It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
I do know a bit about this; I've been in commercial AV for fifteen years or so; started as an on-site tech, then design engineer, briefly a consultant, back into design and technical sales and now a technical manager for a manufacturer. I've spent a fair bit of time on the boring stuff like screen size and position, relating it all back to visual acuity and ergonomics and such - not an expert on that but I've picked up enough to be dangerous. I've been fortunate in working with a lot of people who either knew far more than me, or asked a lot of awkward questions and then let me have the time to work out the answers.
Potentially - let's suppose you have two 4K displays using the same panel (which isn't unlikely). The difference in image quality will then be down the backlight and the scaler. The former will affect all signals, the latter may well vary depending on what resolution and format you're putting into it. Assuming the two are in direct competition, one manufacturer might spend more money on HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2, whereas the other sticks with HDMI 1.4a and HDCP 1.4 and spends more money on the scaler.
I didn't buy into 3D and I don't see any benefit in curved screens less than about 75". Smart I can see the point of, as iPlayer and Netflix straight through the TV would be neat (in the UK at least!), if not really necessary now you can get amazon fire, apple TV or a PS4/Xbox to give that functionality.
FWIW ours is a non-smart, non-3D Sony Bravia which is 3.5 years old at the moment and never skipped a beat. I chose that it more than anything because it was cheaper than the smart Samsungs/LGs and non-smart Panasonic plasmas. More importantly... I liked the very simple non-flashy bezel, I liked the remote, the menus are all dead simple, and it doesn't make a stupid noise when you turn it on.
Also I forgot to mention; if you do a lot of gaming then skewing the screen size a little larger can be sensible so that fine text in menus is still readable.
They are not the latest generation, but we have a Samsung in one room and a Panasonic in another. For me the Samsung is a better picture.
The one in the link assumes you have 6/6 (or 20-20) vision, and want to be able to resolve every pixel for a given resolution. Most people have better than 6/6 visual acuity so don't need that big a screen even if you do want to resolve every pixel.
The one I use is based on the Infocomm standards for good viewing distances, more specifically for "detailed viewing with clues", so spreadsheets, drawings where you don't need to resolve every detail because of contextual information. For watching moving video they suggest a smaller screen still.
It's also worth considering the visual angle - their approach gets you a screen that fills about 27 degrees horizontally, so it engages some of your peripheral vision too. That can be good for films, but can also mean you have to "scan" the image more.
Personally I think they're oversizing a bit. I also recognise that most people want a larger screen than the 75 guideline comes up with and are willing to accept worse-looking standard-def telly to get more benefit from high def.
I'm undecided about 4K for telly. It's genuinely useful for detailed PC work, for digital signage, video production and for simulation applications, but I just don't know if it really makes telly that much better, especially given that there's so little content. It feels like another attempt by the manufacturers to convince people to buy another new telly.
So a 28 inch 4K screen looks amazing as long as I have a 4K or FHD source the scaler on that screen/in the GPU (never quite know where the hand-off occurs with such a setup) manages even to do a good job with DVD quality sources.
The screen is just big enough that text is readable without windows scaling.
I've seen some really weird stuff from some screens recently - mostly commercial or commercial hybrids. Screens with a preferred resolution lower than their native resolution, screens that prefer 6-channel audio even though they have only two speakers (actually, that one didn't include stereo in its accepted formats), even a set of 1080p panels that accept some 4K resolutions. Didn't expect that last one!
OLED looks better than LCD largely because it's emissive and has blacker blacks, so you get a much higher genuine-on-screen contrast ratio.
HDR is a subset of HDMI2.0a - I didn't know there were tellies and sources with that onboard already let alone content.
One good thing about buying high-end monitors is manufacturers I think are expected to make more rational choices when it comes to inputs and panel types... And get away with odd choices less
I watched The Theory Of Everything in 4K and couldn't get away from the fact that it looked like a 1970s episode of Doctor Who- everyone was clearly wearing a wig, a costume and make up, every scene was taking place on a set. Films should be immersive, and for me anyway, 4K is an obstacle to that. At least until stuff starts getting made specifically for 4K.
Don't talk politics and don't throw stones. Your royal highnesses.
I did find even with my plasma (which must be 8 years old now) that getting the image settings right is critical. Out of the box (well, bubblewrap - it was an ex-demo bargain) it made films look like Eastenders. All sorts of advanced modes that removed that film "sheen" somehow.
Then there's the HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 malarkies going on which just adds more complexity and confusion. HDMI 2.0 is already inadequate.
I'd say if your 4k TV makes TV worse then it either needs setting up properly, or has a terrible scaler.
I'm currently watching a dvd of a 1990s TV show on a 4K screen and it looks great (with the caveat that it was filmed on poor film stock... But it definitely looks a huge improvement on the 90s broadcast). Given how much scaling it has to do I can't imagine that a modern digital TV signal (likely much higher resolution) is worse without the screen being mostly to blame
Studio: https://www.voltperoctave.com
Music: https://www.euclideancircuits.com
Me: https://www.jamesrichmond.com
Football is rubbish.