Author Topic: PC 4K 43" monitors  (Read 8601 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline paulcaTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4364
  • Country: gb
PC 4K 43" monitors
« on: April 19, 2023, 01:09:47 pm »
I am in the market for a new 4K monitor.  My aging Acer Predator X34A has at 5 years old, delamination artifacts and I plugged an HMDI lead into the Display Port and now I have no display port input :(

I already use mini eWaste PCs for media centers on 4K TVs in the livingroom and bedroom.  Honestly, even sitting right up close a 4K desktop looks absolutely fine to me on the modern 4K TV.

I know a TV panel will not impress the avid gamer but I have modest requirements, as long as it does 60Hz at 4K and doesn't suffer from ghosting or smudging of text, it sounds grand to me.

A 43" 'proper' monitor panel will cost you £1000.  Yet a 43" TV panel sold as a monitor costs £450.  I'm thinking a TV sold as a TV might be even cheaper.

It seems the manufacturers are on to this as literally in the past few months more and more "TV panel 43"+" monitors have appears from Phillips and Samsung.  The give away is the almost complete lack of Display port inputs.  Which is a bit of big deal for me as my mini PC only does 4K on DP.

The only issue I have heard of and seen with a TV panel is "burn through", or persistence around areas of high contrast which can linger for a few minutes.  That said however, my £1100 Acer Predator X34 will do this as well if you leave it with black and white boxes long enough.

Any thoughts opinions?  Any deals spotted available to UK?  Best bets?  Is "Good used" on Amazon worth a punt to save £50?
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2023, 01:32:25 pm »
IMO 43" is too big for a PC monitor which for best eye strain should be no further than 4 foot from your keyboard.  32" is about the maximum you want to go.

I have 2 x 28" monitors on a cantilevered arm - Samsung U28E590D.  When I got them they were £199 each, but it looks like the price has risen so you may want to wait for a deal.  More than bright enough, 3 inputs, 60Hz available on two of those including HDMI.  Only complaint is the auto detect input doesn't work that well so switching between work laptop and home desktop PC means fiddling with the control on the back - little joystick thingy.

More than bright enough even at 20% setting and I do occasionally play games on them - to my eyes no appreciably bad motion blur.

Note HDMI and DP are passive adapter capable, so my desktop PC has DP on it but is connected to the monitor using £8 DP to HDMI cables - works absolutely fine.    I believe the DisplayPort will switch into a HDMI backwards compatible mode so this should work with all HDMI monitors.  Be sure any HDMI port you use is 60Hz capable - 30Hz is dreadful for a PC monitor.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2023, 01:34:00 pm by tom66 »
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2023, 01:34:27 pm »
I am in the market for a new 4K monitor.  My aging Acer Predator X34A has at 5 years old, delamination artifacts and I plugged an HMDI lead into the Display Port and now I have no display port input :(

I already use mini eWaste PCs for media centers on 4K TVs in the livingroom and bedroom.  Honestly, even sitting right up close a 4K desktop looks absolutely fine to me on the modern 4K TV.

I know a TV panel will not impress the avid gamer but I have modest requirements, as long as it does 60Hz at 4K and doesn't suffer from ghosting or smudging of text, it sounds grand to me.

A 43" 'proper' monitor panel will cost you £1000.  Yet a 43" TV panel sold as a monitor costs £450.  I'm thinking a TV sold as a TV might be even cheaper.

It seems the manufacturers are on to this as literally in the past few months more and more "TV panel 43"+" monitors have appears from Phillips and Samsung.  The give away is the almost complete lack of Display port inputs.  Which is a bit of big deal for me as my mini PC only does 4K on DP.

The only issue I have heard of and seen with a TV panel is "burn through", or persistence around areas of high contrast which can linger for a few minutes.  That said however, my £1100 Acer Predator X34 will do this as well if you leave it with black and white boxes long enough.

Any thoughts opinions?  Any deals spotted available to UK?  Best bets?  Is "Good used" on Amazon worth a punt to save £50?
A panel delaminating after 5 years is really bad. Having worked with some TV makers in Asia, they all seem to target a level of reliability that would support them offering at least 6 years warranty and >8 year product life.

