Support NeoGAF

[MidGenRefresh]

Sure, dude, go check yours then.

No, it does NOT, not even at half the PROPER viewing distance. But lame hyperbole is great and 4K foreva because labels and brands told you so, and if you are not at 15 meters everything else looks "like ass".

Bye.

 

[Quantum253]

Bollocks. Gaming on a 4k 48" screen is wayyyyyy more immersive than 27" 1440p. This is especially true for single player games. I will only use smaller monitors for competitive FPS

This is my setup 25" vs 48" , like who in the right mind would choose the smaller screen for immersive gaming ? Sure , 4k is unnecessarily taxing but not running 4k on this beautiful OLED screen is a crime .

That looks good. Trying to figure out whether to get a 1440p monitor that can serve as a desktop monitor along with attaching a future PS5 was hard since 1440p isn't supported. I was stoked to hear about the LG 42" OLED, but unsure how something that big would look on a desk. With the current prices, that 48" OLED looks great on a desk with room for the system/docking station.

 

[FukuDaruma]

Bye.

Another great argument from you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

I strongly disagree the 4k is overrated, unless you are talking about 1440p as the BASE resolution which gets upscaled to 4k by some method like dlss. On a 4k tv, the difference is very noticeable in the:a) image quality and b) loss of fine detail and texture of materials.

A few examples where I feel native 1440p just doesn't cut it compared to 4k are the recent gta5 remaster, the Uncharted 4 collection, and the Shadow of Collossus remake. The 4k mode looks a lot better and it's pretty sad that Naughty Dog and Rockstar couldn't do better in terms of resolution at 60 fps.

This brings up the whole dichotomy of the typical "fidelity" or "performance" modes on the next gen consoles and why it sucks to have to chose one or the other. On PC games are given more options including sliders that allow the gamer to choose resolution (at the possible expense of other settings).

I always find myself unhappy while playing a game in performance mode because of image quality and detail loss. Theres a big difference in most games, despite many of us console gamers having convinced ourselves that 1440p is "good enough". Why couldn't ND and Rockstar allowed for a 1600p-1800p mode that maybe loses some shadow quality? This also begs the question of "are these consoles powerful enough" because they already struggle to do 1440p/60 with high/ultra settings on cross gen and last gen games. ..

 

[lefty1117]

at 27" 1440p is the best bet

 

[Kataploom]

Does anyone fall for this? lmao

Are we now pretending 4K to 8K isn't noticable? Maybe you game on a Gameboy micro size screen at 8 feet but for us with 120"+ screens at 3 millimeters it's pretty noticable, can't go back to the dark days

 

[Myths]

Some people don’t understand the relativity of resolutions to monitors.

 

[names are for friends]

At a ~5ft viewing distance on my 48" screen, using the default Nvidia GPU scaling, I think roughly the lowest resolution that isn't noticeably much worse is 1800p... if I drop down to 1620p it doesn't look terrible but it's a big step down. 1440p is unpleasant.

I think most people are more undiscerning though and don't mind the obvious aliasing, flickering or the softness of the image. Perhaps they are console gamers. That's fine too. Most modern console games have a performance mode that runs in roughly 1440p and some of them have good scaling like Insomniac's games (still looks pretty bad but those people won't mind).

 

[BadBurger]

I'll be honest - I upgraded from a 27" rinky-dink 1440p, 60Hz monitor to this and I can hardly tell the difference. Maybe if I mounted my current monitor on the wall to be farther away or something. But yea, maybe it's just my aging eyes, but 1440p isn't that drastic of a departure in quality from 2160p.

 

[AJUMP23]

What resolution are my eyes? That is what I want to see in.

 

[captainpat]

Well, I kind of agree. But 4k's the only resolution with decent hdr options, if you don't want to mess with ultrawides.

 

[DevilMayFlyForAWhiteGuy]

I have a 43” inch TV and primarily game on Series X. I’ve played games that are 900p, 1080p, 1440p, and 4K on it and can tell the difference between all of them. DMC5SE, for instance, is probably one of the best looking games on my TV running at 4K and 60fps. It looks super crisp and fluid. Some other games are below 4K to reach 60, but it’s not a bad jump. If most games have to be 1440p (or hover around that) to reach 60 then I’ll be fine.

 

[FukuDaruma]

At a ~5ft viewing distance on my 48" screen, using the default Nvidia GPU scaling, I think roughly the lowest resolution that isn't noticeably much worse is 1800p... if I drop down to 1620p it doesn't look terrible but it's a big step down. 1440p is unpleasant.

I think most people are more undiscerning though and don't mind the obvious aliasing, flickering or the softness of the image. Perhaps they are console gamers. That's fine too. Most modern console games have a performance mode that runs in roughly 1440p and some of them have good scaling like Insomniac's games (still looks pretty bad but those people won't mind).

For 48" you should be at 6.7 ft (2.05 m): https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

Contrary to what most people believe (or want to) 4K doesn't solve aliasing. It makes it a bit less noticeable, but it is noticeable there still. A game with no or bad antialiasing will still have very visible aliasing at 4K, while a game with good antialiasing at 1440p won't have any aliasing.

Flickering doesn't have anything to do with resolutions but panel technology and refresh rates, which can be *higher* at 1440p than 4K on the same panel.

Console gamers had 4K for years, with a pathetic 30fps (more important) due to the obsession with the "4K" (less important) label.

 

[grfunkulus]

I have a 1440p monitor and some times I tend to downsample from 4K depending on the game.
On my 65” OLED, anything below 1800p looks blurry.

1800p is a good compromise resolution and should be the new target IMO.

 

[grfunkulus]

Here, here. 1440p at high framerates is glorious. More than happy with that.

Why not have both? Eventually, we will have both. Going all the way in one direction has diminishing returns. I would way rather have a 42-48 inch OLED that is capable of greater than 120hz (say we get to 165hz with those in the next 2-3 years). That's already better IMO compared to a 240hz 1440p.

 

[Hoddi]

For 48" you should be at 6.7 ft (2.05 m): https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

Contrary to what most people believe (or want to) 4K doesn't solve aliasing. It makes it a bit less noticeable, but it is noticeable there still. A game with no or bad antialiasing will still have very visible aliasing at 4K, while a game with good antialiasing at 1440p won't have any aliasing.

Flickering doesn't have anything to do with resolutions but panel technology and refresh rates, which can be *higher* at 1440p than 4K on the same panel.

Console gamers had 4K for years, with a pathetic 30fps (more important) due to the obsession with the "4K" (less important) label.

I'm pretty sure he meant flickering in the sense of TAA. It's more obvious at lower/upscaled resolutions simply because the pixels are larger.

That said, I still see aliasing at 4k on my 27" PC monitor. Even downsampling from 8k doesn't fully solve that so there's still room for growth in the monitor space. These TV distance calculators are usually only meant for people watching movies and don't really apply to gaming.

 

[Strider311]

4k is unnecessary. 3440x1440 is where it’s at!

 

[Södy]

I use a 4k 32" monitor because I also use it for work. It looks great, sharp crisp. For gaming, 1440p would be enough at 27" for me. I tried out a 3440x1440 UWQHD and it was absolutely awesome for gaming.

But I missed the text clarity in Windows. When you come from 4k, text is just super sharp, especially in coding IDEs. I am sure I would get used to it. If you never had a 4k monitor - go for UWQHD 34" imo.

 

[rofif]

That looks good. Trying to figure out whether to get a 1440p monitor that can serve as a desktop monitor along with attaching a future PS5 was hard since 1440p isn't supported. I was stoked to hear about the LG 42" OLED, but unsure how something that big would look on a desk. With the current prices, that 48" OLED looks great on a desk with room for the system/docking station.

48 is fine. I have normal 65cm deep desk and I got used to it in 3 days. I am happy I didn’t wait for 42 this year

 

[Hoppa]

I don’t notice the difference honestly so given a choice I would much rather 1140p with better performance than 4k 30fps

 

[FukuDaruma]

I'm pretty sure he meant flickering in the sense of TAA. It's more obvious at lower/upscaled resolutions simply because the pixels are larger.

That said, I still see aliasing at 4k on my 27" PC monitor. Even downsampling from 8k doesn't fully solve that so there's still room for growth in the monitor space. These TV distance calculators are usually only meant for people watching movies and don't really apply to gaming.

The distances are for mixed usage, but of course those are not exact numbers set in stone, as there are many factors to count in; but they are a good start reference.

You (or he) must be talking about *shimmering* then, specially visible in specular highlights at edges... when there is no TAA. For example: you see a lot of aliasing and shimmering in Dark Souls 3. But there is almost no aliasing and shimmering in Elden Ring, thanks to TAA. Aliasing and shimering are much worse in Dark Souls 3 at 4K than in Elden Ring at 1440p or even at 1080p.
4K doesn't magically solve everything, as many people believe. But it tanks your performance, that's for sure. 1440p60 is much better than 2160p30 for any game, unless it's a game that has barely any motion on screen.

 

[Doctor Hades]

I have a 4K OLED TV for console gaming (and movies obviously!) but still use a 27" 1440p G-SYNC monitor (ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q) for PC gaming.

Honestly, I cannot see the difference between 4K (tested with 30 fps Fidelity modes in console games) on the TV compared to 1440p on the monitor for the PC, obviously because I am sat much further away when I play console games such they look on par with what I see on PC from closer up. That does mean that I would likely see more detail if I had a 4K PC monitor due to being sat much closer but what's the point when I am already happy enough with 1440p? I do not think the loss in performance or having to use lower settings, which will be more obvious on the monitor due to being sat closer is worth the trade-off personally.

The biggest improvement in using a TV is having HDR, which my monitor does not support, surround sound (I use 2.1 audio for my PC) and, of course, being able to sit away from a desk for gaming. As such, I actually prefer gaming on consoles and while I might have a 4K TV, it is no problem for me to use the lower resolution performance modes since the viewing distance doesn't really allow me to appreciate all the fine detail of native 4K anyway.

4K is great for productivity - having a larger desktop is obviously useful - and if you have a massive screen, say, 77"+, but otherwise, yes, I think 4K is a bit overrated for games personally.

 

[Rickyiez]

That looks good. Trying to figure out whether to get a 1440p monitor that can serve as a desktop monitor along with attaching a future PS5 was hard since 1440p isn't supported. I was stoked to hear about the LG 42" OLED, but unsure how something that big would look on a desk. With the current prices, that 48" OLED looks great on a desk with room for the system/docking station.

Tbh 42" is the perfect size as a huge monitor , it's only slightly wider than 34" ultrawide which is mainstream now but with the full height . I chose 48" because sometimes I like to lean back further for TV session .

 

[Quantum253]

Tbh 42" is the perfect size as a huge monitor , it's only slightly wider than 34" ultrawide which is mainstream now but with the full height . I chose 48" because sometimes I like to lean back further for TV session .

I like to sit back as well. When looking at the price differences between the 42/48" for $100 more seems like the 48" is the better option. I still have to get the work area built out so there's time to catch something on sale.

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

It depends on the screen size and the distance you seat from it.
1440p is the sweet spot for monitors, IMHO.
4k is better suited for Big TV's.

 

[22:22:22]

Sorry. Can't find the right tread. It was about downscaling your 4k set to 1080p in regards to image quality (switch?)


One user told me it depended on my 4k set and gave me 2 links to 2 separate sites to look it up. Had to do with my specific 4k TV

I can't find those sites anymore

Can someone help?

 

[Mister Wolf]

Sorry. Can't find the right tread. It was about downscaling your 4k set to 1080p in regards to image quality (switch?)


One user told me it depended on my 4k set and gave me 2 links to 2 separate sites to look it up. Had to do with my specific 4k TV

I can't find those sites anymore

Can someone help?

I suggested Rtings.com to you.

 

[22:22:22]

I suggested Rtings.com to you.

Couldn't find your post and I looked hard (not enough it seems)

Thanks Mr Wolf

 

[22:22:22]

It's a confusing site imo

 

[Tams]

1080p is fine for me, but I wouldn't go any larger than 24" with it.

You can notice individual pixels on 15" monitors at 1080p, and it's not hard to if you are looking for them at 24".

If I were in the market for a new monitor though, I'd probably go for 1440p as not only have those monitors caught up to everything but the highest refresh rates, they are often the only ones with the most features.

1080p monitors are mainly now cheap stuff and have lost many good features (especially colour accuracy).

 

[OZ9000]

This thread is trash.

4K is objectively superior to 1440p.

Whilst a good quality TV will upscale well, there is a notable difference in IQ and reduction in jaggies/aliasing.

I know some game devs use clever temporal upscaling to bridge the gap (DLSS also works wonderful) but you cannot deny a 4K output simply looks better.

I'm willing to admit DLSS @ 4K Quality looks as good as Native 4K however.

 

[FukuDaruma]

This thread is trash.

4K is objectively superior to 1440p.

Whilst a good quality TV will upscale well, there is a notable difference in IQ and reduction in jaggies/aliasing.

I know some game devs use clever temporal upscaling to bridge the gap (DLSS also works wonderful) but you cannot deny a 4K output simply looks better.

I'm willing to admit DLSS @ 4K Quality looks as good as Native 4K however.

4K is not superior when you have to sacrifice performance so much you have to jump down to a pathetic 30fps or reduce a lot of quality settings.

4K is NOT a solution to aliasing. Good antialiasing tech is. Dark Souls 3 has more aliasing and shimmering at 4K than Elden Ring at 1440p or even 1080p.

DLSS looks in fact better than native 4K in many cases, in edges, shimmering and overall image stability:

 

[rofif]

4K is not superior when you have to sacrifice performance so much you have to jump down to a pathetic 30fps or reduce a lot of quality settings.

4K is NOT a solution to aliasing. Good antialiasing tech is. Dark Souls 3 has more aliasing and shimmering at 4K than Elden Ring at 1440p or even 1080p.

DLSS looks in fact better than native 4K in many cases, in both edges and image stability:

Dark souls 3 is one of my go to 4k games showcase. It’s the game that made me switch from 1440p144hz to 4k 60 good IPs monitor. It looks very detailed.
And nowadays, you can just get 4k 120 oled and if you can run at 120, you just lower dlss subs still have better output than native 1440p.

There is no downside to 4k nowadays that you can get it in 120+ And gsync.

 

[FukuDaruma]

Dark souls 3 is one of my go to 4k games showcase. It’s the game that made me switch from 1440p144hz to 4k 60 good IPs monitor. It looks very detailed.
And nowadays, you can just get 4k 120 oled and if you can run at 120, you just lower dlss subs still have better output than native 1440p.

There is no downside to 4k nowadays that you can get it in 120+ And gsync.

It looks so detailed you see aliasing and specular shimmering all over the place. Look at this tower:

The whole map is an aliasing and shimmering fest:




My point is no "4K" solves that. Good TAA or DLSS does.

And that any Souls game (or any other which isn't mostly static) is better at 1440p60 than 2160p30.

 

[rofif]

It looks so detailed you see aliasing and specular shimmering all over the place. Look at this tower:

The whole map is an aliasing and shimmering fest:




My point is no "4K" solves that. Good TAA or DLSS does.

And that any Souls game (or any other which isn't mostly static) is better at 1440p60 than 2160p30.

It’s a 2015 game what so you expect with just fxaa?
Here, raw 4k greatly helps.

The retarded videos you linked use reshade and sharpening…. Cmon man. Tbh e game looks much better at 4k without the terrible filters added by reshade.

I am not comparing 1440p60 to 4k30.
I am talking 4k60….
But if it was a choice, I am picking 4k30 in some cases. I recently replayed uc4 remaster 4k30. It felt great and was not blurry

 

[OZ9000]

4K is not superior when you have to sacrifice performance so much you have to jump down to a pathetic 30fps or reduce a lot of quality settings.

4K is NOT a solution to aliasing. Good antialiasing tech is. Dark Souls 3 has more aliasing and shimmering at 4K than Elden Ring at 1440p or even 1080p.

DLSS looks in fact better than native 4K in many cases, in edges, shimmering and overall image stability:

DLSS is a good solution.

However 4K does make a huge difference to games which have awful in built aliasing.

Destiny 2 looks decent at 4K, awful at any resolution below this despite SMAA.

 

[prinz_valium]

Yeah sure. I also always watch YT videos in 1440p if available. Don't need 4k.
But if you have a 70'+ TV 4k is needed. They both have a good reason to exist.

 

[jigglet]

Every time the envelope is pushed, of course there is going to be a more optimal sweet spot that sits below it.

When we have the processing power for native 4k on every device, watch the same being said about 8k.

 

[draliko]

All i want is a small <=32" oled monitor... you know not everyone has space on his desk for 40"+ monitor.... some of us works too on pcs and can't sit 2 meters (or 3644589 hobbit feets) away... damn my whole studio isn't 3 meters wide... I sit very close to my monitor at a normal desk and 32" is already way too big... (got a 32 144hz monitor, but should have gone with 27 probably)

 

[FukuDaruma]

It’s a 2015 game what so you expect with just fxaa?

To prove the point that 4K doesn't magically solve aliasing and shimmering, as many people insist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The retarded videos you linked use reshade and sharpening…. Cmon man. Tbh e game looks much better at 4k without the terrible filters added by reshade.

Reshade doesn't create the aliasing and shimmering the game inherently has due to the lack of proper AA tech. If anything, aliasing and shimmering is *reduced* in these videos due to bloom and gaussian blur, and youtube's compression and blur.

I am not comparing 1440p60 to 4k30.
I am talking 4k60….
But if it was a choice, I am picking 4k30 in some cases. I recently replayed uc4 remaster 4k30. It felt great and was not blurry

In PC you need a hell of a powerful machine to have stable 4K60 for most modern games.

In consoles it's 4k30 for almost any game. 30fps doesn't feel "great". You play games like Horizon Forbidden West or Spiderman at 30fps and they feel horrible compared to the 60fps modes. The trade off of halving the framerate to get to "real 4K" doesn't pay off, at all.

 

[FukuDaruma]

DLSS is a good solution.

However 4K does make a huge difference to games which have awful in built aliasing.

Destiny 2 looks decent at 4K, awful at any resolution below this despite SMAA.

I don't know about Destiny, never played any of them, but 4K doesn't make a *huge* difference in reducing aliasing. It makes a huge difference in tanking your performance up to forcing you to play at 30fps.

 

[rofif]

To prove the point that 4K doesn't magically solve aliasing and shimmering, as many people insist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Reshade doesn't create the aliasing and shimmering the game inherently has due to the lack of proper AA tech. If anything, aliasing and shimmering is *reduced* in these videos due to bloom and gaussian blur, and youtube's compression and blur.



In PC you need a hell of a powerful machine to have stable 4K60 for most modern games.

In consoles it's 4k30 for almost any game. 30fps doesn't feel "great". You play games like Horizon Forbidden West or Spiderman at 30fps and they feel horrible compared to the 60fps modes. The trade off of halving the framerate to get to "real 4K" doesn't pay off, at all.

The way people use reshade adds sharpening which adds to shimmering. 4k greatly helps with ds3 graphics. I never said it solves AA in that game. TAA or dlss would help.
4k60 is for me a better goal than 1440p144hz. And it is easier to achieve.

30 fps feels perfectly fine and sometimes great (like I said, with proper object motion blur like in UC4.
I finished Forbidden West in 4k30 mode and it was fine. not the best 30fps game but ok. Your brain really gets used to it. try it.
I found, that I quicker stop noticing high framerate than aliased or blurry graphics which always stick out to me. But that's just me

 

[TheGecko]

All you guys with 48 inch OLED TV's as monitors are talking shit. It's all about the PPi when talking about size and resolution. Carry on spewing your garbage to make yourselves feel better though.

 

[rofif]

All you guys with 48 inch OLED TV's as monitors are talking shit. It's all about the PPi when talking about size and resolution. Carry on spewing your garbage to make yourselves feel better though.

I am coming from 27" 4k ips monitor. I had 12 monitors in two years proceeding lg 27uk650. I am got really annoying about monitors for a moment there
I really wanted oled but I was afraid ppi will look like shit, especially coming form 27" 4k... but no. It looks absolutely amazing.
Keep in mind, that even on the same desk, You sit a bit more leaned back. And all the OLED benefits outweigh any ppi worries you could have.

Just to prove "the journey of misery" ... The fact that my wife is still with me is an achievement lol
Keep in min that the pictures of these monitors are with best settings, low brightness and so on. no lcd looks good at high brightness. I always run sdr at 100-120 nits.
These are pics of only few units I had since 2018 to 2020.... The pics are bad of course and monitors usually looked a bit better in reality.
This is nothing top brag about. It's not like I spent a lo of money. I bought a monitor, tested it and if I was not happy with it, I returned it within 2 weeks.
Sometimes, when 2 weeks ended, I just sold the monitor. I wasted a bit of money with all the testing but not a lot. Mostly shipping.

AOC agon is one of first 240hz gsync montiors. Not too bad for a TN but terrible blooming around the edges. Great in motion of course
The standout was gigabyte aorus ad27qd but it was really buggy, kept freezing and had 1 bleeding corner which annoyed me. But wow at the build quality and colors! I really liked that panel. Motion was okish.

Then, I tried 4k ips game. The lg 27uk 650 BLEW away everything I had before in terms of image quality. The picture does not capture it well but it was the most uniform IPS I've ever seen.


And now since last year, Oled and I am honestly saying this - go away lcd and never return. I happily take a bit too big size (I got used to it in a week) or a ppi that's not stellar on paper. But oh man! The colors, black levels, little to no ghosting, amazing HDR and immersion are all worth it.
And funnily enough, It wasn't much more expensive than best of the monitors in the links above. Less than price of two lg 27uk650 actually at the time.

Again - It is not for everyone. It's amazing for single player or console games. Maybe less so for competitive, although bf 5 no scope because much more fun haha.

Spoiler: current setup

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

All you guys with 48 inch OLED TV's as monitors are talking shit. It's all about the PPi when talking about size and resolution. Carry on spewing your garbage to make yourselves feel better though.

It's about blacks and higher peak nits. Something a IPS monitor fails terribly in.

 

[TheGecko]

It's about blacks and higher peak nits. Something a IPS monitor fails terribly in.

Who the fuck wants to sit 2 feet away from a 48 inch screen moving your head all over the damn place.

Now if LG came out with a 28 and 32 inch variant I'd be all over it.

 

[rofif]

Who the fuck wants to sit 2 feet away from a 48 inch screen moving your head all over the damn place.

Now if LG came out with a 28 and 32 inch variant I'd be all over it.

I do.
Maybe you would too if you tried it.
My cooworker came by the other day and laughed at the big tv on my desk.
He is a bf5 player so I loaded up bf5, hdr and so on.
First his head was spinning, 40 minutes later he asked if he can keep playing...
Again - It's not for everyone but until you try for at least few days, it will be very overbearing for sure.
New 42" model is probably easier on the size but its so expensive.
edit: I was not sure about my purchase at first. It's almost the same "sea legs" like you get for vr haha

 

[TheGecko]

I do.
Maybe you would too if you tried it.
My cooworker came by the other day and laughed at the big tv on my desk.
He is a bf5 player so I loaded up bf5, hdr and so on.
First his head was spinning, 40 minutes later he asked if he can keep playing...
Again - It's not for everyone but until you try for at least few days, it will be very overbearing for sure

I don't play PC FPS with a controller. It's just too close, It's too close to get the PPi even at 4k. It's too damn close!

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Who the fuck wants to sit 2 feet away from a 48 inch screen moving your head all over the damn place.

Now if LG came out with a 28 and 32 inch variant I'd be all over it.

Lol you would be surprised.

A nice VA Panel is a nice alternative to OLED.

 

[rofif]

I don't play PC FPS with a controller. It's just too close, It's too close to get the PPi even at 4k. It's too damn close!

no no. That's with mouse and keyboard!
it is close for sure. Not close enough for me to see the pixels but I am not 20/20