Register - Login
Views: 85599485
Main - Memberlist - Active users - Calendar - Wiki - IRC Chat - Online users
Ranks - Rules/FAQ - JCS - Stats - Latest Posts - Color Chart - Smilies
09-20-17 07:41:14 PM

Jul - Computers - Is it too early to jump on the 2160p bandwagon? New poll - New thread - New reply
Pages: 1 2Next newer thread | Next older thread
stag019

Red Koopa
Level: 24


Posts: 75/129
EXP: 68739
For next: 9386

Since: 09-11-11


Since last post: 356 days
Last activity: 13 days

Posted on 05-23-13 03:14:17 AM Link | Quote
Recently, Seiki has released a 2160p TV that's in the relatively affordable range ($1500 or less compared to $5000-$25000 for name-brand). It also holds the honor of being the first 4K TV reviewed on cnet.

As far as specs go, it's a very basic, not very feature-rich 50 inch 120Hz TV, with a VGA port and component video with supports 1080p, two USB ports, and 3 HDMI ports which support 3840 x 2160 at 30Hz.

What I'm wondering is if this would be a good investment, or if I should wait this one out. With the Playstation 4 reported as being capable of playing video at 4K, and the Xbox One even supporting rendering games at 4K, eventually the content will be there (which there isn't much 4K content now, but I'm not worried about that at the moment).

I'd primarily use it as a 1080p TV (I don't own any HDTVs at all right now; the closest thing I have is a 25 inch 1080p computer monitor). However, as more 4K content becomes available, I'd use it for that too. I'd also like to use it as a 3840 x 2160 computer monitor, although I would need a new graphics card and power supply.

A lot of the reviews say that as a 1080p TV, it isn't that great (not quite as smooth and clear as 1080p TVs for the same price, as well as having light black levels). But it would definitely be an improvement over nothing. Another is that refresh rates over 30Hz seem just over the horizon, so that would make that obsolete rather soon. The last thing is that it only supports HDMI, not DisplayPort, which seems to be the main new connector for computers ("Although DisplayPort has much of the same functionality as HDMI, it is expected to complement the interface, not replace it"). Although, the graphics card I was looking at did have both DisplayPort, and HDMI outputs.

So what do you guys think? Would I be dishing out too much money for a lower quality 1080p that will eventually be able to play 2160p content, which will be superseded with better refresh rates in the near future, or would I be making a good investment on a not-top-of-the-line, but still acceptable 1080p TV (for my first HDTV) that I would be able to use as a super computer monitor, and eventually, play 2160p content before others get the chance to get on the bandwagon? Oh, and what do you think in general of 2160p?
BMF54123

Rhea Snaketail
Slightly frazzled...
Level: 132


Posts: 5359/5795
EXP: 26951746
For next: 180187

Since: 07-03-07
From: Neither here nor there.

Since last post: 46 days
Last activity: 1 day

Posted on 05-23-13 04:04:24 AM Link | Quote
Being such a new technology, I would wait for TV manufacturers to iron out the kinks, and then buy one from a reputable brand when the price becomes more reasonable. There's very little reason to bother with anything more than 1080p right now.
Zero One
5080
And as we fall the spirit carries on,
That a hero'll come and save us all,
As we call the ones we left below,
We all dream of the day we rise above
Level: 119


Posts: 4456/5088
EXP: 18775110
For next: 154181

Since: 05-24-10
From: Delta Quadrant

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 2 days

Posted on 05-23-13 11:35:21 AM Link | Quote
I can't imagine why you'd honestly need higher than 1080p, but I imagine the same argument was made prior to the development of 1080p. As for being ahead of the curve, tech-wise, it's not really worth it. It'll probably take some time before 2160p becomes common (I'd never even heard of it before this thread), and probably far too expensive for what you'll actually use it for primarily.