I use 43" LG TVs as my computer monitors. Gamers don't like them that much, but for the rest of us the panels are superior to the high end monitor ones, offering better image quality in exchange for a little less responsiveness. You have to hunt around the menus in most TVs to find the trick that puts them in 4:4:4 mode, with all the temporal filtering turned off, but I've yet to find a TV where you can't. The right settings are rarely documented properly, and some TVs love to keep changing those settings until you find the right trick to make them permanent. If you want a single monitor a TV is no problem. If you want multiple monitors you have a big restriction with graphics cards. TVs have no display port input, and few GPU cards have multiple HDMI ports. I use a GTX1050Ti with 3 HDMI ports, and three 4k TVs. I am very happy with the results I get. 40" TVs would be better. 43" is just getting a little too big, but 40" panels are rare these days.

 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2023, 01:36:15 pm »
Note HDMI and DP are passive adapter capable, so my desktop PC has DP on it but is connected to the monitor using £8 DP to HDMI cables - works absolutely fine.    I believe the DisplayPort will switch into a HDMI backwards compatible mode so this should work with all HDMI monitors.  Be sure any HDMI port you use is 60Hz capable - 30Hz is dreadful for a PC monitor.
DP has multiple streams, and spreads the bits across them at high resolution. HDMI does not. This was how DP gave us 4k 60fps before HDMI 2.0 increased the stream rates. HDMI<->DP is only a passive cable for lower resolutions. At high resolutions you need to carefully check what is going on, and the age of the equipment matters a lot.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2023, 01:38:48 pm by coppice »
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone

Online wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 17952
  • Country: lv
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2023, 01:43:59 pm »
DP to HDMI passive adaptors are not really passive, they must include level shifter IC. Also they are limited to 4K@30Hz or 1440p@60Hz unless you do chroma subsampling.
 

Offline paulcaTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4364
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2023, 01:52:54 pm »
IMO 43" is too big for a PC monitor which for best eye strain should be no further than 4 foot from your keyboard.  32" is about the maximum you want to go.

Note HDMI and DP are passive adapter capable, so my desktop PC has DP on it but is connected to the monitor using £8 DP to HDMI cables - works absolutely fine.    I believe the DisplayPort will switch into a HDMI backwards compatible mode so this should work with all HDMI monitors.  Be sure any HDMI port you use is 60Hz capable - 30Hz is dreadful for a PC monitor.

My current setup is 2 x 34" ultra wide.  My screen area is 5ft across.  I like my real estate.  Not all of it is "prime" of course.  And most applications do look ridiculous full screen.

I have a deep executive desk, the monitors up on arms about 6"s of the desk.  Right now, slouched back I can barely reach the keyboard let alone the monitor which is a good arms length and then a foot away.  I run 125% scaling and sometimes even a +20% zoom in the browser, if I'm slouching.  It does look ridiculous when you sit back up straight though.  Similar on the living room TV I sit 3 meters from the TV and so I run 150% scaling and even more zoom.

The Acer has to go, it's done, on it's last legs and based on obsolescence it's likely it will degrade even faster as it ages.   The Samsung 34" ultrawide beside it is much younger, still has working DP ports :) and I'm happy enough with it.

I've done the ultrawide thing, want to go back to having more vertical space and a normal aspect ratio.

On DP/HDMI.  From the brief testing and researching I did with this particular box and chip it seems....

Windows 10 "Generic display adapter" driver from fresh install gives you 3440x1440 @ 29.6xHz over the DP->Passive->HDMI2.0 port.  Installing the Intel drivers for the Intel Graphics 530 (APU) and that option goes away.  The intel driver does not offer that resolution.  Rolling the driver back and the resolution worked again... however instabilities were discovered and applications failing to render overlay panels etc.   It seems as though the DP++ ports are aware of the passive adapter and the Intel chipset driver is reverting itself to HDMI compat mode and removing the higher resolutions.  When plugged into a DP port with a DP lead (on the Samsung) it works fine in 1440 ultrawide @60Hz with the Intel drivers.

30Hz ... I have lived with 30Hz for a few months previously.  You get used to it.  Unfortunately if you spend any time at all on a 60Hz+ display you immediately notice coming back to sticky treacle land.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Offline paulcaTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4364
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2023, 01:58:59 pm »
At high resolutions you need to carefully check what is going on, and the age of the equipment matters a lot.

Agreed. My <1 year old baller gaming PC doesn't care if it's HDMI2.0 or DP it does 1440P UW at 100Hz.  It doesn't like HMDI1.x ports though, back to 1080P or 30Hz.

EDIT: Thing is, it's summer.  The heating is off.  The 90-100W of waste heat from the baller gaming machine is no longer required or welcome when I'm not gaming.  So I purchased yet more eWaste in an HP Prodesk (circa 2017 vintage).  90-100W??  More like 3-15W.

