Posts: 2,722
Threads: 594
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
15
While on TVs 4k resolution is more and more common, we have very few 4k monitors and they are still very expensive.
Do we really need 4k resolution?
I am considering getting a 4k TV and use as monitor. Is it easy to calibrate? Will I get anything more than standard screens ?
There are quite few videos about this topic on utube, many are using 4K TVs as monitors I think the appropriate graphic cards are needed to have the higher refresh rate of 60 fps, better than 30 fps. etc.
My current screen is a Full HD television which is better for my aging eyesight than squinting into a small monitor, but soon I will going the 4K TV route, probably against technical advice.
Many like the large 4K TV's real estate!
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
No, you do not need a 4K monitor. You can judge image colour and contrast just as well on a 1080P monitor.
Quote:No, you do not need a 4K monitor. You can judge image colour and contrast just as well on a 1080P monitor.
And resolution?
Many now are shooting 4K resolution video with the likes of the GH4 and Sony's 4K, so how would you benefit from 4K movies if you cannot use the resolution that they provide?
4K is equal to approximately 8MPs, a lot better than the 2 MPs of Full HD, which is not a lot compared to modern day sensors, many computer monitors are now 4K but expensive, I checked out the base prices of UHD televisions and they are now costing around 500 euros as against 300 euros for a 1080 HD set.
As we don't seem here to baulk at defending lenses that often can hit the three grand mark, I cannot see that a couple of hundred extra would be anything other than money extremely well spent.
I soo soo remember in my distant youth when adults around me were saying what a waste of time 625 line television was and how 405 line was plenty good enough for anybody!
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
Quote:And resolution?
Many now are shooting 4K resolution video with the likes of the GH4 and Sony's 4K, so how would you benefit from 4K movies if you cannot use the resolution that they provide?
4K is equal to approximately 8MPs, a lot better than the 2 MPs of Full HD, which is not a lot compared to modern day sensors, many computer monitors are now 4K but expensive, I checked out the base prices of UHD televisions and they are now costing around 500 euros as against 300 euros for a 1080 HD set.
As we don't seem here to baulk at defending lenses that often can hit the three grand mark, I cannot see that a couple of hundred extra would be anything other than money extremely well spent.
I soo soo remember in my distant youth when adults around me were saying what a waste of time 625 line television was and how 405 line was plenty good enough for anybody!
Not many are shooting 4K video at all. And anyway, the OP most certainly does not. He is jus shooting stills, at 12.x mp.
Quote:Not many are shooting 4K video at all. And anyway, the OP most certainly does not. He is jus shooting stills, at 12.x mp.
It's called future protection! Apart from other things utube is now giving out UHD, games are using it, why bother not getting it? My HD tele is starting to develop stains , I would naturally upgrade to 4K, the price difference is not a lot and from what I can gather from utubians it's pretty damned good. Don't see why the downer!
Cheap 4K is not good 4K. While the GH4 and some sony alpha cameras produce 4K, it is a far cry from what a proper 4K camera, even "just" the FS7, or the lowly 1DC produces. A cheap 4K display is going to be using a panel with poor color fidelity, a bad refresh rate, bad mechanical design of the monitor, etc.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
Quote:It's called future protection! Apart from other things utube is now giving out UHD, games are using it, why bother not getting it? My HD tele is starting to develop stains , I would naturally upgrade to 4K, the price difference is not a lot and from what I can gather from utubians it's pretty damned good. Don't see why the downer!
A good 1080P computer monitor can be found for $200 or less with good IPS panels with good colour, even. That is why! It makes no sense to look for 4K now, when it really serves no purpose, and spend thousands. If in future you have a valid use for 4K, then get one at that point. Prices will have gone down, just like 1080P has. And quality has gone up.
Quote:Cheap 4K is not good 4K. While the GH4 and some sony alpha cameras produce 4K, it is a far cry from what a proper 4K camera, even "just" the FS7, or the lowly 1DC produces. A cheap 4K display is going to be using a panel with poor color fidelity, a bad refresh rate, bad mechanical design of the monitor, etc.
Maybe it's not the best of 4K. however you wouldn't think so if you listen to what The Camera Store" has to say about it as well as "host" of other sites and pro opinions.
The whole video-world is positively wetting itself about the revolution of 4K video with video-geographers acclaiming the Panasonic GH4 and the Sony A7 II.
Samyangs latest series of lenses, the last tested Kowa Prominar for 4/3rds etc.
There's a revolution going on out there in the video industry at the moment........................
but you wouldn't think so from the responses here!
|
