4K TVs Used as Computer Displays

[koalaboy]

Yes the Philips 40" looks promising also. It was ~$1,500 but seems approximately ~$750 on Amazon at the moment. Not bad indeed. And yes 60hz over Display Port.

I have this one. It's very nice, but you need to be aware of a few issues:

1) If you sit close enough for the 4K to be relevant, the colour/lighting will not be consistent across the entire screen - this is down to the panel type, and only noticeable if you have a solid colour on screen, or are doing colour-specific detail work (I don't find it a problem).

2) There are no front-panel controls, so you have to reach around to the back control button (which can be reached from underneath, just) if you want to make changes. I don't need to make changes, but if you're likely to be altering things (or switching inputs) regularly, it can become annoying.

3) The stand is not adjustable in any way. It has a VESA mount, so it's not a dead-end if you need flexibility, but it's not there out of the box. Again, not something I have a problem with.

I'm been very happy with the monitor - most remaining problems are just waiting for applications to catch up, so I generally run @ 200%, with most things being upscaled to 1080p equivalent, and a few capable apps (Studio One 3, Live 9.5, Bitwig, FLStudio) using the full resolution - although then you have the problem of VSTs being tiny.

[jdnz]

1) If you sit close enough for the 4K to be relevant, the colour/lighting will not be consistent across the entire screen - this is down to the panel type, and only noticeable if you have a solid colour on screen, or are doing colour-specific detail work (I don't find it a problem).

I keep hoping someone will release one the same size but using an IPS panel (I prefer dealing with the ips 'glow' at the edges as opposes to colour shift). Ideally a curved one which would lessen the issues even further. Guess it comes down to a company producing a suitable panel

[aMUSEd]

Is this the Phillips one?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philips-BDM4065 ... B00OO9YWR0

[Scotty]

I run dual LCD 4k Monitors and a third monitor. My 4K monitors are only 28" and run at 30 hz. I don't do photo editing or gaming so the refresh rate and colour accuracy is fine as these are dedicated to Cubase. What I have found is that 4k on the 28" monitor is just too small for comfortable viewing over any length of time and as mentioned, plugins can be so tiny as not to be readable in some cases. So this is my solution.... My LCD monitors are

4K monitors are each set for 2560 x 1440 which is comfortable and provides a lot of screen real estate. The third monitor sits on an arm above the two larger screens and is a 20" monitor set for 1680 x 1050. This is where I will drag very tiny VSTs if i find them even too small for the 2560 x 1440 screen resolution.

In Cubase I use the workspace menu shortcuts to move the arranger and editors around on the 4k monitor and typically have the mastering eyecandy active on the 3rd screen with visualizers and metering active most of the time.

The third screen is going to be replaced with a touch screen so I can do some touch editing when it makes sense to do so. The third monitor also serves as a monitor for a few other computers that are dedicated to older PCI sounds cards (OASYS PCI and SCOPE). I use a KVM switch for this monitor. This combination gives me a lot of screen room and the good news is that the 4k monitors were Dell's that sold for $300 CND each and the 20" monitor I got used for $70.00. The video card that I use is a AMD FirePRO W4100 card which will drive four 4k monitors. It was about $250 CND for the card which wasn't too bad as it came with some cables and convertors etc. So all told I got this configuration for under $1000.00 Canadian including taxes.

For Bitwig users, I can use the 4k monitors at max 4K resolution and everything is very sharp and readable except third party plugins which have small fixed gui. Thus, I also have also decided to keep my monitors set to the same resolution for Bitwig as I have for Cubase.

Anyway, I thought I'd share this with you in case this is helpful. I couldn't find this information when I started looking into this last year. - Scotty

Do you need a powerful computer to drive a 4K display?

You need a decent video card to handle it. If you have a recent Mac with thunderbolt 2.0, it will handle it. If you have PC, check that your video card can do it, but almost all in the past 5 years can handle it fairly easily.

High-end video cards from AMD and Nvidia, can drive 3-4, or even 6 4K displays at once in some cases!

Graphics requirements for DAWs are almost nothing compared to high end PC games, which is good for us, as the gaming industry provides good economies of scale...

