Will a 4K television work well as a 4k PC monitor

I don't think so. No different that a question many have had in the past to use a plasma or the likes for their desktop.

I mean as a television you want it big. But then realistically you should sit about 12 feet away. And then it is no good a a computer monitor. You could get a smaller one but then you may as well get a monitor since it will be compromised as a television.
 
All up in the air about 4k TVs and colour spaces - whilst 4k is wide gamut, most broadcasters are erring on REC.709 (which approximates sRGB) AFAIK. The main problem with TVs is they are designed to display TV levels (16..235 rather than 0..255). Most do a good job of getting it right with a PC mode but....

As an aside, I'm not keeping up-to-date with the latest in 4k at the moment as I think the technology has to mature for a while.
 
Very many thanks for the replies, ill go for the Samsung for the money.

Appreciated guys :)
 
neil_g said:
tvs use a different colour space i think.

@arad85 or @Pookeyhead can probably tell you more.
Click to expand...

You could calibrate it reasonably to resemble a very close sRGB colour space.

So that is the good part. The bad news is that is almost certainly isn't IPS; the 1ms response time (a faked figure) indicates it is an inferior TN. Personally, I'd take 2K and accurate colour as better compromise
 
arad85 said:
All up in the air about 4k TVs and colour spaces - whilst 4k is wide gamut, most broadcasters are erring on REC.709 (which approximates sRGB) AFAIK. The main problem with TVs is they are designed to display TV levels (16..235 rather than 0..255). Most do a good job of getting it right with a PC mode but....

As an aside, I'm not keeping up-to-date with the latest in 4k at the moment as I think the technology has to mature for a while.
Click to expand...


4k is not wide gamut, UHDTV is, UHD1 phase 1 isn't, UHD1 phase 2 is etc. etc. It depends on which definition you're using.

DigitalEurope - the EU consumer electronics standards body says UltraHD is 4kp25, 8 bit rec709 and stereo. EBU - the European Broadcasters' association say that isn't a big enough step and want 4kp100, 10 bit rec2020 + HDR and better audio. DVB have split it into multiple phases. It's all still moving so no-one knows where it will end up yet.
 
Hi - you might have purchased the monitor already. but my views will be not to use the tv screen as a pc monitor until or unless there's an option to set your TV to recognize the input as coming from a PC.- because of different refresh rates and calibration issues.

Only samsung and LG are offering at the moment I believe .

TV screen as a monitor will lack of clarity in text and the poor color reproduction. The whole reason you may want a 4K monitor was for extra clarity but reading a font below 12pt is basically impossible with Windows Display sizing set to 100% (the smallest level). and larger text will be blurry. After 8 - 10 hours in front of a 4K screen my friend felt dizzy and the problem is partly due to the distance he sat away from it. If it were a few feet further, text would appear to be sharper, but probably can't read it.



Apple supports some and If you have a mac - read here for compatability
 
Last edited:
It'll be ok as long as you don't need any critical work done on it I would think.
But why? On such a small screen HDTV is a bit od a waste

A good 27" 2560x1440 Dell monitor would cost a similar amount - Add an ultrabox and good to go for all your TV needs
 
slt_roopan said:
TV screen as a monitor will lack of clarity in text and the poor color reproduction. The whole reason you may want a 4K monitor was for extra clarity but reading a font below 12pt is basically impossible with Windows Display sizing set to 100% (the smallest level). and larger text will be blurry. After 8 - 10 hours in front of a 4K screen my friend felt dizzy and the problem is partly due to the distance he sat away from it. If it were a few feet further, text would appear to be sharper, but probably can't read it.
Click to expand...
You need to turn off (i.e. set to 0) the SHARPNESS setting. You will also need to turn off overscan. Both/either will cause the fuzzy issue as you won't be doing 1:1 pixel mapping.
 
st599 said:
4k is not wide gamut, UHDTV is, UHD1 phase 1 isn't, UHD1 phase 2 is etc. etc. It depends on which definition you're using.

DigitalEurope - the EU consumer electronics standards body says UltraHD is 4kp25, 8 bit rec709 and stereo. EBU - the European Broadcasters' association say that isn't a big enough step and want 4kp100, 10 bit rec2020 + HDR and better audio. DVB have split it into multiple phases. It's all still moving so no-one knows where it will end up yet.
Click to expand...
Which is... essentially... what I said :)
 
neil_g said:
tvs use a different colour space i think.

@arad85 or @Pookeyhead can probably tell you more.
Click to expand...


