4k TV as future proof monitor?

[JHZR2]

At work I bought a viewsonic vp2770 WQHD monitor, since the work-issued ones were small and lousy for my use. I love that thing. It is 2560x1440.

At home, I'm thinking about a new monitor, since I just have an old 21" wide screen. I generally run off a laptop such as a retina display MacBook pro.

Now, my D800 camera (36.3 MP) shoots 7360x4512 images. The reason Id be interested in a monitor at all is for viewing larger versions of my photos.

A 4k TV seems to be 3840 x 2160, so it is still lower resolution than my camera, but based upon seeing these at best buy, they sure are great for showing clarity and quality.

I know nothing about video cards' ability to support these resolutions, but assuming they either can or will, wouldnt a Smallish 4k TV be the best bet for a new monitor? Seems that if im paying $700 or more for a high quality monitor, the price range is rit for 4k TVs.

Is there something Im missing interface wise (HDMI, display port, etc or video card power wise that would make it mot prudent to go the 4k route? I see that there are 4k monitors, but is there a reason why a 4k TV, that seems to be a better value, wouldn't be good?

Thanks

 

[Wolf359]

Here's one for just $300. It's a 28 inch monitor. Only drawback is the 30hz refresh rate, but that's pretty normal for a 4k TV, I think a set with a higher refresh rate is going to be a bit more and not that common.

http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msus...5KzYeSmqyk7E2dw

 

[Olas]

Nothing is ever futureproof, they always come out with some new doo dad which means you have to replace everything. Again.

Why not just use your current screen and save the money? You know I'll need to spend it on something important sooner or later..

 

[Oil Changer]

Change is the only constant. That $4k monitor will be $800 in two years. The daily advancement in electronics is almost scary. Buy what you need or want but there will be no return on your investment other than the joy you get for using it.

I bought a 55" LED thin frame on Black Friday for $329 for my basement. The picture quality is so good, it is now my main TV and my 5 y/o, $3k plasma is in the basement.

 

[rjundi]

It will NEVER be optimized for text. TV is drastically different then using a monitor for work.

There are many lower resolution monitors then TV but offer much easier experience on eyes.

Also color optimization is drastically different between monitors and TV's. TV's are intended to work from a distance not close up.

The only other issue is the resolution must dead match your OSx. Apple only makes their stuff work with their own hardware optimally, not others. If you were running windows a different story. That me be mute if the TV makers offers monitor drivers(windows likely but not OSx).

Good luck, I use a Dell 30" 2500is x 1600 ish that cost $800 on sale a few year back.

 

[MalfunctionProne]

Originally Posted By: Olas
Nothing is ever futureproof, they always come out with some new doo dad which means you have to replace everything. Again.

Why not just use your current screen and save the money? You know I'll need to spend it on something important sooner or later..


I have to agree with this, JHZR2. I do not think anything is "future-proof." (Look what happened with Blu-Ray AND HD DVD, for example. And DAT of the 90s. Amongst others.)

May take a few years, but then 8k TV UHD.. etc.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: rjundi

The only other issue is the resolution must dead match your OSx. Apple only makes their stuff work with their own hardware optimally, not others. If you were running windows a different story. That me be mute if the TV makers offers monitor drivers(windows likely but not OSx).


LOL!!!! OSX will support it no problem. I've been running this display:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001317

with it's oddball 2048x1152 resolution on OSX since the 2008 Macbook Pro days. Runs it perfectly and at native resolution.

In fact, the only Apple things I have hooked up to my iMac are the mouse and keyboard. Tons of non-Apple stuff and all works FLAWLESSLY. HP printers, generic USB hubs, Western Digital and Seagate USB drives (the PC versions too), thumbdrives, even an Android phone!

The only thing the "drivers" for a monitor are is the color profile. Those are mostly cross platform anyway. OSX has calibration built in so if it doesn't you can do it manually.

The myths around OSX and Apple need to die. They have not been that closed off and work with nearly everything you throw at them since at least 2002!

That being said I don't know I'd want a TV for a monitor. All the ones I've tried seem lacking in some way. Resolution is OK but the panels just don't seem to be optimized for text. Which makes sense since it's a different use case.

 

[Smcatub]

One bad thing about TV's vs monitors is input lag.

When you are watching TV you don't care if the picture and sound are delayed - as long as both come out in sync, it's good. So if your HDMI puts a signal into the back of your TV and it takes a few dozen ms to come out, it's OK, you don't notice. The delay happens for a few reasons - frame interpolation for those 'high refresh' TVs, picture processing, other stuff that the TV does to your sounds & picture before it shows/plays it.

With a computer, you're interacting with the display. When you move your mouse you want the cursor to move - not still for a bit and then go wandering off.

I don't know how the lag will affect you as a desktop app user. For gaming it makes TV's an unacceptable choice. I haven't looked at 4k specifically, but I've looked at TVs in the past and always found that I could get a monitor a bit cheaper.

If you've never seen it before, check on PCPartPicker.com - That's PC Part Picker, not PCP Art Pciker (my wife asked my why I wanted to get high on PCP and look at art, which was confusing until I figured it out....)

 

[Smcatub]

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Change is the only constant. That $4k monitor will be $800 in two years. The daily advancement in electronics is almost scary. Buy what you need or want but there will be no return on your investment other than the joy you get for using it.

I bought a 55" LED thin frame on Black Friday for $329 for my basement. The picture quality is so good, it is now my main TV and my 5 y/o, $3k plasma is in the basement.



4k is a resolution standard, not a price - 3840 X 2160 pixels. Which is double HD in both directions, so four times as many pixels as 1920x1080 aka 'Full HD'.

 

[JHZR2]

Lol, yeah, 4k is resolution.

Ok, so TVs aren't optimized for computer use.

Still, if I were to buy a monitor today (and 4k monitors exist, I naively thought the TVs may offer better performance at lower cost), wouldn't a 4k type be the best bet? Or would a 4k monitor not necessarily be good for text?

As I mentioned, I have a great monitor at work that I love, and that's where text is important. At home, my greatest importance is high-res photos.

 

[MalfunctionProne]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Lol, yeah, 4k is resolution.

Ok, so TVs aren't optimized for computer use.

Still, if I were to buy a monitor today (and 4k monitors exist, I naively thought the TVs may offer better performance at lower cost), wouldn't a 4k type be the best bet? Or would a 4k monitor not necessarily be good for text?

As I mentioned, I have a great monitor at work that I love, and that's where text is important. At home, my greatest importance is high-res photos.


I cannot imagine that text would look BAD on the TV set. Especially at that resolution, and pixel density.

Quite a nice photo setup you have, JHZR2. I prefer and keep a Nikon as well.. just no D800!

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne


Quite a nice photo setup you have, JHZR2. I prefer and keep a Nikon as well.. just no D800!


Thanks!

It's a bad chef that blames his tools (though pop_rivit doesn't seem to get that...), but the resolution is nice for cropping. For example, I shot a set of Morgan Freeman the other day, more or less by chance, and everything was non-optimal - bad light, long distance (was shooting wide open at f6.3), but I could crop a lot of stuff out and ended up with a great set of shots. Great pictures can be taken with much older gear, you just might not be able to shoot such low light situation with as good results (low noise) or crop an image down quite as much without losing density.

Learn to use what you have, I'm sure you can do great with it! Share pictures!

As for monitors, some of this is practically pure silliness, since in print at 300dpi, hi-res photos would print out as many feet by many feet. So seeing more pixels on a screen at once may actually be odd if you truly get them all condensed into a screen like that. But there may be some utility to it. Maybe not.