Also I'm not sure about the need for HDMI 2, it only came out in 2015 and I'm not sure if many displays use it yet

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/4k-hdmi-cab ... -nonsense/

HDMI 2.0 IS needed if you want to do 4K at 60Hz. Otherwise, you will be limited to 30Hz.

This is the only adapter that I know of that will convert Display Port to HDMI 2.0 and allow 60Hz.

But yes, you should check and verify that the TV itself will accept HDMI 2.0 and allow refresh rates of 60hz. All the new Samgsungs do AFAIK. Sony too. Not sure about the rest.

I've been following this 4K TV stuff for at least 3 years now and watch this stuff closely. I ran triple monitors 1600*1200 in 1999 for example... I've been waiting a long time to find a 4K @60hz in a large (40" or so) form factor. I've been using it at 30hz already since April. I will now try this adapter and try it at 60hz...

Next I might try dual 4K displays. The only question there is how to arrange them. It becomes annoying IMHO to have a seem directly in the center so 3 displays is better for horizontal arrangement. But 3 40" displays gets to be quite wide and will likely interfere with room acoustics and mess up near field monitoring... So probably 2 displays stacked vertically is better...

anyway, I think this stuff is quite interesting/fun! One of the few remaining areas for good innovation!

[Andrew Souter]

What I have found is that 4k on the 28" monitor is just too small for comfortable viewing over any length of time and as mentioned, plugins can be so tiny as not to be readable in some cases.

Exactly! That's what i've been saying. 4K is great at 40"/100cm. 2560px wide is enough for 28". At 3840px over 40" size, it has roughly the same pixels per inch as 2560*1600 at 30". So it's USABLE 4K, instead of supermodel 4k (i.e. pretty but dumb, like Retina display stuff. ) 4K at 27/28" is not particularly usable. GUIs will be too small, unless developers simply make a 2x res version of the GUI.

We at 2CAudio do this actually, we have a 2X Aether and B2 GUI for example. Aether is 1440px wide and B2 is 1920px wide in this case. But if you put this on a 28" 4K screen it will simply look the same as the normal GUI but be slightly sharper. Nothing majorly exciting...

However put it on a 40" display now the GUI is large enough that it is a truly a pleasure to work with, and it is still perfectly sharp. This is beautiful.

We will make a 2x KS GUI as well, but it will be 2560pixels wide, so it will require at least a 2560px monitor (full screen on such a display) or 4K.

[Andrew Souter]

Seems LG will release an 8K TV at 98" at CES btw!

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theat ... e-details/

Now sure exactly how it will be powered. 8K for tv/video is rather silly IMHO. There is zero content, and it takes HUGE resources... however, it makes complete and perfect sense for computer desktop displays...

8K at 60" or so, would likely be the ultimate desktop experience...

Display port 1.3 supports 8K.

5K at 50" or so would be great too, but there seems to be no support for 5K in the TV market, so they will likely remain more rare unless apple makes one and everyone rushes to copy it.

[aMUSEd]

Is there actual 4K content? I mean I am not seeing a 4K movie or game format out yet replacing BluRay. At the moment it seems people are just making do by upscaling everything, not sure what the point is of that. For me the only argument for 4 K is for graphics and design and screen real estate.

[Scotty]

I agree with everything you've said. There is 4k content available on Netflix if you pay the premium $11.99 monthly fee and some companies such as Sony have set top boxes with UHD content. It is not mainstream but is gaining momentum. I did purchased a 4K 55 inch TV but I will eventually put it in my studio to look at Cubase but don't tell my wife. I gave her a slightly different rationale. - Scotty

Is there actual 4K content? I mean I am not seeing a 4K movie or game format out yet replacing BluRay. At the moment it seems people are just making do by upscaling everything, not sure what the point is of that. For me the only argument for 4 K is for graphics and design and screen real estate.

[Doc Brown]

For watching most content the difference in pixels between Blu-ray and 4K is essentially imperceptible. Our eyes can't see the pixels essentially. As for video editing that might be a different story but for the average folks it's basically a marketing gimmick. 8K even more so.

