4K Tv/monitor size recommendations

[mpw8679 428]

15 hours ago, flytrumpet767 said:

According to the review at rtings.com, it looks like it does.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/nu7100

By no means it’s the best TV out there, but seems adequate for usage as a pc monitor. Being highly rated as such because of very low input lag.

 I might take a chance on it, as it’s a pretty decent deal these days.

 

 

Over the last month I tested 3 43 inch 4K TV's for PC use.  Here are my observations.  They were all in the same price range.  All support 30hz and Chroma 4.4.4

Vizio E series- Good bright picture.  Good contrast.  Ok HDR (local dimming).  But bad dirty screen effect and very bad screen door effect when sitting close to TV.  If u plan on sitting close to the screen DO NOT BUY. 

TCL 5 series- Also very good bright picture.  Good contrast as well.  HDR is horrible.  This would be my pick for use in a brighter room as long as u don't use HDR content.  Will need calibrated as the factory settings seemed a little "off" in my eyes.  Again HDR mode is horrible.

Samsung NU7100- Excellent picture.  Contrast seems a touch weaker then the other two.  But definitely not a deal breaker.  Looked the most natural out of the three.  HDR is ok.  Good picture when sitting close to screen.  Not as bright as the other two.  Best build quality of the bunch.  I do not recommend this TV if it is going to be used in a brightly lit room.  This is the TV I ended up with and am very happy with.  But I also use it in a somewhat dark room. 

Just remember all these TV's have VA panels and will have bad viewing angles.  Not a problem if u sit directly in front of the TV.  And at this price point non of these will have overly bright screens and HDR mode will be barely noticeable.  Again HDR mode on the TCL is horrible.  In my opinion non of these TV's should be advertised as HDR capable.  They just don't have bright enough screens or good enough dimming to pull it off.

Edited December 25, 2018 by mpw8679

[flytrumpet767 68]

2 hours ago, mpw8679 said:

Over the last month I tested 3 43 inch 4K TV's for PC use.  Here are my observations.  They were all in the same price range.  All support 30hz and Chroma 4.4.4

Vizio E series- Good bright picture.  Good contrast.  Ok HDR (local dimming).  But bad dirty screen effect and very bad screen door effect when sitting close to TV.  If u plan on sitting close to the screen DO NOT BUY. 

TCL 5 series- Also very good bright picture.  Good contrast as well.  HDR is horrible.  This would be my pick for use in a brighter room as long as u don't use HDR content.  Will need calibrated as the factory settings seemed a little "off" in my eyes.  Again HDR mode is horrible.

Samsung NU7100- Excellent picture.  Contrast seems a touch weaker then the other two.  But definitely not a deal breaker.  Looked the most natural out of the three.  HDR is ok.  Good picture when sitting close to screen.  Not as bright as the other two.  Best build quality of the bunch.  I do not recommend this TV if it is going to be used in a brightly lit room.  This is the TV I ended up with and am very happy with.  But I also use it in a somewhat dark room. 

Just remember all these TV's have VA panels and will have bad viewing angles.  Not a problem if u sit directly in front of the TV.  And at this price point non of these will have overly bright screens and HDR mode will be barely noticeable.  Again HDR mode on the TCL is horrible.  In my opinion non of these TV's should be advertised as HDR capable.  They just don't have bright enough screens or good enough dimming to pull it off.

Thanks for this information. The room I plan to use the TV in is definitely not very bright. So I guess my first choice of the NU7100 seems like a good one. Would you say that the 43 is a good size as far as getting a close to real life gauge size? A 50 is also available and not that much more, but I’m worried about picture quality from 3 feet away.

[mpw8679 428]

17 minutes ago, flytrumpet767 said:

Thanks for this information. The room I plan to use the TV in is definitely not very bright. So I guess my first choice of the NU7100 seems like a good one. Would you say that the 43 is a good size as far as getting a close to real life gauge size? A 50 is also available and not that much more, but I’m worried about picture quality from 3 feet away.

I would say a 50 inch would be a better real life representation.  But the 43 is no slouch depending on your zoom levels.  I was also worried about the picture quality of the 50 that is why I choose a 43.  I would say try the 50 and If u don't like return it for the 43.

[flytrumpet767 68]

I think that although it should fit, the 50 might be very big on my desk. 43 might be the sweet spot.

[mpw8679 428]

12 minutes ago, flytrumpet767 said:

I think that although it should fit, the 50 might be very big on my desk. 43 might be the sweet spot.

U will like the 43.  I have mine mounted on the wall about 2-3 feet in front of me.  I can lean in pretty close (old habit with smaller monitors) and picture still looks good.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,955]

On 6/18/2018 at 6:17 PM, flytrumpet767 said:

Hi guys. Quick question. What size 4K TV/monitor should I get to see the gauges/displays of the PMDG NGX, for example,as close as possible to real life size?

Thanks

Going back to your original question if you want size over sharpness then you need to consider a 65” for 1:1 size. But that would require 8K for sharpness. There aren’t any 8K TVs so you need to lower your expectations.

Whilst the gauges as seen on a 32” UHD monitor won’t be life sized they will be extremely well defined. Smaller but sharper gauges or bigger but less detailed. That is your quandary.

Have you ruled out a 32” UHD monitor? The image quality is higher than a TV. And no drop-off with a change of viewing angle. My BenQ cost 50% more than the Samsung TV. Ask yourself why. Better quality components.

[mpw8679 428]

14 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Have you ruled out a 32” UHD monitor? The image quality is higher than a TV. And no drop-off with a change of viewing angle. My BenQ cost 50% more than the Samsung TV. Ask yourself why. Better quality components.

We know u love your BenQ but from a value standpoint it is hard to justify.  I also don’t buy the better quality component argument.  Ok some components might be better but does it really matter?  I’ve compared my 4k tv to my $500 28 inch Samsung 4k monitor and my $1000 Acer 38 inch ultra wide.  My only observation was that I felt like an word not allowed spending all that money on the pc monitors.

[flytrumpet767 68]

I definitely ruled out anything smaller than what I have now. Even if the image quality of the BenQ is probably much better than my Dell 2K ultra wide. I definitely regret buying this monitor now, although the wider screen had some interesting aspects at first.The fact that some vertical space is lost is now bugging me. So I would say that size is definitely an important factor in my decision making process this time. And for this reason, a 4K TV seems like a much better value. I’m not really concerned with the viewing angle thing since I’ll be sitting straight in front of it at all times. I think I pretty much decided to go with the Samsung NU7100, the only question is which size. Obviously neither the 43 or 50 will give me 1:1 cockpit size, but it’s got to be better than my first 15 inch monitor....I might get the 50 first and see how it works out since it just fits on my desk, especially that it’s not that much more.

Thanks for your input guys, much appreciated 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,955]

50 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

We know u love your BenQ but from a value standpoint it is hard to justify.  I also don’t buy the better quality component argument.  Ok some components might be better but does it really matter?  I’ve compared my 4k tv to my $500 28 inch Samsung 4k monitor and my $1000 Acer 38 inch ultra wide.  My only observation was that I felt like an word not allowed spending all that money on the pc monitors.

Monitors last many years unlike CPUs, graphics cards and the like. Anyway, my comment wasn’t directed at you. It was directed to Richard. It’s his money he’s spending and he asked the question. What you think of my opinion is irrelevant.

[mpw8679 428]

27 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Monitors last many years unlike CPUs, graphics cards and the like. Anyway, my comment wasn’t directed at you. It was directed to Richard. It’s his money he’s spending and he asked the question. What you think of my opinion is irrelevant.

No need to get defensive.  I am really interested to know what makes a more expensive monitor like yours (or my 38 inch ultra wide) better quality then a cheaper monitor or TV.  Because side by side the build and picture quality is very similar.  So what exactly justifies the heavy price increase?

[flytrumpet767 68]

I just revisited my order history on Newegg to see how much I paid for my dell Ultra wide...I have to admit I’m a little depressed...especially considering the 50 Samsung 4K NU7100 is almost half the price...I guess I can try to sell it on kijiji (Craig’s list equivalent in Canada) to recover some of the costs...

[Adrian123 1,015]

24 minutes ago, flytrumpet767 said:

I just revisited my order history on Newegg to see how much I paid for my dell Ultra wide...I have to admit I’m a little depressed...especially considering the 50 Samsung 4K NU7100 is almost half the price...I guess I can try to sell it on kijiji (Craig’s list equivalent in Canada) to recover some of the costs...

