4K-Monitors vs 1920

A place general forum talk, not related to ingame discussions.

Moderator: Misc Mods

Post Reply
User avatar
High Empty
Forum Addict
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 2:34 pm
Alliance: Omega
Race: God's Left Hand
ID: 102803
Location: omg who care, pm me and i'll inform yea

4K-Monitors vs 1920

Post by High Empty » Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:54 pm

So, was wondering
4k, Ultra Hi Def is it worth getting? If so what should i be looking for and what type of prize range.

Second question

Does 4K making your SGW experience better? If so how?
"Adversity has the effect of eliciting talents, which in prosperous circumstances would have lain dormant."
"Shut Up Features" -Replijake
Image

User avatar
Master Rahl
Forum Regular
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:35 am
Alliance: KzD
Race: Aydindril
ID: 13355
Alternate name(s): Master Rahl
Location: Peoples Palace, D'Hara

Re: 4K-Monitors vs 1920

Post by Master Rahl » Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:47 pm

for most people its the refresh rate that can help the most.

that being said most people think 4k gives a entirely better experience. I have not had the chance to use it long. But everything was more crisp.

That being said some people complain about being "too good". Talking to those people they are still using default settings. Using old "standard" settings can cause a cartoonish effect.

You can pick up a cheapie for around 500-700 bucks, the "best" one by Tomshardware is a 32" for $1,700

best of luck for ya. I wont get one till the industry is running 6k standard at least. :smt089
[9:21:11 PM] Les Ennemis: good i like our members happy
What kind of plans would the Master Rahl have? I plan to conquer the world
SpoilerShow
ImageImage
Image

Neimenljivi
Forum Zombie
Posts: 6128
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:23 am
Alliance: Lone wolf
Race: Slovenian
ID: 82089
Quantum Wins/Loses: 9001/0
Location: Slovenia

Re: 4K-Monitors vs 1920

Post by Neimenljivi » Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:40 am

Not yet. Wait a year or 2 that the technology becomes cheaper and that most applications offer it. There's no point in having a 4k UHD monitor if you're watching HD (720p) movies or stuff on youtube. Web browsing might even feel weirder until websites are updated for 4k monitors, especially on responsive and fixed web platforms, they might feel out of proportion, fluid platforms less-so.
As far as the sharpness of the display goes, there are a lot of misconceptions being spread. 4k resolution 50" monitor won't have a sharper display than a 12" full HD (1080p) monitor. The sharpness of a monitor is based on the pixel density - higher the ppi (pixels per inch), sharper the display. Despite the 50" 4k monitor having a slightly smaller ppi than the 12" full HD, you'd enjoy watching movies more on the 4k monitor, web browsing would be a pain on it, though. But you also have to note that if a movie isn't shot or displayed in 4k resolution, having a 4k resolution monitor is a waste.

Buying a monitor with extra high refresh rate will only make a slight difference when watching an action packed movie with lots of quick movement. Even that difference won't be noticeable by majority of people, simply due to physiology of the human eye and how our vision actually works. They'll only say it's better due to placebo effect, but if you have 2 identical monitors and don't tell them which has the higher refresh rate, 90% or more won't notice it. This is a huge marketing trick.

If I were you, I'd wait at least until 4k resolution comes in the mainstream, as far as moving graphics and websites go.
Image
Haz wrote:It took a bit of time, but the investigation has now been completed.
S1eepy will be banned for scripting, for the remainder of this era.
Name: S1eepy [ TheCheekyChickens ]
{Banned}
2012 Awards awarded to me:
SpoilerShow
Image
Image

User avatar
Master Rahl
Forum Regular
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:35 am
Alliance: KzD
Race: Aydindril
ID: 13355
Alternate name(s): Master Rahl
Location: Peoples Palace, D'Hara

Re: 4K-Monitors vs 1920

Post by Master Rahl » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:22 pm

I hate using 60hz. it drives me crazy. and if you game (on a decent rig) 120 vs 60 makes it a lot more smooth.
[9:21:11 PM] Les Ennemis: good i like our members happy
What kind of plans would the Master Rahl have? I plan to conquer the world
SpoilerShow
ImageImage
Image

User avatar
Clockwork
The Ablest Man
Posts: 1724
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:07 pm
Alliance: Omega Empire - 1IC
Race: Omegan Lord
ID: 1940718

Re: 4K-Monitors vs 1920

Post by Clockwork » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:38 pm

Master Rahl wrote:I hate using 60hz. it drives me crazy. and if you game (on a decent rig) 120 vs 60 makes it a lot more smooth.
Rahl speaks the truth, if your gaming, a 120 / 144hz screen (assuming your rig can pump out the frams) 'Feels' much more smooth and responsive than a 60hz.

Now, if your just watching films then yeah Neim is spot on the money.

Comes down to a choice, do you want 4k now, where not a huge amount of stuff supports it, but bits that do look epic, or do you want to wait 6-12 months and get a better screen for less money and more things supporting it.
Moderator for all the things...
Click Me for forum rules.
Click Me for Game admin contact details.

Neimenljivi
Forum Zombie
Posts: 6128
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:23 am
Alliance: Lone wolf
Race: Slovenian
ID: 82089
Quantum Wins/Loses: 9001/0
Location: Slovenia

Re: 4K-Monitors vs 1920

Post by Neimenljivi » Thu Dec 11, 2014 2:14 pm

Regarding refreshing rate - check this out as it will give you the most unbiased view as it has actual tests in controlled conditions in there:
http://www.maximumpc.com/refresh_rate_2013?page=0,1

And yeah, by action packed movie, I was also referring to games.

Anyway, the main thing with refresh rate is that it won't really matter if you're on LCD display and if whatever you're watching has a smaller frame rate than the refresh rate (roughly put). LCD displays emit light, they don't flicker like the old CRT displays did (with CRTs, the higher the refresh rate, the less noticeable the flickering and thus better), so if you're viewing something at 24 FPS and have a 120 Hz refresh rate, it will only mean that one frame will be displayed while the screen refreshes that frame 5 times, instead of, for instance, 4 times in a screen with 100 Hz refresh rate. Is there a difference? No. The frame you're seeing at the time will still last exactly the same amount of time and it won't look any different than if the refresh rate matched the FPS rate.
Obviously, due to different FPS rates in different environments (animations, different videos, different games), it's best to have a refresh rate that is higher than the max FPS rate. The refresh rate should also, ideally, be the result of multiplying the FPS by any whole number.
Even as little as 12 FPS can be enough (depending on the given situation) for the brain to perceive images being shown as a continuous movement, but the brain won't really notice the difference between the (I am exaggerating here, I know these FPSs aren't used but just to give you an idea) 200 and 400 FPSs (with matching refresh rates), while it will pick up difference between 10 and 12 FPS.
The ultra-high FPSs and refresh rates are similar to listening music in uncompressed formats (meaning not mp3 or the like), many purists will claim how it's heaven-like to listen the music in those formats (and how it has to be recorded at 192 kbps, or even 320 kbps) and how listening to music that was recorded at 96 kbps and then compressed by using a mp3 codec sounds like a dying cat.. In reality, 99% of the people don't notice a difference between mp3 compressed, recorded at 96 kbps and uncompressed formats recorded at 320 kbps because our ears don't hear anything above 20 kHz (and most people can't hear anything above 10 kHz, there were only a few of us who could hear something at 13 kHz and none of us who were there heard 15 kHz) and because mp3 works by cutting sounds that either can't be heard due to other sounds being much louder in the mix or due to being out of our ear's hearing range.

