| Page 1 of 2 |
NFOAC
Posts: 6015
Location: India
|
 Posted: Sun, 28th Feb 2016 17:43 Post subject: 4K or 1080p |
|
 |
Looking to get LG 43UF770T though its 43 many are saying its not real advantageous to get 4K at that size , for watching bluray and gaming with console as well as PC (GTX 970)
I looked around Full featured HD with Web OS 2.0 and UF770T is not that much
http://www.vijaysales.com/AddToCompare.aspx?ids=2528,3492,2599
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 28th Feb 2016 18:21 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 28th Feb 2016 18:29 Post subject: |
|
|
I would stay away from any newer panel honestly. Sony made some outstanding panels back in '13/'14 that quality/color wise were better then the stuff they have new due to 4k. I have one of their 55'' from back in 2013 that has 12-bit color support. Can only accept 60hz, but for watching movies and stuff via my computer it looks -realy- good because w/ true 10-bit+ color space you loose all banding. While most content is still 8-bit the panel recognizes the banding and creates a smooth transition. I have the 8-bit 144hz Dell gsync panel and while I prefer it for gaming the color banding is super noticeable after using my TV.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 28th Feb 2016 20:08 Post subject: |
|
|
At that size 4K is great for PC gaming because of pixel density, but the main issue will be performance. Don't expect any titles released in the past couple of years to run at anywhere near 60FPS with a 970. If PC gaming is important than that will probably be the deciding factor against a 4K panel. At least until you upgrade.
For console gaming it's not really relevant because you won't be running any games on it at native 4K resolution in this generation. It might even be worse than 1080p since there will be more scaling/interpolation to do.
For movies it will be fine. You should see the extra detail with proper 4K content (of which there is not a lot - especially on BluRay) and 1080p content should look good as well. But yes, at that size the difference might not be so dramatic.
Generally speaking, if you intend to buy a new TV and don't have a habit of buying them often, might as well get a 4K one looking to the future. Although you might get a higher tier 1080p one for the same price, so that is something to consider.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stige
Posts: 3545
Location: Finland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 28th Feb 2016 21:12 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 28th Feb 2016 21:13 Post subject: |
|
|
beasts like the heavy overclocked Inno3D GTX 980 Ti iChill X3 have no problem with 4k and max details either
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 28th Feb 2016 22:42 Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say "no problem" at max details is overstating things "a bit". Titans or Tis, unless you are willing to lower some settings stable 60FPS is out of reach for almost all relevant (in terms of graphics) recent and even not so recent games.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stige
Posts: 3545
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sun, 28th Feb 2016 22:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| paxsali wrote: | | Stige wrote: | | Not that any current GPU runs 4K properly anyway. |
*cough* Titan X *cough* |
It won't run modern games at 4K at max settings ata 60+ averages, never, nothing can right now and that is a fact.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NFOAC
Posts: 6015
Location: India
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Feb 2016 05:38 Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't go much above 2560*1440 unless you have really high end hardware as others have stated. My single 980 will do most games at 1440 just fine, but it struggles with some newer games. Granted, w/ gsync I can run games at 40FPS and it still feels pretty smooth, but it's still not ideal.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NFOAC
Posts: 6015
Location: India
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Feb 2016 10:27 Post subject: |
|
|
But doesn't upping the resolution would increase the clarity ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Feb 2016 10:32 Post subject: |
|
|
sure it would (and does) and makes aa sometimes redundant, but always depends on the game (for example using 4k without fxaa will result in a sharper image without edge flickering cause fxaa for example often blurs the image a bit too)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Feb 2016 11:56 Post subject: |
|
|
Depending on your viewing distance 4K downsampled to 1080p may look similar to 4K.
| MinderMast wrote: | Any upscaling will result in reduced quality. [...]
It might be something you can easily find acceptable, but it definitely won't look as good as native 1080p. |
I'd say it depends on the viewing distance. If you are already so close to the screen that 1080p looks aliased in best conditions, than scaling may be better for you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Feb 2016 14:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| NFOAC wrote: | | But doesn't upping the resolution would increase the clarity ? |
Increasing the resolution will increase clarity, of course, but you will only have that option with PCs or 4K movies.
With upscaling I am talking about displaying 1080p content on a 4K screen, which is what will be happening at best with console gaming and majority of video content at this time. There is no extra resolution at the source, so there is no extra clarity to gain.
| Nui wrote: | | I'd say it depends on the viewing distance. If you are already so close to the screen that 1080p looks aliased in best conditions, than scaling may be better for you. |
I think this will, again, depend on the display. Some might have upscalers that will attempt to sharpen the image, to sell that extra 4K definition. And even without that it might not work out as AA, but will in fact make things worse.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Feb 2016 14:24 Post subject: |
|
|
I was automatically assuming good scaling, but unfortunately youre right. Or at best, with a PC maybe (?) one can use the GPUs scaler, which may be acceptable, I dont know...
Then there are postprocessor or avrs that scale well, but those obviously add to the cost.
kogel mogel
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Feb 2016 14:27 Post subject: |
|
|
If the jump from 60 to 120 is as visible as 30 to 60, then go for 120Hz. Last time I played >60Hz was with my good old 17" 21Kg CRT with 100Hz 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Feb 2016 14:52 Post subject: |
|
|
| Nui wrote: | I was automatically assuming good scaling, but unfortunately youre right. Or at best, with a PC maybe (?) one can use the GPUs scaler, which may be acceptable, I dont know...
Then there are postprocessor or avrs that scale well, but those obviously add to the cost. |
I think it's considered that it's best to leave the scaling to the display if the choice is between that and the GPU. With higher end AVRs you have another choice as you say. 4K TVs generally have more effort put into proper upscaling as well, since majority of content is still not there, but how good the result will be for gaming is another question. Video content usually scales up much better. | PumpAction wrote: | | If the jump from 60 to 120 is as visible as 30 to 60, then go for 120Hz. Last time I played >60Hz was with my good old 17" 21Kg CRT with 100Hz |
Oh come on men, he is talking about buying a TV. There are no 1440PP-s, "syncs" or many hertzies with those 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Feb 2016 14:58 Post subject: |
|
|
There is another thing to consider. Input lag. With 4k the input lag of TVs rose, sometimes dramatically.
kogel mogel
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NFOAC
Posts: 6015
Location: India
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Mar 2016 04:42 Post subject: |
|
|
I looked around and most said there is a input lag while gaming as well , so looking at LG 49LF6300 instead
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NFOAC
Posts: 6015
Location: India
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Mar 2016 15:24 Post subject: |
|
|
I did more research on it and found that LG tv have most terrible lags and Sony being best , but sony seems to be asking to much of premium.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Mar 2016 15:26 Post subject: |
|
|
Why not look at Samsung?
They make some pretty nice TVs in the lower price region. Still very happy with my 2-3 year old Smart TV from them.
Only the forced updates of Smart-Apps annoy the hell out of me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Mar 2016 15:36 Post subject: |
|
|
best 1080p - 2013/2014 Sony models
best 4k, low input lag, 4:4:4 - Samsung, Sony
best 4k, low input lag, local dimming - Vizio
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
