Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4K TV Panel Shipments Grew 58% Over Last Quarter
#1
http://4k.com/news/4k-tv-sales-grow-64-t...2015-7917/
Of course, they mess up the percentage in the headline.
Quote:As we’ve covered on numerous occasions, sales of 4K UHD panels and TVs are not only growing, the rate at which they grow is expanding too, and quickly.

This is reflected and reinforced still further by the latest findings from research firm Sigmaintell Consulting. According to the company’s investigative findings, UHD TV panel shipments have reached over 9 million units sold by within the second quarter of 2015. This is a 58% jump from sales in the first quarter and has brought the total number of TVs sold in the year so far to 14.7 million, or more 4K TVs than were sold in all of 2014.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#2
For gaming I get it, for tv, it's pointless currently.

I also think I'm going is the right way for gaming- 28" panel = high pixel density, G-sync keeps frames even.
Reply
#3
I would much prefer gaming on a much larger 4k screen. I don't see the point of it on a 28 incher actually. I really enjoy gaming on my 55" TV.
Reply
#4
(07-03-2015, 01:19 AM)SickBeast Wrote: I would much prefer gaming on a much larger 4k screen. I don't see the point of it on a 28 incher actually. I really enjoy gaming on my 55" TV.

The pixel density of a 4K 28" monitor is 155ppi, but on a 4K 55" tv it's 80ppi, so there's an advantage for sharpness. (and you don't have G-Sync on the tv)

We have a couple 60" tvs I "could" game on, one of them specifically chosen for fast response time gaming. Guess I'm old school.
Reply
#5
Just sit farther away from the tv and the sharpness is the same. Gaming is way better on a big screen, there is no comparison.
Reply
#6
I disagree.

Gaming on a large screen can be fun, don't get me wrong. But it is absolutely nothing like high pixel density. The sharpness rollo talks about is actually a crisp and crystal clearness of the likes you have never seen.

I actually game further back, and my 27" 1080p monitor is not at all winning awards for its pixel density. I have severe astigmatism and my vision can not be corrected to 20/20. But even I was shocked by how awesome 4k monitors look in real life. And I didn't even see one with the jaw dropping density as a 28" 4k.

I thought I wanted a higher refresh rate/higher fps but with Gsync, i am actually blown away by the smoothness and responsiveness of lower frame rates with Gsync.

But, you live and learn. Gsync is pretty freaking amassing
Reply
#7
I agree with ocre. I have a Toshiba Tecra M10 laptop with a 14.1" 1440x900 screen. Even that 120 PPI is a noticeable upgrade from a 95 PPI display.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#8
(07-03-2015, 10:53 PM)ocre Wrote: I disagree.

Gaming on a large screen can be fun, don't get me wrong. But it is absolutely nothing like high pixel density. The sharpness rollo talks about is actually a crisp and crystal clearness of the likes you have never seen.

I actually game further back, and my 27" 1080p monitor is not at all winning awards for its pixel density. I have severe astigmatism and my vision can not be corrected to 20/20. But even I was shocked by how awesome 4k monitors look in real life. And I didn't even see one with the jaw dropping density as a 28" 4k.

I thought I wanted a higher refresh rate/higher fps but with Gsync, i am actually blown away by the smoothness and responsiveness of lower frame rates with Gsync.

But, you live and learn. Gsync is pretty freaking amassing
You can disagree but you are disagreeing with science and logic. A 55" screen 10' away will look the same as Rollo's 28 incher from 2'.
Reply
#9
(07-04-2015, 02:06 AM)SickBeast Wrote: You can disagree but you are disagreeing with science and logic. A 55" screen 10' away will look the same as Rollo's 28 incher from 2'.
But that isn't going to change that in the absolute sense, the 28" screen will have higher PPI.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#10
(07-04-2015, 02:17 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote:
(07-04-2015, 02:06 AM)SickBeast Wrote: You can disagree but you are disagreeing with science and logic. A 55" screen 10' away will look the same as Rollo's 28 incher from 2'.
But that isn't going to change that in the absolute sense, the 28" screen will have higher PPI.

Much higher PPI, and that is what defines clarity. (and removes need for edge AA)

And as noted, no G-Sync on tvs. TVs and projectors have their place, as do monitors.
Reply
#11
Most people game on a TV. Why do you think consoles are so popular?
Reply
#12
Errrr.......they're cheap and a lot easier to use than computers?
Reply
#13
I vastly prefer a larger screen to a smaller one.

There is no sharpness difference, you have to be within a foot of my 55" TV to start to notice the LCD mosaic that forms the image and even then it is far from obvious or offensive. I sit approx 7 feet from the 55", approx 3.5 feet from the 40" I use on my desktop productivity machine.

a 4K resolution doesn't replace the need for AA either. Jaggies are still very apparent at 4K resolutions. The reason is simple, they move as what is being rendered moves, and the movement is what causes the saw tooth effect. If you don't anti-alias the edges you will still see saw teeth. At 4K, 5K, even 8K or more.