Also... given the temperature of the back of the Acer and the Samsung (4 years apart in age), there have been efficiency improvements there.  The Acer has a 150W brick.  The Samsung a 100W one.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2023, 02:01:56 pm by paulca »
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2023, 02:28:39 pm »
Note HDMI and DP are passive adapter capable, so my desktop PC has DP on it but is connected to the monitor using £8 DP to HDMI cables - works absolutely fine.    I believe the DisplayPort will switch into a HDMI backwards compatible mode so this should work with all HDMI monitors.  Be sure any HDMI port you use is 60Hz capable - 30Hz is dreadful for a PC monitor.
DP has multiple streams, and spreads the bits across them at high resolution. HDMI does not. This was how DP gave us 4k 60fps before HDMI 2.0 increased the stream rates. HDMI<->DP is only a passive cable for lower resolutions. At high resolutions you need to carefully check what is going on, and the age of the equipment matters a lot.

4K@60Hz works absolutely fine over HDMI<->DP passive cables in my case.  I've so far not found a HDMI monitor that doesn't work with a DP adapter cable, but I accept that it's a possiblity that some older monitors may not like it.  And it is possible that some older graphics cards or other peripherals do not support HDMI mode.

Note that both DP and HDMI have four differential pairs in the cable, but HDMI dedicates one as a clock and data is on the remaining three, with TMDS signalling used to minimise EMC, whereas DP uses embedded clock with clock recovery at the receiver end (128b/132b in latest spec).  So DP can transmit a lot more data at a lower effective bit rate, but is more expensive to implement due to the need to implement link training with clock recovery at the receiver end.  (I've noticed my monitors flicker slightly on start up and show a few sparkly pixels for a few seconds before both monitor and GFX card seem to agree on what kind of sync is needed.)

DP to HDMI passive adaptors are not really passive, they must include level shifter IC. Also they are limited to 4K@30Hz or 1440p@60Hz unless you do chroma subsampling.

I must have missed this memo because my monitors are running at 4K@60Hz without any chroma subsampling using a passive cable.  OK, maybe there is a small IC in them, but they are still not featuring much electronics in them to convert a signal so are something you can get pretty cheap if you need them.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2023, 02:32:01 pm by tom66 »
 

Offline JohanH

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 669
  • Country: fi
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2023, 02:31:53 pm »
IMO 43" is too big for a PC monitor which for best eye strain should be no further than 4 foot from your keyboard.  32" is about the maximum you want to go.

In my opinion a monitor cannot be "too big". There is nothing preventing you from running your applications the same size as on a smaller monitor. You just get a lot of extra space where you can put multiple windows. I wouldn't mind having a monitor as large as a wall.

I have a 34" ultra wide and I would never go back to a smaller monitor. I want a larger one. In the past I had multiple smaller monitors side by side, but one large is so much better.

But watch out with the TVs. They have to have a port that accepts PC in without overscanning (or whatever they call it). On a Samsung TV that I have with multiple HDMI ports, only the one that says PC doesn't distort the picture with overscanning and possibly other filters. I would also check online before buying that people have tested it as a computer monitor. If you can't turn off filters and stuff, it could become annoying and even stressful to the eyes.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2023, 03:14:04 pm »
In my opinion a monitor cannot be "too big".
I'm not sure about that. I watched people bug fixing the internal code of a 75" smart TV, using one of the TVs as their development terminal, in a cramped corner of the factory, sitting right in front it. That screen definitely looked too big. :)
 

Online wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 17952
  • Country: lv
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2023, 03:44:42 pm »
I must have missed this memo because my monitors are running at 4K@60Hz without any chroma subsampling using a passive cable.  OK, maybe there is a small IC in them, but they are still not featuring much electronics in them to convert a signal so are something you can get pretty cheap if you need them.
So it shows RGB color format in GPU control panel? If so, then it's not a "passive" cable.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2023, 03:57:24 pm »
So it shows RGB color format in GPU control panel? If so, then it's not a "passive" cable.

I'll have to check if it shows RGB, but I can see it's not chroma subsampled, because I've put checkerboard patterns up on the display and it can address adjacent pixels without any chroma blur.

Here's the cable: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B081GGNWCX  Claims only 4K@30Hz, but definitely manages 60Hz, and clearly states it is a passive cable.  I'm not intimately familiar with how it does it, though.  Maybe the Samsung monitor is just treating the HDMI input as a DisplayPort?  Worked on my Nvidia 1060 card and now the AMD RX 580 I have in my PC though.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2023, 04:09:05 pm »
So it shows RGB color format in GPU control panel? If so, then it's not a "passive" cable.

