Quantcast
So, I was completely wrong about 4K

Forums - Gaming Discussion - So, I was completely wrong about 4K

kowenicki said:
I have LG OLED 65 2017 model. Simply stunning.

1) Which one?

2) Please tell me you don't do heavy gaming on that

3) Make sure you shut it off every three or so hours.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network

4k is nice



I LOVE ICELAND!

Biggerboat1 said:
Azuren said:

First of all, either your eyes are awful (perfectly possible), you got too small of a TV (the purpose of 4K is larger images at closer distances, so if you're watching a 55" from 10 feet away you're doing it wrong), or you're just lying to push an agenda.

 

Second, please tell me you're not gaming on that

Have a look at this chart : https://goo.gl/images/1Yr5cS

To have any noticeable benefit from a 55" you need to be sitting within 2m of the set, closer to 1m to see real, worthwhile gains... 

For most people that's way too close. That's why I mentioned only 65+ sets starting to make sense for 4k.

I'm a graphic designer so I'm sure I'd know by now if my eyesight was on the fritz! 

The original poster has a 49" so to see the dramatic gains he claims, he must be sitting with the thing in his lap... 

I don't have an agenda, I just see a technology being pushed on to the mainstream which is really only meaningfully beneficial to a tiny percentage of the market... 

Emperor's new clothes mk2

First of all, that chart is from a site that believes Image Retention isn't a super-important stat for a screen while gaming or using as a computer monitor. They give great objective information on TVs, but they tend to be full of shit when it comes to more subjective information (which in this instance would be anything that can't be measured).

 

Second of all, yeah, a 55" isn't for ten feet away. Like I just said. That's why the industry standard isn't 55" now, it's 65". 55" is still popular, though, because many people live in apartments where the sitting area is 6-8ft away from the TV. Not everyone lives in a house with a living that gives them a 10ft distance from the couch.

 

Third of all, if he says he can see a difference, then his eyes are probably just better.

 

And finally, if you didn't have an agenda you would have put all the pieces together to learn why 4K is a thing. I can spell it out for you, though: 4K is so we can have bigger screens in smaller spaces without losing pixel density and succumbing to the "screen door" effect. That's it. Yes, it also means more detailed images, but the biggest thing is maintaining high pixel densities at larger sizes. Have you ever seen a 100" 1080p TV? The pixel structure looks like a fucking Light Bright.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

4K alone doesn't really mean much, the overall quality of the panel is much more important tbh. It's just that most top of the line TVs with the best tech (HDR, colour reproduction, OLED often, etc.) are 4K now, because that's the least you should expect from a high end 1500$+ TV.

Basically, it's not the increased resolution that makes the huge difference, it's just the general increase in quality.



Depending on the content 4K is very big improvement, of course a big tv helps



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

Is there a TV enthusiast around here that can explain how durable are OLED TV's when used primarily for gaming purposes?

I dont know if i go with an OLED LG or the new Sony X930E.

What would you recommend?



What 4k TVs so I guys have.i like budget RVs no sense spending over a grand when something better and cheaper will come out next year



There are still a lot of scepticism and misconceptions around it. 4K isn't a fad like 3D. It's the inevitable, next step forward in the progression of video quality.



I'm kind of on the other end on this.  Have 2 4k sets in the house, a high end gamimg rig, and a PS4 (Not a Pro).  Yeah 4k looks better, it should.   But i dont think it's all that much better, IMO.



Azuren said:
Biggerboat1 said:

Have a look at this chart : https://goo.gl/images/1Yr5cS

To have any noticeable benefit from a 55" you need to be sitting within 2m of the set, closer to 1m to see real, worthwhile gains... 

For most people that's way too close. That's why I mentioned only 65+ sets starting to make sense for 4k.

I'm a graphic designer so I'm sure I'd know by now if my eyesight was on the fritz! 

The original poster has a 49" so to see the dramatic gains he claims, he must be sitting with the thing in his lap... 

I don't have an agenda, I just see a technology being pushed on to the mainstream which is really only meaningfully beneficial to a tiny percentage of the market... 

Emperor's new clothes mk2

First of all, that chart is from a site that believes Image Retention isn't a super-important stat for a screen while gaming or using as a computer monitor. They give great objective information on TVs, but they tend to be full of shit when it comes to more subjective information (which in this instance would be anything that can't be measured).

 

Second of all, yeah, a 55" isn't for ten feet away. Like I just said. That's why the industry standard isn't 55" now, it's 65". 55" is still popular, though, because many people live in apartments where the sitting area is 6-8ft away from the TV. Not everyone lives in a house with a living that gives them a 10ft distance from the couch.

 

Third of all, if he says he can see a difference, then his eyes are probably just better.

 

And finally, if you didn't have an agenda you would have put all the pieces together to learn why 4K is a thing. I can spell it out for you, though: 4K is so we can have bigger screens in smaller spaces without losing pixel density and succumbing to the "screen door" effect. That's it. Yes, it also means more detailed images, but the biggest thing is maintaining high pixel densities at larger sizes. Have you ever seen a 100" 1080p TV? The pixel structure looks like a fucking Light Bright.

 

I really don't see anything that I've written warranting you having to have spell anything out tbh... 

I understand why 4k is a thing, and I look forward to buying a 77" oled somwhere down the line when prices aren't quite so insane.

If you don't like the chart that I've quoted then chuck the term 'resolution vs viewing distance chart' in Google and you'll find countless others showing pretty much the same breakdown of info. They surely can't all be wrong...?

I don't have an agenda, I own a 4k telly for God's sake...

My issue is that Sony and Microsoft are pushing the 4k message hard at the mainstream when there's only a tiny percentage of gamers who'll really benefit in a meaningful way. Those that sit very close to a 55" or own a 65" plus, oh, and apparently have fantastic eyesight! The ven disagram is becoming ever more teeny-tiny...

Finally, watching netflix or Amazon or whatever makes sense as most people have unlimited Internet packages  - even if it's only a small improvement, why not! But gaming requires a whopping 4x the graphical power. That's a crazy amount of extra power and/or money for a gain that is proportionate to your tv size & imo you'd be nuts to go that route unless you are sitting crazy close or have a 65" plus.