Reminds me of the CRT days when people would say you don't need AA for 1280x1024! or you don't need AA for 1280x1200! They were wrong then and those saying the same for 4K are wrong now.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#14
(07-04-2015, 10:20 AM)gstanford Wrote: I vastly prefer a larger screen to a smaller one.

There is no sharpness difference, you have to be within a foot of my 55" TV to start to notice the LCD mosaic that forms the image and even then it is far from obvious or offensive.  I sit approx 7 feet from the 55", approx 3.5 feet from the 40" I use on my desktop productivity machine.

a 4K resolution doesn't replace the need for AA either.  Jaggies are still very apparent at 4K resolutions.  The reason is simple, they move as what is being rendered moves, and the movement is what causes the saw tooth effect.  If you don't anti-alias the edges you will still see saw teeth.   At 4K, 5K, even 8K or more.

Reminds me of the CRT days when people would say you don't need AA for 1280x1024! or you don't need AA for 1280x1200!  They were wrong then and those saying the same for 4K are wrong now.

LOL

If Gstanford understood why edge aliasing exists, he'd know what he just said is disinformation.

http://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-in-4k-the-...er-second/

Quote:At 3840x2160, the 28-inch Samsung U28D590D has a 157.35 PPI. As a result, games running at native resolution look sharp, even without anti-aliasing enabled. The pixel density really does make a difference.

https://pcmonitors.info/articles/the-4k-...xperience/

Quote:It’s important for users with only moderately powerful or weaker gaming systems to note that the need for MSAA is drastically reduced at the UHD resolution.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/180402...-nirvana/3

Quote:I really hate jaggies.

So it’s more than a little significant for me to sit here and write that when you play at 4K, you might be able to turn AA off altogether or get by just fine with an FXAA option.
Reply
#15
(07-04-2015, 02:06 AM)SickBeast Wrote: You can disagree but you are disagreeing with science and logic. A 55" screen 10' away will look the same as Rollo's 28 incher from 2'.

The same?

Where does science say they look the same?

The science you are referring to is pretty dumb, there is no way around it.
They have a fancy chart and try to make something everyone knows sound like this radical discovery.

It is just a twist of a well known concept.
The further you are away from an object, the less detail you see.

Of course the further back you sit, the pixel density matters less and less. This is because you are actually physically seeing less of the tiny details and your brain is filling in the rest.

It is not the same as setting close to a screen with ultra dense pixels per square inch. Not even close. You are loosing detail by sitting further back.

Have you ever seen an ultra high resolution picture at bestbuy or on display? One actually showing
UHD content? You are gonna sit here and say it looks just like a 1080 reproduction on the same screen?

Of course if you keep taking steps back, the difference will matter less and less. This is because you are seeing less and less of the details. Its not science.......its common sense. There is no debate about this. Its cut and dry.

The debate is actually one of preference. Do you prefer to sit back far or game up close to the screen. They are not the same at all. Nor is one right or wrong
Reply
#16
Wouldn't it be more immersive to sit 2 feet away from a 40 inch screen instead of a 28 inch one though? The 40" 4k hdtvs are cheaper as well.
Reply
#17
I am not even sure if you are following the conversation.

4k is just a term that refers to the amount of pixels. 4k at 50" is not the same as 4k at 28". The pixel density of a 40" 4k screen is not near as dense as 28".

For computers......
It's not the resolution that counts, it's the pixel density. It's not the size of the screen, it's the resolution for a given size.

I will be the first to admit, I think 4k is pretty useless in TVs right now. The content is not there for starters and we typically sit far enough back that it just doesn't matter too much even if we did. The finer details aren't visible from our typical viewing angles.

When it comes to PC monitors, it is a different world. Not only do we have the content, we also sit close enough that you can't help but notice the fine detail.

4k on a 40" has 110 pixels per sq inch
This is slightly better than the the typical 24" 1080 monitor.

It is about as good as a 27" 2560x1440 monitor.
See, on a PC, if you want a bigger screen then you have to be mindful. The pixels need to increase along with the size, else you will start noticing.
Have you ever hooked up your computer to a TV? A 32" TV at 720p? How about a +40" 1080p tv? The first thing you notice is the text, you cannot help but notice the text looks whacky.

I say these things with a screen that is pushing it when it comes to acceptable. My panel has a low 82ppi. I find it more than acceptable for gaming, it's way way better than any console on a TV. It's great for me gaming. But I won't sit hear and act a fool saying that a higher density is worthless. Cause that simply isn't true.
There is preference at play here as well. Some people prefer to sit back from the screen. The further back, the less the density will matter to that person. The less they can appreciate the clearer density.

So to answer your question.
Setting 2ft away, the 28in 4k will be significantly cleaner and more clear vs the 40" 4k. The difference in crispness will be noticeable but that doesn't mean there won't be people who just prefer the larger screen over the finer detail, it is a matter of preference if you remember.

But if you can have a 40" TV with the same 157ppi as the 28in 4k, even the ones who prefer the larger screen would gravitate towards the much larger and just as dense TV. It would have to be well beyond 4k to retain the same oixels density.

Just so you know, the 40" 4k would be closer to my poor density panel than the super dense 28" 4k panel. If you want to game in a large screen, a 4k 40" would be pretty great. But not near as crisp as a 28"

It is just a matter of preference as to what you find acceptable. If you like bigger screens over finer detail, that's your choice. But Gsync is a whole other matter. You have to experience it to understand the game changer it is.

I really like my Gsync panel but I think the density is just on the edge for me even. Text and such, it's just right on the edge for me. It's not bad, but You can tell it has a low PPI for a computer monitor.
The next monitor I get will be at least 110ppi if not higher. See, I game further back but I also use my computer for many other things that have me closer. So, my awesome gaming monitor is far from the perfect monitor. It doesn't even remotely compare to a 28" 4k screen. But, I am waiting for more powerful gpus before I upgrade anything else.

I want to max out my games, run them as high as possible. And thus, my preference lets me be okay with the screen I got.
That doesn't mean there is nothing better. I have a balance I like though
Reply
#18
Quote:Have you ever hooked up your computer to a TV? A 32" TV at 720p? How about a +40" 1080p tv? The first thing you notice is the text, you cannot help but notice the text looks whacky.

You can't possibly be serious with that statement.

http://i.imgur.com/zUsHLFO.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/JpqzjuW.jpg

Sorry for the overall quality of the pics, they were taken on my phone, so are grainy and soft, but still you get the idea.

The TV in the photos is a generic 40" 1080p unit, Dick Smith (in-house brand of an Australian electronics chain) that I picked up for $299 AU.

https://www.choice.com.au/products/elect...ith-ge6877

http://s7.postimg.org/ty1qv3pxn/receipt.jpg

Use the VGA/PC input of the TV if it has one, HDMI is garbage in comparison and will make text look weird on the desktop.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#19
My text looks perfect on my TV and I use hdmi.
Reply
#20
sure it does.

from 6ft back
Reply
#21
Nope, not 6 feet for my 40". Normally sit around 3 feet back from it, sometimes closer at 2 feet. You have to get inside 1 foot to begin to notice the LCD elements.

Can get much closer than 6 feet with the 55" too, but a bit silly since then you are too close to be able to see all the screen at once.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#22
(07-05-2015, 01:49 PM)gstanford Wrote:
Quote:Have you ever hooked up your computer to a TV? A 32" TV at 720p? How about a +40" 1080p tv? The first thing you notice is the text, you cannot help but notice the text looks whacky.

You can't possibly be serious with that statement.

http://i.imgur.com/zUsHLFO.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/JpqzjuW.jpg

Sorry for the overall quality of the pics, they were taken on my phone, so are grainy and soft, but still you get the idea.

The TV in the photos is a generic 40" 1080p unit, Dick Smith (in-house brand of an Australian electronics chain) that I picked up for $299 AU.

https://www.choice.com.au/products/elect...ith-ge6877

http://s7.postimg.org/ty1qv3pxn/receipt.jpg

Use the VGA/PC input of the TV if it has one, HDMI is garbage in comparison and will make text look weird on the desktop.

1080 is a few more pixels than 720.  


I said specifically text because it is one of the places where loosing finer details by going to larger pixels is easily noticeable.   It is not that text is a special thing,  they are just a few pixels wide and most people pick up on the difference right off the bat.  

If you are gonna set and argue that there is no noticeable difference in large pixels with a very skimpy pixel density vs small pixels in a very dense packed environment, then this conversation has just got childish.   I dont wish to argue common sense.  Computer monitors have always had much higher pixel density than TVs  

If you havent ever seen a computer up close hooked up to a 32" 720p TV, then i have no idea why you butted in the conversation.  It looks terrible at 2 ft away.  This is because of pixel density.

This is how it works, text are made of pixels.  the bigger the pixels, the rough edges start to stand out.  This is freaking common sense and common knowledge.  Clear type is used on computer monitors with way more pixel density than TVs (which are 50ppi and below), do either of you know what cleartype is?

Anyway, lets go back to elementary school---------------->


[Image: bitmap-text-2.gif]
[Image: eizo-text-antialiased.jpg]
Notice the picture above, it has little sub pixels lit up.
Letters are made up of pixels, which are like little squares.  Those squares (a single pixel) are typically made of 3 sub pixels, which are smaller blocks of  red, blue, and green.      
[Image: W-enlargement-subpixel-no-antialias.png]

On computer monitors, built into windows is a neat feature called clear type.  It was created because even the nice and jam packed pixel density in computer LCDs wasnt enough and some people still seen funny and unnatural letters.
 
[Image: 2082803540_0a3c59cb72.jpg]

That is how text is produced on your screen.  The larger the display for a given resolution, the larger each pixel becomes. The difference between a 22" 1080 panel and a 40" 1080 panel is quite significant.  The pixels are a whopping 182% bigger.

If you sit further back from the 40" TV it matters less and less.  You dont see the individual pixel detail anymore and your brain easily fills in the tiny gaps.  
I wouldnt imagine anyone sitting 2ft away from a 40" TV being used as a computer monitor.  But there are people who hook their computer to smaller TVs and wonder why it doesnt look as good.  The specific example I sighted (a 32" 720p TV) is a case i seen in real life.  A person hooked his computer up to a 720p TV and put it on his desk, sitting just 2ft away and saying..........why does the text look funny?

But he is not the only person who noticed that text looks worst as pixel density drops.  To many, it is one of the first things they will notice (including me).

You can use clear type to try to clear up text on TVs, but there becomes a point where the letters arent gonna look good...
[Image: text-rendering-methods.gif]

Unless you are sitting back at a distance where it doesnt matter, you loose the finer details and your brain is fooled into seeing perfectly smooth letters.

My eyes only correct to 20/30, so i am really confused to how computer guys like gstan and sickbeast have never seen how text starts loooking funnier and funnier as pixels density gets lower and lower. This isnt a matter of opinion, its an absolute fact. You may be conditioned to ignore the blotchy and rough lettering, but it is there.

The 32" 720 has less density than a 40" 1080 tv, so the 32" would look worse sitting 2ft away.

That doesnt mean that everyone will find a 55ppi density acceptable, from a distance it matters less and less. But at 2ft away it will obviously look far worse than a 40" 4k TV. If you really cant absorb this, i am leaving out of the conversation. What you find acceptable is a different matter. Preference is preference but that doesnt mean that there is no difference in images made from large pixels vs images made from small. What you find good enough, it is subjective. I am not arguing that. I dont care to. But surely, if you know how letters are made on a panel, you can understand how pixel size would have a direct effect on text. If you would argue that still, after this post, you are on your own.
Reply
#23
ocre you will come around, give it time.
Reply
#24
This alien concept, it is common sense to the rest of the world

http://lifehacker.com/5884040/is-it-okay...er-monitor

Quote:Dear Lifehacker,
I've been debating between buying a new computer monitor or an HDTV to use with my PC. Since large monitors (say about 27 inches) are close to the prices of a decent sized HDTV (say 32 inches or smaller) which would you go with?

Signed,
Confused About Monitors

Quote:What's Your Primary Usage?

Quote:If the bulk of your computer usage is browsing articles on the internet, reading email, writing, or anything similar, the biggest problem you'll have with the bigger HDTV screen is the lower resolution. Text will look fuzzy and hard to read—especially up close—when compared to most high-resolution monitors. Remember, when it comes to monitors, resolution matters most. A 32-inch HDTV can sport the same resolution as a 27-inch monitor (assuming they're both 1080p), but blown up an additional five inches. This makes everything a little fuzzy and not conducive for reading.

Quote:If you go below 32-inches on the HDTV, you are stuck with the lower 720p resolution if you want to keep the TV cheap. After testing it out for myself on an admittedly low-quality Vizio 27-inch TV, I would not want to use the TV on a daily basis because text is blurry and difficult to read.

Quote:So, if you primarily use your computer for basic day-to-day computing, you'll be more comfortable and get a better experience out of the 27-inch monitor since it usually has a higher resolution and is easier to set up ergonomically. If you use your computer for entertainment, it's a whole different story.

Entertainment

When the bulk of your computer usage is tied up in gaming or watching movies, a big HDTV-as-monitor is a great experience, but it comes with a few caveats. First off, the same ergonomic problem applies, so you need to have a desk set up in a way that you can sit back a bit from the TV. Second, you're still better off with the higher resolution 1080p TV if you're using it as a part-time computer monitor, so the cost might bump up a bit.

That said, as an all-in-one entertainment solution it can look and work great. It will take some rearranging on your part to make it to comfortable to sit at and use, but if you can work with it, it will do you well.

You might also want to consider using the HDTV as a second monitor in a dual-monitor setup and keeping your current monitor for regular browser use or email writing. This will give you the best of both worlds, even if it does take up a lot of desk real estate.

How in the world? I must be psychic
Reply
#25
(07-05-2015, 11:51 PM)SickBeast Wrote: ocre you will come around, give it time.

Why would he "come around", he's right?

TVs are not good computer monitors, any way you cut it.

Even a 30" 4K TV would be inferior to the panel I just bought for a couple reasons:

No G-Sync ( so you're stuck with tearing, the 60fps/30fps swings, Vsync induced lag)

The 40 inch TV adds much lower pixel density and having to "look around" on the screen to the mix. (it's too big to take in all at once up close)
Reply
#26
It's almost like you guys are arguing for the sake of arguing. Gstanford and I have both been gaming for a very long time. We both prefer gaming on a large tv. I have simply pointed out that gaming on a larger screen is more immersive. My couch is more comfortable than my office chair as well. Smile
Reply
#27
(07-06-2015, 01:23 AM)SickBeast Wrote: It's almost like you guys are arguing for the sake of arguing. Gstanford and I have both been gaming for a very long time. We both prefer gaming on a large tv. I have simply pointed out that gaming on a larger screen is more immersive. My couch is more comfortable than my office chair as well. Smile

Ocre is just pointing out why you and Gstan are wrong, and don't have a leg to stand on this issue.

It's well and good to say "Gaming on big tv is more immersive", big tvs have some advantages.

You can't say there are no advantages to computer monitors though. G-Sync gets great reviews, monitors are way more responsive than TVs, monitors have way higher PPI and sharpness.

Not to mention 120Hz monitors are a real 120Hz, not cheesy digital frame doubling tricks like TVs.

Or that it's usually not convenient to use a keyboard/mouse "on the couch".

A matter of preference, as Ocre notes. Interestingly enough, I've been able to game on bigger TVs than you and GStan for years, yet I don't. (shrugs)

If I was ever going to game on TVs, probably would have been while I had my 50" plasmas. Those things rock for motion and black levels.
Reply
#28
Rollo with all due respect you're an idiot and half the time you only come on here to stir the pot.
Reply
#29
(07-06-2015, 02:42 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Rollo with all due respect you're an idiot and half the time you only come on here to stir the pot.

Yet you can't ever seem to prove me wrong, or even make much of a point, so you always fall back to childish tactics like name calling.

What does that say for you?
Reply
#30
I made my point a long time ago, all you guys want to do is argue.
Reply
#31
(07-05-2015, 06:01 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Wouldn't it be more immersive to sit 2 feet away from a 40 inch screen instead of a 28 inch one though? The 40" 4k hdtvs are cheaper as well.

Is this the "point" you're talking about?

Where you foolishly assert that 110 PPI on a 40" TV is somehow comparable to 157 PPI on a 28" computer monitor? Even though the latter has a massive 43% higher pixel density per inch?

Here's your "immersion" BTW:

http://www.rtings.com/info/television-si...lationship

Recommended viewing distance 3.8", at your 2 feet you're looking at the pixel grid.

Very immersive if you're trying to replicate the housefly vision experience.....

Rolleyes
Reply
#32
Like I said Rollo you are an idiot and you're only here to argue and stir up trouble. Now that gstanford has ignored you, you have turned your attention to me. I am going to say this in the nicest way possible:

Fuck off.
Reply
#33
(07-06-2015, 03:55 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Like I said Rollo you are an idiot and you're only here to argue and stir up trouble. Now that gstanford has ignored you, you have turned your attention to me. I am going to say this in the nicest way possible:

Fuck off.

Eh, I'm not going to stoop to your level.
Reply
#34
(07-05-2015, 11:36 PM)ocre Wrote:
(07-05-2015, 01:49 PM)gstanford Wrote:
Quote:Have you ever hooked up your computer to a TV? A 32" TV at 720p? How about a +40" 1080p tv? The first thing you notice is the text, you cannot help but notice the text looks whacky.

You can't possibly be serious with that statement.

http://i.imgur.com/zUsHLFO.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/JpqzjuW.jpg

Sorry for the overall quality of the pics, they were taken on my phone, so are grainy and soft, but still you get the idea.

The TV in the photos is a generic 40" 1080p unit, Dick Smith (in-house brand of an Australian electronics chain) that I picked up for $299 AU.

https://www.choice.com.au/products/elect...ith-ge6877

http://s7.postimg.org/ty1qv3pxn/receipt.jpg

Use the VGA/PC input of the TV if it has one, HDMI is garbage in comparison and will make text look weird on the desktop.

1080 is a few more pixels than 720.  


I said specifically text because it is one of the places where loosing finer details by going to larger pixels is easily noticeable.   It is not that text is a special thing,  they are just a few pixels wide and most people pick up on the difference right off the bat.  

If you are gonna set and argue that there is no noticeable difference in large pixels with a very skimpy pixel density vs small pixels in a very dense packed environment, then this conversation has just got childish.   I dont wish to argue common sense.  Computer monitors have always had much higher pixel density than TVs  

If you havent ever seen a computer up close hooked up to a 32" 720p TV, then i have no idea why you butted in the conversation.  It looks terrible at 2 ft away.  This is because of pixel density.

This is how it works, text are made of pixels.  the bigger the pixels, the rough edges start to stand out.  This is freaking common sense and common knowledge.  Clear type is used on computer monitors with way more pixel density than TVs (which are 50ppi and below), do either of you know what cleartype is?

