/g/ - Technology

install openbsd

[Make a Post]
[X]





TV Jubilee Nanonymous No.9110 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C]
File: e1ba7eebada04514d65acb671073c3bdded43713fcf32bc43ad3f78eb215a1b5.png (dl) (82.61 KiB)
So, there are a ton of TVs out there. You can spend as much as you want on them (pic related).
8k content does not apparently exist yet, but 8k TVs do (both in price and resolution).
LCDs (and QLED, which is still LCD) hold the majority, with OLED in a distant but quality 2nd (OLED has good ratings).
Source: https://www.techradar.com/news/oled-vs-qled
Plasma's aren't really on the brand new market, obviously nor is CRT.

The god awful privacy-invading "Smart TVs" are everywhere.
Even some people who couldn't care less about privacy, security or anonymity, are not fans of the "Smart" UIs, especially when some of them force you to use them just to change the input!
There are a few that aren't "Smart TVs", aka "dumb TVs", but they have their own share of pros and cons.
Some say that the "Smart TVs" are cheaper because they get to profit off your data.
The worst part about the "dumb TVs" is their scarcity, combined with there is no easy way to search for them.
Only Walmart's (yeah, freaking Walmart!! The company that now says you can't carry in their stores) search engine has an option for "Smart", "Y" or "N".
Searching "not smart" or "dumb" on a regular search engine is of no help.

RCA seems to be the most competitive in this regard, having several for reasonable (in TV terms) prices.
All the others are mostly overpriced "displays".

A few stats to consider:
- Size (how big you want the screen, 75" is as high as the RCAs seem to go)
- Resolution (4k/UHD/2160p/3840x2160, which all mean the same thing, are the standard nowadays, 640x480 aside)
- Price/Value ($250 to $800 for the current RCA range)
- Refresh rate (see below)

On refresh rates or "HZ" (hertz):
So this is kinda complicated. While more is better, they usually lie and use tricks to increase HZ.
The refresh rate is basically how many FPS your TV can do or pretend to do, & has further to with the soap opera effect and blurring.
60hz is usually standard, 120hz is attainable but seemingly only in expensive "Smart TVs" (the RCAs are only 60hz), or maybe uber expensive "displays".
Source:
https://www.cnet.com/news/ultra-hd-4k-tv-refresh-rates/
https://www.cnet.com/news/fake-refresh-rates-is-your-tv-really-120hz/

What I think:
Just get an RCA if you wanna buy new, or really pony up the bucks.
Or buy used and get a whatever strikes your fancy (CRT, Plasma 1080p, LCD 1080p).

Tons of brands exist:
- RCA (been around forever, Radio Corporation of America)
- Panasonic (quality Japanese corp)
- JVC (merged with Kenwood, was once part of RCA, Japanese, also been around forever)
- Phillips (hotel rooms?)
- Skyworth (more like Skynet!)
- Samsung (Korean, good reputation)
- LG (know nothing about them)
- Magnavox (not many offerings)
- Polaroid (only smart TVs)
- Toshiba (nothing catches my eye)
- Sony (used to good, now whatever/I don't know)
- TCL (cheap Chinese newcomer to the market)
- Hisense (what?)
Correct me if I am wrong & add the ones I forgot.


Note that the official sites of most (if not all, I didn't test all) of these business's ABSOLUTELY SUCK!
JavaScript intensive and even with enabled, doesn't really work (especially Panasonic's and RCA's websites).

There is also audio to consider, that's probably for another thread though.

But what do you think, Nanons?

Nanonymous No.9118 [D] >>9126
I would not recommend Sony, while the picture quality is pretty good, software is shit on both smart and dumb TVs.
Smart one constantly crashes and restarts and the bumb one keeps forgeting time.
Not to mention, that Sony as an evil company that makes discrase for Japanese name.
Die Sony, DIE!

t. owner of 2 Sony TVs.

Nanonymous No.9122 [D] >>9126 >>9130 >>9208
Get a BenQ display and install Kodi on a ODROID board. Problem solved.

Nanonymous No.9126 [D] >>9147
>>9118
Well I guess theres still the old Trinitrons.

>>9122
How big can you get that for price?
55" for $250?

Nanonymous No.9129 [D]
Can anyone refute that of reasonably priced (new) dumb TVs, RCA is the best right now (late 2019)?

Nanonymous No.9130 [D][U][F] >>9138 >>9146
File: 21a2c6c541a54c6493dc4735551f73130f02a1a0afbc557151264fe391d4350d.png (dl) (87.96 KiB)
>>9122
pic related, lmao at that price

Nanonymous No.9135 [D] >>9138 >>9139
What the fuck would you buy a TV for anyways you retarded boomer

Get a screen and plug what you want into it.

Nanonymous No.9138 [D] >>9147
>>9135
>get a screen
What like pic related in >>9130 ??
Monitors are usually smaller and more expensive due to more density or something.
They also tend not to have inputs for more than one device or even connector.

Nanonymous No.9139 [D] >>9147 >>9183
>>9135
>What the fuck would you buy a TV for anyways you retarded boomer

Oh I don't know, watching TV maybe?
Using a console? Movies & shiz?

Nanonymous No.9146 [D]
>>9130
>finds the most expensive product of the whole company
<"lmao at that price"
BenQ has 2K displays for less than $300, you donkey:
https://www.benq.com/en-us/monitor/designer/bl2420pt.html

Nanonymous No.9147 [D] >>9183
>- Size (how big you want the screen, 75" is as high as the RCAs seem to go)
if you want bigger just buy the Projector. big TV's are retarded
it is also easy to find non-smart Projector that isn't connected to Israel

>- Resolution (4k/UHD/2160p/3840x2160, which all mean the same thing, are the standard nowadays, 640x480 aside)
4k is a meme. it's for idiots

>>9126
>How big can you get that for price?
>55" for $250?
you can go bigger with Projector for low price

>>9138
get a Projector then

>>9139
>Oh I don't know, watching TV maybe?
>Using a console? Movies & shiz?
you don't need a TV for watching TV, movies, consoles

TV = screen + TV tuner
you can get other types of screens: computer monitor or projector
TV tuner can be bought as separate device that can be connected to monitor or projector, or you can get PCI/USB tuner for PC

Nanonymous No.9171 [D] >>9183
>- Refresh rate (see below)
how about
-contrast
-luminance range
-luminance uniformity
-viewing angle
-does it have PWM?
-does it have strobe-based motion blur removal?
-input latency (most shit has like 50-100ms latency, there's no excuse for this bullshit and i will never buy it)
-other nuances based on the particular type of LCD (TN,IPS,AHVA,VA,MVA,etc) or whatever new tech

>So this is kinda complicated. While more is better, they usually lie and use tricks to increase HZ.
Not really, they do interpolation if the source is shit. Though I'm sure there are some TVs that are broken and can't properly display modes natively supported by their panel though.
For TV shit you're still lucky if you can get anything in 60FPS. Most crap is just 24 FPS or whatever and in order to display it on most screens, frames have to be duplicated (3:2 pulldown), and it looks like shit no matter what the refresh rate of the screen.

>Just get an RCA if you wanna buy new, or really pony up the bucks.
I actually found a dumb TV with 4K by RCA, but couldn't find reviews online. After that I gave up trying to buy a big screen. The market is dead and full of cucksumer shit. Same for all display tech from 2006 onwards.

Nanonymous No.9172 [D]
>Not really, they do interpolation if the source is shit.
sorry I didn't finish that sentence. Most TVs will obviously let you disable interpolation.

Nanonymous No.9183 [D] >>9184 >>9195 >>9200 >>9211
>>9139
>BenQ has 2K displays for less than $300, you donkey:
That's a 24" 1440p display. For $20 more you can an RCA that's 4k and 55", and has a lot more connections than that.

>>9147
>muh projector
4k projectors are not competitively priced compared to TVs. For example, BenQ has one for over $1000.
Plus they require the correct room setup with proper lighting.

>>9171
>how about
Okay. Some of those I don't really understand.
What I heard is that looking at the hard stats of TV isn't very helpful beyond getting only a very basic idea of what it can do, and for the rest you have to just look at reviews.
Only downside to this is the reviewers can sometimes be paid shills or not know jack about tech, especially from the redpilled/pro-privacy/security/anonymity/open source/libre side of things.
>Most crap is just 24 FPS
See: Soap Opera Effect.
>I actually found a dumb TV with 4K by RCA, but couldn't find reviews online.
I found one, and there were reviews. Try looking at Wallmart or one of the other big sites.

Nanonymous No.9184 [D]
>>9183
>Walmart
https://www.walmart.com/ip/RCA-55-Class-4K-Ultra-HD-2160P-LED-TV-RTU5540/55540606

Nanonymous No.9195 [D] >>9205
>>9183
>4k projectors are not competitively priced compared to TVs. For example, BenQ has one for over $1000.
that doesn't matter, fucking brainwashed goy, because 4k is a meme
Full HD projector is superior to 4k TV

>Plus they require the correct room setup with proper lighting.
all they need is not too much light from other sources. but if you are watching movies, sports, games, you do it at dark anyway
only goys who watch TV all day with a lot of sunlight will complain

Nanonymous No.9200 [D] >>9205 >>9206 >>9211
>>9183
>For $20 more you can an RCA that's 4k and 55", and has a lot more connections than that.
You can't compare both like that. BenQ displays are meant to be used for color grading. They have 99% sRGB coverage. They don't interpolate anything.
Also, resolution doesn't matter as much as you might think. Human eye stop perceiving details at about "2K" (~2560x1440px), resolution wise. After that there's only hyperacuity effects (see [1]), but nothing too big of a difference. Also, you won't be able to find many content in 4K (only in Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc). Most of the content will be highly compressed anyway, except if you're into buying BluRays.
There's many other variables more important than resolution. For me those are dynamic range and color precision. Displays that support 10-bit media and Rec.2020 color space are far more impressive than those fake UHD TVs.
My opinion: I would much prefer one of those reference monitors like the ones from BenQ than one "Smart TV 4K". I've seem both in real life, and it is worth it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperacuity_(scientific_term)

Nanonymous No.9205 [D] >>9210 >>9264
>>9195
>4k is a meme
4k is a meme at the sizes and prices of projectors.
>all they need is not too much light from other sources. but if you are watching movies, sports, games, you do it at dark anyway
Not true. Plenty of sports air during the day, plus you have news and other things excluding regular TV.
And unless you don't have windows (not the OS, the glass kind I mean) or hate light, you probably will have light coming in.
A projector would probably work okay in a theater dedicated room, but not your average living room.

>>9200
>Human eye stop perceiving details at about "2K" (~2560x1440px), resolution wise.
Only if you use 24" monitors. With larger sizes, it is noticeable.
Distance from screen, and eye vision quality is also a factor.
>Also, you won't be able to find many content in 4K (only in Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc).
Most people have one or more of those anyway, so not an issue really.
>Most of the content will be highly compressed anyway, except if you're into buying BluRays.
You can get BluRays from the library just like books, assuming they aren't to scratched up/abused to work.
>My opinion: I would much prefer one of those reference monitors like the ones from BenQ than one "Smart TV 4K". I've seem both in real life, and it is worth it.
Is any of that better color etc going to even matter when you are 5 or 10+ feet away from the screen?
Then there is the fact that BenQ (or displays/monitors in general) aren't price competitively at even 42" and up, let alone 55", which definitely does matter at 5 or 10+ feet away.

Nanonymous No.9206 [D]
>>9200
>I would much prefer one of those reference monitors like the ones from BenQ than one "Smart TV 4K".
All TVs in question are "dumb" (non-smart) TVs.

Nanonymous No.9208 [D] >>9210
>>9122
>Get a BenQ display and install Kodi on a ODROID board. Problem solved.
How libre are the ODROID's?
Sounds like they have codecs, but what about firmware?

Nanonymous No.9210 [D] >>9255
>>9205
>Is any of that better color etc going to even matter when you are 5 or 10+ feet away from the screen?
Of course it matters. You see, you're disagreeing with me without even knowing the basics.
10-bit depth will increase dynamic range (the quantity of tones possible between black and white). This will reduce banding artifacs.
Better color space like Rec.2020 will have better performance on colors, because there's many tones that can be represented. In particular the ones called "R9", or red tones (including skin tones).
>>9208
ODROID-C1 uses iMX6. It's very open, has open drivers too. The lastest ODROID doesn't use iMX6, so I don't know exactly. IIRC they use the same processor as MNT Reform laptop is using (iMX8?). They promised to reverse engineer the drivers, dunno if it already happened or not.

Nanonymous No.9211 [D][U][F] >>9217 >>9255 >>9264 >>9284 >>9498
File: e2052de52e8da7a7ba985012de4aaaca12b982efbae3f37ad218ce408df6d883.png (dl) (27.01 KiB)
>>9183
>What I heard is that looking at the hard stats of TV isn't very helpful beyond getting only a very basic idea of what it can do, and for the rest you have to just look at reviews.
if by hard stats you mean actual hard stats and not the shitty specified values of the manufacturer, you heard wrong. all the subtle nuances we can come up with in fact do matter. there are only a few half decent screen review sites out there like prad.de and tft-central and even they pretty much suck. i can tell you, ive read thousands of reviews (because I've been studying display tech) on all these shitty consumer websites like toms hardware, trusted reviews, cnet, linus tech tips, and whatever trash is popular now. they are all 100% bullshit and not relevant in one way to the task at hand (reviewing a montior / TV)
reviews should just be a table of measured data (all pixel response speeds for all transitions after color calibrating and on cold start as well as after 30 minutes of warm up, input latency, contrast ratio, pixel fill factor, luminance uniformity, viewing angle parameters, etc). there is nothing subjective about these data. instead what we have is decades of retards "subjectively" "evaluating" these parameters we already know how to measure. even tft-central will only give a brief (therefore largely useless) table of response time measurements, and before that they had an even more useless test where they would take a picture of a moving image.
>I found one, and there were reviews. Try looking at Wallmart or one of the other big sites.

let's see this crap (https://www.walmart.com/ip/RCA-55-Class-4K-Ultra-HD-2160P-LED-TV-RTU5540/55540606):
>While it does do 4K, it does 4K at a max 30Hz and not 60Hz;
I'm not into the TV market, but sounds like bullshit. all LCDs made after 1980 are 60Hz+ and maybe drop down to 50Hz for compatability reasons but no less. it's very hard to find monitors that can do 30Hz
the product description even states >Effective Refresh Rate: 60Hz
refresh rate decreasing as resolution increases is only a CRT thing.
but i'm not in the TV market. perhaps the TV's software is so shit that it does some retarded post processing before sending the signal to the internal panel, so it can only do 1080p at a full 60Hz. but it's more likely this guy just has a misconfigured system such that cant output 4K@60FPS
>No smart options (I didn't need a smart TV).
as specified
>Sound was ok
non-review
>Interesting that It has YPBPR ports.
as specified. non-review
>Fast LCD panel 6ms apparently,
as specified. meaningless bullshit number. you could have made this same review without even owning the TV
>but there is roughly about 40ms input latency delay (this is with settings tweaking but not a fully exhaustive/comprehensive/scientific test; just a rough estimate).
>I can detect this latency delay when I game but it is subtle and other users may not notice it
40ms is not subtle. if you tried to use the mouse to click on something you will not be able to without lots of effort. but anyway most flatscreen TVs are like this because they copy paste some bullshit placebo-ass post-processing code into their product.
>(much improved than my high end 2014 LG 65" tv; the tech in 2014 just wasn't mature enough and now being 2017 the input delays are much improved).
propogating the same bullshit myth since the year 2000. input latency isn't an engineering problem, it's a bug. it's trivially solved. there are only rare cases where it's needed, like supposedely (and that's a huge SUPPOSEDELY), early IPS displays needed to delay an entire frame to calculate pixel overdrive values
>If you are only watching TV then you need not worry about input latency
actually, you do because the audio will not be synchronized except when the TV has control over both signals then it MAY artificially delay the audio to match up.
note this is PRECISELY why reviews should just be data and no opinions. there should be a single page (or pages by different experts) which everyone goes to for reading about whether X and Y input lag matter, and reviews should simply state the amount of lag the TV has in what modes (becaue the incompetent market still can't put these values in the product specs)
>(my 2014 LG, while having input latency; has excellent image/audio synchronization which should pretty much be the standard).
?
>1080p content (which is a decent resolution as that at normal viewing distances it can be hard pressed to differentiate a 1080p (upscaled to 4k) and 4k on a 4k monitor/tv,
non-review opinion
>I would buy this over most 1080p monitors/tv's as the pixel resolution at this size makes a fine pixel density and the images are excellent.
conflicts with previous statement.

