I own a 50'' 4k 144hz glossy mini LED TV with 900 dimming zones. I use it for work, shitposting and gamingWhy do I need more?>inb4 OLED IS SOOO MUCH BETTER, BRO!Not really. I own a 14'' OLED tablet and if you can call its quality a 10/10, my TV is a 9/10 with the benefit that I don't have to worry about burn-in
Soon, you will want to purchase pic related:>32">RBG Mini-LED>4K/165Hz>Glossy>VA for good contrast>DP 2.1, HDMI 2.1 (X2), USB-C (90 watt output), headphone jack>1,596 total Mini LED zones (4,788 independent light control zones)>99.9% Rec.2020 >minimal gaymer aesthetic>1000 nits of brightness at full screen, 1400 peakWe just need real world testing but looks promising so far.
>>740845257I own 3 oleds, I like miniled more for gaming. I'd take higher brightness over pure black.A ton of content has raised black levels, so you wont even get those
>>740845548I'm not going from a 50' TV to a 32 monitor
YWNBAO(You Will Never Be An OLED)
>>740845257I am not buying a new monitor until they make one with these specs:>32'>1000hz>2000nits>OLED or microLED>triple resolution panel (4k, 1440p and 1080p)
>>740846109See >>740845548
>1000hz
>>740846185>>740846109Human eye can barely perceive anything about 244hz, 1000hz is insane.
>>740846331>GPU goes BBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>>740846152see what nigga? That panel does not even come close
>>740845257>Why do I need more?4k isn't enough. If you're not planning an upgrade to 8k when prices get cheap enough, you're RETARDED. I'd rather have a 6k and then a 12k panel, but neither of those sizes will ever be made so I'll settle for 8k to 16k.Now, after that point, there's no real point in going any higher.
>>740848282Retard?
>>740848386I have a 4090 and can barely get 144 fps in recent games even with fake frames, what the fuck FPS do you think I'll get at 8K?
>>740848561>recent gamesThat sounds like a (you) problem, people with brains don't play that garbage.
>>740848780I play all kinds of games and emulate tons of games too, 8k is insane.
i have a 32" inch led monitor that runs at 50hzi got it for 50 bucks like 10 years agoyou zoomers are all retarded consoomer goy cattle
>>740845257For me it's thr super smooth text scrolling on a 200+hz ips monitor. It's a real gamechanger for work and shitposting Oled has really bad text clarity and I have to turn the blues down or my eyes burn
>>740848892>50hzYou're trolling. I don't believe it. Pics or fake
>>740845548I'd get a TCL. SQD LED looks fantastic and their anti-haloing tech is ahead of other monitors
>>740845868>50-foot TVseems excessive anon
>>7408488468k gets you a good amount of vertical room, and a bit too much horizontal space. Nothing is stopping you from running your slop at 4k with black bars if your rig is too weak.
>>740849020>if your rig is too weak.You're not getting good FPS even with a 5090. Stop larping.
>>740849009Hate americans.My TV is 130cm diagonal.
>>7408490438k is currently in the fucking "unaffordable" tier to begin with. It's 6 grand for a display that's only 4x better than my current 300 dollar display, which makes it 5x worse in terms of cost efficiency. I'm obviously talking about the FUTURE here, when 8k prices make sense, in a few more generations.
>>740849059>Hate americans.seems excessive anon
>>740846109>1000hz use case?
>>740849563Competitive FPS and Moba
>>740845548>VATAKE ME DOWN TO THE BLACK SMEAR CITYWHERE THE PIXELS ARE BLURRY AND THE ANGLES ARE SHITTY
>>740849208>6 grand>unaffordableThat's 2 months of groceries
I just want a display that:1. Has no pixel smearing2. Has no VRR flickering3. Has no aggressive ABL that ruins HDRWhy the fuck can't we have this in the current year
>>740852701And I want a game that just uses the AA tech from 15 years ago, but unfortunately all I'm getting is blurry shit with ghosting
>>740852618I own G7 Odyssey which is quite old by today's standards and it has 0 smear
>>740852693Do you really need to eat lobster every single day?
>>740853556
>>740845257>glossyI heard if you turn it off, you can see the afterimage of a faggot.