The jump from VHS to DVD was significant as it went from analog low definition tape to digital 480. The jump from DVD to Blu-ray wasn't quite as significant but still noticeable. The gap between Blu-ray and 4K is even less noticeable. The manufactures know if they build it and load it with high tech sounding adjectives people will buy it.

[Andrew Souter]

Agree. For video/TV etc 4K is mostly "marketing" so far... 8K, certainly so!

Fortunately for us content creators, there are a lot of content consumers out there with too much money who will buy such things and push the price down.

Conversely, 4K, 5K, 6K, 8K for desktop computing is NOT a marketing gimmick. Large format extreme-resolution displays are the future of desktop computing. Think sci-fi and action movies with spy agencies etc. when we see the space ship and the intel rooms etc. Think "walls of data visualization". That is the future and it is coming quickly now.

If we can use consumer electronics tech to help it happen faster, all the better. Display manufactures have tried hard to slow down the merger of TVs with "computer displays" bc they can charge more for "computer displays", but everything converges, and as many consumers now get their TV content from the internet, it only makes sense that we will start to get our data display from our TVs as well.

Tiny GUIs on tiny displays is a sh**y user experience. It's really neither sexy, nor fun, to tweak a tiny GUI that is barely readable with a mouse! No wonder Euro Rack stuff is becoming popular again. An immersive, full screen large-format software experience is a completely different experience however. This is where we need to go.

[Doc Brown]

I agree. The higher resolution the better for computers and video imaging, graphic design.

[Touch The Universe]

I made a similar thread recently From the research I did, I found that 40" makes sense for viewing and ratio reasons, for 4 k. You will need two Hdmi ports though.
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 0#p6320100


Also, i brought this up cause I thought it would be cheaper. However, after a bit of searching, i found that thre is little price difference between 40 inch monitors and tv's if you do a little searching..

[Andrew Souter]

I made a similar thread recently From the research I did, I found that 40" makes sense for viewing and ratio reasons, for 4 k.

whoops, sorry, did not know about the previous thread...

You will need two Hdmi ports though.

If the TV is HDMI 2.0 you do not need two HDMI ports, you just need some way to get HDMI 2.0 from the computer to the TV. HDMI 2.0 support is extremely rare on computers. The adapter mentioned in the first post is the first one that I have seen that makes this easy to do, as display port 1.2 IS extremely common on all modern video cards and all recent Apple products and the adapter converts this to HDMI 2.0. This was missing link until now.

[Touch The Universe]

I agree with most of what you wrote. However, it seems those adapters are not what they claim to be-- I would do more research on the matter before choosing that route. If you watch the video, they bring up those adapters and that they don't make the cut. I don't have first hand experience, but to caution better safe than sorry. Watch around the 4 minute mark

[Andrew Souter]

This one:

http://www.club-3d.com/index.php/produc ... apter.html

DOES explicitly state that it supports 4K at 60hz and is HDMI 2.0 compatible. AFAIK it is has only been on the market since Novemeber or December, and this is actually the most interesting part of this news and generally why I made the post.

I've been searching for a way to do 40" or larger 4K at 60hz from a Mac Pro since 2013 when I ordered the Mac Pro the first day it was available. 2015 model year TVs were generally the first to ship with HDMI 2.0 AFAIK. There was no way to do 60hz on them from any source prior to that AFAIK.

When I looked back in April 2015 when I bought the Samsung HDMI 2.0 4K TV, this adapter did not exist. HDMI on the Mac Pro is 1.4, limited to 30hz. When I was talking with BT in Sept or so about this topic and recommended this TV to him, which he picked up based on the recommendation but claimed the 30hz limitation bothered him, I searched again. This adapter did not yet exist then either AFAIK and so from the Mac Pro we were limited to 30hz. The adapter is the first that I have found that will do it (or at least claims as much) and I only found out about it a few weeks ago.

Hence the adapter is exciting b/c it allows 4K at 60hz and from display port connections. Theoretically you could connect 3 of them to a Mac Pro if you really wanted!

But, yes, I have NOT tried it yet personally. I WILL order this week and try it ASAP and let everyone know. Hopefully it does what it explicitly claims to do.