeah, I run my 32" 4k at 100% scaling; my eyesight is good enough, though it does look a bit comical next to 1440p at 32" :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top