LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.InfinityEdge and 4K HDR for £725.
Read more.InfinityEdge and 4K HDR for £725.
4K on a 27' screen...no,no,no..FFS.
When will these idiot manufacturers stop it and make 32inch the standard for 4K monitors.
Anything less is just too damn small at that resolution.
I tend to agree. The sweet spot for 27" is WQHD (2560 x 1440) ...in the absence of WQXGA (2560 x 1600).Originally Posted by Bagpuss
Also...
Can't say that I've readily seen one, and if they were as ubiqituous as claimed why was none tested alongside the U2718Q.
"in the absence of WQXGA (2560 x 1600)"
Precisely the problem (and no gsync or freesync). Without this, I'll be planning OTHER purchases for some time. Never mind the stupidity of 4K on a 27in. I hope this has ZERO sales (same for all 4k 27in). For the love of god, someone please bring back 16:10 across the board. The monitor problem is even holding up my gpu purchase...ROFL. But at some point I'll make that move anyway. I can game fine on my old monitors until they die and I have a spare 22in replacement (an old test monitor from my PC biz). There are a few 16:10's out there (dell's 30in, and I think they have a 27in also) but not gamer models. I can't believe nobody takes a shot at one built for gamers. Surely it would be a big hit. I think half the market would revolt if given a choice. There is no point in wide on PC's unless you're a spreadsheet guy by day (or perhaps some content people I guess). This WIDE crap is all because it's cheap to produce, but given how much we're spending on cpu/gpu etc these days, why not put out a GREAT 16:10 27-32in and see what happens. Charge what you have to in order to make profit, but it can't be that bad. Anyone know the cost difference on a 24-30in that would be 16:10 vs regular wide crap?
I'd easily pay $100 EXTRA at any size 24in or above for 16:10, and more than likely more...ROFL. I spend $600-1200 on my monitor usually (at least the main one) so I have no problem waiting if forced a while longer. It's a 7yr+purchase for me so far (and I buy great ones, I like my eyes) so I have no need for $129 or some crap on this item.
It's not the monitor's fault that Window's UI is poo. 4K is no problem in 27" - Dell have had a 4k 25" screen out for ages and there is value in having pixels smaller than you can resolve (well, if you've got the choice of slightly too small or slightly too large, you want the former).
4K also gives nice scaling down to 1080p
I agree, although for my less than perfect eyes 1440p @ 32" is the sweet spot.
Just bought the Dell S2716DG, a G-sync 144Hz 1440p monitor which i am loving.
For me, 27" = 1440p.
Whilst there is a tiny part of me that was wondering if i should have held out for a HDR monitor (in addition to the above specs), I had read elsewhere how poorly Windows behaves with HDR.
I'm sure in 5 years time it'll all be solved, but right now it seems a bit of a mess.
Your conclusion doesn't seem to gell with your test results. None of your tests show a higher dynamic range and surely that's a major fault in an HDR monitor, downright misleading advertising. Yet you brush it off and even endorse it as something positive for 'future proofing'?
@bagpuss: 3840x2160 has two different uses, you can use it for more space on ~40" screens but on smaller monitors like this it's not intended to be used natively but with 2x scaling. That'll give you the same sizing as 1920x1080 but allow HiDPI capable programs to render in greater detail so you get more curved/less blurry text and other image quality improvements.
Having HDR content turned on when I'm using my Samsung TV is a nightmare, i have constant crashes and it really does look awful, even the resolution takes a hit. I don't think Windows is ready for HDR gaming yet unless it is just my setup.
I thought netflix was 4K HDR with Intel 7 series processors using the windows 10 app or is it just 4K?
wasn't there some news recently where NVidia got busted for hamstringing the HD monitor vs the 4k HDR - and the standard HD actually gave a better picture on a level playing field. The conclusion then was that HDR wasn't all it was cracked up to be.
4k IPS monitors yesI tend to agree. The sweet spot for 27" is WQHD (2560 x 1440) ...in the absence of WQXGA (2560 x 1600).
Also...
Can't say that I've readily seen one, and if they were as ubiqituous as claimed why was none tested alongside the U2718Q.
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/lg-27ud58-27-3840x2160-ips-4k-freesync-gaming-widescreen-led-monitor-black-mo-14a-lg.html?
But no HDR ones that I can find, that one has freesync though.
IPS displays are not suited to HDR, you need VA or OLED panel technology to do it justice. No IPS based TV is considered a top HDR performer.
Windows is not suited to HDR either, MS have added some preliminary support but it's been poorly explained/documented, the only game I know of that actually uses it is Mass Effect Andromeda. There are other games on the PC like Shadow Warrior 2 that used HDR but these may or may not be broken with the now official support.
HDMI 2.0 has chroma subsampling issues with PC RGB 4:4:4 combined with HDR at least that's what I read elsewhere, need to use Displayport or wait for HDMI 2.1
So yeah bad idea going with HDR on Windows PC's avoid until issues are all sorted out.
useful article here: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/hdr.htm
My 43" 4K TV does all this does, and is like..£550. Has androidOS too.
Maybe input lag, or colour uniformity is done better (I assume, who knows)
Windows doesn't support HDR. Don't turn it on. Applications supporting HDR have to use exclusive fullscreen mode, which will tell your TV that it is using HDR.
As for *cough* legally obtained movies that are encoded with HDR, they do make a difference. Day to day, leave HDR off.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote