1440p tv's instead of 4K.

[Evil Ninetales]

Ok so this has boggled my head for a while now. Left right n center everyone says "Oh 4K is expensive" or "4K demands this that and the other."

Why didn't the industry just start slow and make consoles / tv's 1440p ready. It would be so much cheaper and the image quality vs 1080p is still massive.

Or am I missing something?

[ostar]

65" 4K samsung @ 120hz normally, 240hz with motion rate turned on, and better contrast than a crt here. Meh. I still usually use the 1080 projector @ 100" diagonal for gaming.

[MollyMo]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από ostar:

65" 4K samsung @ 120hz normally, 240hz with motion rate turned on, and better contrast than a crt here. Meh. I still usually use the 1080 projector @ 100" diagonal for gaming.

You realize those refresh rate numbers are marketing gimmicks right? Actual refresh rate is 60hz max.

[Evil Ninetales]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από MollyMo:

28" screen and you can tell the difference between 1440p and 4k? Are you able to see individual atoms as well?

You wouldn't undestand unless you seen a 1440p monitor next to an identical sized 4K display. Maybe not anything lower than 28" but I can definetly tell.

[MollyMo]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Evil Ninetales:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από MollyMo:

28" screen and you can tell the difference between 1440p and 4k? Are you able to see individual atoms as well?

You wouldn't undestand unless you seen a 1440p monitor next to an identical sized 4K display. Maybe not anything lower than 28" but I can definetly tell.

I've seen 1080p on a 27" and 4k on a 28", barely any difference at all, maybe a bit crisper image, from normal viewing distance. Definitely not the difference you claim. Don't go around fooling people into believing something entirely untrue. Pixel density is a thing.

[ostar]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από MollyMo:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από ostar:

65" 4K samsung @ 120hz normally, 240hz with motion rate turned on, and better contrast than a crt here. Meh. I still usually use the 1080 projector @ 100" diagonal for gaming.

You realize those refresh rate numbers are marketing gimmicks right? Actual refresh rate is 60hz max.

Nope. 120hz native. 240hz with the "marketing gimmick".

You should really get with the times.

[Ghost Robertson]

I'm happy with 1080p.

[E3kHatena]

I'm kind of glad that the Switch runs at 1080p, as I can barely tell the difference between 1080p and 4K from a typical TV-to-couch distance you'd use with console games. For the likes of video editing and such, I get using a 4K display, but I'd rather use the more powerful hardware to run "1080/60" games at actual 1080p, 60 FPS instead of the 720p/900p upscaled most previous gen games ran at. Heck, even the Witness, a game mostly made of solid color low-poly objects, only runs at 1440p when the PS4 Pro is in "4K mode", so I think its safe to say the resolution is outpacing the surrounding tech.

[mrahma]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Evil Ninetales:

Ok so this has boggled my head for a while now. Left right n center everyone says "Oh 4K is expensive" or "4K demands this that and the other."

Why didn't the industry just start slow and make consoles / tv's 1440p ready. It would be so much cheaper and the image quality vs 1080p is still massive.

Or am I missing something?

When you have the technology to do something better then something else, why would you wan't to start small when you could easily go bigger?

[MollyMo]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από ostar:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από MollyMo:

You realize those refresh rate numbers are marketing gimmicks right? Actual refresh rate is 60hz max.

Nope. 120hz native. 240hz with the "marketing gimmick".

You should really get with the times.

https://www.cnet.com/news/ultra-hd-4k-tv-refresh-rates/

Please educate yourself. 4K 120hz does not exist, and if it does it's probably some new gaming monitor in the testing stage. Your tv's refresh rate is 50hz or 60hz, guaranteed.

[Washell]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από MollyMo:

https://www.cnet.com/news/ultra-hd-4k-tv-refresh-rates/

Please educate yourself. 4K 120hz does not exist

Straight from the article

Not exactly. The fact is that nearly all of these new 4K TVs -- which now make up the increasing majority of all TVs priced over $1,000 in the US -- have, at best, a 120Hz refresh rate.

But at the very least, you need 120Hz to really combat motion blur, which is good, because right now, that's the most you can get with a 4K TV. All 4K TVs on the market today (as of this writing), are 60Hz or 120Hz.

So many (most?) of the refresh claims you see on 4K TVs are likely somewhat misleading. None are more than 120Hz, despite what their numbers claim, and many are just 60Hz.

So we asked. According to LG, the UF7600 is natively 60Hz, while the UF7700, UF8500, UF9500 are all 120Hz.

Most of its 4K models are 120Hz natively, whereas some of the smaller and less expensive models are 60Hz.

According to Sony, all its 4K TVs are natively 120Hz.