Anyway, lets go back to elementary school---------------->


[Image: bitmap-text-2.gif]
[Image: eizo-text-antialiased.jpg]
Notice the picture above, it has little sub pixels lit up.
Letters are made up of pixels, which are like little squares.  Those squares (a single pixel) are typically made of 3 sub pixels, which are smaller blocks of  red, blue, and green.      
[Image: W-enlargement-subpixel-no-antialias.png]

On computer monitors, built into windows is a neat feature called clear type.  It was created because even the nice and jam packed pixel density in computer LCDs wasnt enough and some people still seen funny and unnatural letters.
 
[Image: 2082803540_0a3c59cb72.jpg]

That is how text is produced on your screen.  The larger the display for a given resolution, the larger each pixel becomes. The difference between a 22" 1080 panel and a 40" 1080 panel is quite significant.  The pixels are a whopping 182% bigger.

If you sit further back from the 40" TV it matters less and less.  You dont see the individual pixel detail anymore and your brain easily fills in the tiny gaps.  
I wouldnt imagine anyone sitting 2ft away from a 40" TV being used as a computer monitor.  But there are people who hook their computer to smaller TVs and wonder why it doesnt look as good.  The specific example I sighted (a 32" 720p TV) is a case i seen in real life.  A person hooked his computer up to a 720p TV and put it on his desk, sitting just 2ft away and saying..........why does the text look funny?

But he is not the only person who noticed that text looks worst as pixel density drops.  To many, it is one of the first things they will notice (including me).

You can use clear type to try to clear up text on TVs, but there becomes a point where the letters arent gonna look good...
[Image: text-rendering-methods.gif]

Unless you are sitting back at a distance where it doesnt matter, you loose the finer details and your brain is fooled into seeing perfectly smooth letters.

My eyes only correct to 20/30, so i am really confused to how computer guys like gstan and sickbeast have never seen how text starts loooking funnier and funnier as pixels density gets lower and lower.  This isnt a matter of opinion, its an absolute fact.  You may be conditioned to ignore the blotchy and rough lettering, but it is there.  

The 32" 720 has less density than a 40" 1080 tv, so the 32" would look worse sitting 2ft away.

That doesnt mean that everyone will find a 55ppi density acceptable, from a distance it matters less and less.  But at 2ft away it will obviously look far worse than a 40" 4k TV.   If you really cant absorb this, i am leaving out of the conversation.   What you find acceptable is a different matter.  Preference is preference but that doesnt mean that there is no difference in images made from large pixels vs images made from small.  What you find good enough, it is subjective.  I am not arguing that.  I dont care to.  But surely, if you know how letters are made on a panel, you can understand how pixel size would have a direct effect on text.  If you would argue that still, after this post, you are on your own.

Ocre, I have a 32" TV as well, same brand as the 40". it's a 720p tv. Text is NOT unreadable (or weird) on it from 2 feet away. Can post images if you want to argue. In any case you, not sickbeast or I was the one to bring 720p and screen sizes under 40" here. I've only ever talked about 40" & 55" TV's that do 1080p here (except for when I mentioned the 32" in connection with the PS3 if I'm going somewhere and want to take a screen with me).

My 40" TV is a far better monitor than any dedicated monitor I've ever owned and I include my Samsung 30" 2560x1600 in that (and that thing will send you blind trying to read small text at native resolution - you need a microscope to see anything).

If you get the right TV, it's PC/game mode will be every bit as good as a dedicated monitor at whatever resolution the TV supports nowadays, it is extremely simple.

I'd sit you in front of my rigs and let you see for yourself if we weren't in different countries.





This will bring the discussion to an end.

http://i.imgur.com/288uA9p.jpg

The image in the link is of the bottom right corner of my 40" TV @1080p. Firefox is rendering text at the default size (no text zoom - CTRL + 0).

The camera used is my Fuji F8000fd - 8 mp capable. it was in macro mode and approx half a foot from the screen when the image was taken. The EXIF information for the image is below. Image resolution is 3264 x 2448.

Code:
Filename - DSCF0011.JPG
Make - FUJIFILM
Model - FinePix S8000fd
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Digital Camera FinePix S8000fd Ver1.00
DateTime - 2007:01:01 00:00:50
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
Copyright -
ExifOffset - 294
ExposureTime - 1/50 seconds
FNumber - 2.80
ExposureProgram - Normal program
ISOSpeedRatings - 64
ExifVersion - 0220
DateTimeOriginal - 2007:01:01 00:00:50
DateTimeDigitized - 2007:01:01 00:00:50
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 2.00 (bits/pixel)
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/49 seconds
ApertureValue - F 2.83
BrightnessValue - 4.30
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 2.83
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Flash not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 4.70 mm
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 3264
ExifImageHeight - 2448
InteroperabilityOffset - 978
FocalPlaneXResolution - 5714
FocalPlaneYResolution - 5714
FocalPlaneResolutionUnit - Centimeter
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera
SceneType - A directly photographed image
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
White Balance - Auto
SceneCaptureType - Standard
Sharpness - Normal
SubjectDistanceRange - Unknown