Already been answered: It depends ultimately whether rec.709 is used or not with regard to colour.

My question is though, is the OP bothered about colour? He doesn't mention it, and nor does he say whether he already has a wide gamut work flow, or whether he has the capability to use it.


TVs also come with a load of baggage that will drive you mad with a computer display, such as over-sharpening, dynamic contrast adjustments etc...

Save your sanity... just get a proper computer monitor for your computer. There's a reason such things exist.


@KelvinB I also have some misgivings about the Samsung monitor you linked to.


It absolutely has to be connected with Display Port. While it can use HDMI, it will only use a screen refresh of 30Hz at it's native resolution over HDMI, which is diabolically crap.

It's advertised as showing "1 billion colours" but it's a TN panel, so that's not possible.... and while we're on that subject.. let me say that again.... it's a TN panel.


This would be a terrible monitor for photo editing... truly terrible. Don't get suckered into this just because its 4K.


4K on a computer display doesn't really make a huge amount of sense unless you use font scaling for the desktop, or all your software supports it, as 4k res on such a small screen (and 28 is small for 4K) would mean your fonts and desktop text would be minuscule. Unless you're doing CAM/CAD work, what's the point in 4k?

...and I do wish advertisers and retailers would stop calling them "LED Monitors"... even under the "Screen Technology" section in the Curry's website it says "LED". LOL
 
Last edited:
Many thanks for taking the time to write informative post, i appreciate your time and knowledge. The reason for wanting 4k was to get something that had the same sort of screen definaition as a iMac for LR/PS work. I dont want to go down the iMac route i quite like PCs.

It looks like i need to do a whole lot more reading on these forums.

Merry Xmas :)
 
Don'
KelvinB said:
Many thanks for taking the time to write informative post, i appreciate your time and knowledge. The reason for wanting 4k was to get something that had the same sort of screen definaition as a iMac for LR/PS work. I dont want to go down the iMac route i quite like PCs.

It looks like i need to do a whole lot more reading on these forums.

Merry Xmas :)
Click to expand...

4k isn't all that.. I'd go for quality over resolution every time. When retouching and editing, you can zoom into the image to see details... there's no need, (or desire) to try and capture it all at once in the screen. In fact, it's not possible with 4K either, as 4K is approximately 8 mega pixels in resolution, so unless you have a 8mp or less camera, it will still be scaled.

Using a cheap TN panel just because it' 4K makes no sense. for ALMOSt the same money (slightly more expensive) you can get a Dell U2413 and X-Rite i1 Display Pro calibrator. You'll have a genuine 8bit IPS panel capable of 10bit display with AFR-C dithering... you'll have the ability to hardware profile (using Dell's software) for extreme accuracy, and while it will be what seems like a lowly 1920x1200 resolution, the overall quality and experience will be more rewarding IMO.

Best bang for buck right now though in terms of high end profiled workflow has to be the Dell U2713H (not HM) and i1 Display Pro combo. 2560x1440 res... hardware profile capable (with i1 display pro and Dell software only), large 27" screen.. beautiful anti-glare coating... great build quality, and one of the best after sales services outside of true professional level screens out there. The "H" version is a lot more than the "HM" version though, and the screen and calibrator will probably set you back around £695. Worth it though.

If profiling is not something you bother with.. the "HM" version is much cheaper. It can still be profiled, but only at the software level. However.... software profiling is what the vast majority of people in here will be doing anyway. Software profiling still uses a calibrator device... it just profiles the computer's video card LUT instead of the monitor directly.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Best bang for buck right now though in terms of high end profiled workflow has to be the Dell U2713H (not HM) and i1 Display Pro combo.
Click to expand...
Have to agree. I have 2 here (and an i1 Display Pro).
 
To feedback, for my amatuer/budget needs i have gone for the Dell U2713HM (£411 from Dell via amazon) and i will get the software profiler when the monitor arrives. I would have gone for the better H model but i really need to save for a Nikon 300mm F2.8.

David you are a font of display knowledge! :)
 
petersmart said:
I have been using my Samsung 40" LED TV for 2 years now as a PC monitor (and TV) and have had no problems with it.

Certainly wouldn't want to go back to a smaller monitor now.
Click to expand...
I suspect you would be quite startled at the difference a decent monitor - fully calibrated - would make.
 
I'm still very happy with my Dell 30" panel, after all those years still got all the inputs one could require super native resolution, and looks good on the desk. 2560x1600. It has served all my computers in those days very well from dual-link dvi to thunderbolt on my current MBA.