also note there are 700 reviews. obviously there's going to be little value here aside from data mining. stuff like obvious malfunctions that affected a large percentage of customers will be made apparent and nothing else. also the site can just modify, remove, and fabricate comments. there's no liability behind any of these reviewers (unlike tft-central for example)

pic related is your typical modern LCD running at 144Hz. so we'd need well under 6.94ms (1/144) pixel transitions to display a moving image properly (with motion blur but without ghost artifacts on top of that).
>>9200
>BenQ displays are meant to be used for color grading. They have 99% sRGB coverage. They don't interpolate anything.
the fuck are you talking about? they make TN monitors so that's obviously false. do you mean TVs only? in the monitor market, every single LCD manfucaturer's products are not, in fact, intended to do fuck all. they randomly insert a new panel together with their latest firmware and randomize every other parameter and ship it
>Human eye stop perceiving details at about "2K" (~2560x1440px)
false since only the pixel density matters, and even then there are other things that matter such as pixel fill factor

Nanonymous No.9217 [D] >>9221 >>9255
>>9211
>the fuck are you talking about?
Exactly what I said, you monkey fuck.
>false since only the pixel density matters, and even then there are other things that matter such as pixel fill factor
Oh, here we go again. Don't you get tired rawdecodingfag? Our last conversation was a disaster for you. Did you learn what debayering means yet?
The burden of proof is with you. 4K offers no big difference other than hyperacuity. This is placebo, because 4K videos on youtube are encoded with higher bitrate, so people think "4K" is great. I work with this kind of shit for almost 10 years now, this is a old discussion and it's getting tired by now.

Btw, fuck this shit. You guys can't handle rational arguments, then fuck it. This is the /pol/ cancer spreading, making your mind numb.

Nanonymous No.9221 [D] >>9255
>>9217
first, im not whoever you think you're talking to
second, im not a /pol/nigger
third, you cannot have a discussion about "how much pixels human can see" without talking about pixel density (+distance from screen). if i go within a few feet from to a 24" 1080p monitor, i can see the pixels. if i go the same distance to a 50" 4K monitor, i can see pixels.
>The burden of proof is with you. 4K offers no big difference other than hyperacuity. This is placebo, because 4K videos on youtube are encoded with higher bitrate, so people think "4K" is great. I work with this kind of shit for almost 10 years now,
Don't tell me this is going to end in you linking to some shitty study where you got a bunch of idiots to watch some videos with different compression algos or levels within an algo and then gave them some shit survey. We shouldn't even talk about video since it's compressed. We're talking about monitors and their absolute capabilities. That's all that matters. I'm not shilling 4K. I can get used to a 1024x768 17" CRT from a few feet away for lots of tasks.
I worked on display tech (LCDs, CRTs) for 2 years developing my own methodlogies and adopting others' (like VESA's) because I'm tired of useless non-critera people use to evaluate display quality.
>this is a old discussion and it's getting tired by now.
i've never seen a single real discussion on monitor resolution.

Nanonymous No.9255 [D] >>9264 >>9331
>>9210
>Of course it matters.
Okay. So basically you are saying better color is better.

>>9211
>we need more hard stats, less "this is how I fell about it" reviews
Agreed.
10/10 review of reviews. That should be a thing.
>prad.de & tft-central
I'll check them out.

>>9217
>You guys can't handle rational arguments
Nor can you, apparently.
4k matters, it is better, you can see at it higher screen size. Your eyes and distance from the screen matters! Go back to TempleOS on your GameBoy or whatever (no offense).

>>9221
>i've never seen a single real discussion on monitor resolution.
What would constitute one? Hard stats (not as referenced by the manufacturer) as mentioned previously?




Something that is being sorely left out of the considerations here is value & price!
Not a single reasonably priced "monitor" (of purported good quality) has been introduced!!
Monitors usually refer to computer monitors with less than 35" screen size. TVs are usually 42"+, unless it's some meme TV for a bathroom/kitchen.
On top of that, for a monitor (which is going to be more expensive for the same size as a TV, unless someone can prove otherwise), you will have to invest in a device switcher, because in their massive superiority to all things TV, they probably only put in 1 HDMI port. At most 1 HDMI, 1 DVI and 1 VGA.

If the monitors can't compete price wise to size of a given TV, they aren't comparable. That's like comparing a cheap apartment to a 30 acre farm or something. Of course the farm is better, but it costs several orders of magnitude more.
Same goes for TVs that have better whatever ratio/spec. If they cost $1000+ for a reasonably sized monitor, it's BS, very few are gonna be able to justify spending that on a TV/monitor/screen.

Most of what I see here are tons of stats to consider (many of which are not widely recognized or tested for), which both muddy and de-muddy the waters further, and raise the prospective price of "anything good".
Am curious how one draws a conclusion from any of this.

Nanonymous No.9264 [D] >>9267 >>9331
>>9205
>Only if you use 24" monitors. With larger sizes, it is noticeable.
it isn't, from the distance you will be using the monitor

>Most people have one or more of those anyway, so not an issue really.
maybe most goys

>Is any of that better color etc going to even matter when you are 5 or 10+ feet away from the screen?
Is any of that 4k meme resolution etc going to even matter when you are 5 or 10+ feet away from the screen?

>>9211
>reviews should just be a table of measured data (all pixel response speeds for all transitions after color calibrating and on cold start as well as after 30 minutes of warm up, input latency, contrast ratio, pixel fill factor, luminance uniformity, viewing angle parameters, etc). there is nothing subjective about these data. instead what we have is decades of retards "subjectively" "evaluating" these parameters we already know how to measure.
95% of humans are too retarded to understand that data. also this would close the opportunity for corruption, which is not what the "journalists" want. they like to get some extra cash and items for lying

>false since only the pixel density matters
pixel density doesn't matter, because the bigger the screen, the bigger the distance that you should put it. otherwise you won't be able to see entire scene without moving your eyes
that's another reason why 4k is a meme for dumb goys

>>9255
>4k matters, it is better, you can see at it higher screen size.
it doesn't. prove it.

>Your eyes and distance from the screen matters!
exactly. that is the reason why 4k is a meme. you are supposed to look at big TV screen from big distance, so you won't see noticeable difference between HD and 4K. you can only see it in stupid shops where you look at screen from 2-3 feet distance

>If the monitors can't compete price wise to size of a given TV, they aren't comparable.
TVs cannot compete price wise to size of a given Projector, they aren't comparable

Nanonymous No.9267 [D] >>9278
>>9264
>maybe most goys
The "goys" you are thinking of have cable and only watch Faux and MSNPC.

>TVs cannot compete price wise to size of a given Projector, they aren't comparable
You have that reversed. A 4k projector is way the hell more expensive than a 4k TV.

>muh 4k is a meme
Let's all go back to 360p now because pixel density is a meme. Haha, imagine falling for the 720p meme! What a bunch of losers.

sage sage No.9278 [D]
>>9267
>Let's all go back to 360p now because pixel density is a meme. Haha, imagine falling for the 720p meme! What a bunch of losers.
Strawman non-sequitur.

Nanonymous No.9284 [D] >>9304 >>9307 >>9331
>>9211
>reviews should just be a table of measured data
2 problems with that:
1. anybody can collect hard data so how will you differentiate your brand?
2. if you dont shill products who will pay for the reviews? all those screens dont buy themselves and time/testing eq aint free either

im sure theres a guy out there meticulously reviewing screens every few months when he buys a new one but weve never heard of him bc he has no money to advertise his site and no desire to

Nanonymous No.9304 [D] >>9331
>>9284
>2. if you dont shill products who will pay for the reviews? all those screens dont buy themselves and time/testing eq aint free either
reviews should be financed by the government, as they are in public interest

Nanonymous No.9307 [D] >>9331
>>9284
>im sure theres a guy out there meticulously reviewing screens every few months when he buys a new one but weve never heard of him bc he has no money to advertise his site and no desire to

If anyone finds this dude report back.

Nanonymous No.9331 [D] >>9424
>>9255
>Something that is being sorely left out of the considerations here is value & price!
We can't tell what the value is since there are no good reviews. I literally have not been able to justify a monitor purchase over the last 2 years of reading reviews. I should be able to just sort some data filtering out monitors that match critera (good color, no crap laggy software, non-shit anti-glare etc) and sort by price.
>>9264
>pixel density doesn't matter, because the bigger the screen, the bigger the distance that you should put it.
>the optimal viewing distance of the screen is such that pixel density doesnt matter
it would be interesting if physics so happend to line up 30 different coincidences to make this true.
now how far should i put a 640x480 monitor from my face?
>>9284
>1. anybody can collect hard data so how will you differentiate your brand?
That's not a problem. The problem is lack of data. Right now we have approximately zero. Also,
>2. if you dont shill products who will pay for the reviews? all those screens dont buy themselves and time/testing eq aint free either
The next time you buy a screen, run a free/libre testing program on it (which doesn't exist) and submit the data to the p2p database (which doesn't exist). Or test a bunch of stuff like me and aggregate the data. Anyone who feels the need to make this into a form of income is probably a retard anyway (see for example pcmonitors.info).
>im sure theres a guy out there meticulously reviewing screens every few months when he buys a new one but weve never heard of him bc he has no money to advertise his site and no desire to
Lol, maybe NCX is this guy. I stopped viewing his shit because of JS and captchas and shit (but now it seems to be fixed).
>>9304
>reviews should be financed by the government, as they are in public interest
found the lolstatitarian
>>9307
>Display Corner
the most technically accurate website I've found but it's also full of idiosyncracies and made up terms
https://display-corner.epfl.ch/index.php/Main_Page
>NCX's reviews
For example: http://web.archive.org/web/20140610012651/http://wecravegamestoo.com/forums/monitor-reviews-discussion/14389-crossover-2755amg-review-2560x1440-ah-ips-panel-plasma-deposition-coating.html
http://bestmonitorsbyncx.createaforum.com/monitor-reviews-by-ncx/viewsonic-vx2458-mhd-review-matte-144hz-1080p-tn-with-amd-free-sync/

This reminds me. TFT Central's reviews of anti glare coating are absolute trash. It's just the same paragraph pasted for every monitor, except for one real bad one from 2006 or something. Meanwhile I go to this NCX review, and he talks about Plasma Deposition Coating. Cool, I never even heard of this, but it shouldn't be surprising since CRTs had both better anti-glare and clarity than most LCDs ever made. I've looked at around one hundred LCDs myself and the coatings are mostly crap.
I have the BenQ GW2450HM, which has some absurdly terrible anti glare coating, which TFT Central claims is nothing. A white screen does not look anything remotely like a white screen. Smooth shades are unviewable because you can't tell what is part of the image and part of the anti glare coating.
Meanwhile, https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/benq_gw2450hm.htm
>The screen looks pretty neat and attractive I think and has a smooth feel to the overall shape. The panel coating is a light anti-glare (AG) offering. It is not overly grainy or aggressive like some modern IPS based panels are which is good news for those who are bothered by that kind of thing.
It also takes 15 seconds to turn on / modeset, and the monitor takes an entire second before reacting to any menu button press. TFT Central
Meanwhile,
>All in all the OSD menu offered a good range of options and controls. It looked quite good as well and seemed to be a decent enough bit of software. Navigation was a little tricky sometimes and it didn't feel that intuitive. This was compounded by the misalignment of the operational buttons with the bezel labels too. The navigation was also a little slow and laggy I felt, but overall at least there was a lot you could control if you wanted to. Once set up you probably won't need to change the settings much anyway.
Most of TFT Central is just rubberstamp. Instead of posting the raw data which is the only useful thing on his site, he posts paragraphs among paragraphs explaining how good something is with the same retarded phrases like
>good
>alright
>not to good
>quite alright
>amazing, however X was not the best, however it was quite really good, overall, really
He's also afraid to actually state that a monitor is bad, because less people will click his referral purchase link.

Nanonymous No.9424 [D] >>9498
>>9331
That's a lot of data to take in.
Those graphs aren't exactly self-explanatory.
Other downside to that is that you then have to rely on their list out of what to choose from.
What if the actual best is yet to be discovered?
All that combined with some specific specs you might actually need, and price, how in the world do you draw a conclusion?
I guess I need to buckle down and read a bit more or something.

Nanonymous No.9427 [D] >>9498 >>9543
A very large monitor is superior in every way regrading cost and display quality. The only issue is how hard they are to come across fully made. I plan to buy an oled display direct from the manufacture and do all the work assembling it into a usable monitor with display controllers and whatnot myself.
I really do despise that the upper limit of most retail monitors is around 40", though. I don't fucking need any fancy-fuck smart TV shit, for fucks sake. Cable is for fags and has been for decades.

sage sage No.9433 [D] >>9465 >>9467
Why is this thread still going on? Go to techcrunch or some normiefag forum to discuss this shit.

Nanonymous No.9448 [D][U][F] >>9498
File: 8a334162c3c68d3dd4eced8af5f77c2e74d34ac861a90ebb4822bb7090cb90a4.jpg (dl) (800.26 KiB)
I got a mid 2000s samsung display. No "smart" shit, classic tv remote where you can just press a button and it does what it says. It's 1080p and everything, but of course the image quality isn't as good as some more recent displays. I don't actually watch much of anything there though, mostly because I'd need to build a PC to stick there so I don't have to use the garbage hardware encoder and video player it has built in. It's not a "smart" tv by any means, but it has what every other mid 2000s television had, if you plug in a fat32 flash drive with h264+aac mp4s it has hardware decoders for that, aswell as a horrible laggy player that butchers the image.


The screen I actually use is one of those fabled asian knockoff panels, it's AOC and the model (D2369V/H) is only mentioned in their Taiwan website which I find suspicious, it's really a decent screen but with some serious flaws.
It does have PWM, but simultaneously, its brightness can be lowered to sane levels, so that it's not like a lot of screens nowadays that can only be set to different levels of eyes on fire and can't even be lowered to the SRGB standard of 80cd/m2. I can quite easily make my room a "dimly lit diffuse lighting" environment, so it's perfect.
It didn't come calibrated (SRGB of course) out of the factory, so it had a heavy green tint, I had to do it by eye with a reference image. A rusky forum made the same comment, and they calibrated it properly with a machine, and the end result from their measurement was that the 1:1000 contrast ratio fell to 1:973.
For whatever reason it has 3 gamma curves, the default one is wildly wrong, but the second one is very accurate.
Other than that it can be overclocked to 77hz without any frame skipping, it can also be overclocked to a little less than 72hz so I can watch 23.976hz content without pulldown, whatever grey to grey timing they give is a lie and my best guess is that it's not "early LCD" levels of bad but it's bad. Motion is always blurry as fuck on this screen, if I'm looking around in a game and there's text in a wall I can't read it while moving the screen.
It has an overdrive feature where the light setting is better 100% of the time and depending on content medium can be superior. The latency it adds on top of the time the pixels take to switch colors to make up the overall input lag appears to be insignificant, I can't measure that either, but I've played Xonotic locked at 232 fps with no vsync + my 1000hz mouse (usbhid module tweak on linux), which means in theory the maximum latency of the game was 4.3ms, and the input lag certainly wasn't perfect like a CRT, but compared to other screens of the same type, it was on the upper end.