Maker Note (Vendor): -
Version - 30333130
Quality - NORMAL
Sharpness - Normal
White Balance - Auto
Color saturation - Normal
Flash Mode - Off
Flash Strength - 0.00
Macro - On
Focus mode - Auto
Slow Sync. - Off
Picture Mode - Auto
Unknown - 1
Sequence mode - Off
Unknown - 0
Blur warning - No
Focus warning - No (Focus OK)
AE warning - No (AE good)

Thumbnail: -
Compression - 6 (JPG)
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 5108
JpegIFByteCount - 4834
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited

imgur resized the image to 2285 x 1714 for some reason. Would love to find a site that doesn't resize things.

Anyone who wants to see the full size image, PM me with an email address.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#35
(07-06-2015, 08:40 AM)gstanford Wrote: Ocre, I have a 32" TV as well, same brand as the 40".  it's a 720p  tv.  Text is NOT unreadable (or weird) on it from 2 feet away.  Can post images if you want to argue.  


LOL

GStanford, re-defining science and hypocrisy.

"Rubbish! That pixel size and density nonsense that every website on the planet warns you about is NOT an issue! They are all trying to trick you, listen to me instead!720p is just great for computer gaming!"

Of course, in the console gaming threads he rants endlessly about 720p being "totally unusable" and the PS4 being able to run a few more games at 1080p is the sole reason to buy PS4s, and disregard all XBone advantages.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...403AAtF81H

Quote:Example: 40 inch screen would be 55.07267925 PPI.
Example: 40 inch screen would be 36.7151195 PPI.

So in Gstanford's mind, the laughably small difference between 36 and 55 PPI on a few more games is a deal breaker, but getting 157 PPI on a 28" 4K monitor is "meaningless".

Wonder why 1080P is "the thing to have" for consoles, and 4K is not for computers? Just another Gstanford puzzler. People say I like to argue, but Stanford like arguing so much he'll disregard his past arguments to make up new ones.
Reply
#36
(07-06-2015, 08:40 AM)gstanford Wrote: Ocre, I have a 32" TV as well, same brand as the 40".  it's a 720p  tv.  Text is NOT unreadable (or weird) on it from 2 feet away.  Can post images if you want to argue.  In any case you, not sickbeast or I was the one to bring 720p and screen sizes under 40" here.  I've only ever talked about 40" & 55" TV's that do 1080p here (except for when I mentioned the 32" in connection with the PS3 if I'm going somewhere and want to take a screen with me).

My 40" TV is a far better monitor than any dedicated monitor I've ever owned and I include my Samsung 30" 2560x1600 in that (and that thing will send you blind trying to read small text at native resolution - you need a microscope to see anything).

If you get the right TV, it's PC/game mode will be every bit as good as a dedicated monitor at whatever resolution the TV supports nowadays, it is extremely simple.

I'd sit you in front of my rigs and let you see for yourself if we weren't in different countries.





This will bring the discussion to an end.

http://i.imgur.com/288uA9p.jpg

The image in the link is of the bottom right corner of my 40" TV @1080p.  Firefox is rendering text at the default size (no text zoom - CTRL + 0).

The camera used is my Fuji F8000fd - 8 mp capable.  it was in macro mode and approx half a foot from the screen when the image was taken.  The EXIF information for the image is below.  Image resolution is 3264 x 2448.

Code:
Filename - DSCF0011.JPG
Make - FUJIFILM
Model - FinePix S8000fd
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Digital Camera FinePix S8000fd Ver1.00
DateTime - 2007:01:01 00:00:50
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
Copyright -
ExifOffset - 294
ExposureTime - 1/50 seconds
FNumber - 2.80
ExposureProgram - Normal program
ISOSpeedRatings - 64
ExifVersion - 0220
DateTimeOriginal - 2007:01:01 00:00:50
DateTimeDigitized - 2007:01:01 00:00:50
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 2.00 (bits/pixel)
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/49 seconds
ApertureValue - F 2.83
BrightnessValue - 4.30
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 2.83
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Flash not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 4.70 mm
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 3264
ExifImageHeight - 2448
InteroperabilityOffset - 978
FocalPlaneXResolution - 5714
FocalPlaneYResolution - 5714
FocalPlaneResolutionUnit - Centimeter
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera
SceneType - A directly photographed image
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
White Balance - Auto
SceneCaptureType - Standard
Sharpness - Normal
SubjectDistanceRange - Unknown

Maker Note (Vendor): -
Version - 30333130
Quality - NORMAL
Sharpness - Normal
White Balance - Auto
Color saturation - Normal
Flash Mode - Off
Flash Strength - 0.00
Macro - On
Focus mode - Auto
Slow Sync. - Off
Picture Mode - Auto
Unknown - 1
Sequence mode - Off
Unknown - 0
Blur warning - No
Focus warning - No (Focus OK)
AE warning - No (AE good)

Thumbnail: -
Compression - 6 (JPG)
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 5108
JpegIFByteCount - 4834
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited

imgur resized the image to 2285 x 1714 for some reason.  Would love to find a site that doesn't resize things.

