AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugela  /t/1523026/4k-monitors-what-to-get#post_24495291


The Dell monitor has a refresh rate of 30Hz, so it has limitations.

Correct for 4K. But is that just right for the 30fps frame rate of all the consumer 4K cameras. So, not great for physics simulations and writing theses on Shakespeare or analyzing spreadsheets, but just fine for 4K viewing and editing consumer 4K camera videos?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,630 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague  /t/1523026/4k-monitors-what-to-get#post_24495930


39" 4K for $500:

http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/dp/B00DOPGO2G/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1395101976&sr=1-1&keywords=4k+tv


Seems to me that completed videos will ultimately be watched on a TV. So a TV would be the best place to "proof" the output.

What distinction is there between a "TV" and a "monitor," with, say, the same resolution, other than the absence of a tuner? I don't understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,556 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041  /t/1523026/4k-monitors-what-to-get#post_24495407


Correct for 4K. But is that just right for the 30fps frame rate of all the consumer 4K cameras. So, not great for physics simulations and writing theses on Shakespeare or analyzing spreadsheets, but just fine for 4K viewing and editing consumer 4K camera videos?

Although stated contrast ratios by manufacturers are extremely unreliable, the CR stated by Dell is not very good. 1,000:1 in 2014 is really pretty poor, so you can't expect anything approaching good blacks on it.


Almost all monitors I've seen have no local dimming of any sort and therefore black levels are governed by the native CR of the LCD/LED panel. Those are generally pretty poor and that's why good LEDs are assisted by some type of local dimming, either FALD (the best) or edge lit LD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts

None are worth getting in my opinion, even the high end UltraSharps from Dell. I had the top of the line UP3214Q and it is plagued with issues. Beautiful picture, but it sometimes boots to a half-blank screen due to improper MST implementation at the firmware level, and will sometimes lose connection with the video card on sleep. Happened often enough to me that I got frustrated and shipped the monitor back.

 

The 31.5" IGZO panel also uses low frequency PWM, something you'd see on a cheap $100-150 monitor, extremely disappointing. The UP2414Q has no PWM, which is good, but still suffers from the aforementioned firmware issues. 

 

Once the firmware issues are fixed, I suppose the UP2414Q will be worth a buy, that's too small for me though.

 

I'd wait for the second wave of 4K monitors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
I really want a monitor or TV with the full 4096x2160 I'll get from the GH4. As of now, the least expensive way to get it in the States is a $4000+ JVC Projector . I guess I'll have to wait for the second wave, as x3sphere suggests
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,556 Posts
Bill, a word of caution, that JVC is not a native 4K projector. It accepts 4K inputs but uses 'pixel shift' technology to achieve a 'pseudo 4K' effect. I look at a display device like that as a 'half pregnant' 4K solution.


JVC has some odd 4K devices. Their 4K camcorder outputs 4 1080p signal to achieve a 4K resolution. At least this, when properly displayed, is true 4K, but good luck in finding display devices that know how to assemble the 4 1080p quadrants.


Sony has a true 4K projector, but it's very pricey. You may be better off with one of the new 2014 direct view, UHD LEDs. I'm considering one this year. I believe there may be one or two that is a full 4K, but most are technically UHD. I'm not sure you'd actually see any difference to be honest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,346 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041  /t/1523026/4k-monitors-what-to-get#post_24496005


What distinction is there between a "TV" and a "monitor," with, say, the same resolution, other than the absence of a tuner? I don't understand.
I'm not sure I understand either.


In the 1080p world, oh so long ago, I wanted a second monitor for my 1920x1080 laptop. Costco had a Samsung 22 inch "monitor" and TV combo on sale. Written on the box was that it could be used either as a TV or computer monitor. It seemed perfect for my desk, so I bought it. I found that using it during editing as a preview monitor gave me a better idea what the completed project would look like when played on a full size 1080p HD TV.


It could be that my laptop monitor provides an unrealistic preview or it could be that the Samsung provides a more realistic view. I never found anything in the specs of either that would explain my visual impressions. The experience does suggest to me that the best monitor for video production might be a "real" TV instead of a monitor made for office work.


Note that I could easily be talked out of my theory!


Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,556 Posts
Bill, I agree, a TV would probably be better for the reasons I mentioned above. Any reasonably good HDTV would make for a better monitor, given that it probably has a much better CR.


The problem becomes more an issue of size. The larger TVs tend to be the ones that have the better PQ with some form of local dimming to enhance black levels.


Smaller TVs tend to be more like computer monitors with a tuner tacked on. Most people aren't looking for computer monitors in sizes over 42", so quality issues may remain a factor.


I actually use a small JVC CRT monitor designed for editing, since I found it superior to the LCDs that were available. It takes up more desk space, but it gives me a better idea of what the end product will look like. Of course the JVC won't be a 4K solution. For that, it's back to the drawing boards.



One thing I've learned over the years, is that although you may know your finished product is color accurate, since you've done your work on a calibrated display, the chances are exceptionally good that the person or company you're giving that finished product to, is viewing it on a display that's poorly adjusted. Such is life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Ken raises a good point about the fact that if you edit based on a perfect monitor, it could look terrible on most people's TV's, which are far from ideal. We face that in audio - master audio on the best transducers, and then the audience listens on Bose earbuds or with a Dr. Dre headphone or on a car radio. One has to actually check how the audio sounds on popular listening devices, no matter how bad.


There is more than contrast ratio to a good monitor/TV - there is the size of the color gamut - does the monitor show the full range (the Dell UHD monitor is close to 100%)? - and there is color accuracy (the Dell UHD monitor is calibrated to be within a small margin to be perfectly accurate).


There is no reason to expect that a TV with good DR is also color-accurate and showing the full color gamut. The Dell UHD monitor gets two out of three, and the relatively low CR is typical of almost all IPS displays (which have excellent viewing angles (for sharing a screen among multiple viewers at once)). I thought only theDest fixated on dynamic range and blacks
.


It is not TV versus monitor; it's the specs that count. Professionals edit with monitors, not commercially-available TV's. Top monitors have way more controls than consumer-grade TV's. There are some excellent consumer-grade TV's, of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,556 Posts
I agree Mark, but generally speaking, ISF techs will tell you CR and black levels are the #1 thing you look at when buying a display. With color accuracy, most modern displays can be ISF'd to show nearly perfect color. The major difference may be in the range of secondary color adjustments that a manufacturer provides, but you can generally get so close with any of the good, modern displays, that it's generally not an issue.


You are right about the color gamut, but of course I don't think we have much source material that would challenge a display that's capable of displaying a 100% gamut. That may well change in the not too distant future...hopefully.


As for sharing a fixation with my buddy, that's more than a bit scary!



I actually do feel strongly about blacks and CR for my displays. The reason is simple. There's such a huge amount of broadcast material that is challenging to both the CR and black levels (the two are obviously intertwined) of our HDTVs, it's a huge benefit to have a display that can show that as well as possible. That's why I've had a Pioneer Elite plasma, the Sharp Elite LED and Samsung F8500 plasma. They all have excellent CRs and deliver great black levels.


I deviated a bit with the Samsung since slightly better black levels can be achieved with the Panasonic ZT/VT60 but those don't provide the brightness that the Samsung can. The Samsung is also better at taming the ABL (auto brightness limiter) that's inherent in all plasmas.


But I just don't get nearly as excited, as you know, about DR in today's better cameras. A camera like the RX10 provides ample DR for my use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
732 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugela  /t/1523026/4k-monitors-what-to-get#post_24495291


The Dell monitor has a refresh rate of 30Hz, so it has limitations.

Base on my understanding of refresh rates, it shouldn't be an issue for non-gamers. I mostly edit photos, browse the web, use Microsoft Office, and soon edit 4K 30p videos. For that kind of intended usage, I don't see any limitations with 30hz.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
Hi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt_Strider  /t/1523026/4k-monitors-what-to-get#post_24547031


Base on my understanding of refresh rates, it shouldn't be an issue for non-gamers. I mostly edit photos, browse the web, use Microsoft Office, and soon edit 4K 30p videos. For that kind of intended usage, I don't see any limitations with 30hz.

But then it will also limit all video to 30fps whether that is 60i or 60P, if it accepts a 1080P signal you can get back 60fps again by changing resolution, but then you are stuck with the monitors scaling, and often they aren't good, although 1080P should scale easily to 4K.


In a few months time you will be kicking yourself at why you didn't hold off when true 4K UHD monitors appear.


30fps should have been consigned to history with 4K as interlacing has been, and it has as far as the UHD standard is concerned, although if H264 at 4K resolutions had supported interlacing I think we'd still have it on these early 4K camcorders to get up to 60fps. We'd then have everyone saying how good de-interlacing is these days and it didn't matter



Regards


Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,556 Posts
^ Well, 30fps is working just fine in the current AX100 and GH4 4K camcorders, so most of us are very grateful it wasn't 'consigned to history'. Oh, and if you hate 30fps, you must really love 24 & 25fps that are also in the UHD standard.



Now, with that said, a 4K monitor with HDMI 2.0 would make the display more compatible with the inevitable 4K 60p cameras that will eventually arrive. HDMI 2.0 was the reason I didn't get a 4K UHD TV in 2013, it hadn't yet arrived.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top