4K Resolution Here Like Mainstream

London-boy said:
Easy. Normal viewing will show you quite quickly that black levels and therefore contrast leave much to be desired. I'll keep my Panny plasma for now.
Click to expand...

Recent VA panels may be worth having a look at?
Yes, leaping from plasma to OLED would make most sense (or even CRT to OLED if a really slow mover), albeit OLED may take many years to ramp up on the market.


So speaking of Philips, it happens that I've had a quick look at VA panels and they do make both a 40" 4K and a 32" 1440p ,quite a big unusual desktop monitor already and perfectly "low dpi".
I'll allow myself to give these french links, the site is very good for filtering by panel type (TN, PLS, IPS, VA)

The Philips BDM4065
http://www.ldlc.com/fiche/PB00181451.html
The Philips BDM3270QP
http://www.ldlc.com/fiche/PB00187797.html
(are the supported refresh rates for real?)
 
Screw 4K. What I need is this:


TrKZmL7.jpg


That's a monitor for the next 10 years, easy.

Davros said:
What happens wrt import tax if you buy a monitor from korea ?
Click to expand...

Assuming you're in an european country, you pay the tax in full by your country's customs.

If the monitor is e.g. 1 million won (~533£/730€) plus 80k won for shipping (43£/60€), then if your country's VAT is 20% you'll have to pay them the VAT*(item price + shipping). That would be 810€*0.2 = 162€, plus some additional handling charges.
 
If you import to the US from Korea, there is no import tax. But most other countries I believe have an import tax and/or enforce existing tax (VAT) when importing from Korea.

Some countries may also require the purchaser to fill out a customs release form. This doesn't apply to the US.

So for me, the 49" 4K monitor came to under 1000 USD. I got in on it early, so price on it is likely to drop another 100-200 USD in about 2-4 weeks.

Regards,
SB
 
Last edited:
Davros said:
Ive been a big fan of ultrawide, ive asked before but dont think ive ever gotten an answer
To those who bought a 4k monitor did you consider qhd ultrawide and why did you go with 4k
Click to expand...

For me it's down to a simple fact. For the same diagonal corner to corner measurement, an ultrawide will have less screen real estate than a 16:9 or 16:10 screen. I'd prefer a 16:10 4K screen, but those don't exist unfortunately, or if they do not at reasonable prices.

Add to that, they are generally more expensive than a 16:9 screen of similar quality and diagonal measurement. So you pay more for less screen real estate. To me that's a deal breaker. Especially as my gaming rig doubles as my work rig.

But for some, they prefer that format and are willing to pay the price premium to have it and don't mind having less screen space to work with. And it has advantage over going multi-monitor in that there aren't any bezels. Although multi-monitor has advantages in size and flexibility.

Regards,
SB
 
Well if you get a 34" ultra-wide screen, it'll have the same panel height as a 27" 16:9 panel.

The Acer XR is so big that panel height doesn't hinder productivity in the slightest. It's like three 24" 4:3 panels in Eyefinity, without the bezels.
Plus it has an IPS panel with 75Hz refresh rate (overclockable to ~85Hz according to Linus Tech Tips), plus FreeSync down to 30Hz, plus it's curved.
The thing is pretty much everything a non-professional gamer could ever want.
 
And it's still less screen space than a 34" 16:10 or 16:9 would have. It has less vertical pixels and less height than my 30" monitor but similar to a 1440p 16:9 27" at least (as you mentioned). There's a reason I don't own any 27" 1440p 16:9 monitors. :p Yeah it's nice for the rare 21:9-ish movie. Or for ultra wide gaming. But would be a serious downgrade in productivity for me.

For less money I have 3840x2160 compared to 3440x1440. I have the equivalent of 4x 16:9 24" monitors both in pixels and in actual inches (actually slightly more).

I can play a game in a 3440x1440 window (and actually slightly larger physical window to the physical dimensions of the XR341CK) and still have room for other windows. Hell I could play in a ultrawide 3780x1620 (21:9) window if I wanted. :p Yeah I don't get 75 hz (or 85 overclocked), but 60 hz is close enough for me. If I were to go more, I'd want to hit 120 where it'd be really noticeable.

But that fits my needs, and doesn't necessarily fit everyone's needs. As I said, some people will prefer and like an ultra-wide. I'm not one of them as it's bad value (for me) compared to 4K alternatives. Hell, I wish there was a somewhat affordable 4K 16:10 monitor. 3840x2400 would be absolutely fantastic. But while not ideal, this is still an overall improvement over my 30" landscape + 24" (16:10) portrait which at 1200 pixels was too narrow. Now I have the 49" 4K + 30" (1600p 16:10) in portrait. Much better all around. I'll work with it a bit. I'm hoping to be able to do without the 30" monitor, but it does come in handy for throwing miscellaneous things on it. I find it amusing that I could play a 4:3 1600x1200 game in a window on it. I remember when a 1600x1200 monitor was an extravagant expense. :)

One thing I would like that the Acer ultra wide has, however, is a curved screen.

Regards,
SB
 
Last edited:
I'm waiting on the g-sync version of that screen for a couple of reasons.

I've never had a screen above 60hz so looking forward to the 100hz experience. 21:9 works for me for productivity and it's unique. The resolution isn't that much more taxing than my current screen at 2560x1600 thus my 980ti doesn't need to be SLI'd for optimal performance.

Back in the day I was an early adopter to widescreen gaming with a dell 2405 and then my current monitor, 3008wfp. Looking back, both turned out to be great choices. I don't think I'll be disappointed. I would wait for the Asus version but they seem to have dropped the ball a bit.
 
buddha could you run a game at 4k, take a screenshot, set that as your wallpaper,
then run the same game at 3440x1440 window take a screenshot (one that shows the whole screen not just the game window)
and post that here ?
 
That does look like the perfect monitor for me, well appart from the price :)

As long as the vertical res os more than 1200 i'm happy.
 
If 60hz is fine then going with 32-34inch 4k would be ideal and you can run it at 21:9. It's only when you're trying to go past 60hz but still want more pixels and different experience where the Acer with gsync comes into play for me.
 
Davros said:
buddha could you run a game at 4k, take a screenshot, set that as your wallpaper,
then run the same game at 3440x1440 window take a screenshot (one that shows the whole screen not just the game window)
and post that here ?
Click to expand...

When I get a chance to, I will. I have to say, I find it quite amazingly satisfying that I'm currently running Final Fantasy 14 in a 2560x1600 window while typing this in a browser window that has a width of ~1200 pixels (same as how I used a browser on my 24" 16:10 in portrait before) on the same monitor.

I'm going to use it like this some more, but for the first time in ~15 years, I might be going single monitor. This setup currently has approximately the same desktop space as my 24" (16:10) portrait + 30" (16:10) landscape + 24" (16: 9) touchscreen landscape (was inclined below the 30" making a natural feeling touch interface) setup.

The lower pixel density is also far easier on my aging eyes. I don't have to either choose between squinting at the screen or putting in an increased scaling factor (thus lowering my effective screen real estate).

Although part of me wishes I had waited a week. The perfect pixel version of the monitor I bought has already dropped over 100 USD since I bought it. It's now going for 849 USD (free shipping).

There are some caveats though that I've had to find workarounds for. But all said and done, I'm extremely happy with the purchase. It's even more satisfying than when I got my first 30" 16:10 monitor about a decade ago.

Now I'm waiting for the Wasabi Mango UHD650 (65" 4k AH-IPS, passive 3D, adaptive sync) monitor to hit ebay. Hopefully the price will be decent. If so I may take a chance on that as well to replace my 55" TV.

What's a shame is the LG panel used in my 49" monitor supports passive 3D, but the control board used doesn't. :(

Regards,
SB
 
Last edited:
Its the same in steam hardware survey, most common 1920x1080 = 34.04%, 3840 x 2160 = 0.07%
I am near the top of the one percenters :runaway:
Seriously a monitor is the single most important thing for most ppl, more important than GPU or CPU yet they spend an extra $150 on a 200mhz faster CPU (which can only really be noticed in benchmarks) vs spending that on a better monitor (which is easily noticable)
 
zed said:
Its the same in steam hardware survey, most common 1920x1080 = 34.04%, 3840 x 2160 = 0.07%
I am near the top of the one percenters :runaway:
Seriously a monitor is the single most important thing for most ppl, more important than GPU or CPU yet they spend an extra $150 on a 200mhz faster CPU (which can only really be noticed in benchmarks) vs spending that on a better monitor (which is easily noticable)
Click to expand...

Not to mention that monitors tend to last much longer! :)
 
Meanwhile sony announce the first 4k phone (yes complete overkill yada yada) but its sad when a device with a tiny screen has 4x the resolution of what most ppl have on their PC's
 
A 5" 4k screen would be just lovely for Oculus or Moroheus. Or any VR set, really. Even if the content isn't displayed at that res, it would go a long way in reducing screen door effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
4K displays announced at CES 2011
5 6 7
Replies
128
Views
34K
Silent_Buddha
S
Back
Top