By the way I'm not a retarded normalfag who keeps pushing this "hur dur the human eye can't see more than 320x240" nonsense, I'm very aware even in a 5 inch phoneshit size resolution way over 4k is still needed, and I know that what makes it to screens is selected through anything but reason as the retarded masses are the ones making choices, but am I the only one who thinks that working on more resolution right now is plain and simple stupid?

I think content should work towards being 60fps 4:4:4 chroma at the absolute minimum.
Screens should work towards having way more bits. Just make 16 bits per color the standard, better to have more bits than you need than to not have nearly enough like we do right now, and we should drop one-colorspace-fits-all insanity. Instead every image and piece of video should come with an ICC profile, and every screen should come with an ICC profile. Or any ICC alternative if ICC is bad, I don't know, just something describing the color space.
That way we have a decent amount of bits to represent values with and manufacturers can safely innovate with screens that cover more colors, without creating advertising memes like MUH HDR to further brainwash the masses. I think the only flaw of this plan would be that just like with audio there are retards consuming audio files containing sounds over the human hearing range, "videophiles" would be born. They would be people who claim they can see ultraviolet and infrared and sooner or later all screens would be pozzed with some infrared/ultraviolet display capacity, creating useless markups in price with an associated drop in the quality of the product to feed a non-existing need, just like my soundcard capable of 192khz playback.

Nanonymous No.9465 [D] >>9467
>>9433
>this shit
>animie threads
haha, not shit!
>mass murderer meme threads
haha, not shit!
>political or racial bs threads
haha, not shit!
>most of the shit on /b/
haha, not shit!
>actual /g/ thread discussing screens, TVs etc
<go back to normieville, faggot!

Those normie forums (normies in general actually) don't give a shit about Nanonymity!

>why is this thread still going on
Because this thread actually discusses something and attempts (maybe) to spread knowledge, instead of just spewing a pity party or condensed this-my-belief-in-a-meme soundbites!
Fuck off back to 4chan if you can't handle post quality, dumb ass (or one of the other stupid boring ass threads on /l/ /b/ /a/ or /pol/).
You sound like what is wrong with Nanochan.

Nanonymous No.9467 [D] >>9472
>>9433 (me)
>>9465
I've already complained with sakamoto about these other cancer. He did nothing. Not my fault.
My last comment still stands. Tor imageboards should be for "high-level" discussions. Not Smart TV reviews.
>spread knowledge
What knowledge have this thread spread? If nothing, it has spread disinformation instead.
>You sound like what is wrong with Nanochan.
Maybe. Maybe imageboards are a place for retardeds and I'm the only one trying to hold on it. If that's true, then it's pretty sad.

Nanonymous No.9472 [D]
>>9467
>I've already complained with sakamoto about these other cancer. He did nothing. Not my fault.
<But this one was so much worse that you had to comment directly on it.

>this thread isn't high level discussion
Seems like it is to me.
That one dude has been dropping review sites and naming stats that aren't widely known.
It's more of a meta-discussion about the TV/screen market and all the things therein.
So what if dips into specific models/brands at certain points?
The thread is called "TV Jubilee" not "is E-Corp SmartTV model x890798798 a good deal?".
Yeah, there's some disinfo, it doesn't really matter if they are drowned out by rationality, as it strengthens said rationality.

Nanonymous No.9498 [D][U][F] >>9543
File: 3fc544e1c3df55b95fbdc80c50525dfbef9a3502076921af6dd5b0e0e84766ac.png (dl) (47.91 KiB)
>>9424
>Those graphs aren't exactly self-explanatory.
I agree, it took me lots of thinking to figure out what some of the TFT Central graphs mean. And Display Corner is just incomprehensible bullshit. He doesn't explain any of his graphs at all aside from like 1 out of 50.
For example the pic in >>9211 (from a TFT Central review) is the response times of some pixel transitions. For example for Starting Point 100 and End Point 50, it means that to make a pixel go from 100,100,100 (R,G,B) to 50,50,50, it takes 30ms. He measures only colors from one grey level to another grey level, because it's believed that this is enough to work out every possible pixel transition. For example to go from 100,0,0 to 50,0,0, it will still take 30ms for the RED subpixel to transition, regardless of what the other two subpixels are doing.
Also there's the fact that this 30ms isn't EXACTLY from 100,100,100 to 50,50,50, it's more like 100,100,100 to 45,45,45 or something similar, I can't remember the exact details. They measure the time it takes for the pixel to go to 80% of the desired value, or something like that. All of this stuff is measured by a photodiode so they can only capture luminance changes and not color changes, which is why they do from one grey level to another.

Pic related is simple, it's the luminance uniformity of an ultrawide monitor (from a TFT Central review). It shows how much the brightness deviates from the average brightness in each area of the screen. Why does this matter? For example an expensive LCD I have has an entire 1 inch perimeter where the image is brighter than the rest. On certain pictures it stands out and is annoying as hell. You can't tell what the screen is trying to display in some cases because you cant tell whether it's the 1 inch perimeter making things whiter or the actual image is supposed to be whiter in that spot.

>Other downside to that is that you then have to rely on their list out of what to choose from.
Yeah it's crap. I'm going to make a program to aggregate all the review data from all the sites into a standard format. I'm also working on exposing invalid review sites.
>All that combined with some specific specs you might actually need, and price, how in the world do you draw a conclusion?
I dunno, I think LCDs are a dead end technology anyway and can't even compete with the last generation of CRTs. The only possible advantage they have is pixel density, but it's lost from the shitty anti-glare coating. Then the non-anti-glare LCDs are way too reflective. The CRTs I have have semi anti-glare that doesn't obstruct the image at all. I haven't tried all LCDs though so maybe there are some good products out there, like Plasma Deposition Coating as mentioned by NCX, I've never tried a monitor with that.
>>9427
>A very large monitor is superior in every way regrading cost and display quality.
Well no, it will have lower quality unless you pay more.
>>9448
>SRGB standard of 80cd/m2.
BASED. I didn't know this was a thing. most shit out there is indeed way too bright and can't be lowered enough (and worse yet on some monitors once you go below 100% brightness PWM turns on)
>and the end result from their measurement was that the 1:1000 contrast ratio fell to 1:973.
lol i doubt that's even perceptable even if you tried. this happens to all LCDs. sometimes you get much worse contrast loss after calibrating.
>whatever grey to grey timing they give is a lie and my best guess is that it's not "early LCD" levels of bad but it's bad.
all LCD manufacturers lie about the response time. this has been the standard for 30 years. before and after they switched to "grey to grey" terminology
>Motion is always blurry as fuck on this screen, if I'm looking around in a game and there's text in a wall I can't read it while moving the screen.
This is true for all LCDs unless they have a "strobed backlight" type feature. I've tested 120Hz/144Hz TN screens and even they are still blurry shit.
PWM on top of this will cause images to not be perfectly blurred but you'll see like 4 (or any other number of) copies of the moving image overlapped

Nanonymous No.9543 [D] >>9553
>>9427
>I plan to buy an oled display direct from the manufacture and do all the work assembling it into a usable monitor with display controllers and whatnot myself.
It never occurred to me that one could "build" a TV or monitor in the same way one can a computer.

>>9498
>Yeah it's crap. I'm going to make a program to aggregate all the review data from all the sites into a standard format.
How hard would it be to appropriately test a TV/display?
Do you just need one of these photo-diodes + the screen hooked up to a computer and thusly execute a standard test?
Or is there more to it than that (I assume there is)?

If, with this aggregated standard format, you could have a relatively easy way to test a screen (for anyone who isn't a tech-boomer) and thus go into the database.

Nanonymous No.9551 [D]
I just came across an example of absolute retard shit LCD reviewers say (don't waste your time reading anything else on their website):
>the 60Hz refresh means that unless you're locking V-Sync you'll see tearing [https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3307/quick_review_dell_ultrasharp_u2711_27_inch_lcd_monitor/index.html]

Nanonymous No.9553 [D][U][F] >>9578
File: 496c20b4190d37ccc488c01db2da79aae4032a7a8cbd7e243a7e29109f630e37.jpg (dl) (108.58 KiB)
here's an example of another disaster of an LCD review by one of the top professional websites:
Look at the "Ghosting/Overdrive Performance" and how painfully pedantic his analysis is (while still only covering 1% of use cases)
http://bestmonitorsbyncx.createaforum.com/monitor-reviews-by-ncx/viewsonic-vx2458-mhd-review-matte-144hz-1080p-tn-with-amd-free-sync/msg681/
If you look at pic related [https://flic.kr/p/2fLCJPs] where he took a photo of moving images with a low exposure time camera, it's obvious that the monitor can't do fuck all. BUT, ALL monitors ever made are like this. CRTs even have the problem in the case of black-to-bright transitions (all others are practically instant though).
So if we interpret this picture as what a moving image actually looks like, the monitor is garbage. Why would you want the UFO to be displayed with a bunch of garbage on the left? Unlike his anal as fuck analysis, all the pictures in that table are terrible and no different than the other. It doesn't matter whether one is caused by overshoot and one is caused by slow pixel transition, they're both as shit.
But actually, you probably wont see any of this noise, because it's covered up by the smear of motion blur. Even with instant pixel transitions there will still be motion blur. So actually, a normal LCD monitor with 10 nanosecond pixel transitions will still look just as bad as this.
And also, photos of a moving image are useless because (for example at 60Hz) they can capture a pixel 500us after it was supposed to change, 3ms after it was supposed to change, 5ms, 8ms all the way up to 16.66ms.
With a slow monitor if you take the picture too early, you will see no artifacts and so it will look fast.
With a fast monitor if you take the picture too early, you will see artifacts and so it will look slow.
There's absolutely no way to know when this photo was taken, and thus it's completely useless outside of a meta-analysis perspective (I.E COMPLETELY USELESS TO ANY CONSUMER/USER).

Another issue is that like all reviews, they don't thoroughly review each supported refresh rate at least while color calibrated. Lots of 144Hz/120Hz monitor for example will do retarded shit at 60Hz like fucking up the frame scheduling, resulting in judder, or the overdrive wont work properly. Even the input lag changes by 10s of ms from mode to mode. You might have a monitor that works good at 144Hz but then adds on 10ms of input lag at 60Hz (yes, input lag technically can be said to increase simply by lowering the refresh rate [actually not really true if vsync is off], but what I'm referring to here is another problem ON TOP of that). This is why reviewers should just do automated tests and submit the data. Noone has time to go through each mode and try to make some subjective analysis of it and post 50 paragraphs, and nobody would want to read that shit.

Now the next issue, is like all review sites, and what a nanon mentioned here, they can just choose whatever specs they want and cherry pick them. Which they do, because they often say "blah blah blah measurement X was good enough so we didn't include it in this review". Also, this review like many others shows stats of this monitor compared to some previous reviews they did or some from other websites.
This is fucking dumb. I want to compare measurement X to ALL monitors on the current market, and also of monitors from the last decades to see whether they actually improved anything or not. If some crap is artifically broken (as is the case on basically everything ever shat out from America), I want to have proof right there that 20 years ago no monitor had this issue. Like I should be able to do anything I can do in SQL. In the case of pixel response, that was a solved problem in the early 2000s or earlier (for TN monitors), so if one suddenly is garbage, we could just look at the history and see this is obvious garbage.
If I wanted a simple non-flickering 60Hz LCD I should be able to
select * from monitors where max_pixel_transition < 8ms[1] and antiglare is not garbage and viewing_angle is not garbage and flicker=false join ShopNearMyHouse S sort by S.price
and get a list and sort it by price.
1. I don't know what the actual number has to be, but it should be small enough such that the natural motion blur covers it up completely. So I guess smaller than the average "exposure time" of the human eye, minus some amount to make sure it applies to all humans.
But anyyway plz dont implement this cus im already doing this :P

>>9543
>How hard would it be to appropriately test a TV/display? Do you just need one of these photo-diodes + the screen hooked up to a computer and thusly execute a standard test?
A photodiode with a simple circuit and oscilliscope can be used to measure the entire pixel response curve, plugged into a computer with some software to go through ever pixel transition and log the corresponding oscilliscope output. Maybe you'll need to do this with a certainy lit (or simply dark) room, but you'll need that for lots of other tests anyway.
Other devices/setups are needed to measure things like contrast, color accuracy, and luminance uniformity. I guess it might be possible to make some cheap setup with raspberry pi type crap that people can use without too much trouble.

Nanonymous No.9556 [D][U][F] >>9559 >>9567 >>9578 >>10028
File: b024de16701850190f01fd4d5ebbaede167e4746cb41f769f359271d354c1232.ogg (dl) (4.13 MiB)
>hurr most people can't see a difference with 4k and I can't so clearly it's for dumbies!!!
I thought nanons were smarter than this. Even if this was the case, why exactly do some of you tards get so riled up about it? You act like high resolution screens come with similar levels of downsides when compared to other tech "advancements" like 5G and small bezel-ed smartphones. Get oddly butt-hurt all you want. I can immediately see the difference in clarity between my 4k 15" laptop screen and my 1080p 15" laptop screen sitting at a comfortable typing distance (not the same laptop with differently scaled resolutions. Two separate laptops with on having 4k native resolution and the other 1080p native).
Maybe it's just that people refuse to accept that some people have more pristine rods in their retinas than others, I don't know. I just don't understand what causes such vehement hatred of higher resolutions. If someone could give me an argument against higher resolution besides "hurr durrr me and these people can't see a difference so it must be placebo when you do", maybe I'll understand.

Nanonymous No.9559 [D] >>9560 >>9869
>>9556
>I can immediately see the difference in clarity between my 4k 15" laptop screen and my 1080p 15" laptop screen sitting at a comfortable typing distance (not the same laptop with differently scaled resolutions. Two separate laptops with on having 4k native resolution and the other 1080p native).
maybe you see the difference, maybe not, but it doesn't matter because we are discussing watching video materials on TVs or projectors. 4k is a meme and useless for videos
now when you speak of a computer monitor, high pixel density makes some sense, because on computer you work with a lot of small text, buttons, information. but even then, there is a limit of pixel density that makes sense
also you say that the 4k laptop looks better, but you don't know if it's because of resolution, there could be other factors that make it look better and sharper, like anti-glare coating, technology (TN, IPS, VA) etc

>Maybe it's just that people refuse to accept that some people have more pristine rods in their retinas than others, I don't know. I just don't understand what causes such vehement hatred of higher resolutions. If someone could give me an argument against higher resolution besides "hurr durrr me and these people can't see a difference so it must be placebo when you do", maybe I'll understand.
there is plenty of reasons against high resolutions:
-it is used by sellers and marketers to make goyim believe that their old devices are weak and should be replaced with a new one
-high resolution wastes energy, you need stronger gpu and/or cpu to draw higher resolution and you waste energy and heat. high resolution is not efficient. also portable devices live shorter on battery
-high resolution wastes internet bandwidth, 4k uses few times more than 1080p
-high resolution uses few times more space on your HDD, so you can store less of it
-high resolution is a meme, not needed

Nanonymous No.9560 [D] >>9561 >>9567
>>9559
also, high resolution is dangerous
if you record child pornography with your daughter and on few video frames there will be some letter or something on table, with high resolution they could read your name or address

high resolution also allows to hide some data or instructions in video, those instruction could be read and executed by malware botnet hardware

Nanonymous No.9561 [D] >>9567
>>9560
>high resolution also allows to hide some data or instructions in video, those instruction could be read and executed by malware botnet hardware
for example, imagine jews posting special video on nanochan, special instructions are encoded in pixels of video, so when your Intel Management Engine or proprietary GPU reads them, it connects to CIA servers over clearnet and sending encoded number, thus deanonymizing you

Nanonymous No.9567 [D] >>9869
>>9556
>I can immediately see the difference in clarity between my 4k 15" laptop screen and my 1080p 15"
from what distance
which content?
are you strictly talking about sharpness?
are you conflating matte coating artifacts for cripsness?
are you conflating pixel fill factor for crispness? (e.g having pixels with black outlines instead of 3 blocks of pure color)
did you use the exact same content on both monitors?
>>9560
even audio (like 128kbps) is already way too high bandwidth to be bothered trying to rule out stenographed information
>>9561
>for example, imagine jews posting special video on nanochan, special instructions are encoded in pixels of video,
(((they))) could do this with a PNG (or jpeg since they could just predict the output or turn down the compression via various format hacks, etc)

Nanonymous No.9578 [D]
>>9553
>But anyyway plz dont implement this cus im already doing this :P
Excellent. Hopefully in PostgreSQL.

