The perfect 4K 43” monitor! Soon! Asus XG438Q ROG

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
HDMI 2.1 also has something called quick frame transport which is coming to tvs.

I wasn't exactly sure what QFT did other than that it was supposed to lower input lag on hdmi 2.1 tvs. I'm learning more about it now. Apparently hdmi-VRR/free-sync/g-sync already does it so as long as your pipeline supports VRR of some sort you should have reduced input lag already.

https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4064


But what the hell is Quick Frame Transport? Well, it's simply a large blanking interval.
HDMI Quick Frame Transport, while specified by HDMI, the fundamental technique also works on DisplayPort and DVI connections, since it's simply a large blanking interval. A refresh cycle is transmitted faster, with a longer pause between refresh cycles.
Also, some 240Hz monitors can only scan-out their panels at full velocity (1/240sec). So they have to buffer an incoming slow-scanning 60Hz refresh cycle over the cable, before scanning-out in 1/240sec. By using Quick Frame Transport, you can do realtime concurrent LCD panel scanout in sync with cable scanout, reducing the input lag of 60Hz or 120Hz signals (e.g. XBox One consoles) on a 240Hz displays.
"Quick Frame Transport" equivalent is already built into FreeSync/GSYNC. Variable refresh rate displays have have been doing this since 2012. Low frame rates shows large input-lag-reducing benefits on high-Hz variable refresh rate dispays, since those refresh cycles are delivered at full dotclock velocity of maximum Hz, even if you're just doing low frame rates (ala 40fps / 40Hz). The lag-reduction benefits show really clearly in the various Blur Busters GSYNC tests (including GSYNC 101). Quick Frame Transport is simply bringing these lag-reducing to fixed-Hz displays (benefits of faster scanout of low refresh rates).
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
Apparently the Shadow Boost setting on the XG438Q does...something.
Maybe that is making it better or was making it worse at default settings. Unfortunately this monitor lacks a sharpness control +/- like 43" 4k tvs have which could help, but it sounds like that shadowboost could be helping the edge rendering somehow (or hurting it at the "wrong" default settings).
 

shadow2761

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Messages
176
TVs used to have more variance in this but now most have the same input lag regardless of resolution, HDR vs SDR etc. I know full well what you mean because using 4K DSR on my 1440p display initially feels less responsive but that is caused largely by fps dropping from say 100 to around 60. Try changing refresh rate from 120+ Hz on the desktop to 60 Hz and you will see the same phenomenon.
All good, you are correct.

I changed back to 4K res and put some graphics quality down in order to maintain the 115-120 fps and it felt very smooth and reslonsive, maybe even more so as if I was playing at 1440p with ultra quality.

Damm I love the clarity @ 4K. Can't believe I spent my first 10hrs playing PUBG with 1440p scaling on this monitor, it was blurry as hell and did not realise it until I switched back to the native 4K. lol
 

jadders

n00b
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
13
Damm I love the clarity @ 4K. Can't believe I spent my first 10hrs playing PUBG with 1440p scaling on this monitor, it was blurry as hell and did not realise it until I switched back to the native 4K. lol
How is the clarity of desktop text at native resolution? Can you change the cleartype aliasing to grayscale for testing to see if it helps with clarity- can you use this tool https://github.com/bp2008/BetterClearTypeTuner
 

Skott

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,160
People buying them up. A good maybe? Although I'm gonna guess its not gamers buying them so much as regular consumers.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
I don't see non-gamers buying these. If you don't care about displayport enabling 120Hz and the gaming overdrive gains - a 43" 4k TV is just as good, better in some respects (higher contrast ratio, sharpness setting in OSD) for a fraction of the price at $230 - $370.

