-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Would a 1080p TV be better than 4K for someone who doesn't care about resolution?
- Thread starter NightmareFarm
- Start date
Aaron Olive
Member
Couldn’t have been Oled if the experience was sheer dissatisfaction.
Last edited:
gooner4life_uk
Member
a 1080p monitor would be, but not TV, 1080p TV's typically have high input lag, lots of work went into modern 4k tv's as they targeted the gaming market due to HDMI 2.1 and the consoles being the only thing's that can push 4k 120hz
Edmund
is waiting for Starfield 7
His friend probably bought something bottom of the barrel.
6502
Member
Me too and after reading threads on tv's it is also my next tv. I missed a replacement 50" for £50 ebay last week... gonna get one before Plasma becomes the next crt.
Nocturno999
Member
Absolutely, specially if you play on consoles. I could get this monitor at 150 dollars (1080p 240Hz) to play console fighting games and switch. They would look much worse on 4k (blurry).
Amazon.com: Dell 240Hz Gaming Monitor 24.5 Inch Full HD Monitor with IPS Technology, Antiglare Screen, Dark Metallic Grey - S2522HG : Electronics
Shop Amazon for Dell 240Hz Gaming Monitor 24.5 Inch Full HD Monitor with IPS Technology, Antiglare Screen, Dark Metallic Grey - S2522HG and find millions of items, delivered faster than ever.
www.amazon.com
StereoVsn
Gold Member
You don't have space for even 40" TV? I mean 4K TVs range from fairly small all the way to wall sized.
Whitecrow
Banned
240 Hz for consoles? IPS?
You paid for a refresh rate you wont use, and a panel with great color accuracy, but very poor contrast.
Not to shit on your parade, but I cant say that was a wise decision. For the price it might be, but you are still paying for the ""wrong"" things.
Last edited:
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
Just curious: what was the screen size of that pretty expensive 4K TV? Was it substantially bigger than 40"? Did your friend still watch a lot of DVDs and other SDTV content on his old 1080p TV?
lostinblue
Banned
The paradigm is the same as with Camera Sensors.
Some old camera sensors with, say, 10 megapixels are really good in hindsight because they have really big pixels, which makes them better at catching light. This is also why a lot of good phone camera sensors are stuck with 12 Megapixels for years now, against sensors that easily reach 50 megapixels. They reach that, but each individual pixel is crap, hence a lot of manufacturers downsample the images instead, with the consumer ending up with a fourth of the resolution, which is 12,5 megapixels. IMO pixel quality ------> everything else, but this can certainly be disguised if you have a lot of pixels and good processing.
With 1080p you're basically stuck with FRC to coach your monitor into making more colors than it does. FRC is flashing two colors, so you get the color in the middle. This way you can coax a screen to display more colors than it would otherwise. So you have 6 bit IPS panels now (functionally worse than the 8 bit IPS panels we had 10 years ago) doing 8 bits artificially, and you have 8 bit panels being coaxed into simulating they're doing 10 bit (this is really common, or at least aknowledged on PC monitors, but also quite obviously used on TV's - this is easy to spot on sub 120 Hz monitors if you give it a midtone color and see "grain" on it) - suffices to be said, 4K panels are in on the fun as well.
With 4K, because you have so many pixels (more than you need for most TV uses, tbh) at the distance you're using you have some other options, namely look up tables. Think about it as an pointilism painting, you do a table in advance for the colors outside of the scope of your panel, and then basically reach that color using 4 pixels instead of one. "but I have a 4K screen using 4K content, how does that work?" well, since at the distance you're seeing it chances are you're rebating at least part of the detail anyway... Consider this, most content you play on your TV is not 4:4:4 at all, it's 4:2:0, this means it's color resolution is 1/4 of that of the panel (luma channel is unchanged, so texture is there, it's the colors that shift), meaning it's easy to just throw this visual dithering tables onto the final color channel.
Anyway, it's a better result to do this with 4K than 1080p for obvious reasons, so you can coax a 4K monitor with shit pixels to be visually "better" than a version with the same shit pixels who happen to be bigger and 1080p.
Then you have the fact that technology looks forward never backwards, so there's no 1080p sets being manufactured these days that are really good (case in point, there's no 240Hz panels being used for that on TV sets), if you go back to 2013 models you might have a really good set that can rival a lot of TV's in actual perceivable quality. Good panels simply moved on, the same way you can't even find a single 32" FHD TV these days (nor 4K) instead you'll be stuck with shit 2006 panels with 1366x768 (I don't know how they still get those panels tbh), there's simply no interest in doing that anymore despite some consumer demand. 1080p TV's these days are just usually cheap sets for people that value SmartTV features more than image quality, so you get that instead.
Most panels in any era of LCD televisions were shit though, that is true today and it was true 10 years ago, we can even argue they were worse due to having less pixels and less processing going on. Take the top range though, and at some points you'll be impressed. A Sony 55W905A is still really good (last Sony 1080p flagship) but it's inferior to some 4K sets they did afterwards simply because they came afterwards and perfected the tech, there's a lot of inferior 4K sets that I wouldn't trade one for though.
Some old camera sensors with, say, 10 megapixels are really good in hindsight because they have really big pixels, which makes them better at catching light. This is also why a lot of good phone camera sensors are stuck with 12 Megapixels for years now, against sensors that easily reach 50 megapixels. They reach that, but each individual pixel is crap, hence a lot of manufacturers downsample the images instead, with the consumer ending up with a fourth of the resolution, which is 12,5 megapixels. IMO pixel quality ------> everything else, but this can certainly be disguised if you have a lot of pixels and good processing.
With 1080p you're basically stuck with FRC to coach your monitor into making more colors than it does. FRC is flashing two colors, so you get the color in the middle. This way you can coax a screen to display more colors than it would otherwise. So you have 6 bit IPS panels now (functionally worse than the 8 bit IPS panels we had 10 years ago) doing 8 bits artificially, and you have 8 bit panels being coaxed into simulating they're doing 10 bit (this is really common, or at least aknowledged on PC monitors, but also quite obviously used on TV's - this is easy to spot on sub 120 Hz monitors if you give it a midtone color and see "grain" on it) - suffices to be said, 4K panels are in on the fun as well.
With 4K, because you have so many pixels (more than you need for most TV uses, tbh) at the distance you're using you have some other options, namely look up tables. Think about it as an pointilism painting, you do a table in advance for the colors outside of the scope of your panel, and then basically reach that color using 4 pixels instead of one. "but I have a 4K screen using 4K content, how does that work?" well, since at the distance you're seeing it chances are you're rebating at least part of the detail anyway... Consider this, most content you play on your TV is not 4:4:4 at all, it's 4:2:0, this means it's color resolution is 1/4 of that of the panel (luma channel is unchanged, so texture is there, it's the colors that shift), meaning it's easy to just throw this visual dithering tables onto the final color channel.
Anyway, it's a better result to do this with 4K than 1080p for obvious reasons, so you can coax a 4K monitor with shit pixels to be visually "better" than a version with the same shit pixels who happen to be bigger and 1080p.
Then you have the fact that technology looks forward never backwards, so there's no 1080p sets being manufactured these days that are really good (case in point, there's no 240Hz panels being used for that on TV sets), if you go back to 2013 models you might have a really good set that can rival a lot of TV's in actual perceivable quality. Good panels simply moved on, the same way you can't even find a single 32" FHD TV these days (nor 4K) instead you'll be stuck with shit 2006 panels with 1366x768 (I don't know how they still get those panels tbh), there's simply no interest in doing that anymore despite some consumer demand. 1080p TV's these days are just usually cheap sets for people that value SmartTV features more than image quality, so you get that instead.
Most panels in any era of LCD televisions were shit though, that is true today and it was true 10 years ago, we can even argue they were worse due to having less pixels and less processing going on. Take the top range though, and at some points you'll be impressed. A Sony 55W905A is still really good (last Sony 1080p flagship) but it's inferior to some 4K sets they did afterwards simply because they came afterwards and perfected the tech, there's a lot of inferior 4K sets that I wouldn't trade one for though.
Last edited:
Nocturno999
Member
I'm going to use it for PC games occasionally. Still, high refresh rates can help for performance mode.
SFVI will work best @1080p 120HZ
Input lag test.
Last edited:
Whitecrow
Banned
I understand. Never considered it that way, since I dont play fighting games. Hope it's working great for you : )
Rickyiez
Member
Which are trash tier TV
ReBurn
Gold Member
People get what they can afford.
cinnamonandgravy
Member
it's all related.
size is what really matters.
for a large size to look good, you need acceptable pixel density.
for achieve acceptable pixel density on a large screen, you need higher resolutions.
if everyone only cared about pixel density, we'd all be using our phones as screens.
but small screens suck ass.
cinnamonandgravy
Member
last gen pioneer kuro elites (must be elite to be properly calibrated) and last gen panasonics will be the closest.
theyre plasmas, so they handle motion well, have deep blacks, and low response times.
but... theyre heavy, consume a lot of power, generate a ton of heat, and theyre old now so there may be reliability issues. only 1080p too, but downsampling helps a ton. only 60hz. also uses an older hdmi version, so no VRR and other modern niceness.
Last edited: