4k TVs and Monitors

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,644
5k @ 60hz is lovely, but 27" is way too small for that many pixels in normal desktop use. 36" would be perfect for me. That bezel is also about twice as big as it should be.
This. So this.

The bezel is the perfect size btw..........on a screen that is 36-44" in size. ;)
 

Chewy509

Wotty wot wot.
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
3,132
Location
Gold Coast Hinterland, Australia
I do agree the bezel is a little large, however size wise, I'm personally more interested in sub 24" displays (so I can two of them), or the ultra-wide displays (21:9 ratio) if above 27"...

What is interesting about it, it's a 10bit** panel (most are either 8bit or 6bit) for US$1300... US$800 less than the Dell equivalent! While the monitor itself may not be ideal for a lot of people, it's really good that it's shows a trend for high res monitors at a vastly reduced cost may be starting.

**10bit per colour channel. Most displays are either 8bit or 6bit, so this monitor has a larger colour range than most others on the market.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
It will be interesting to see how accurate the representation of those 10 bits is.

With Rec. 2020 we are shooting for 8k, progressive only, 120hz, 12 bit depth, and a new HDMI spec beyond 2.0 to handle the bandwidth.

With such a rapid pace of change it would be helpful to have well understood hardware upgrade paths.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,257
Location
USA
I do agree the bezel is a little large, however size wise, I'm personally more interested in sub 24" displays (so I can two of them), or the ultra-wide displays (21:9 ratio) if above 27"...

What is interesting about it, it's a 10bit** panel (most are either 8bit or 6bit) for US$1300... US$800 less than the Dell equivalent! While the monitor itself may not be ideal for a lot of people, it's really good that it's shows a trend for high res monitors at a vastly reduced cost may be starting.

**10bit per colour channel. Most displays are either 8bit or 6bit, so this monitor has a larger colour range than most others on the market.
I don't seem much of the appeal for the 5K@27" because the physical size is too small to appreciate it. The LG 31MU97 is also 10-bit, cinematic 4K, 31", and under $1000 US which I think is a better deal.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
With Rec. 2020 we are shooting for 8k, progressive only, 120hz, 12 bit depth, and a new HDMI spec beyond 2.0 to handle the bandwidth.
:scratch: Rec.2020 is a color space and has nothing to do with resolution, frame rate or bit depth.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
ExtremeTech estimates, using a recent review of the AMD R9 nano that to drive 8k at 120hz it would take 9.6kW of system power. We are going to need a bigger boat.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Where are you getting your information from?
Rec 2020 includes color space as well as the others. It is also known as BT .2020.

https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BT.2020/en
I've read the spec. As I said it is a color space definition. Nothing in there beside the color space definition is unique or new to it. The color space is not optional. The rest of the stuff you mentioned is optional / not mandatory / one choice that's available, aside from the progressive part which is basically moot. There's been no talk of interlaced formats past 1080i.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
It is a set of recommendations as is noted in the official title, ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020. The system colorimetry is no more mandatory than than anything else. It is a set of definitions.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
I've read the spec. As I said it is a color space definition. Nothing in there beside the color space definition is unique or new to it. The color space is not optional. The rest of the stuff you mentioned is optional / not mandatory / one choice that's available, aside from the progressive part which is basically moot. There's been no talk of interlaced formats past 1080i.
This is getting pretty boring I'm sure but for the sake of documentation where has 3840x2160 or 7680x4320 or 120hz or anything else recommended in 2020 been recommended before.
 

Buck

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
4,514
Location
Blurry.
Website
www.hlmcompany.com
Quotes from this article: Rec. 2020

ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020, more commonly known by the abbreviations Rec. 2020 or BT.2020, defines various aspects of UHDTV such as display resolution, frame rate, chroma subsampling, bit depth, and color space. It was posted on the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) website on August 23, 2012.

Rec. 2020 defines two resolutions of 3840 × 2160 ("4K") and 7680 × 4320 ("8K"). These resolutions have an aspect ratio of 16:9 and use square pixels.

Rec. 2020 specifies the following frame rates: 120p, 119.88p, 100p, 60p, 59.94p, 50p, 30p, 29.97p, 25p, 24p, 23.976p. Only progressive scan frame rates are allowed.
 

DrunkenBastard

Storage is cool
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
708
Location
on the floor
It will be interesting to see how accurate the representation of those 10 bits is.

With Rec. 2020 we are shooting for 8k, progressive only, 120hz, 12 bit depth, and a new HDMI spec beyond 2.0 to handle the bandwidth.

With such a rapid pace of change it would be helpful to have well understood hardware upgrade paths.
DisplayPort 1.3 graphics cards should be released next year that will allow for 4k @ 60Hz with HDR, HDMI 2 is still lagging behind:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9836/amd-unveils-2016-vistech-roadmap

To take advantage of that HDR support we are going to need monitors capable of far higher peak brightness than what's on the market now.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Quotes from this article: Rec. 2020

ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020, more commonly known by the abbreviations Rec. 2020 or BT.2020, defines various aspects of UHDTV such as display resolution, frame rate, chroma subsampling, bit depth, and color space. It was posted on the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) website on August 23, 2012.

Rec. 2020 defines two resolutions of 3840 × 2160 ("4K") and 7680 × 4320 ("8K"). These resolutions have an aspect ratio of 16:9 and use square pixels.

Rec. 2020 specifies the following frame rates: 120p, 119.88p, 100p, 60p, 59.94p, 50p, 30p, 29.97p, 25p, 24p, 23.976p. Only progressive scan frame rates are allowed.
Well, references to Rec. 2020 when talking about UHD displays are always with regards to the color space, because it's the part of the spec that's inflexible.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Well, references to Rec. 2020 when talking about UHD displays are always with regards to the color space, because it's the part of the spec that's inflexible.
No, people most often mention the spec when talking about color space because it is a succinct description. Not because it is particularly prominent within the spec.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,859
Location
Flushing, New York
I do agree the bezel is a little large, however size wise, I'm personally more interested in sub 24" displays (so I can two of them), or the ultra-wide displays (21:9 ratio) if above 27"...
Same here, the reason being I don't have the room for a large monitor, nor the eyesight to sit far enough away from it so it doesn't exceed my field of view. At the distances I view my monitors, which is about 16", 24" to 27" is just about perfect. 4K or 5K resolution means I probably won't see any pixels at that distance.
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
Guess one has to sign up first. I can't even browse their site as a stranger. Thus your link didn't work for me.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,257
Location
USA
Guess one has to sign up first. I can't even browse their site as a stranger. Thus your link didn't work for me.
Same. I thought it was just me.
I hadn't noticed that they block the descriptions until I opened the page in a private session. I've ordered from them several times without issue in the past and must see the listings because of my account session being active.
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,391
Location
Twilight Zone
Over the holiday we were at a family members house that had a 68" curved 4K TV. We watched a movie that was supposed to be 4K.

It didn't look any better than any other TV. Frankly, I think our plasma TV looks better.

So what's the big deal?? What am I missing??
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
68" curved TV? Did you mean 65"? What movie was it and how did they play it? It wouldn't surprise me if most people don't understand what is actually required to watch something in UHD. Further, the TVs are only really UHD if the image static. The TVs don't have sufficient motion resolution to resolve the full res in a reasonably fast moving image.
 

DrunkenBastard

Storage is cool
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
708
Location
on the floor
Over the holiday we were at a family members house that had a 68" curved 4K TV. We watched a movie that was supposed to be 4K.

It didn't look any better than any other TV. Frankly, I think our plasma TV looks better.

So what's the big deal?? What am I missing??
Your plasma may well have better motion resolution than that 4k TV (assuming LCD). Given UHD Blu-ray is not yet availabke I assume it was some low bitrate 4k stream. To better plasma motion res you need to go into either OLED, LCOS or DLP display tech to potentially better it.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
I had a similar experience lately, but they were playing standard Blu-ray disks. I had to explain to them that if the content isn't 4k, they aren't getting much. They were unhappy that this hadn't been explained to them when they were up-sold at the store.
 

DrunkenBastard

Storage is cool
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
708
Location
on the floor
I had a similar experience lately, but they were playing standard Blu-ray disks. I had to explain to them that if the content isn't 4k, they aren't getting much. They were unhappy that this hadn't been explained to them when they were up-sold at the store.
It doesn't help that consumers have the "4k remastered" Blu-rays sitting on store shelves as well to really mess with their minds. At least they were actually feeding it blu-ray and not some horribly compressed 1080i shit from a cable box.......
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,391
Location
Twilight Zone
It probably was 65". Samsung?
The movie was recorded from their Direct TV satellite provider onto a Direct TV DVR. The movie was labeled as 4K on the menu.
Even the standard 1080p broadcast were not as sharp and clear as my plasma. Maybe it was the curved screen, although I was sitting dead center
about 10' away from the set.
Disappointing.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,257
Location
USA
It doesn't help that consumers have the "4k remastered" Blu-rays sitting on store shelves as well to really mess with their minds. At least they were actually feeding it blu-ray and not some horribly compressed 1080i shit from a cable box.......
I agree. I've bought one of these not for a 4K display but just because it was a remaster from the original older movie onto Blu-ray. I can see where this would confuse people who recently bought a 4K display and don't quite understand it. I still have conversations with people who ask what 4K even is.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
It probably was 65". Samsung?
The movie was recorded from their Direct TV satellite provider onto a Direct TV DVR. The movie was labeled as 4K on the menu.
Even the standard 1080p broadcast were not as sharp and clear as my plasma. Maybe it was the curved screen, although I was sitting dead center
about 10' away from the set.
Disappointing.
I have no doubt the quality of this was awful. None of the content delivery companies (Comcast, DirecTV, etc) give enough bandwidth to anything. I often think that YouTube 1080P streams are actually higher bandwidth than most things those guys are calling "HD".
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I often think that YouTube 1080P streams are actually higher bandwidth than most things those guys are calling "HD".
Yeah, that's certainly not true. YouTube 1080p is like 5Mbps H.264. My local cable provide delivers much higher bitrate MPEG-2. Despite that neither it nor YouTube 1080p look particularly good.
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,644
Short blurb on Anandtech about a DP 1.2 ---> to ---> HDMI 2.0 adapter here. "...and that yes, it supports HDMI 2.0 with full 4:4:4 chroma subsampling."

Just curious have these been out for a while or what?
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,257
Location
USA
I have no doubt the quality of this was awful. None of the content delivery companies (Comcast, DirecTV, etc) give enough bandwidth to anything. I often think that YouTube 1080P streams are actually higher bandwidth than most things those guys are calling "HD".
Yeah, that's certainly not true. YouTube 1080p is like 5Mbps H.264. My local cable provide delivers much higher bitrate MPEG-2. Despite that neither it nor YouTube 1080p look particularly good.
Just an FYI, one of the tricks I've seen Linus Media Group use for YouTube is to master in 4K and up-sample 1080P content to 4K get access to YouTube's higher bitrate.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,257
Location
USA
Lowercase b...that is about 11.25MB/s. Right-click on a video while it is playing and check "stats for nerds".
I saw the lower case b...was still surprised at the rate. I'm seeing 4.5 Mb/sec on mine when I look at the stats for nerds while viewing the video at 2160P through Firefox (which may be my issue). Were you seeing the 90Mb on the link I posted or some other 4K video? When watching this COSTA RICA IN 4K 60fps video on YT, I get 5.1Mb/s via Firefox. I'm not sure if either are actually bitrate though. These might just be the connection speed to YouTube.

From what I see under the stas for nerds, under FF, it uses "Mime Type: video/mp4; codecs="avc1.640033" and under Chrome, they use Mime Type:video/webm; codecs="vp9".
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
I saw the lower case b...was still surprised at the rate. I'm seeing 4.5 Mb/sec on mine when I look at the stats for nerds while viewing the video at 2160P through Firefox (which may be my issue). Were you seeing the 90Mb on the link I posted or some other 4K video? When watching this COSTA RICA IN 4K 60fps video on YT, I get 5.1Mb/s via Firefox. I'm not sure if either are actually bitrate though. These might just be the connection speed to YouTube.

From what I see under the stas for nerds, under FF, it uses "Mime Type: video/mp4; codecs="avc1.640033" and under Chrome, they use Mime Type:video/webm; codecs="vp9".
That video gave me 121Mbps on Firefox. I'm seeing the same codec as you.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,257
Location
USA
Your ISP is much better at delivering YouTube content than mine is. Almost all 4K content buffers and stutters for me and often times 1080P content. It may just be my FIOS giving low QoS to YouTube.
 
Top