Personally I'm waiting on the reviews of the HDR1000 ones just in case there is are any small differences. Also to see what the prices are and if the price of this one goes down or on sale at some point. I think these are worth more like $800 - $850 + tax rather than $1100 - $1200 + tax. If they were FALD or mini LED FALD they'd be worth $2000 (or perhaps even more), if everything else was top notch.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
15,947
I don't see non-gamers buying these. If you don't care about displayport enabling 120Hz and the gaming overdrive gains - a 43" 4k TV is just as good, better in some respects (higher contrast ratio, sharpness setting in OSD) for a fraction of the price at $230 - $370.
Same thoughts here. Skott why don't you think gamers are buying these, as highly anticipated as they've been? If I were a regular consumer, I'd have my pick of plenty of 43" TVs and monitors (LG 43UD79-B, Acer ET430K, Philips BDM4350UC) that aren't marketed specifically to gamers, are a fraction of the price and have been available for months now. Given that they sold through that batch so quickly, I'm pretty certain that they were snapped up by gamers eager for a fast refresh large gaming 4K monitor.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
No "regular consumer" is buying any Asus product with gamer RGB bling on it lol, that's for sure. Not in a million years.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
No "regular consumer" is buying any Asus product with gamer RGB bling on it lol, that's for sure. Not in a million years.
The RGB on this 43" monitor is basically a tiny flashlight you optionally snap in to the bottom of the monitor. It doesn't have any other RGB piping or ring lights, etc that I'm aware of. The only other thing different about it is the cut of the back of the chasis and the fake circuit board like texture on it or whatever but it's all the same colored plastic and the thin front bezel frame is very plain other than a tiny asus graphic logo with no text.

These are the upside down pictures I edited to show what it would look like flipped but it shows the chasis design.


EDIT-----
It might have some lighting on the easy access side ports?

Techspot review
"Surprisingly, there’s no RGB elements into the monitor itself, though you do get this RGB Aura Sync ROG logo projector accessory that you can mount to the back if you want."
 
Last edited:

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
I mentioned the tvs as being something a non gamer would buy over these asus 43" displays that cost over $1000, I wasn't saying they compared to the gaming features of a gaming monitor. I use both of my 43" tvs as desktop/app/media playback monitors.


My TCL S405 and NU6900
---------------------------------------

-pwm is 120hz on both of these TVs which I have no problem with, in fact it seems to help desktop motion. The samsung's PWM doesn't kick in until lower brightness though so it's mainly the TCL. However I use a bunch of hotkeys in displayfusion to move windows around generally and size them so I'm not moving anything much on my 43" desktop/app monitors other than video playback/streaming and scrolling text. I don't game on my current 43" tvs-as-monitors so gaming performance isn't an issue.
TCL S405
The image flickers at all backlight settings, but since the backlight flickers at 120Hz, this is not noticeable for most people.
NU6900
The TV dims without much flicker for Backlight setting from '50' to '25'. Then it uses PWM flicker to dim for Backlight setting from '24' to '0'.

When the Backlight is set between '50' and '25' you will not notice any flicker, but instead you will notice more motion blur. As you lower the Backlight from '24' to '0', flickering will intensify and you will notice less blur along with the lower levels of brightness. Most people will not be bothered by the 120Hz flicker, but more sensitive people might be. During motion this flicker causes double image artifacts, as seen in our Motion Blur photo.
- Uniformity. Actually pretty good compared to gaming VAs when viewed at the optimal viewing angle (like I have on a monitor arm). I get a tiny little trangle dark shadow in a few of the corners and if I do a white test image I can see a little bar of shadow on the edges but really insignificant in day to day usage even in file managers, web browsers, chat interfaces, etc., with lots of text and solid fields behind them.
This is the uniformity image from rting.com's review of the TCL s405
And this is the uniformity image from rtings.com's review of the NU6900

- Smearing: As I said, I use these as desktop/app monitors and I have zero issues with blur and smearing. They are 60hz so will never have that 120hz+ smooth motion definition feel either but I'm fine with that for my usage scenario as I said above.

- Overall. The screens are bright and the colors are pleasingly saturated. Text looks crisp with the ~ 102 ppi, contrast is over 4100:1 with the accompanying black depth.on the TCL and 6100:1 on the samsung NU6900. These both function great as general desktop/app use monitors and are way better than even my 3000:1 contrast 32" 1440p monitor when playing videos. The black depth difference is very noticeable.

----------------------

I was glad to learn in reviews that the XG438Q has about 1000 more native contrast and better accompanying black depth than my 32" LG, more like my 4100:1 TCL. It's local fimming allows it to go up from that considerably depending on the frame/scene.
From the TFTcentral review of the XG348Q:
Local HDR contrast between the white areas and adjacent black parts was boosted a little to around 4700 - 4900:1 compared with the SDR contrast ratio of around 3800:1. The max HDR contrast ratio compared with black areas further away from the bright test area reached up to around 7000 - 10,000:1 and produced a nicely improved dynamic range.
 
Last edited:

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
"Dude"... :)

if you read my post you'd see I own both the TCL s405 and the samsung NU6900 and I run both at the same time on my desk. I am not just going by Rtings but ny my personal experience. I gave details in what I wrote as to what the uniformity looks like to me at the optimal viewing angle using solid fields of bright color test images to test them, and in my everyday usage with apps, text and mediaplayback when not using test images . I posted the rtings images to further show what I was talking about since they are indeed similar to what I see with test images. The rtings images are perhaps even worse. In regular usage the tiny dim corners are not an issue at all, and in normal usage any slim side shadow effect of uniformity along the bezel edge is usually undetectable unless using test images / very bright solid field wallpapers or really bending your eyes looking to notice it with other solid bright material. Even then it's such a small area that it's negligible.

The uniformity map of the asus XG438Q from tftcentral is actually a much darker cornered extents map than either of my tvs-as-monitors and worse even than my 32" Gk850G which is the worst uniformity/VA-shift of my three monitors.. - so I'd be curious how the XG438Q looks in person.

GK850G tftcentral map
XG438Q tftcentral uniformity map
The XG438Q has around a 3800 to 4000:1 contrast ratio like my tcl s405's 4100:1 .. but the asus can go even higher in hdr material to 7,000 to 10,000:1 depending on the scene so it could look good overall, especially primarily for gaming. My samsung is about 6100:1 contrast, and my 32" gaming monitor is only about 3000:1 but still a lot higher than non fald ips and tns.

If either of my tvs-as-monitors was a screwed up as you are claiming your models were I would have returned them to best buy. To be clear I am not using either of them for games at all. I would never use a 60hz display for gaming on a pc.
 
Last edited:

Skott

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,160
Same thoughts here. Skott why don't you think gamers are buying these, as highly anticipated as they've been? If I were a regular consumer, I'd have my pick of plenty of 43" TVs and monitors (LG 43UD79-B, Acer ET430K, Philips BDM4350UC) that aren't marketed specifically to gamers, are a fraction of the price and have been available for months now. Given that they sold through that batch so quickly, I'm pretty certain that they were snapped up by gamers eager for a fast refresh large gaming 4K monitor.
Well us 'gamers' are a smaller segment compared to the average buyer. Those people who buy because they want to just watch tv and movies. So I'm thinking since we gamers are outnumbered generally speaking that more sales go to the average buyer. That's all. Now I could be totally wrong. I have no inside info on sales and who is buying what. Just using my own logic. Fuzzy as it can be at times. ;-)
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
Yeah so OD 5 is completely unusable. I have no idea why it's even included because it utterly destroys motion. Huge inverse/purple ghosting everywhere. Probably provided so that they can slap the 4ms label on the marketing material.

Good news is the Freesync implementation is basically flawless with my 2080 Ti. Testing pendulum demo to see how it behaves as it crosses under 48hz and there is no flicker or brightness change at all. Nvidia driver forces LFC very early as usual.

Using AC:Odyssey which is a Freesync flicker inducer due to the rough frame times in cities, no flicker either.