I'd just stick with a decent 1080p TV for a while.
Gabu

Star Mario
Placeholder Ikachan until :effort: is found
Level: 159


Posts: 9012/9675
EXP: 51807258
For next: 3499

Since: 08-10-09
From: Santa Cruisin' USA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day

Posted on 05-25-13 12:21:03 PM Link | Quote
I have never heard of 2160p before, which should already say how I feel about whether or not you should purchase one. I'm not against anyone buying brand new technology by any means, but that's the thing; it's new technology. There's going to be a lot of defects and screw-ups in these products that, while they will improve over time, it's a lot of money to risk right now.
divingkataetheweirdo

Lantern Ghost
TCRF Super Editor
Level: 51


Posts: 358/759
EXP: 995336
For next: 18602

Since: 07-09-11


Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 hour

Posted on 05-25-13 04:08:57 PM Link | Quote
More or less what Gabu said. I'm not even sure if there's anything that supports 2160p resolution out on the market now. You can get one now, but there's probably not going to be a huge market until at least 5 years down the road.
Cuber456

Melon Bug
Don't mind me. Just passing through.
Level: 50


Posts: 225/745
EXP: 918574
For next: 28743

Since: 02-19-12
From: Everywhere at once.

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 3 hours

Posted on 05-25-13 07:30:37 PM Link | Quote
Others have already mentioned this but is there anything on the market that takes advantage of 2160p? I would at least wait for that to happen before you consider to buy.

The rest of this is my opinion which you can brush aside if you want. I wonder how high TV resolutions will get. I mean the jump from 480p to 1080p has telling differences but every time we jump to a higher resolution aren't there diminishing returns on the clarity we can achieve?
Rena

Star Mario
Fennel
Level: 127


Posts: 5017/5239
EXP: 23107661
For next: 618905

Since: 07-22-07
From: RSP Segment 6

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 19 days

Posted on 05-28-13 06:41:15 AM (last edited by Rena at 05-28-13 06:42:26 AM) Link | Quote
I'd wait until you have something that can actually use it. By then there will be better deals too.

Using it as a monitor sounds nice, but may not be...
(TL;DR: TVs love to misreport their capabilities and do all manner of stupid shit to their signals that makes it damn near impossible to get full resolution and/or decent picture quality out of them from a PC)
stag019

Red Koopa
Level: 24


Posts: 76/129
EXP: 68739
For next: 9386

Since: 09-11-11


Since last post: 356 days
Last activity: 13 days

Posted on 05-31-13 03:49:16 PM Link | Quote
@BMF54123: I was talking to someone at work about it, and he was suggesting I, at the very least, wait for one that supports HDMI 2.0 and/or DisplayPort, which are going to support 2160p at 60Hz instead of 30Hz.

@divingkataetheweirdo & Cuber456: That's the thing. Like I said, I don't care about what's on the market now that is 2160p; I know that's coming soon, especially with the Playstation 4 and Xbox One. I'm willing to use it primarily as a 1080p TV and/or computer monitor until that time comes. Also, Cuber456: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

@Rena: The cnet review tends to recommend using it as a computer monitor, but seeing if has those flaws would require either trying it, or asking someone who has it.
Cuber456

Melon Bug
Don't mind me. Just passing through.
Level: 50


Posts: 227/745
EXP: 918574
For next: 28743

Since: 02-19-12
From: Everywhere at once.

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 3 hours

Posted on 05-31-13 05:43:20 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by stag019
@BMF54123: I was talking to someone at work about it, and he was suggesting I, at the very least, wait for one that supports HDMI 2.0 and/or DisplayPort, which are going to support 2160p at 60Hz instead of 30Hz.

@divingkataetheweirdo & Cuber456: That's the thing. Like I said, I don't care about what's on the market now that is 2160p; I know that's coming soon, especially with the Playstation 4 and Xbox One. I'm willing to use it primarily as a 1080p TV and/or computer monitor until that time comes. Also, Cuber456: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

@Rena: The cnet review tends to recommend using it as a computer monitor, but seeing if has those flaws would require either trying it, or asking someone who has it.
That chart is actually interesting and kind of confirms the diminishing returns I was talking about. The area of each triangle between the lines gets smaller and smaller. Consider that, according to this chart, the benefits of having a 50 inch 2160p TV only become noticeable between 2.5 and 7 feet away from the TV. You could arguably say that the next resolution up from 2160p, which is 4320p, for a 50 inch TV will never be able to take off on the market (or it will at least be harder to) because the only noticeable benefits for such a TV would only be apparent when you are 2.5 feet or closer to the TV which is pretty damn close. Pretty cool stuff .

Actually, since you bring up the PS4 and Xbox One, I did a tad bit of research on what possible resolutions the consoles could output at. From what I could find, it appears that both consoles will at least have some support for 2160p. Long story short, the PS4 will only support 2160p for your own content(images and such) but not for the games. The Xbox One on the other hand will seem to have full 2160p support.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

I know it won't be the same as messing with one yourself but I went Best Buy the other day and they had a 2160p TV on display. It would at least give you a chance to view a 2160p TV as it might be hard to find people who have such a TV yet. That's my 2 cents .
stag019

Red Koopa
Level: 24


Posts: 77/129
EXP: 68739
For next: 9386

Since: 09-11-11


Since last post: 356 days
Last activity: 13 days

Posted on 06-01-13 12:26:32 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Cuber456
That chart is actually interesting and kind of confirms the diminishing returns I was talking about. The area of each triangle between the lines gets smaller and smaller. Consider that, according to this chart, the benefits of having a 50 inch 2160p TV only become noticeable between 2.5 and 7 feet away from the TV. You could arguably say that the next resolution up from 2160p, which is 4320p, for a 50 inch TV will never be able to take off on the market (or it will at least be harder to) because the only noticeable benefits for such a TV would only be apparent when you are 2.5 feet or closer to the TV which is pretty damn close. Pretty cool stuff .
Yes, I agree, it is a very useful chart. As for using it as a computer monitor, that wouldn't be any problem (plus I feel like this chart deals more with images of stuff, and that there's a greater benefit for text and other computer whatnot). I also don't think sitting only 7 feet away is all that much of a stretch either.
Originally posted by Cuber456
Actually, since you bring up the PS4 and Xbox One, I did a tad bit of research on what possible resolutions the consoles could output at. From what I could find, it appears that both consoles will at least have some support for 2160p. Long story short, the PS4 will only support 2160p for your own content(images and such) but not for the games. The Xbox One on the other hand will seem to have full 2160p support.
Yes, I mentioned that in the original post.
Originally posted by Cuber456
I know it won't be the same as messing with one yourself but I went Best Buy the other day and they had a 2160p TV on display. It would at least give you a chance to view a 2160p TV as it might be hard to find people who have such a TV yet. That's my 2 cents .
Interesting, I was at Walmart the other day, but they didn't have any set up. Maybe I'll try my luck at Best Buy.
Rena

Star Mario
Fennel
Level: 127


Posts: 5021/5239
EXP: 23107661
For next: 618905

Since: 07-22-07
From: RSP Segment 6

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 19 days

Posted on 06-01-13 09:09:17 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Cuber456
You could arguably say that the next resolution up from 2160p, which is 4320p, for a 50 inch TV will never be able to take off on the market (or it will at least be harder to) because the only noticeable benefits for such a TV would only be apparent when you are 2.5 feet or closer to the TV which is pretty damn close.

Never underestimate what marketing can do.
Cuber456

Melon Bug
Don't mind me. Just passing through.
Level: 50


Posts: 246/745
EXP: 918574
For next: 28743

Since: 02-19-12
From: Everywhere at once.