Anyone who wants to see the full size image, PM me with an email address.

Yes, I am the one who brought up the 720p example. I brought it up because the concept of larger pixels and lower ppi seemed foreign to you guys. I simply was offering some pretty poor scenarios that you guys should/could have seen first hand in real life. I asked have you ever noticed the text starting to look funny and you were the one that responded "You can't possibly be serious with that statement."

As if we need to go back thru how we got here, those post are on this very page Rolleyes

Anyway, you can be 100% fine with the text on your TV. And i have maintained from the start that this is subjective, what you may find acceptable is all on you.

The text looking funny, I am very sensitive to that. Your picture, do you have cleartype on? Cleartype sub pixel tricks look terrible to me on a low ppi screen. The letters have a funny glowing hue to them.

Your picture, specifically.
The S's, the Y's, the g's, the y's, the o's, the x's, even the i's and L's.

they are fuzzy and whacky, at least to me. I have no idea how you are not seeing it. But I read the text and circled the fuzzy lettering i cant stand. It starts messing with my head so while the smaller letters look worse, i didnt waste a lot of time on them.
[Image: qfx1KJx.jpg]

http://i.imgur.com/qfx1KJx.jpg

Anywho,

I dont care to argue. You should know though, the differences between preference, opinion, and fact.
Fact is, you dont seem to be bothered by the low PPI text one bit. Opinion, it is perfectly fine for everyone. It absolutely is not. My screen is 82ppi, far higher than your TV, and I find it barely acceptable when it comes to text.

I have TVs, the only TV size that i have ever used that had great text- a 20" 1080p TV that is in my daughters room.

I have a samsung smart TV that connects straight to my PC. 46" LED 1080p panel. Looks fantastic for gaming and movies. Samsung, in my opinion, is in the top brackets when it comes to image quality. I say samsung IQ is among the best in each TVs respective class, but since this is a very subjective subject, the best is in the eyes of the individual. Doesnt really matter, I love the picture quality and it games like no other TV i have ever owned. Has all sorts of modes and settings, internet browsers, apps, even gaming mode to improve motion blur and input lag. But one thing it cannot do, it cant escape the ppi. You say its HDMI, heck.........this TV has its own internet browser.

So, when sickbeast says "you will come around"...........what you need to understand is that i have plenty of experience with this, first hand. I posted links and quotes from websites because i wanted to bring in independent sources, whos egos are not in the conversation. I have done all i can and kept the debate professional and proper. Unlike some, who seem to have went off the deep end.
If we cant have our differences and discuss them, there really isnt much point in tech forums. I dont mind others having their own opinion, I just wanted to share with you another view. I personally cant stand low ppi text.
Reply
#37
The text is perfectly formed low PPI or not. That is all that matters. I do a lot of reading on this 40" TV. You couldn't pay me to put the old 30" 2560x1600 monitor back in its place.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#38
(07-08-2015, 05:50 AM)gstanford Wrote: The text is perfectly formed low PPI or not.  That is all that matters.  I do a lot of reading on this 40" TV.  You couldn't pay me to put the old 30" 2560x1600 monitor back in its place.

LOL!

Have been using 1600P monitors for many years, they are the gold standard for clear, legible text and image quality. (at least until 4K was released)
Reply
#39
(07-08-2015, 05:50 AM)gstanford Wrote: The text is perfectly formed low PPI or not.  That is all that matters.  I do a lot of reading on this 40" TV.  You couldn't pay me to put the old 30" 2560x1600 monitor back in its place.

Because the text is too small?

You do know that windows will scale up pretty much anything if you are having issues with things being too small. You can scale up the text, icons, desktop, etc.

Also, your browser scales too. Hols the control key on your keyboard and tap "+" key to enlarge. Hold control key and "-" to shrink.
Reply
#40
Yes because things render too small. and no, you can't make everything render larger properly. Some things either do not scale at all or break when something forces them to scale. Trust me I have tried. This is more a windows UI failing than anything else, but it is a nasty failing.

Perhaps if you could get a 2560x1600 40" monitor. But nobody ever made one. 30" isn't large enough.

Great for gaming and detail in rendered images, not great for general desktop use.

As for 4K eventually I will probably get a 40" 4K replacement when they become economical enough to do so - that is still quite a way off though, and DSR gives you most of the improved detail of 4K when gaming at 1080p.

1080p is an excellent compromise resolution, a competent jack of all trades and it is extremely affordable, mature and high quality to boot
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)