Those guys in the reddit thread suggesting shadow boost to correct text are insane. It raises the black level/gamma super high even at level 1 and makes blacks grey. Might as well have bought a TN panel at that point.
Thanks for the info. I had my concerns on how the freesync would work compared to g-sync. And regarding the shadowboost effects overall - in that case you'd be much better off flipping it on some type of VESA mount than screwing with shadow boost if post clear type tuned BGR bothered you that much.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
TFTCentral had trouble calibrating it too

https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_strix_xg438q.htm#calibration

Calibration of this screen was a bit odd, and it was not possible for some reason to properly correct the colours and achieve a lower dE. On the plus side we did maintain the reliable default 2.2 gamma, and corrected the minor 3% white point offset, now measured at 6529k. Luminance was also improved thanks to the adjustment to the brightness control and we maintained a strong VA technology contrast ratio at 3818:1. The screen always operates with the wide DCI-P3 colour gamut and it's aimed at gaming and multimedia anyway where you probably aren't going to want (or need) to manage colours for accuracy as such. It was just a bit odd that we couldn't seem to correct the colours despite many attempts and with different settings and modes, for those who may want to do some colour critical work within a colour managed workflow. Probably not common on a screen like this though to be fair.
-------

Techspot https://www.techspot.com/review/1905-asus-rog-strix-xg438q/

To get things nice and accurate, you do need to perform a full calibration, which fixes issues such as the weird yellow performance and also allows you to get sRGB accurate colors for general usage. It’s not a perfect result as you’ll see here from the ColorChecker test, where ideally there would be no colors tested with a deltaE above 2.0, but for a gaming monitor this is fine.
The monitor is also quite accurate when calibrated for D65-P3 performance, there is a small amount of clipping at the top end as gamut coverage is only 90% rather than 100%, but that’s to be expected. If you like a bit of oversaturation and like vivid colors, this will be a great monitor for you.
 

hotdogee

n00b
Joined
Jul 25, 2019
Messages
1
Text at 4K 100% scaling has a weird 1 pixel "shadow" under the text. Tried every setting in the OSD and cleartype, but was unable to make it go away. Ordered on the first day of release, ended up having to return it.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
If anyone experiencing that could try setting the windows display settings to " landscape (flipped) " temporarily so that the text is rendered in RGB amd report whether it cleared up the text issue it would be appreciated. The text edges will be visible even upside down.

I realize you already returned yours though hotdogee. I'm assuming any rough text edge issues are related to the BGR subpixel orientation, though that shadowboost sounds wierd too. You said you tried every OSD setting though so you probably tried turning that off.

Several people in this thread have stated that BGR w/ cleartype tuned properly is no issue to them at reasonable viewing distances so perhaps some people are viewing closer than others, not tuning cleartype optimally, or there is some panel variance between units. I flipped my 43" BGR oriented samsung 4k and didn't notice a difference at 100% default scaling with cleartype tuned again from 3' viewing distance.

It seems like if you subtract about 1/6th of the monitor's diagonal size you get a rough estimate of a reasonable "nearest" viewing distance to work from. (rough "nearest" estimate, not necessarily "best" distance).

Monitor size divided by 6 , times 5 = viewing distance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15" = 12.5" (around 1')
27" = 22.5" (a bit under 2')
32" = 26.6" (a few inch past 2')
43" = 35.8" (about 3')
55" = 45.8" (3.8' - 4')
65" = 54.16" (4.5')
70" = 58.33" (4.86' - 5')

 
Last edited:

jadders

n00b
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
13
Changing the cleartype aliasing to grayscale mode can help with text on a BGR. I find the grayscale setting is overall better than the "BGR aliasing". However afaik, you can only set this mode in the registry or using a tool (like the one I linked to in the last page).

hotdogee did you take a picture of this text shadow?
 

Murzilka

Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
817
It's BGR and you can't even disable the wide gamut mode. This monitor is a joke and spit in the gamer's face by the tai company asus. High price of this engineering failure is 650 taiwanese dollars.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,516
Easy way to use this display:

In the middle of the 20th century, an Austrian professor turned a man's eyesight exactly upside-down. After a short time, the man took this completely in his stride.

Professor Theodor Erismann, of the University of Innsbruck, devised the experiment, performing it upon his assistant and student, Ivo Kohler. Kohler later wrote about it. The two of them made a documentary film.

After 10 days, he had grown so accustomed to the invariably upside-down world that, paradoxically and happily, everything seemed to him normal, rightside-up. Kohler could do everyday activities in public perfectly well: walk along a crowded sidewalk, even ride a bicycle. Passersby on the street did ogle the man, though, because his eyewear looked, from the outside, unfashionable.
 

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
2,854
Easy way to use this display:

In the middle of the 20th century, an Austrian professor turned a man's eyesight exactly upside-down. After a short time, the man took this completely in his stride.

Professor Theodor Erismann, of the University of Innsbruck, devised the experiment, performing it upon his assistant and student, Ivo Kohler. Kohler later wrote about it. The two of them made a documentary film.

After 10 days, he had grown so accustomed to the invariably upside-down world that, paradoxically and happily, everything seemed to him normal, rightside-up. Kohler could do everyday activities in public perfectly well: walk along a crowded sidewalk, even ride a bicycle. Passersby on the street did ogle the man, though, because his eyewear looked, from the outside, unfashionable.
giphy.gif
 

caffix

n00b
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
60
So I've been watching this monitor for a while, and I think it's an utter disgrace what Asus have released here, especially under their ROG brand.

Smearing? Dodgy sub-pixel BGR layout? Hacks and cleartype settings needed to improve clarity?

Asus can f*** right off with this.

It makes me angry they could consider releasing this sub-standard piece of ****.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
All of the owner feedback in this thread is greatly appreciated.

43 inch is what I'm looking for. With my setup I have no problem flipping a brg on a VESA mount so BRG is no issue to me other than reading osd upside down or swinging the monitor sideways on the arm. ..but for what this monitor turned out to be, including the fact that I have to do that and it's other specs - I think they are asking too much money. I'll see what the 1000nit ones look like in reviews or maybe catch one of these at a reduced price someday I guess.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,699
Some of us have to look at a monitor for many hours a day to make a living. And having something
that kicks ass for productivity and gaming is ideal. A 32" 4k120 IPS / 1000+ LED FALD would be worth it and so would a 32" 4k120 OLED 120FPS.

This 43" you speak of is a waste of time. Horrific VA smear. Moronic BGR pixel layout. Shitastic motion clarity. It could be $500 and I still would not bother.

Currently I am using a 27" Nitro 4k144hz 10bpc and it is a way better deal than that 43" IMHO.
I went from a Dell u3011 30" 2560x1600 IPS screen to my 2015 43" Samsung JS9000 in 2015. I had a lot of pro IPS prejudice at that point in time, but I was very impressed with the JS9000 and it's VA panel.

I have not noticed any ghosting what so ever on it in real use. (Sure I can tease it out with the little alien animation, but in real use I have never seen it even once)

IMHO 32" 4k is a total waste. Way too high PPI for the desktop. There is no reason for any 4k screen to exist below 40". None.

I'll admit that the 48" Samsung is just a smidge large for desktop use. 43" would be absolutely perfect.
 

bananadude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
370
I went from a Dell u3011 30" 2560x1600 IPS screen to my 2015 43" Samsung JS9000 in 2015. I had a lot of pro IPS prejudice at that point in time, but I was very impressed with the JS9000 and it's VA panel.

I have not noticed any ghosting what so ever on it in real use. (Sure I can tease it out with the little alien animation, but in real use I have never seen it even once)

IMHO 32" 4k is a total waste. Way too high PPI for the desktop. There is no reason for any 4k screen to exist below 40". None.

I'll admit that the 48" Samsung is just a smidge large for desktop use. 43" would be absolutely perfect.

I don't entirely disagree, but 32" is far more usable than 27"... I would prefer 40" sure, but at 60-70cm, 32" is perfectly serviceable if you have good vision. 125% scaling can be utilised and plays well with most apps these days, it's not that big a deal. Besides, manufacturers clearly aren't interested in making anything DECENT at these bigger sizes... this Asus is a complete joke of a monitor. Shameful really. The waiting game continues.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
I went from a Dell u3011 30" 2560x1600 IPS screen to my 2015 43" Samsung JS9000 in 2015. I had a lot of pro IPS prejudice at that point in time, but I was very impressed with the JS9000 and it's VA panel.

I have not noticed any ghosting what so ever on it in real use. (Sure I can tease it out with the little alien animation, but in real use I have never seen it even once)

IMHO 32" 4k is a total waste. Way too high PPI for the desktop. There is no reason for any 4k screen to exist below 40". None.

I'll admit that the 48" Samsung is just a smidge large for desktop use. 43" would be absolutely perfect.
I'm sure that samsung JS9000 is fine for desktop stuff and for non discerning gamers but if you look at it's specs it is 23.6ms input lag in game mode and 55.8ms outside of game mode. It's black frame insertion pf 60hz doesn't work in game mode and interpolation contributes to the huge input lag outside of game mode. The JS9000's PWM dimming frequency at full would be 120hz flicker which may help motion a bit but you would still get a lot of sample and hold blur and the low frame rate stutter rate from low smoothness of 60fps max shown frames. At lower brightnesses it may even strobe at a lower rate which could (would) be eye fatiguing. Some displays start kicking strobe PWM in at 50% brightness though and have zero PWM at 50 - 100% for example. I'm not sure how the JS9000's works and when it kicks in.

Even on a modern high Hz VA gaming monitor with a low response time (the JS9000 60hz isn't bad at 11.1ms for a tv.. the gk850g is 6.4 to 8.3ms) and a very high performing game overdrive (like the gk850g) - black smearing doesn't really start showing up to a large degree until you get over 120fps+120hz. On monitors like the XG438Q it seems to show up more obnoxiously after 100fps+100hz, probably due to worse response times and/or an inferior overdrive to that on the LG gk850g.

So in game mode the samsung JS9000 would have some black smearing but with a 60fps cap on a 60hz capped display like that you would experience sample and hold blur of the entire game world during viewport movement when mouse looking, movement keying , or controller panning. So the whole viewport would smear at a baseline 60fp overshadowing any black smearing and making it moot. Your frame rate cap is also so low that you would not be exceeding the response time range of the monitor. 60fps , if a person's gpu even sustains 60fps on it, would be 16.6ms per frame and the JS9000's average response times is 11.1ms. Were you able to run 100fps or 120fps at 120hz on a JS9000 you'd be exceeding it's average response time at 10ms and 8.3ms per frame respectively. Of course those are the average response times and the worst transitions could still show smearing though. That is where a very high quality gaming overdrive helps VA displays a lot.
 

yoyo55

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
441
Just picked one up from microcenter a few days ago. Haven't really put it to the test yet thought. Text is definitely "soft" compared to the previous Seiki 40" 4K monitor that I had. Just out of curiosity...could the BGR be reversed via a firmware update?
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
I get that people like high ppi but I personally prefer a 40" - 43" 4k for the massive increase in desktop real estate while still keeping 102 - 110ppi (or a bit more to your perpective at 3' away). In fact I have two 43" 4k displays at my desk because I want even more space.

72svAR0.png


The largest field of color in this image is 4k at the equivalent of about 41":

nVW9JAA.jpg
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,699
I get that people like high ppi but I personally prefer a 40" - 43" 4k for the massive increase in desktop real estate while still keeping 102 - 110ppi (or a bit more to your perpective at 3' away). In fact I have two 43" 4k displays at my desk because I want even more space.

View attachment 188040

The largest field of color in this image is 4k at the equivalent of about 41":

View attachment 188039

I'd argue that ppi above ~100 is completely pointless on the desktop, without any merit or legitimate use case what so ever.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
Just picked one up from microcenter a few days ago. Haven't really put it to the test yet thought. Text is definitely "soft" compared to the previous Seiki 40" 4K monitor that I had. Just out of curiosity...could the BGR be reversed via a firmware update?
The only way it would be reversed is if you mounted it upside down and they released a firmware to flip the OSD so that the OSD and bios startup screens would show the new orientation. Otherwise, vesa mounting ia 43" display upside down works fine in windows display settings. I did it on my 43" samsung monitor recently and was able to turn the sharpness setting on that tv to zero afterward in relation to text.

The physical pixel grid is in the BGR order so there is nothing you can do about it besides flipping it upside down for a perfect RGB, or toning the BGR affected text via cleartype tuning and view distance. Unfortunately the display lacks a sharpness setting in the OSD which could be used to actually unsharpen it a bit to make the text more contrasted which could have helped mitigate the BGR effect too.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
I'd argue that ppi above ~100 is completely pointless on the desktop, without any merit or legitimate use case what so ever.
Well it can avoid the whole cleartype thing with smoother text edges by default but the desktop/app space trade off the other way is a no brainer to me. Similarly, it makes anti aliasing in games less necessary or at least you wouldn't have to use it as aggressively. Higher ppi in general could also be useful to use larger screens closer someday. For example you could view a big 8k screen closer than you could a big 4k screen without losing detail. To me I'd probably go back to 100 - 110ppi again though and use a whole wall of 8k-ish screen on a giant UW or something if available. :D

I have a 15" 4k laptop and my tablet and phone are very high ppi as well so I have those to compare to. I'm still very happy with 100- 110ppi clarity on the desktop especially considering the massive desktop/app real-estate.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
I'd argue that ppi above ~100 is completely pointless on the desktop, without any merit or legitimate use case what so ever.
Sure and you'd be completely wrong. There is a big difference in text clarity between 100ppi and 150-200ppi. Where exactly the line is varies based on your viewing distance, and you definitely don't need phone-like 400+ ppi to reach visual limits, but 100ppi is well below visual limit unless your display is really far away from your eyes.

If you're one of those people who likes to keep 27" displays 30-40 inches away, then yeah you're probably right. But that's not optimal viewing distance.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
I follow this pretty much, but that is at 100 - 110ppi and also in relation to the physical screen sizes. You could arguably sit closer at 8k resolutions if you wanted to but the size of the screen also comes into play on the larger ones so you don't want to be pressing your nose against the glass on a small screen or rock climbing a big screen.


It seems like if you subtract about 1/6th of the monitor's diagonal size you get a rough estimate of a reasonable "nearest" viewing distance to work from. (rough "nearest" estimate, not necessarily "best" distance).

Monitor size divided by 6 , times 5 = viewing distance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15" = 12.5" (around 1')
27" = 22.5" (a bit under 2')
32" = 26.6" (a few inch past 2')
43" = 35.8" (about 3')
55" = 45.8" (3.8' - 4')
65" = 54.16" (4.5')
70" = 58.33" (4.86' - 5')
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,699
If you're one of those people who likes to keep 27" displays 30-40 inches away, then yeah you're probably right. But that's not optimal viewing distance.
I always sit at about arm's length from my screens. So, 2.5ft? So 30"? I consider that to be standard viewing distances for desktop use.

On phone and to a lesser extent laptops you hold them much closer so higher ppi is useful, (but 400ppi is still nuts)

I had a work laptop up until I switched jobs recently that had a 2560x1440 screen in a 13" package and I hated it. Would have been much better at 1080p, but even that would have been a tad high for 13" IMHO.

Meanwhile my old 13" Dell with a 1366x768 screen feels perfect.

I can't believe that you are arguing that 30" is far from a screen. I mean, if you stand a screen on a normal desk, put a keyboard Infront of it and sit in a chair you'd have to lean in pretty extremely to get closer than that.

I also challenge the AA argument in favor of high PPI. High PPI does not diminish the appearance of aliasing at all, in my experience. It's still there, just smaller and still just as visible. And even if t did, that would have to be the worst possible use of GPU power ever when so many good and comparatively computationally inexpensive AA methods exist.

Sure, some of them may introduce some blur but seriously you have to do a zoomed still frame aide by side comparison like in the old H reviews to ever notice.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
I can't believe that you are arguing that 30" is far from a screen. I mean, if you stand a screen on a normal desk, put a keyboard Infront of it and sit in a chair you'd have to lean in pretty extremely to get closer than that.
Nope, as mentioned above, 22.5" is roughly optimal for a 27" monitor and that is more or less my viewing distance, I've measured eyes to display. It varies from 18"-24"(sitting up straight with chair tucked in to desk looking directly at something vs leaned back and slouching) or so. The distance where the display fills my field of view comfortably, but nothing is in peripheral vision so head turning is not required is around 20 inches I think.

All that is required for this is to sit normally at the desk and have your monitor in front of the keyboard with little distance between the monitor stand and the keyboard. It's nothing special. But a lot of people space their monitor out 6 or 12 inches behind the keyboard, which I've never understood. I always try to set my display so that it fills my field of view, but doesn't overfill it to the point of head turning, regardless of display size.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,851
I had a work laptop up until I switched jobs recently that had a 2560x1440 screen in a 13" package and I hated it. Would have been much better at 1080p, but even that would have been a tad high for 13" IMHO.

Meanwhile my old 13" Dell with a 1366x768 screen feels perfect.

I can't believe that you are arguing that 30" is far from a screen. I mean, if you stand a screen on a normal desk, put a keyboard Infront of it and sit in a chair you'd have to lean in pretty extremely to get closer than that.

I also challenge the AA argument in favor of high PPI. High PPI does not diminish the appearance of aliasing at all, in my experience. It's still there, just smaller and still just as visible. And even if t did, that would have to be the worst possible use of GPU power ever when so many good and comparatively computationally inexpensive AA methods exist.
I agree about high PPI and antialiasing.

Personally I love higher PPI up to a point where it becomes irrelevant (like those 400+ PPI phones). On desktop monitors pretty much everything out there is too low PPI for my tastes, I really like the displays on Apple's stuff as they have excellent text rendering. I just moved to a dual QHD screen and still wish it was just that little bit higher PPI so it would have a bit better text rendering at 100% scale. On 4K displays I'd always use at least 125% scaling. Something like 5120x2160 would probably be ideal in about 38-40" size. Not much chance of getting that one in the next few years.

I like keeping my displays pretty close. Right now my Samsung CRG9 is at about an arms length but I do find myself leaning in at times despite having laser corrected vision.

In other news, the Acer Predator CG437KP has been bumped to estimated delivery in November in a store over here. I had banked on returning my CRG9 if that display comes out and turns out to be good but I think for now I'll be sticking with the Samsung because it ticks a lot of boxes for me and is a fantastic format in all its wideness.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,828
To be clear I posted those numbers as a formula I calculated from my experience with many different monitors which seems to be right on for what I've found to be a reasonable nearest viewing distance, not necessarily "best" or maximum.
 
Last edited:

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
461
IMHO 32" 4k is a total waste. Way too high PPI for the desktop. There is no reason for any 4k screen to exist below 40". None.
Oh, come on! I feel like everyone here only looks at things from 2 perspectives:
- Gaming
- Having as much work space with as fe bezels

What about using a high resolution display at a small size with scaling to make text look a little crisper than it did 15 years ago? Is that also not a valid reason?
I'd argue that ppi above ~100 is completely pointless on the desktop, without any merit or legitimate use case what so ever.
The text looks clearly blurry at even moderately small sizes. I don’t know how you can act as though 110 PPI clarity at 2’ is as clear as we can see. Try it out! You may be surprised.
 
Last edited:
Top