I'll have to check if it shows RGB, but I can see it's not chroma subsampled, because I've put checkerboard patterns up on the display and it can address adjacent pixels without any chroma blur.

Here's the cable: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B081GGNWCX  Claims only 4K@30Hz, but definitely manages 60Hz, and clearly states it is a passive cable.  I'm not intimately familiar with how it does it, though.  Maybe the Samsung monitor is just treating the HDMI input as a DisplayPort?  Worked on my Nvidia 1060 card and now the AMD RX 580 I have in my PC though.
Its really annoying that most TVs and monitors won't display the kind of input they are working with. Many even make it hard to find the resolution and frame rate, but further information, like 4:4:4, are rarely available at all.

The place sub-sampling shows up most clearly is with small coloured text. Is red text on a dark background really a nice clean red, even when viewed really closely?
 

Offline paulcaTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4364
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2023, 04:46:52 pm »
I still want MORE monitor space!
1764584-0
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Offline JohanH

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 669
  • Country: fi
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2023, 04:55:40 pm »
In my opinion a monitor cannot be "too big".
I'm not sure about that. I watched people bug fixing the internal code of a 75" smart TV, using one of the TVs as their development terminal, in a cramped corner of the factory, sitting right in front it. That screen definitely looked too big. :)

I'm definitely sure. That's a very specific use case. With a normal OS, the window manager will allow you to resize the terminal window and font to whatever size you want.
 

Offline paulcaTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4364
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2023, 05:01:04 pm »
I remember the laugh I got when I did boot a linux console on a 55" TV.  It enabled framebuffer support and basic went to full 4K with a font which must have only been about 5mm high.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5171
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2023, 05:08:28 pm »
32" monitors can be bought for reasonable prices, for example Dell S3221QS is 350$ on Amazon : https://www.amazon.com/Dell-S3221QS-Ultra-Thin-DisplayPort-Certified/dp/B08G8WMRRP/

It does have a bit of a curve, but you could get used to it.  You could get 3 of these and put them on your desk, one straight in center and the other two at the sides of the center monitor. They have very thin side borders so it would be almost seamless.

There's a thorough review here : https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/s3221qs

 

Offline Bicurico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1816
  • Country: pt
    • VMA's Satellite Blog
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2023, 05:19:40 pm »
Incidentally I purchased a 50" 4K TV for my computer a couple of weeks ago
It cost me 379 Euro (LG).

I was considering this move for years and now that I have it, I can say that it is amazing. It is the equivalent of four stacked 24" Full HD monitors without borders. Finally I have desktop space for all apps running in parallel.

I have a second full HD monitor attached just dedicated for Outlook.

The screen is not to big. I sit about 1m away and with 53 years I have to take my glasses off to see short distance. That makes using a laptop with second screen a pain. The laptop is too close and the second screen too far. With this setup, I can use glasses always.

Resizing screens was a worry but it is not an issue at all. You won't want to run most windows maximised, though. But for word and Excel full screen can be amazing.

I have my also new workstation connected to it and this really kicks ass.

I don't mind more tha. 60hz refresh rates. This is pretty ok and so is HDR.

You do need to configure the screen though, as out of the box it will render the pc image very poorly.

Regards
Vitor
 
The following users thanked this post: paulca

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2023, 05:22:28 pm »
The place sub-sampling shows up most clearly is with small coloured text. Is red text on a dark background really a nice clean red, even when viewed really closely?

Gonna have to munch on my humble pie here, at least on my RX 580 it is 4:2:0.  I swear I'd tested this before - perhaps it was 4:4:4 on my old GTX 1060 or I was fooling myself somehow.  That said, I genuinely cannot see the difference on ordinary desktop content - perhaps there are some use cases where 4:4:4 is critical, but it's already the case for me at least that 4K luma is beyond my eye's apparent visual sensitivity (in other words, I cannot distinguish the individual pixels in a checkerboard pattern unless I'm closer than 2 foot to the display).
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5171
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2023, 05:29:44 pm »

Gonna have to munch on my humble pie here, at least on my RX 580 it is 4:2:0.  I swear I'd tested this before - perhaps it was 4:4:4 on my old GTX 1060 or I was fooling myself somehow.  That said, I genuinely cannot see the difference on ordinary desktop content - perhaps there are some use cases where 4:4:4 is critical, but it's already the case for me at least that 4K luma is beyond my eye's apparent visual sensitivity (in other words, I cannot distinguish the individual pixels in a checkerboard pattern unless I'm closer than 2 foot to the display).

Use this test : https://www.rtings.com/images/test-materials/2017/chroma-444.png

from page https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/chroma-subsampling#when-does-it-matter  in case they don't like hotlinking and link stops working.

With YCbCr 4:2:0 you may experience blurry text especially in the bottom two mixes (red on blue and blue or red)
 

Online wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 17952
  • Country: lv
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #20 on: April 19, 2023, 05:40:23 pm »
Gonna have to munch on my humble pie here, at least on my RX 580 it is 4:2:0.  I swear I'd tested this before - perhaps it was 4:4:4 on my old GTX 1060 or I was fooling myself somehow.
It's physically impossible to do 4k@60 RGB or 4:4:4 through passive adapter regardless of what GPU you use. Nor it's supported by standard.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2023, 05:44:12 pm by wraper »
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2023, 05:56:53 pm »
The place sub-sampling shows up most clearly is with small coloured text. Is red text on a dark background really a nice clean red, even when viewed really closely?

Gonna have to munch on my humble pie here, at least on my RX 580 it is 4:2:0.  I swear I'd tested this before - perhaps it was 4:4:4 on my old GTX 1060 or I was fooling myself somehow.  That said, I genuinely cannot see the difference on ordinary desktop content - perhaps there are some use cases where 4:4:4 is critical, but it's already the case for me at least that 4K luma is beyond my eye's apparent visual sensitivity (in other words, I cannot distinguish the individual pixels in a checkerboard pattern unless I'm closer than 2 foot to the display).
I find it really hard to tell when the video isn't 4:4:4 except for small coloured text. Trying to edit with an editor that uses coloured highlighting is terrible with anything but 4:4:4. Most other things are just fine. There is a reason why we use colour sub-sampling. It plays to the strengths and weaknesses of our eyes, and works great most of the time.
 

Offline DavidAlfa

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6403
  • Country: es
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2023, 07:22:32 pm »
Dellaminating? What a quality crap, never seen this, ever!

A 43" monitor will be like looking at a giant poster from 10".

I bought a HDR 165Hz QHD 27" Lenovo g27q-20 in 2020 ($299), definitely getting into the "too large" area, I often struggle to find the mouse cursor, but the higher DPI is great, specially when splitting windows, but yeah, just at the limit of the visual field.

My advice is to get QHD under 32", 4K will be too much DPI, and Windows scaling is crap, avoid using it at all costs.
I know because I installed a FHD panel into my ex laptop, when she was doing the engineering 10yr ago, 1366x768 was a no-no for CAD and 3D design.
Things were extremely small, 7pt text, but no problem, let's enable 125 (Or 150%) scaling!
Now everything looked like I had breathed all over the screen! :palm:

Now this this is the 27:
« Last Edit: April 19, 2023, 07:33:42 pm by DavidAlfa »
Hantek DSO2x1x            Drive        FAQ          DON'T BUY HANTEK! (Aka HALF-MADE)
Stm32 Soldering FW      Forum      Github      Donate
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2023, 07:28:45 pm »
Quote
IMO 43" is too big for a PC monitor which for best eye strain should be no further than 4 foot from your keyboard.  32" is about the maximum you want to go.

Absolutely wrong :)

I tried a 32" and despite having Windows scale at 115% (or whatever they do) it was still hard to read. And you lose pixels in the scaling. I gave it to my missus, mainly because nothing  bigger would fit under the shelf where she has her monitor. My 43" is the same pixel pitch as my old 1900x1600 Dell monitors, so I can conceivably extend the screen without the cursor jumping around as it transitions. But my main delight is that I can read the bloody text without any scaling. Every pixel is a useful one.

I sit just over an arm's length away - just measured at 32". It is fine and far more immersive than a tiny 32" screen would be for, er, immersive games and stuff.
 

Online wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 17952
  • Country: lv
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2023, 07:40:17 pm »
I find it really hard to tell when the video isn't 4:4:4 except for small coloured text. Trying to edit with an editor that uses coloured highlighting is terrible with anything but 4:4:4. Most other things are just fine. There is a reason why we use colour sub-sampling. It plays to the strengths and weaknesses of our eyes, and works great most of the time.
It also depends on resolution and screen size. On text on 2560x1440 27-32 inchers it's very noticeable, on 28" 4k, not so much. On video it video it will be very hard to notice except something high contrast like text is displayed. Chroma subsampling works in part because human eye has lower color resolution than brightness resolution, not to say brain hides imperfections and often sees what it wants to see, rather than actual image.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf