![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
It is all about distance-screen ratio, i.e. pixel per angle or something of the sort, 42 inch or 52 inch very wide monitor on a computer desk could be quite big for the distance (when you compare with a 65 inch tv in a standard living room)
Usually around 2 - 2 1/2 feet, 3' at most. If I moved my keyboard out of the tray and on top of my desk again I'd be around 1 1/2 to 2'. That's not much farther than I keep a phone or other handheld display.
1 - 1.3m or 3.2 - 4.3 feet on 27" 4K without scale.
Heh, I think that's a liiiiiittttlllleeee bit far away from usable tech for me to care about
.
Honestly that just backs up my earlier post hehehHeh, I think that's a liiiiiittttlllleeee bit far away from usable tech for me to care about
Oh no, don't get me wrong. I mean that it's too hard to even come close to driving yet
. I'll definitely want it in the future!https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/a...rds-cables-and-areas-of-confusion-and-concern
In the video they explained it uses an 8k source and does "AI upscaling" to 16k.
A make sense if it is just a prototype of the panel itself, little need for actual 16k signal I imagine.
55" would just be to small without scaling unless you have REALLY good eye sight.For me 4K 48" was already too large at 1m viewing distance and at the same time could have been sharper.Having had one (65" QN900B) on my desk for about a month now and it is actually much better than I imagined it to be. Previous setup was a dual OLED 42" C2 4K and before that I've used 55" and 65" (4K) on the desk as well so I am probably more used to big daddy screens than most though
Now, if you are not a screen real estate junkie like myself, there is of course other advantages to having a really high resolution even if you have to enable scaling.
You have to consider this more of a multi monitor replacement and remember that 8K is 4 times the number of pixels compared to 4K. My QN900B 65" is much sharper than my 42" 4Ks. If I recall correctly, it has higher PPI than a 27" QHD. The biggest drawback by far, besides not being an OLED and what that means for PQ, is that it can't due GPU scaling above 60 hz.
But the Samsung 65" QN900B resolution is not 7680x4320, so it's not really 8KHaving had one (65" QN900B) on my desk for about a month now and it is actually much better than I imagined it to be. Previous setup was a dual OLED 42" C2 4K and before that I've used 55" and 65" (4K) on the desk as well so I am probably more used to big daddy screens than most though
Now, if you are not a screen real estate junkie like myself, there is of course other advantages to having a really high resolution even if you have to enable scaling.
Flat screens comment- "I feel like the edges are bent outwards (I know they're not) but my eyes are picky now that they have been spoiled with a curved display. "
They are definitely off axis which isn't optimal and it also makes uniformity issues a larger area and more obvious on VA and OLED screens. The edges of the screen are off axis as much as if you were viewing the screen from an equivalent distance outside of it.
Made even larger when sitting at sub-optimal nearer view distances. Larger the nearer you sit, as the degrees of area beyond the middle 50 to 60 degrees grows since your viewing angle is larger in degrees. It's also a larger area outside of your viewpoint so results in a lot more eye darting and to larger distances ~ larger "eye fatigue zone".
With curved screens, at least when sitting at the R value distance (e.g. 1000R = 1000mm= ~ 39.5" view distance), you'll be equidistant from every point on the screen surface with them angled directly at you like the focal point of a lens.
The solid blue is the 1000R viewpoint, the transparent field is when sitting nearer. There is some wiggle room like the first example but the 2nd example is poor imo.
Yep, the depth of these screens would be an issue for me definitely.
https://www.samsung.com/uk/tvs/qled-tv/qn700b-55-inch-neo-qled-8k-smart-tv-qe55qn700btxxu/
And now you mixed it up again with yet another different TV despite me linking to the correct one?
If a TV in the UK is spec'd for 50Hz it just means it'll accept the UK 50Hz broadcasts. Every TV I've seen here with 50 on the spec sheet can do at least 60 in reality. The only real 50Hz TVs I've ever had were ancient PAL CRTs.
The refresh rate is mentioned multiple times in the Rings article. Please note however that it seems like it is only 120 Hz in EU/UK for some strange reason and not 144 Hz.
This was my idea as well. Sadly, at least my QN900B has undefetable scaling it seems that I have not found a way to disable. This mostly affect gaming though, and the kind where you would want a smaller game window, in my case mostly games like CS GO etc.Of course you can kind of solve it by going down even further in resolution. This is really my main gripe with the QN900B for usage as a PC monitor, for desktop use I just run it in 8K so no problem there.
the thing is, 65" is too big, I'm in the camp of 48" at 8K for desk space. Now, in the future, if we make those retractable transparent OLED, that the whole screen can fold down in a box, then I can use something bigger. But that gadget only comes in 4K and expensive as hell
65" is to big if you think of it as a single monitor, but not if the alternative is multiple monitors that would take up more space but provide lower resolution with bezels dividing them. Of course, having 8K or higher to use with scaling might have other advantages even though more screen real estate isn't one of them.
To each their own I guess but for me, I almost never do fullscreen for any application above 27" monitors. That includes gaming where I would usually go with a custom resolution. I've tried to replace my desk OLEDs for years now but everytime it has failed. But I won't deny that I would much rather have smaller screens with higher resolution, as 4K is only suitable to something like 32" at best. In comes 8K.....and currently 60 hz.