>I guess it might be possible to make some cheap setup with raspberry pi type crap that people can use without too much trouble.
That would be necessary for it be usable at all.
Hopefully with an RPI-type board that has open firmware.

>>9556
This.


Nanonymous No.9847 [D] >>9869 >>9953 >>10018
Yup, even normal niggers do notice that their cool "smarht" tvs actually spy on them. Both smart tvs and phones should be renamed to dumb or 'fordumb', so the masses can finally grace it. Owning smart tv makes you dumb no doubt.
Yes, nowadays you can't find dumb tvs anymore. As nanons mentioned before most search engines don't even provide an option to search for dumb tvs. Actually modern dumb 32" 1080p tv costs as much as shmart 60" 1440p panel. What the fuck glowniggers? I won't fall for that. I don't have space in my room to hang it.

Adding to the topic:
Got 'dumb' philips tv circa 2014-15. 40" 1080p 3 hdmi inputs, single usb port which accepts external hard drives. Plays 1080p 30fps no problem, sometimes lags on different encoding (has some problems with mkv files). Anyway i attached it to my pc as a doubling display to watch youtube vids. It's shit for anything else. Black level is better than my monitor, but contrast and colors are worse overall. Reading text is out of a question, because fonts sucks balls on this dpi.
Okayish 27" 120Hz 1080p samshit. Has hdmi (some old version 60 Hz no audio), displayport (maximum 120 Hz, but overheats in return), audio output, and nothing else. Panel itself is paper thin, but the stand.. It frequently switches itself off ("losing signal") and overheats. At first i would like 1440p on it, but since my vision deteriorated significantly (he might be a culprit), 1080p is allright for me now.

Anyway, spending most of my time looking in the monitor, like every job nowadays requires is retarded. Uncle Ted was right about technology. Saint Terry was right about dumb nigger cattle. Prophet Tarrant is right on replacement.
DOWN WITH TECHNOLOGY IT AN ANARCHO-PRIMITIVISM BOARD NOW

Nanonymous No.9869 [D][U][F] >>9953
File: b841afb190d3c97f0b43bf101c2861ec2411467d08acd61513d4f7d18b7c6bf6.ogg (dl) (6.43 MiB)
>>9559
>but it doesn't matter because we are discussing watching video materials
>4k is a meme and useless for videos
Why are you assuming the differences I noticed only concerned content outside of videos? The difference is highly noticeable even when viewing the same videos that have been efficiently encoded for 2160p and 1080p, respectively (viewing a 2160p video on a 1080p display creates a very obvious moire effect that isn't representative of actual native differences. I'm not cheating, in that respect).
Higher resolutions are entirely necessary for the media work I do. You're just wrong if you think the ease-threshold for effective editing of 20+ megapixel images/videos with higher res. screens is equal to that of lower res. screens.
>also you say that the 4k laptop looks better, but-
You bring up a good point. That line of thinking is why CRTs died an unnecessary and untimely death. The average TN panel was better than the average CRT display. But, it took decades for tops of the line LCDs to match just basic top of the line CRT specifications like color accuracy. It's inarguable that there are many aspects of display quality that CRTs attained that LCDs and OLED displays inherently never will be able to match. Yet, CRTs died a swift death because most consumers never saw a high-spec CRT. (((Salesmen))) displayed a 720p LCD TV with abhorrent color reproduction and contrast ratios next to a 480p CRT and shilled the shit out of sharpness as if CRTs couldn't be higher res. It was repulsive.
Anyway, I DO know why the display looks SHARPER because I take your mentioned factors and more into account. While the higher resolution screen certainly has better contrast ratios, color accuracy, etc., it is not important because both panels are IPS and therefore similar enough in technology as to not have to great of differences in other qualities. Besides, seldom mentioned is the fact that higher resolution displays inherently have a higher threshold for color accuracy, which is something much more noticeable and reproducible than sharpness. But, I feel as though that's out of bounds of this resolution sharpness-centric discussion.
>it is used by sellers-
Fair, I do believe most people have no need for high res screens. They don't really make sense if you're just gonna watch the common 720-1080p videos and don't care too much for reading. But, for videophiles and those with sharp enough eyes to see a difference, it's not snake oil. I sincerely believe I'd past a blind test where someone gave me two displays which were both somehow made to have as identical color reproduction, contrast, etc. as possible but separately have HD and 4k resolutions in telling which is the 4k display at a comfortable viewing distance.
>high resolution wastes internet bandwidth, 4k uses few times more than 1080p
Now THAT'S a meme. It takes me seconds to load 4k 60fps videos from LGR on my shit .5-3mbs internet with no stuttering. Maybe that's because I use MPV and it's way more efficient than JewTube, but idk.
Even if it wasn't a meme, toggling between resolutions is easy as pie basically everywhere. I've never once been to even a PeerTube instance that couldn't give me resolutions besides 4k to use.
>high resolution uses few times-
Objectively true. Worth it if you can see the quality improvement, not so if not.
>high resolution is a meme, not needed
Okay, name me a sharp looking film that was shot at sub 4k resolutions before being scaled to 1080p that looks good. I'm quite curious to see what you find.
>>9567
>from what distance
about 1-1.3 meters, maximum
>which content?
all.
>are you strictly talking about sharpness?
no, because I don't have a 1080p display that matches the other qualities of my 4k display that aren't sharpness like color reproduction curve and contrast ration. But, as mentioned before, if I did I blind test comparing such a mythical display, I'd see a difference at a comfortable viewing distance.
>are you conflating matte coating artifacts for cripsness?
No.
>did you use the exact same content on both monitors?
Yes and no. As mentioned before, hi-res content, especially videos, on lower-res displays creates a very obvious moire pattern. Because of this, a more content-faithful and difficult comparison can be made for videos properly encoded for each display's native resolution.
>(((they))) could do this with a PNG...
Spooky stuff
>>9847
>Actually modern dumb 32" 1080p tv costs as much as shmart 60" 1440p panel
Very frustrating.
>Uncle Ted was right about technology. Saint Terry was right about dumb nigger cattle. Prophet Tarrant is right on replacement.
Indeed.

Nanonymous No.9953 [D][U][F] >>10111
File: 4af3227962e48fca2ce5312542b92796e8fcc09221544bee846dd27eca00d75c.jpg (dl) (1.58 MiB)
It's the anti-glare.
It's the anti-glare.
It's the anti-glare.

