08-25-2015, 07:17 AM
I've dabbled with a 4k TV. I should add, I got the Seiki SE39UA01UK. Note it is a UK model, and they have a lot of similar sounding models around the world which are significantly different.
To put this in context, it was absurdly cheap. Too good to be true cheap, which lead me to risk buy it just to see how bad it really was for the money. The cost, let's just say I've bought more expensive filters than this TV.
The biggest deal breaker when I got it was the input lag. It was massive. I had to use an external amplifier with manual delay to get sound in sync with video, and experimentally found I needed 150ms. This set was unusable for gaming.
On the plus side, using a PC with a display this big was a real eye opener. Without enabling scaling, everything in Windows was lost in the near infinite workspace. Sat close to give a normal text scale, you had to turn to see different parts of the screen.
The only 4k video content I found was on youtube. The PC I was using wasn't quiet up to streaming so I had to find a 3rd party download tool and play locally. Wow. The extra detail of 4k made HD look worthless, in a similar way that HD made SD look rubbish. The youtube content was highly (lossy) compressed though, so I'd expect BluRay or whatever sources to look even better.
As for image quality, colours looked ok in the short time I tried it. The contrast wasn't so great, and I couldn't adjust it so I could see all shadow and highlight detail on the typical scale tests.
I might still use it as a playback only PC display, but for now I'm using it as a normal TV with mostly SD content, occasionally HD.
I'm certainly excited by the potential of 4k, but you can't do it on the cheap.
Less cheaply, I replaced my desktop monitor with an LG 34UC87 ultra-wide at a resolution of 3440x1440 (21:9 ratio) or about 60% the resolution of 4k, or 2.5x that of 1080p. This is roughly the same experience as two monitors side by side, without the join between them. Even here things aren't perfect. The panel is IPS but is only sRGB gamut (99% claimed). My old monitor covered most of AdobeRGB and sRGB struggles to do intense colours. I haven't done a full calibrate yet (not even sure my Spyder 3 Pro works with Windows 10) but contrast is adequate to pass visual inspection. They also do a similar LG 34UC97 model which I understand is the consumer version with cosmetic differences and a less adjustable stand than the more business-like '87 model I got. There is a Dell that is supposed to use the same panel as the LG but with different electronics. Having used this monitor, I had to adapt my working to optimise for the wideness. Sometimes I almost wish I had multi-monitors again as they're easier to snap to. So that should also remain a consideration.
To put this in context, it was absurdly cheap. Too good to be true cheap, which lead me to risk buy it just to see how bad it really was for the money. The cost, let's just say I've bought more expensive filters than this TV.
The biggest deal breaker when I got it was the input lag. It was massive. I had to use an external amplifier with manual delay to get sound in sync with video, and experimentally found I needed 150ms. This set was unusable for gaming.
On the plus side, using a PC with a display this big was a real eye opener. Without enabling scaling, everything in Windows was lost in the near infinite workspace. Sat close to give a normal text scale, you had to turn to see different parts of the screen.
The only 4k video content I found was on youtube. The PC I was using wasn't quiet up to streaming so I had to find a 3rd party download tool and play locally. Wow. The extra detail of 4k made HD look worthless, in a similar way that HD made SD look rubbish. The youtube content was highly (lossy) compressed though, so I'd expect BluRay or whatever sources to look even better.
As for image quality, colours looked ok in the short time I tried it. The contrast wasn't so great, and I couldn't adjust it so I could see all shadow and highlight detail on the typical scale tests.
I might still use it as a playback only PC display, but for now I'm using it as a normal TV with mostly SD content, occasionally HD.
I'm certainly excited by the potential of 4k, but you can't do it on the cheap.
Less cheaply, I replaced my desktop monitor with an LG 34UC87 ultra-wide at a resolution of 3440x1440 (21:9 ratio) or about 60% the resolution of 4k, or 2.5x that of 1080p. This is roughly the same experience as two monitors side by side, without the join between them. Even here things aren't perfect. The panel is IPS but is only sRGB gamut (99% claimed). My old monitor covered most of AdobeRGB and sRGB struggles to do intense colours. I haven't done a full calibrate yet (not even sure my Spyder 3 Pro works with Windows 10) but contrast is adequate to pass visual inspection. They also do a similar LG 34UC97 model which I understand is the consumer version with cosmetic differences and a less adjustable stand than the more business-like '87 model I got. There is a Dell that is supposed to use the same panel as the LG but with different electronics. Having used this monitor, I had to adapt my working to optimise for the wideness. Sometimes I almost wish I had multi-monitors again as they're easier to snap to. So that should also remain a consideration.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.