I have a hard time believing a TV is as high a resolution as a Computer monitor or everyone in the world would have one over a monitor.. I have tried in the past and was never satisfied with the TV resolution compared to a dedicated monitor. Now, perhaps the 4K UHD thing makes a difference now? In the past they were 1080 TV;s and terrible... I'll give ya 200 bucks for the monitor depending on its size? 😉

Edited December 26, 2018 by Adrian123

[Ray Proudfoot 8,955]

21 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

No need to get defensive.  I am really interested to know what makes a more expensive monitor like yours (or my 38 inch ultra wide) better quality then a cheaper monitor or TV.  Because side by side the build and picture quality is very similar.  So what exactly justifies the heavy price increase?

In short, a more accurate image. If you visit this website it provides a very demanding set of tests that allow you to access the quality or otherwise of your display. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

When I tested my recently sold Sony 32” HD TV it struggled to pass all the tests. My very much older Dell 24” 1920*1200 monitor faired even worse even though it was an expensive monitor in 2007 when I bought it. Displays degrade over time.

It’s not until you see what a quality display can give you you begin to realise what you’re missing out on with lesser hardware. Some people will buy a 2080Ti and then pair it up with a substandard display. That’s bonkers.

The best monitors are used for photographic work as colour accuracy is vital. I’m in the process of scanning slides and negs from the 80s onwards and wanted a decent monitor so that when I had images printed they would match what I see on the display. That’s why I bought a BenQ 24” XHD monitor and after seeing its quality decided I wanted its bigger brother for flight sim.

Richard decided on a ultra wide monitor which he now regrets buying. UHD monitors haven’t been around long and I agree they are expensive. You don’t see them much bigger than 32” probably because they aren’t needed to be bigger for their target audience - graphics designers and photographers. But I’ve always rated quality highly because you generally don’t need to buy again for many years.

Maybe if I’d had the room for a 40” TV I may have bought one but the image definition would always be lower with a larger display for the same res. I had my 32” Sony for 5 years and didn’t yearn for anything bigger so I’m content I made the right decision.

Unlike CPUs or graphics cards which are bought for their power it’s different with displays. There’s no right or wrong choice. It’s only what you, the customer are happy with.

[flytrumpet767 68]

17 minutes ago, Adrian123 said:

I have a hard time believing a TV is as high a resolution as a Computer monitor or everyone in the world would have one over a monitor.. I have tried in the past and was never satisfied with the TV resolution compared to a dedicated monitor. Now, perhaps the 4K UHD thing makes a difference now? In the past they were 1080 TV;s and terrible... I'll give ya 200 bucks for the monitor depending on its size? 😉

I should have mentioned that my Dell is 3440x1440, not 4K.

I think I might have to refuse your offer 😁 I probably will be able to get a bit more. It’s a 34 inch

[flytrumpet767 68]

8 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

In short, a more accurate image. If you visit this website it provides a very demanding set of tests that allow you to access the quality or otherwise of your display. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

When I tested my recently sold Sony 32” HD TV it struggled to pass all the tests. My very much older Dell 24” 1920*1200 monitor faired even worse even though it was an expensive monitor in 2007 when I bought it. Displays degrade over time.

It’s not until you see what a quality display can give you you begin to realise what you’re missing out on with lesser hardware. Some people will buy a 2080Ti and then pair it up with a substandard display. That’s bonkers.

The best monitors are used for photographic work as colour accuracy is vital. I’m in the process of scanning slides and negs from the 80s onwards and wanted a decent monitor so that when I had images printed they would match what I see on the display. That’s why I bought a BenQ 24” XHD monitor and after seeing its quality decided I wanted its bigger brother for flight sim.

Richard decided on a ultra wide monitor which he now regrets buying. UHD monitors haven’t been around long and I agree they are expensive. You don’t see them much bigger than 32” probably because they aren’t needed to be bigger for their target audience - graphics designers and photographers. But I’ve always rated quality highly because you generally don’t need to buy again for many years.

Maybe if I’d had the room for a 40” TV I may have bought one but the image definition would always be lower with a larger display for the same res. I had my 32” Sony for 5 years and didn’t yearn for anything bigger so I’m content I made the right decision.

Unlike CPUs or graphics cards which are bought for their power it’s different with displays. There’s no right or wrong choice. It’s only what you, the customer are happy with.

Thanks Ray. I guess in a perfect world I would be able to afford a great 43 inch 4K monitor,  but those are pretty pricey....I’m hoping that the Samsung TV will provide an acceptable compromise for the price. Unfortunately stores are closed again tomorrow here in Nova Scotia...More waiting.