>900 dimming zones>at 50"More bloom than a ps360 game.
MicroLED in 2 more years for real this time right anons?
>>7408492088k is a meme anyway as nobody can tell the difference between it and 4k outside of close up nature shots.>https://www.techhive.com/article/578376/8k-vs-4k-tvs-most-consumers-cannot-tell-the-difference.html
>>740855294What a meaningless post. Everyone can tell the difference as plain as day when you use CORRECTLY SIZED SCREENS.For 8k, that's an 80" screen 3 feet away from your face.
>>740848386Based 8k enjoyer.
>>740855405Finally, we can play doom as intended.
>>740848386???unless you have superhuman eyes you physically don't need more than 4kunless you're a retard that sits so close to the screen that you can't fit the entire monitor inside your focal vision
>>740855374>everyone can see the difference>noooooooooooo research that proves otherwise doesn't countlmao consoomer. Bet you think you need gold plated HDMI cables too.
>>7408554588k spooky games are the only way to fly
>>740854396The I won't be bringing it over to your house.
>>740855474Your "research" is based on massively undersized screens in terrible scenarios. I don't need to read it, because it's gibberish. 8k is 4x 4k, or 16x 1080p. And I mean that literally, as in it is the same as looking at 16 1080p screens stacked in a 4x4 grid but without bezels.>>740855461At 3 feet you're looking at FOV coverage of 88 hor, 50 ver. Human visual field is 200 hor, 135 ver, so that's not even half.
>>740855461The ideal resolution would be one high enough where you can't see aliasing even without any form of AA. 4K is nowhere close to that.
>>740848539I know you are, but what does that have to do with me, nigga?
>>740846331I am built different
I use a 32" inch tv i bought at a thrift store 6 years ago for $25
>>740855614FOCAL vision, the area which you can see with both eyes without moving your head and causing strainIf you can't see all 4 corners of the monitor with each eye you're too close>>740855621That depends entirely on viewing distanceYou want to reach 60ppdthe number is roughly that for every inch of the monitor you want to sit 2cm away for 4k, 3cm for 1440p and 4cm for 1080p
>>740855912>FOCAL vision, the area which you can see with both eyes without moving your head and causing strainBinocular overlap is still over 100 degrees, lil buddy.>You want to reach 60ppdHe's arguing for an increase in resolution past that point to reduce aliasing. It's worthless in the current market where we don't even have full focal coverage, but it's a consideration for the future. Why stop at 8k when you can bump it up to 16k and reduce aliasing?
>>740845257>>740845548My Macbook from 2021 has 2500 zones and even with that I notice blooming. I cannot imagine using something with half the PPI and half the zones. Just a blurry, blooming mess.
>>740855614> I don't need to read itBased retard.
>>740856024>Binocular overlap is still over 100 degrees, lil buddy.you have a nose>Why stop at 8k when you can bump it up to 16k and reduce aliasing?because that's an infinitesimal improvement for an extreme cost?at that point you return to AA methods instead of going for retarded bruteforce numbers, work smarter not harder
>>740855912I used a 55" 8K TV as my PC monitor for about 11 months until it broke, and Samsung refunded me since they discontinued the line with no replacements available. 8K is definitely sharp, though I still felt the need for AA because I could see aliased edges and pixel crawl. The pixel density was similar to a 10" 1080p tablet. The downside was the DSC, it’s supposed to be visually lossless, but text didn’t look right. Up close at 100% scaling, letters had missing lines and dots, with details clearly lost due to bandwidth limitations.
>>740856330Go on then, I'll humor you.>The display on which all clips were shown was an LG 88Z9 88-inch 8K OLED TV, >Two participants were in the front row, about five feet from the screen, and three were in the back row, about nine feet from the screen. So, according to basic maths, they were sat TWICE the distance they should've been sat at for the "front row", and OVER THREE TIMES for the back row. What reasoning does the author give for this?>For context, seven feet from the screen equals two screen heights, and the ITU (International Telecommunication Union) has determined that seven feet is the average viewing distance in the home, regardless of screen size.Like I said, completely worthless. If you are testing something completely incorrectly by using a screen the wrong size and sitting the wrong distance away from it, you will get meaningless results.
Remember to sit the correct distance from your screen anons.