I've been straining my eyes looking at LCDs for my work for the last 2 days. On one of them, I have to keep the brightness up to full because once you lower it, it goes PWM, and when you move your eye across the screen from one place to another, you see a bunch of copies of the image overlapped as they move across your field of view. Very annoying when staring at code for hours. Then on this other screen I've been using, the brightness controls don't even work. All this time my eyes were hurting and I began to think it was due to the brightness. But just now I picked up this glossy 19" 1280x1024 (what looks to be TN) screen and plugged it in (grabbed it earlier at the Thrift store for $5 because it's really hard to find used glossy models). Instantly, all the pain was gone, and images were no longer murky as hell. Simple images with two or 3 giant shapes each of a single color looked 9000x better than any crap I've seen in the last days. And this is on 19" 1280x1024 a few feet away from the screen, a pixel density I usually find too crappy (maybe all this time it was just the anti-glare that was making them bad). I didn't even wipe the dust off the front yet. That's how bad typical matte is. This experience isn't new though, it happens almost every time I plug in a CRT after using a matte LCD for days. And this is coming from someone who used to hate glossy screens and tell everyone to kys themselves for using them. That said the reflectiveness is a huge issue as well. The best I've seen is the high end CRTs, they have something that reduces tons of glare but doesn't obscruct the image at all.
>>9847
>Reading text is out of a question, because fonts sucks balls on this dpi.
Not if you move it back. You're probably burning your eyes son, TVs are like 400cd/m^2 at a minimum (i'm sure _some_ aren't so bad).
>>9869
>>from what distance
>about 1-1.3 meters, maximum
It sounds doubtful that anyone could see differences between 15" 1080p and 15" 4K from _a whole meter_ away (but I don't know what the real pixel density/distance limit for humans is since i never studied it).
>>which content?
>all.
If an image is low enough resolution, it will not look sharper on a 4K display when not upscaled, it will just look smaller. And with upscaling it will of course still not look sharper on the higher res screen of same size and same distance of viewing.
>no, because I don't have a 1080p display that matches the other qualities of my 4k display that aren't sharpness like color reproduction curve and contrast ration.
So you're saying you wouldn't be able to distinguish sharpness from color quality?
>both panels are IPS and therefore similar enough in technology as to not have to great of differences in other qualities
"IPS" is a very broad range of technologies, like AHVA, PLS, etc. The type of anti-glare, which makes a huge difference (especially for anyone who claims to have good vision) is not even part of the panel.
>viewing a 2160p video on a 1080p display creates a very obvious moire effect that isn't representative of actual native differences
Depends on the downscaling algo, and is that even "moire"? If you use nearest neighbour downscaling, it's going to look bad no matter what, because it simply drops pixels. Any other downscaling algo should look alright.
Pic related is an image scaled from 8525x4360 to 2131x1090. The top is the nearest neighbour version and the bottom is the linear/bilinear/bicubic/etc (they're all the same for downscaling as far as I can tell) interpolation (I used the "linear" mode in GIMP). Original image here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Monasterio_Khor_Virap%2C_Armenia%2C_2016-10-01%2C_DD_25.jpg
I'll post another image where the difference is more obvious.
>As mentioned before, hi-res content, especially videos, on lower-res displays creates a very obvious moire pattern. Because of this, a more content-faithful and difficult comparison can be made for videos properly encoded for each display's native resolution.
I guess downscaling makes the image more blurry. If you downscale exactly 50% though, (e.g 3840x2160 -> 1920x1080. if you have 4096x2160 just letterbox it), then it can be done "losselessly". Each 2x2 block of pixels is transformed into a single pixel with 25% of each of the source pixels added together. While implementing downscaling algos, I've indeed noticed that ratios like 1/2 (50%), 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, etc, look sharper than all others. Now that I think of it I'm not sure why this would be true as opposed to a weighted average needed for ratios like 51%. Maybe 51% just looks bad compared to 50% because of some edge case.
If we want to test whether you can perceive the lack of pixel density of a screen this is easy. Get the screen to display solid white and move your head towards the screen and backwards while focusing vision on a single spot. You'll see some weird stuff caused by, again, "moire". Like black vertical (and horizontal) lines will flicker around the spot you're focusing on. If we want a screen that is flawless that clearly shouldn't happen. Then again the refresh rate (and frame rate) would have to be in the KHz if you want flawless animation as well. Sitting over a full meter away from this 19" 1280x1024 screen, I can barely see the effect. If I get any closer it becomes obvious. This will only work if pixels have dark outlines of course, but I've never seen such a monitor.

Nanonymous No.9955 [D][U][F]
File: 6fe4c4886fca002c3ea4d82343d7a2557bda7c16aef32c0e6746463232c8c642.png (dl) (134.35 KiB)
more obvious example of nearest neighbour vs other downscaling algos

Nanonymous No.9991 [D] >>10018
>>9487
>Actually modern dumb 32" 1080p tv costs as much as shmart 60" 1440p panel.
This is because they can data-mine your ass with the Smartshit.

Sounds like only Wallmart has the search engine allowing you to specify "smart" or not.

What TV would you buy /g/?
Seems like it's a shot in the fuckin' dark, since stats are few and far between while being almost incomparable.

Nanonymous No.10018 [D] >>10019 >>10020 >>10040
>>9847
>>9991
"smart" is considered a feature and why would anyone not want a "feature"? this is the logic behind it. no company ever will provide non-smart as a search option aside from possibly marketing to privacyniggers in the future. if you see a search that allows searching for non-smart, as opposed to "all tvs, smart or not", it's because they reused some code somewhere, as opposed to explicitly adding this search option

Nanonymous No.10019 [D] >>10021
>>10018
>it's because they reused some code somewhere, as opposed to explicitly adding this search option
Are you retarded? Its obvious that for that filter option to work you need to go through your entire inventory and write down on each item whether its smart or not, because you cant just reliably figure that out from the name/desc.

Nanonymous No.10020 [D][U][F] >>10021 >>10041
File: e7687479e33d7caf525771e608f9049e4da5822e29d15d371d2fe235b0200f2e.png (dl) (2.44 MiB)
>>10018
This. When you're dealing with normalfags, the only thing that matters is if something sounds or looks good or bad. The face value impression is all. Whatever is beyond face value is irrelevant, even if a better conclusion can be reached through emotional thinking(a.k.a non-thinking) or real thinking.

When's the last time an ugly president got elected? Before television. When's the last time a stuttery president got elected? Before radio.
Why is the console of a car so useless and unintuitive? So normalfags can tell each other it feels like a spaceship.
The actual practical worth of any of those things is completely irrelevant, but at face value, they look good.
The entire idea of a "smart" TV is deeply rooted in Jewry exploiting such primitive mindsets, by giving such a nice-sounding name to something no reasonable person would ever want.
smart is good, smart is a feature and features are good, gotta consume product!

This gets complicated as normalfags become increasingly deviant and their ideas of "sounds nice" or "looks good" stray farther and farther away from even actually sounding or looking good at face value, but it still holds true if you try to understand the way their thought works, which if it wasn't very simplistic then they wouldn't be normalfags.

Nanonymous No.10021 [D]
>>10019
yes, because they want to know which ones to advertise as "Smart enabled!!!".
but then the search has these options:
[+] Low Blue Light filter
[+] Super Dooper Feature 3000
[ ] Super Mega Thing 1234
[+] Smart
There is no
[+] Non-smart
The only way you'd be able to search non-smart is if you can negate options:
[+] Low Blue Light filter
[+] Super Dooper Feature 3000
[ ] Super Mega Thing 1234
[-] Smart
>>10020
word

Nanonymous No.10028 [D]
>>9556
It's just normalfags, the "difference" of a 4k+ screen is still obvious even in phoneshit sizes such as 5 inches.
It's basically normalfags saying "hurr you don't need a gun unless you want to kill people!" but about TVs.

Nanonymous No.10040 [D]
>>10018
What?
"Smart" makes them money because they sell your data, and yes also because it is a feature they market to the bluepilled.
There are already TVs on the market that don't have "smart", it's not for people who care about nanonyimity, it's just a rare anomaly where they don't add a computer in the case, likely to cut costs that happened to not be in a under-handed way.

Nanonymous No.10041 [D]
>>10020
>When's the last time an ugly president got elected?
Never?
Even the old farts in paintings don't look any worse than the ones today.
I don't think Trump was elected because of how handsome he was. And have you even seen amount of balding dudes in the congress?
Ugly != good or better, its an unrelated variable.

In architecture and say, vehicles, it matters though.
And those "modern" pieces of shit are butt-ugly.

Nanonymous No.10111 [D]
>>9953
scratch that, 19" 1280x1024 is still shit. you see a bunch of horizotal lines randomly all the time from multiple feet away. ive never seen this shit with any 17" 1280x1024