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 3 hours

Posted on 07-03-13 11:41:41 PM Link | Quote
I found this article interesting and very much related to this thread.
Lyskar
12210
-The Chaos within trumps the Chaos without-
Level: 182


Posts: 12004/12211
EXP: 82438240
For next: 466395

Since: 07-03-07
From: 52-2-88-7

Since last post: 2.0 years
Last activity: 2.0 years

Posted on 07-09-13 04:09:55 PM Link | Quote
My own two cents is that as time goes on and these resolutions get more ridiculous, you'll need larger and larger TVs to actually notice it. As a result, it becomes pointless--I think 1080P is about the sweet spot, the only real thing that could be done is upped pixel density rather than increased resolution size.
stag019

Red Koopa
Level: 24


Posts: 80/129
EXP: 68739
For next: 9386

Since: 09-11-11


Since last post: 356 days
Last activity: 13 days

Posted on 07-16-13 01:15:28 AM (last edited by stag019 at 07-20-13 02:17:14 PM) Link | Quote
Originally posted by Cuber456
I found this article interesting and very much related to this thread.

According to Wikipedia: On June 13, 2013, ESPN announced that they would end the broadcast of the ESPN 3D channel by the end of the year and that they will "experiment with things like UHDTV".[167]
On July 2, 2013, Jimmy Kimmel Live! recorded in 4K Ultra HD a performance by musical guest Karmin and the video clip will be used as demonstration material at Sony stores.[175]

The content is slowly working its way into existence. I really feel like it's only a matter of time before more and more content arrives...

Originally posted by Metal_Man88
My own two cents is that as time goes on and these resolutions get more ridiculous, you'll need larger and larger TVs to actually notice it. As a result, it becomes pointless--I think 1080P is about the sweet spot, the only real thing that could be done is upped pixel density rather than increased resolution size.

At the distance I sit from my computer monitor, 2160p's benefit becomes fully apparent at a screen size of 39 inches. At the distance I sit from my TV, 2160p starts to become visually noticeable at a screen size of 61 inches. At what point does a computer monitor screen size or a TV screen size become too big for you? Because then I can tell you what resolution would be "ridiculous".
Lyskar
12210
-The Chaos within trumps the Chaos without-
Level: 182


Posts: 12010/12211
EXP: 82438240
For next: 466395

Since: 07-03-07
From: 52-2-88-7

Since last post: 2.0 years
Last activity: 2.0 years

Posted on 07-19-13 11:22:00 PM Link | Quote
You tell me--what's the highest feasibly resolution for a 22" monitor?

Then, given my distance of 3.5 feet, what is the optimum monitor size and resolution?

Granted, I forgot to add--expense is a major issue. At any given upgrade, I only have ~$300 tops to throw at it.
stag019

Red Koopa
Level: 24


Posts: 81/129
EXP: 68739
For next: 9386

Since: 09-11-11


Since last post: 356 days
Last activity: 13 days

Posted on 07-20-13 02:36:50 PM Link | Quote
For a 22 inch monitor at 3.5 feet, you can't see the full detail of 1080p, although it is better than 720p.

The optimal screen size for 1080p sitting at 3.5 feet is 27 inches. The optimal screen size for 2160p sitting at 3.5 feet is 52 inches.

But honestly I just took a measuring tape and measured 42 inches and tried to sit that far away from my monitor. It seemed a little excessively far away. I don't know what your setup is, but if you can move the monitor closer to you, or move the you closer to the monitor, that could improve these results.

For example, even moving just 6 inches closer to that 22 inch monitor, you can see the full detail of 1080p. And at the that same distance, 2160p is in full detail at only a 45 inch monitor. And like I said in my post before, sitting at 2.5 feet from a 2160p monitor is fully clear at only 39 inches.

Which reminds me, Seiki has a new 39 inch 2160p TV. It's on sale at Amazon for $699. It's not really useful as a TV unless only one person is watching though, because at the distance you'd have to sit from it, it would be hard to fit two people. Unless someone sat on your lap. It's still better than 1080p though for distances closer than 5 feet.