Personally I would find a 40" TV at 1920x1080 resolution very odd to work with; such little space for such a large screen. But hey we are all different.
 
petersmart said:
I have been using my Samsung 40" LED TV for 2 years now as a PC monitor (and TV) and have had no problems with it.

Certainly wouldn't want to go back to a smaller monitor now.
Click to expand...

Sorry to be a pedant, but that's my pet hate... it's NOT a LED TV at all.... it's either LCD or Plasma unless you paid over £3000 for it, and even then it's probably not LED... being 2 years old it's pretty certain to not be LED.

40" @ 1080P? Your pixels would be like golf balls unless you're sat around 8ft from it!!


A 40" 16:9 screen is perceivably not much larger than a 30" 16:10 screen due to the vertical heights not being that different when you're sat in front of it (approximately 3.2" in it), and the proper 30" screen is MUCH higher in resolution.

Using a TV makes no sense, and I suspect that quality isn't something you're familiar with... no offence like. I'm sure it's a superb TV, but what makes a superb TV is not what makes a superb computer display.
 
Last edited:
KelvinB said:
Many thanks for taking the time to write informative post, i appreciate your time and knowledge. The reason for wanting 4k was to get something that had the same sort of screen definaition as a iMac for LR/PS work. I dont want to go down the iMac route i quite like PCs.

It looks like i need to do a whole lot more reading on these forums.

Merry Xmas :)
Click to expand...


You're welcome. You'll be over the moon with the U2713HM. The Color Munki Display is a great device to calibrate this with, or the i1 Display Pro (slightly more expensive).


Don't use ambient light adjustment when calibrating... it sucks. Control your room lighting for consistency, and turn any auto adjustments off.
 
neil_g said:
anyone have any thoughts on the LG ultrawide IPS screens?

http://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-34UM65-P

the boss got one in ebuyers sale before christmas and it looked pretty impressive out of the box. would be replacing 2x 2209WA each running 1680 x 1050.

(i only work in sRGB FWIW)
Click to expand...


Never used one, so can't give my usual personal experience, but I'd be wondering what the advantage is for photo work considering it's only 1080P vertical res. Better off with 2x Dell U2412M's I would guess, then you have 3840 x 1200 res. Despite their price, the U2412M is a lovely screen. Don't let the 6biy + AFR-C doomsayers sway you... I use them regularly at work... they're really nice.

If you game though... then this LG has an advantage. Having 2x screens is utterly useless for gaming, as the border between bezels is bang in the middle!

For Photo work... I'd rather have 2x U2412Ms any day.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Sorry to be a pedant, but that's my pet hate... it's NOT a LED TV at all.... it's either LCD or Plasma unless you paid over £3000 for it, and even then it's probably not LED... being 2 years old it's pretty certain to not be LED.
Click to expand...

Well I certainly wouldn't want to try to outdo you in pedantry, but shouldn't that be AN LED TV which sounds much better when pronounced - OR pronounced as a Light Emitting Diode TV but then that sounds awfully stilted.

And I called it an LED TV because that is how it is described in order to show that the backlighting is composed of white LEDs as opposed to an LCD TV which shows that the backlighting is composed of fluorescent tubes.

And BTW, and not wishing to be pedantic, but a Plasma screen has nothing to do with LEDs at all.

This (rather simplified) article may help you to understand better:

http://www.which.co.uk/reviews/televisions/article/advice/led-vs-lcd-vs-plasma-tv-


Pookeyhead said:
40" @ 1080P? Your pixels would be like golf balls unless you're sat around 8ft from it!!
Click to expand...

And yet I can't even see them unless I pixel peep at 100%, but what I CAN see are any small artifacts I would probably have missed with a smaller monitor.

Pookeyhead said:
A 40" 16:9 screen is perceivably not much larger than a 30" 16:10 screen due to the vertical heights not being that different when you're sat in front of it (approximately 3.2" in it), and the proper 30" screen is MUCH higher in resolution.
Click to expand...

Well it certainly looks much larger when I'm sat about 1 - 1 1/2 feet away from it and the resolution seems perfectly adequate for my need.

And obviously a monitor with a much higher resolution would probably look better but then if it was 30" the perceived resolution would also look higher even if it was the same as mine.

I also find it odd that previously you said "I'd be wondering what the advantage is for photo work considering it's only 1080P vertical res. Better off with 2x Dell U2412M's I would guess, then you have 3840 x 1200 res."

Once again not wishing to be pedantic but that is simply not correct.

You cannot double the resolution available by doubling 2 monitors with lower resolution, all you have are 2 monitors with lower resolution.

And though the perceived resolution may look higher simply because you are (presumably) sitting further away, it is not.

Because by that logic all I have to do is sit further away from my TV and the resolution will (magically) increase - but it will still be the same.

Pookeyhead said:
Using a TV makes no sense, and I suspect that quality isn't something you're familiar with... no offence like. I'm sure it's a superb TV, but what makes a superb TV is not what makes a superb computer display.
Click to expand...

Trust me Pookey no one can offend me on here - many years ago I served in the Merchant Navy for 3 1/2 years with a mix of Belfast boys, Scousers, and Geordies - and believe me no one here comes within a mile of those boys when it comes to giving offence.:D

And the Samsung is an adequate TV and the way I use it, an adequate monitor - no more and no less.

And now, since writing this has taken longer than I expected I'm off for a mince pie and to watch a film on my very adequate TV.

So a very merry Christmas to you all (what remains of it) and a Happy New Year.
 
petersmart said:
And BTW, and not wishing to be pedantic, but a Plasma screen has nothing to do with LEDs at all.

This (rather simplified) article may help you to understand better:

http://www.which.co.uk/reviews/televisions/article/advice/led-vs-lcd-vs-plasma-tv-
Click to expand...


LOL.. you seriously think I don't know the difference? :)

I never said they were the same.. I said it's either a LED TV or a Plasma, meaning one or the other, not that they are one and the same thing.

A LED is correct. LED is an acronym. You would write "A LED TV" not "an LED TV", as to do so woudl be the same as writing "an light emitting diode" which would be stupid :) You may SAY it " an LED TV", but you also SAY Leicester as "Lester"... doesn't mean you write it that way.

Anyhooo... no one cares.. this is a thread about screens and none of us are professors of English... I think. I'm being pedantic for a reason.. you're just fighting back with whatever you can lay your hands on :)



petersmart said:
I also find it odd that previously you said "I'd be wondering what the advantage is for photo work considering it's only 1080P vertical res. Better off with 2x Dell U2412M's I would guess, then you have 3840 x 1200 res."

Once again not wishing to be pedantic but that is simply not correct.

You cannot double the resolution available by doubling 2 monitors with lower resolution, all you have are 2 monitors with lower resolution.
Click to expand...

Your available desktop space is made from the combination of all your monitors. I'm not suggesting it magically becomes one screen. I have available 3760x1600. I'm not suggesting I have a monitor of that resolution, but I can USE that available resolution to great advantage. The left 1200x1600 pixels are for my tools, and the right 2560x1600 for image editing. Seeing as having an ultra wide format screen is not the right shape to actually view most images full screen, the only advantage to having one as a single monitor, would also be to enable such practice... unless you exclusively shoot panoramics or something.

This is what I see when I'm editing. What does it matter if it's made up of one screen, or two?

Having 3840 x 1200 (2x Dell U2412Ms) across two screens is much better than having 2560 x 1080 (The LG Neil linked to) across one.


As for the pixel thing.... you're just not too fussy, because unless I'm sat more than 6ft from a 1080P screen of that size, I just can't watch them... I can see the pixels. Maybe your eyes are just not too good :)


Enjoy your mince pie :)
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Sorry to be a pedant, but that's my pet hate... it's NOT a LED TV at all.... it's either LCD or Plasma unless you paid over £3000 for it, and even then it's probably not LED... being 2 years old it's pretty certain to not be LED.

40" @ 1080P? Your pixels would be like golf balls unless you're sat around 8ft from it!!


A 40" 16:9 screen is perceivably not much larger than a 30" 16:10 screen due to the vertical heights not being that different when you're sat in front of it (approximately 3.2" in it), and the proper 30" screen is MUCH higher in resolution.

Using a TV makes no sense, and I suspect that quality isn't something you're familiar with... no offence like. I'm sure it's a superb TV, but what makes a superb TV is not what makes a superb computer display.
Click to expand...
+1e9

It just makes no sense to me why anyone would want to do that by choice.
 
Just a note (I haven't read the whole thread) My HD TV will not maintain calibration. I think it is something to do with its fancy processing. Perhaps the 4k Samsung has a monitor mode but mine doesn't just dynamic, Standard, natural & movie. Each mode changes different images colour rendering??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top