4096 x 2160

[Cyan]

To echo MrSpiggot, something is wrong. Native will display alternating black/white columns, clearly visible up close across the screen and resulting in a uniform grey appearance when viewed at a distance. The 3840x2160 image on a native 3840x2160 display should look just like that, whereas any other image scaled to fit would have irregular light/dark stripes.

Here's a closeup of the native pattern on my monitor
View attachment 13405

And here's the pattern scaled
View attachment 13406

If you aren't seeing the first image on your display, there's something up with it.

that looks completely different for me. I'm using Cachy OS with the Intel drivers built into the kernel -there are no graphics options from Intel-, dunno whether the scaling is being done by the TV or by the GPU.

Setting the resolution to 4096x2160 in the system settings, This is how the 3840x2160 native image looks on the display -there are black borders-. The blue lines below are a side effect of the mobile phone when taking the photo.

The native 4096x2160 image looks fine at full screen too.

Setting the display resolution to 3840x2160, both images look the same, taking the entire screen. -don't mind the brown-ish thing at the middle, it's related to how the phone took the image.

 

[MrSpiggott]

that looks completely different for me. I'm using Cachy OS with the Intel drivers built into the kernel -there are no graphics options from Intel-, dunno whether the scaling is being done by the TV or by the GPU.

Setting the resolution to 4096x2160 in the system settings, This is how the 3840x2160 native image looks on the display -there are black borders-. The blue lines below are a side effect of the mobile phone when taking the photo.

The native 4096x2160 image looks fine at full screen too.

Setting the display resolution to 3840x2160, both images look the same, taking the entire screen. -don't mind the brown-ish thing at the middle, it's related to how the phone took the image.

That's interesting. Why do you have black borders? I think the reason you can't see a difference between the two images and resolutions is because you never actually see an unscaled image. Probably something on your PC is modifying the output somehow.
When outputting the 3840 image at 3840 resolution you should get 1920 perfectly discrete black and white vertical lines, but these can't possibly be displayed correctly if you have borders on a TV with 3840 native lines , there aren't enough pixels left to fit them all. You're going to get a mixture of black, white and grey lines.

 

[Cappuccino]

Do you have overscan enabled? That'll discard the outside edges of the image and cause a slightly scale to 3840. It's a legacy feature required for early analogue tv transmittions that's not needed now, but is often turned on by default.

OLEDs also use this for pixel shift and you really should not turn it off.

 

[MrSpiggott]

OLEDs also use this for pixel shift and you really should not turn it off.

I forgot that consumer oleds do that, but for the purposes of diagnosing @Cyan scaling problem, it's better to turn it off.

 

[Cyan]

That's interesting. Why do you have black borders? I think the reason you can't see a difference between the two images and resolutions is because you never actually see an unscaled image. Probably something on your PC is modifying the output somehow.
When outputting the 3840 image at 3840 resolution you should get 1920 perfectly discrete black and white vertical lines, but these can't possibly be displayed correctly if you have borders on a TV with 3840 native lines , there aren't enough pixels left to fit them all. You're going to get a mixture of black, white and grey lines.

guess the GPU is doing the scaling. On Windows I set that option to be managed by the GPU and use integer scaling. Intel's app lets you manage whether the GPU does the scaling, the display or the OS.

The picture was taken on Linux, and now Intel drivers are part of the OS kernel, and there aren't any options nor Intel app available, the GPU just works fine, as expected, and that's a good thing.

Gotta give another try tomorrow on a different desktop and distribution and see what happens.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

If one wants to use higher resolution to get some super sampling benefits etc. at least a proper aspect ratio should be used. 16:9 in this case. Using a wider 4096x2160 resolution on a 3840x2160 display gives you no benefit, only downside.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How odd. Can you take a close up to see the individual lines? I can only assume they are being heavily resampled and scaled, and you are losing pixel definition even on native content.

 

[Cyan]

How odd. Can you take a close up to see the individual lines? I can only assume they are being heavily resampled and scaled, and you are losing pixel definition even on native content.

thanks for the pictures Shifty. Tried it once again, this time on an Ubuntu based OS called Pika OS.

Well, now I noticed a difference. At 3840x2160 the image looks like some kind of uniform grey. It's that the correct look?

At 4096x2160 the image has vertical dark and grey stripes, with a certain width. Still looks good though, not a destroyed pattern, but not uniformally grey.

Took the pictures below.

Oddly enough for the 4096x2160 image you provided, at 3840x2160 resolution from the OS the image was upscaled, this time with horizontal black bars. On Cachy OS it was upscaled vertically, with black bars:

these are the images side by side downscaled on the desktop, the one starting with h is the 4096x2160 one, just as a curiosity:

this is the 4096x2160 image downscaled to 3840x2160. Note the horizontal black bars-instead of vertical black bars on Cachy OS- and it doesn't look bad, just not uniform grey:

This is the 3840x2160 image you provided using a 3840x2160 desktop resolution. It looks like uniform grey, I didn't notice any vertical dark and then grey stripes, the image is like solid grey:

That's the correct look, am I wrong?

Will use 3840x2160 reslution in the OS and tha's it. What I miss the most of using 4096x2160 is the clarity of the fonts.

 

[Davros]

Set the picture as your wallpaper make sure all scaling is turned off printscreen you desktop then you can load it into a graphics program and find out how many pixels it actually is

 

[homerdog]

thanks for the pictures Shifty. Tried it once again, this time on an Ubuntu based OS called Pika OS.

Well, now I noticed a difference. At 3840x2160 the image looks like some kind of uniform grey. It's that the correct look?

At 4096x2160 the image has vertical dark and grey stripes, with a certain width. Still looks good though, not a destroyed pattern, but not uniformally grey.

Took the pictures below.

Oddly enough for the 4096x2160 image you provided, at 3840x2160 resolution from the OS the image was upscaled, this time with horizontal black bars. On Cachy OS it was upscaled vertically, with black bars:

these are the images side by side downscaled on the desktop, the one starting with h is the 4096x2160 one, just as a curiosity:

this is the 4096x2160 image downscaled to 3840x2160. Note the horizontal black bars-instead of vertical black bars on Cachy OS- and it doesn't look bad, just not uniform grey:

This is the 3840x2160 image you provided using a 3840x2160 desktop resolution. It looks like uniform grey, I didn't notice any vertical dark and then grey stripes, the image is like solid grey:

That's the correct look, am I wrong?

Will use 3840x2160 reslution in the OS and tha's it. What I miss the most of using 4096x2160 is the clarity of the fonts.

Is this a TV or a monitor? If TV, it needs to be set to 1:1 pixel mapping. Sometimes this is called "Just Scan". Or it might have a PC mode or something like that.

There should be no grey in the test patterns shify posted. Even on my 1080 seconday monitor it display correctly (alternating black and white vertical lines) when I click the images to display them natively (cropped).

Lol I just dragged it over to my main monitor (1440p) and it looks wrong. I guess it may have a weird subpixel arrangement, or maybe my shit is messed up too

 

[homerdog]

This is strange. When I put that test pattern on my 1440p monitor, everything on the monitor looks fucked up. But only when that test pattern is taking up a large portion of the screen. When I set the refresh rate to 60Hz this doesn't happen. It gets progressively more noticeable at refresh rates above 120, and is very noticeable at the max 180Hz. I don't know what this is. Fortunately whatever it is only seems to be noticeable with pathological cases like this. I don't usually watch alternating single pixel wide white and black lines.

Okay this is actually a thing:

Dynamic Interlace Patterns? For some reason I've never heard of this and no reviews mention it. But I can clearly see it with Shifty's cursed test pattern pulled up.