Also, according to Seiki's website, a 55 and 65 inch model are coming soon. For the 65 inch model, a siting distance of 4 2/11 feet (which is 50 2/11 inches) is required for full detail. It becomes better than 1080p at a sitting distance of 8 3/11 feet (99 3/11 inches).
Lyskar
12210
-The Chaos within trumps the Chaos without-
Level: 182


Posts: 12012/12211
EXP: 82438240
For next: 466395

Since: 07-03-07
From: 52-2-88-7

Since last post: 2.0 years
Last activity: 2.0 years

Posted on 07-22-13 02:17:01 AM Link | Quote
Well, I placed the monitor far away to try and avoid getting vision problems. However, my current desk caused me to move it a bit too far away, and now I struggle to make out the text at times.

Once I figure out something better to stand it on, I'll be able to move it to optimum distance, since I should have it close enough to see all the detail--which, at 6 inches closer, is still far enough away that it won't give me nearsightedness.
stag019

Red Koopa
Level: 24


Posts: 83/129
EXP: 68739
For next: 9386

Since: 09-11-11


Since last post: 356 days
Last activity: 13 days

Posted on 09-05-13 12:42:47 AM Link | Quote
After much delay, HDMI 2.0 was released today. It will be able to support 3840 x 2160 at 60Hz, 32 audio channels, and more. According to Sony, all of it's 4K TVs will be able to support HDMI 2.0 with a simple firmware upgrade.

I'm curious to see if Seiki's TVs either will be able to support them, or maybe new models will have to come out.
stag019

Red Koopa
Level: 24


Posts: 104/129
EXP: 68739
For next: 9386

Since: 09-11-11


Since last post: 356 days
Last activity: 13 days

Posted on 02-21-14 01:38:07 AM Link | Quote
So a weekend or two ago or whatever, the Seiki 39" TV was on sale at Amazon for $400. That was finally a low enough price to justify buying one, since a comparable non-UHD TV would be around the same price.

So as far as it being a 1080p TV, it works and looks great. Also, surprisingly my graphics card is capable of 3840x2160 output (although just barely it seems). My computer does slow down sometimes when I'm in that mode. I also sometimes get graphical glitches (usually only when I keep switching modes between 1920x1080 and 3840x2160).

UHD is beautiful though. Looking at earthporn pictures from reddit and other assorted images. On some webpages (like Jul because it uses tables), I can see a lot more of the page at any given time (warning: 613KB). Others though, are extremely thin and centered in the middle of the screen, though at least they are still taller than on 1080p.

I figure I'm going to use 3840x2160 whenever I'm programming something and don't need the refresh rate/speed, and switch to 1920x1080 whenever I'm watching HD video or trying to do something quickly.

My future plans involve getting a better graphics card, but that's still a ways away.

Right now I have my old 1080p monitor flat on my desktop with a Raspberry Pi connected to it with OpenElec on it feeding the TwitchPlaysPokemon video stream. My secondary monitor for my computer has the IRC channel open, and this TV has the reddit update stream and the map (which is great at 3840x2160). I'm gonna try to post a picture of my desktop background in it's thread, if I can keep from being distracted from TPP long enough (it took me 3 hours just to type this post).
devin

Wart
i'm mima irl
Level: 102


Posts: 3027/3292
EXP: 11063981
For next: 25986

Since: 04-29-08
From: FL

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 2 days

Posted on 02-21-14 04:56:58 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by stag019
On some webpages (like Jul because it uses tables), I can see a lot more of the page at any given time (warning: 613KB). Others though, are extremely thin and centered in the middle of the screen, though at least they are still taller than on 1080p.

Personally I'd much rather be looking at an extremely thin layout than have to constantly move my eyeballs three feet to the right just to see who posted a thread past all of the pointless empty space, but maybe my ~ideal browsing experience~ is different from yours, I dunno.
Pages: 1 2Next newer thread | Next older thread
Jul - Computers - Is it too early to jump on the 2160p bandwagon? New poll - New thread - New reply




Rusted Logic

Acmlmboard - commit 2f1bc75 [2017-08-27]
©2000-2017 Acmlm, Xkeeper, Inuyasha, et al.

31 database queries, 9 query cache hits.
Query execution time: 0.137738 seconds
Script execution time: 0.022747 seconds
Total render time: 0.160485 seconds