4K Tv/monitor size recommendations

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

5 minutes ago, flytrumpet767 said:

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

That resolution is known as XHD. 30% more pixels than 1920*1080. Probably explains why I wasn’t impressed with it when I temporarily attached my 27” BenQ. Forget the 3440, that’s just because of the wider display. On a 16:9 display it would be 2560*1440 aka XHD.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

3 minutes ago, flytrumpet767 said:

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.

You’ll struggle to find a 43” UHD monitor Richard. But I would urge you to visit a dealer and ask them to load that website so you can check the image quality before you buy. Buying ‘blind’ on the internet is risky.

[flytrumpet767 68]

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That resolution is known as XHD. 30% more pixels than 1920*1080. Probably explains why I wasn’t impressed with it when I temporarily attached my 27” BenQ. Forget the 3440, that’s just because of the wider display. On a 16:9 display it would be 2560*1440 aka XHD.

Indeed. It’s not a bad display by any means, although not the greatest, but it also didn’t kill my old 1070. I still consider it a mistake and anomaly since I went to this from a perfectly fine Asus « normal » 2k monitor. Oh well, now my friend has it and loves it. All is not lost. I wish I had a bigger budget for this next display, but I just upgraded the rest of system. 

[flytrumpet767 68]

6 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You’ll struggle to find a 43” UHD monitor Richard. But I would urge you to visit a dealer and ask them to load that website so you can check the image quality before you buy. Buying ‘blind’ on the internet is risky.

Good advice Ray, thank you.

[Adrian123 1,015]

29 minutes ago, flytrumpet767 said:

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

Worth a try. 😉  201? probably have to pay some stupid Tarriff to import to US. 😉

Edited December 26, 2018 by Adrian123

[mpw8679 428]

1 hour 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.

Good info.  Thanks for the link.  I am curious to see how the tv fares against one of my monitors.

[mpw8679 428]

1 hour 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? 😉

The newer 4k TVs are much better then past tv’s.  I remember hooking my pc up to an older 43 inch 1080p tv a few years ago.  The picture was so crappy I would have swore I had something set up wrong.  That is why it took me so long to join the 4k tv crowd.  

[flytrumpet767 68]

I also tried to hook up my lg 43 inch 1080 TV to my pc, and it lasted all but a few minutes. I liked the size of the screen, but so many pixels...

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

6 hours ago, flytrumpet767 said:

I also tried to hook up my lg 43 inch 1080 TV to my pc, and it lasted all but a few minutes. I liked the size of the screen, but so many pixels...

The same happens with UHD displays. 3840*2160 on a 32" is razor sharp. 137.7 pixels per inch.

Then as you start to increase the screen size those same number of pixels are spread over a larger area. By the time you get to 65" you have 67.8 pixels per inch. A 43" gives 102.5 ppi and a 50" 88.1 ppi.

On a 32" 1920*1080 there are 68.8 pixels per inch. That is actually sharper than a 65" UHD display.

Four times the screen size; four times the number of pixels = identical image quality. Check here https://www.sven.de/dpi/

Edited December 26, 2018 by Ray Proudfoot

[flytrumpet767 68]

Well, after a more careful measurement of my desk, it looks like the 50 will not fit. 43 it is.