 

[Cyan]

Set the picture as your wallpaper make sure all scaling is turned off printscreen you desktop then you can load it into a graphics program and find out how many pixels it actually is

that's too much of a task for me. Will give it a try tomorrow, I mean, using the images as a desktop wallpaper.

Is this a TV or a monitor? If TV, it needs to be set to 1:1 pixel mapping. Sometimes this is called "Just Scan". Or it might have a PC mode or something like that.

I wonder what's doing the upscaling, the TV is in PC mode as you mention. I guess it's the GPU. I tested it on Linux, and now Intel drivers are part of the kernel of the OS. That's fine with me, so no Intel app to choose certain features and stuff, but honestly I prefer that things work from the get go without any hassle.

On Windows you can set either the TV, the GPU or the OS to do the upscaling using the Intel app, but as I said, I prefer to keep it as simple as possible.

 

[MrSpiggott]

I've remembered a web site I saw a few years ago that generates full screen test patterns at whatever resolution you've set your output to.
The last picture in the contrast and brightness section is zone plate (high frequency circles), which should nicely test your scaling.

It is an .ru site, but has been around for many years
monitest.ru/en/

 

[Cyan]

I've remembered a web site I saw a few years ago that generates full screen test patterns at whatever resolution you've set your output to.
The last picture in the contrast and brightness section is zone plate (high frequency circles), which should nicely test your scaling.

It is an .ru site, but has been around for many years
monitest.ru/en/

you mean this one?

https://imgur.com/7ICYmqw

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Looks similar, but the website generates it in code as opposed to that image which is jpeg compressed.

 

[Cyan]

Looks similar, but the website generates it in code as opposed to that image which is jpeg compressed.

if that's the image @MrSpiggott was referring to, it looks good to me on both 3840x2160 and 4096x2160.

 

[MrSpiggott]

if that's the image @MrSpiggott was referring to, it looks good to me on both 3840x2160 and 4096x2160.

Sorry about that. I was confidently banging on about an untested theory, which is never a good idea.
It scales in all directions so I was expecting the interference patterns to show marked differences between a scaled and unscaled image even when it's not animated (luminance cycling).
@Shifty Geezer pattern seems far more useful, although some of the other generated high frequency patterns on that web site may be helpful.

 

[homerdog]

Sorry about that. I was confidently banging on about an untested theory, which is never a good idea.
It scales in all directions so I was expecting the interference patterns to show marked differences between a scaled and unscaled image even when it's not animated (luminance cycling).
@Shifty Geezer pattern seems far more useful, although some of the other generated high frequency patterns on that web site may be helpful.

Shifty's test patterns look correct to me. Although on a high PPI screen it looks gray unless you take a picture and zoom.

 

[Cyan]

Set the picture as your wallpaper make sure all scaling is turned off printscreen you desktop then you can load it into a graphics program and find out how many pixels it actually is

Shitfy's 4096x2160 image with the computer set to a 4096x2160 resolution used as the background image on ubuntu.

Since the OS adds lateral and top bars, there are visible vertical stripes all over the place, not so bad but not very uniform.

Same 4096x2160 image as before but having the OS set to 3840x2160 native resolution. In this case maybe because of the fact that the OS has a lateral taskbar but taking into account the resolution is much closer to 3840x2160 now, the vertical stripes basically disappear and the image looks much like uniform grey.

using it as

 

[Cyan]

could it be that the TV is 4096x2160 native?

Tested it again, and I set the OS resolution to 4096x2160 while I set Resident Evil 2 Remake to 3840x2160. And like with the images provided by Shifty, two vertical black bars appear when the source is 4096x2160 but the image provided is 3840x2160.

This is in OpenSUSE -german reliability baby, the best distribution I tried, and a very old one-.

How easy and fast is to take an screenshot on Linux tbh (press Prnt Screen and you are done, no waiting, no several graphics layers, just plain taking the screengrab).

The vertical black bars can be clearly seen in the screengrab.

Spoiler: btw, thanks to Heroic Games Launcher I could add Rocket League to Steam