We asked Vizio for an explanation and learned that most of its 2015 E series TVs have 60Hz refresh rate panels, while in the 2015 M series only the 60-inch and larger TVs have 120Hz panels (the smaller ones are 60Hz).

So if you're sensitive to motion blur, it's worth checking for a 120Hz model.

You said something about education?

[MollyMo]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Washell:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από MollyMo:

https://www.cnet.com/news/ultra-hd-4k-tv-refresh-rates/

Please educate yourself. 4K 120hz does not exist

Straight from the article

Not exactly. The fact is that nearly all of these new 4K TVs -- which now make up the increasing majority of all TVs priced over $1,000 in the US -- have, at best, a 120Hz refresh rate.

But at the very least, you need 120Hz to really combat motion blur, which is good, because right now, that's the most you can get with a 4K TV. All 4K TVs on the market today (as of this writing), are 60Hz or 120Hz.

So many (most?) of the refresh claims you see on 4K TVs are likely somewhat misleading. None are more than 120Hz, despite what their numbers claim, and many are just 60Hz.

So we asked. According to LG, the UF7600 is natively 60Hz, while the UF7700, UF8500, UF9500 are all 120Hz.

Most of its 4K models are 120Hz natively, whereas some of the smaller and less expensive models are 60Hz.

According to Sony, all its 4K TVs are natively 120Hz.

We asked Vizio for an explanation and learned that most of its 2015 E series TVs have 60Hz refresh rate panels, while in the 2015 M series only the 60-inch and larger TVs have 120Hz panels (the smaller ones are 60Hz).

So if you're sensitive to motion blur, it's worth checking for a 120Hz model.

You said something about education?

Deal with the fact that your tv is 50/60hz. 120hz "native" is simply software use to add interpolated frames. The tv can't actually accept an 120hz signal.

http://www.gadgetreview.com/120hz-vs-240hz-vs-60hz-refresh-rate


To add to this, a 4k@120hz signal is not supported by the current version of hdmi cables, because of the limited bandwidth. The new 2.1 hdmi version that will be released this year will support 4k 120hz as well as 8k 60hz.

http://www.pcgamer.com/hdmi-21-is-coming-soon-with-support-for-8k-120hz/


Yes, like i said, get educated. Just because you see big hurr durr numbers on your tv's specs, doesn't mean it's any better than all the rest. 4k@60hz is as high as you can go right now. Deal. With. It

[Vincent]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από MollyMo:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Washell:

Straight from the article

You said something about education?

Deal with the fact that your tv is 50/60hz. 120hz "native" is simply software use to add interpolated frames. The tv can't actually accept an 120hz signal.

http://www.gadgetreview.com/120hz-vs-240hz-vs-60hz-refresh-rate


To add to this, a 4k@120hz signal is not supported by the current version of hdmi cables, because of the limited bandwidth. The new 2.1 hdmi version that will be released this year will support 4k 120hz as well as 8k 60hz.

http://www.pcgamer.com/hdmi-21-is-coming-soon-with-support-for-8k-120hz/


Yes, like i said, get educated. Just because you see big hurr durr numbers on your tv's specs, doesn't mean it's any better than all the rest. 4k@60hz is as high as you can go right now. Deal. With. It

Ah crap 4320p resolution.
Imagine how much devices would burn.

[MollyMo]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Marshal Cid Aulstyne:

Ah crap 4320p resolution.
Imagine how much devices would burn.

lol there's barely powerful enough hardware to support 4k. 8k is just a preview of the far future at best.

[Γαῖα]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Evil Ninetales:

Ok so this has boggled my head for a while now. Left right n center everyone says "Oh 4K is expensive" or "4K demands this that and the other."

Why didn't the industry just start slow and make consoles / tv's 1440p ready. It would be so much cheaper and the image quality vs 1080p is still massive.

Or am I missing something?

Industries are in the business of making money so cheaper for you is not something they think about unless of course they know you dont have the money they would like to charge. Its all how cheap can i make this and how much profit can i make from it plain and simple.

The consumer is a cashcow.

[↑↑↓↓←→←→BASelect]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mr. Cat:

I got a Samsung 40" 4K TV for $200.

I just bought a LG 55 inch 4k smart tv 120hz for my computer. Pure 120 hz. I can see a huge difference going from my Sony Bravia 40 inch 1080p 60hz. I know it's a true 120 hertz tv cause if i enable vsync in games it gets locked to 120 fps. Where on my old 40 inch with vsync on it locked it to 60 fps.
I payed 500 dollars for it even though LG sells them for 700 dollars. Got mine from a store that was having a going out of business sell. To bad as Sears had some nice stuff and their craftsman products was top notch.