The rates 120 Hz and 144 Hz also aren't random, they are at that number because 24 FPS is the most used FPS rate and 24*5 = 120, 24*6 = 144. Even though 60 Hz is 24*2,5 and not by a whole number, it's still deemed as acceptable because it's not multiplied by something like 2,65498231 or something like that AND because 60 Hz is very close to the number of "snaps" our brain receives from our eyes (note, the actual vision is, of course, continuous, our eyes don't actually take snaps like cameras, but in order to process that information and not be too overwhelmed by it, our brain automatically filters some of that continuous information being received and thus actually only processes the information that is significantly different from the previous information processed - kinda like how compression algorithms for movies work).
Note, another very common FPS rate is 23,976 FPS and that differs from 24 FPS so if you're editing a video, you have to select the right one, not just say 23,976 is the same as 24 FPS because it's not. Close, but it's not.

As far as the blurriness goes, in video editing it is actually better to add motion blur as it creates more natural feeling to it, especially for elements in the background.
The main reason why 120 feels smoother, especially in gaming with a lot of action going on, is the one I outlined above regarding the refresh rate being a whole number multiplier of the FPS. But refresh rate at 200 and FPS at 100 won't look any smoother than refresh rate at 140 and FPS at 70, the only reason why one might think it's smoother is the placebo reason..

How I know this? Well, most of it comes from the fact that I've been studying these things at uni and out of it for the past 3 years.

PS: I also suggest you rather buy a monitor with proper color representation and/or pay someone to calibrate the screen, as that will make a much bigger difference than the 120 vs 144 Hz refreshing rate.

~N
Image
Haz wrote:It took a bit of time, but the investigation has now been completed.
S1eepy will be banned for scripting, for the remainder of this era.
Name: S1eepy [ TheCheekyChickens ]
{Banned}
2012 Awards awarded to me:
SpoilerShow
Image
Image

User avatar
Master Rahl
Forum Regular
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:35 am
Alliance: KzD
Race: Aydindril
ID: 13355
Alternate name(s): Master Rahl
Location: Peoples Palace, D'Hara

Re: 4K-Monitors vs 1920

Post by Master Rahl » Thu Dec 11, 2014 4:01 pm

I have also studied it. I have also used 60hz (what I use at work) 75hz 120hz (what I use now at home) and 144hz. When I look at a monitor at 60, I see flicker. (sitting infront of it, not across a room) I see the slight changes every refresh. I hate it. Also there have been studies of workers (sitting in front of a 120 vs 60) fewer eye strain issues were present, head aches were less, and all in all general mood was slightly higher. (this was a blind study). all other settings were the same. Ill be it this is a older study back from a few years ago.

So yes I use a very old monitor that is only 1280x1020 (yes 4to3) and keep using it over a higher pixle density better colors, better brightness/better everything but it can not produce 120hz. got it free because it was defective.
[9:21:11 PM] Les Ennemis: good i like our members happy
What kind of plans would the Master Rahl have? I plan to conquer the world
SpoilerShow
ImageImage
Image

Neimenljivi
Forum Zombie
Posts: 6128
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:23 am
Alliance: Lone wolf
Race: Slovenian
ID: 82089
Quantum Wins/Loses: 9001/0
Location: Slovenia

Re: 4K-Monitors vs 1920

Post by Neimenljivi » Thu Dec 11, 2014 4:10 pm

As I said, refreshing rate is very important when it comes to CRTs, which is what I'm guessing you're using and what was used in those researches, because you cannot possibly see flickering on LCDs, although you did say the monitor you're using is defective, but in a perfectly fine LCD you can't see flickering.
The technology is progressing so fast that even just a couple of years old studies are more or less outdated ;)

~N
Image
Haz wrote:It took a bit of time, but the investigation has now been completed.
S1eepy will be banned for scripting, for the remainder of this era.
Name: S1eepy [ TheCheekyChickens ]
{Banned}
2012 Awards awarded to me:
SpoilerShow
Image
Image

User avatar
Master Rahl
Forum Regular
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:35 am
Alliance: KzD
Race: Aydindril
ID: 13355
Alternate name(s): Master Rahl
Location: Peoples Palace, D'Hara

Re: 4K-Monitors vs 1920

Post by Master Rahl » Thu Dec 11, 2014 6:25 pm

no they used a varity of both CRT (which were old at the time) and LCD, even a few developmental LED-LCD monitors.

Optics don't really change. The flicker I see is not a flicker as per say a strobe light. its a flicker of the actual monitor in the refresh cycle. When scrolling a webpage down its the jumps as the page moves, it bugs me. At twice the speed I cant notice it. But some still can. Some can view refresh rates well above 220hz. Ill be it is a select few some can. I am thankful that I cannot, other wise I would stay away from computers.

I never said the monitor I use is defective, the defective one is my back up, for the monitor I use is old and well beyond its perceived life, can die any day.

Digtal/analog optics are finally moving after almost 90 years of stagnated development. Mean while "flicker" and the whole idea behind FPS is a ides centuries old. It is a large part of what helps make athlets good, they can perceive just a millisecond faster than normal people. Its what every air force pilot in the world is tested on.

What do you use, have you had the opportunity to switch between both use one setting for hours at a time then compare it to the other setting? Maybe you actually cant see it (NOT in insult), but I can.
[9:21:11 PM] Les Ennemis: good i like our members happy
What kind of plans would the Master Rahl have? I plan to conquer the world
SpoilerShow
ImageImage
Image

Neimenljivi
Forum Zombie
Posts: 6128
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:23 am
Alliance: Lone wolf
Race: Slovenian
ID: 82089
Quantum Wins/Loses: 9001/0
Location: Slovenia

Re: 4K-Monitors vs 1920

Post by Neimenljivi » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:37 am

CRT and LCD technologies are very different. LCD, for instance, doesn't shoot electrons towards the screen where they are displayed and the time between when those electrons "die out", if you will, and the time the new ones show up, that's the flicker you see in CRT. There is no such flicker in LCD as it doesn't work like CRT.
So I get what you mean, but you can't see that in LCDs.

When scrolling a webpage down, that's something different, that's not exactly the flickering related to refresh rates of CRTs. A lot of it depends on how fast your browser is working (I am not talking about bandwidth, but about the optimization of the browser and whether it lags due to running a lot of other programs in the background).
I use a 120 Hz 23" full HD monitor at home, while the monitor on my laptop is 17,3" full HD with 60 Hz refresh rate. Whether playing games, whether I'm editing videos, photos, making animations, etc., there is no difference.
I did, just for the heck of it, change the refresh rate of the monitor on my laptop right now to 40 Hz and the scrolling isn't as continuous any more. But we're talking about a below-par refresh rates here.
As I said, some definitely do notice even higher refresh rates than normal, just as some can hear frequencies up to 18, very rare few possibly up to 20 kHz. But most people stop hearing below 10 kHz (there were around 50 of us there in the classroom, all between 18 and 20 so not some oldies who can barely hear anything anymore) and most people don't notice such behavior in higher refresh rates :) That's what I'm saying. A lot of people say they do notice it, but most of them just think they do due to placebo effect, they're the same people who'll claim a 50" 4k monitor is sharper than a 12" full HD monitor. It's not, but they think it is due to having a higher resolution.

The vision of air force pilots has to be impeccable, but it's their reflexes and the ability to make split-second decisions that enable them to do their jobs, it's not that they "see" things sooner, it's just that they can see things further away and can act on them quicker than other people.
Image
Haz wrote:It took a bit of time, but the investigation has now been completed.
S1eepy will be banned for scripting, for the remainder of this era.
Name: S1eepy [ TheCheekyChickens ]
{Banned}
2012 Awards awarded to me:
SpoilerShow
Image
Image

Post Reply

Return to “This, That Those and Them”