43" Wasabi Mango UHD430 is World's First Commercially Available 120 Hz, 4K Gaming Monitor

[bug]

Definitely not an issue for me. Not sure where you've got the idea of scaling problems or "not seeing" the 4K on smaller displays, but in my case the monitor is about 80-100cm away from my eyes, and I can see a big difference between FHD and 4K cause I work with schematics and CAD files for PCB layouts. I don't think I had to use zoom lately, cause I can simply look a bit closer and see what I need to see. All the vector stuff, including PDF files and text looks amazing. Same goes for 4K videos. The difference is day and night.

Like you said, at 24" 4k details are too fine, you have to close in to see them. Thus, at regular working distance, you're not seeing 4k. You're seeing something better than FHD (that's why you can tell the difference), but not 4k. Also, are you saying for text you're not using any scaling?
For my programming needs 24" seems small most of the time, I can't imagine 24" being too comfortable for CAD work. But larger 4k displays in Eastern Europe tend to cost an arm and a leg so you gotta compromise somewhere

 

[silentbogo]

Like you said, at 24" 4k details are too fine, you have to close in to see them. Thus, at regular working distance, you're not seeing 4k. You're seeing something better than FHD (that's why you can tell the difference), but not 4k. Also, are you saying for text you're not using any scaling?

I do use scaling, but it does not affect details for vector fonts, if that's what you mean. Basically a 200% scaling means that 14pt font is going to be rendered as 28pt font. That's it. Raster fonts get upscaled, so they may look blurry or jaggy, but not worse than what they look on 1440p or 1080p screen.
What I meant by "looking up close", is that when I move closer to the screen I still see schematics and text, and not an array of pixels.

 

[LiveOrDie]

This is a TV not a monitor....

I use a 43inch LG 4K Monitor and just can't go back to a 27inch after using it, 4K on a 27inch screen doesn't feel right, 4K on a 43 is similar to 2K on a 27inch, i use mine for 3d modeling and gaming.

 

[bug]

I do use scaling, but it does not affect details for vector fonts, if that's what you mean. Basically a 200% scaling means that 14pt font is going to be rendered as 28pt font. That's it. Raster fonts get upscaled, so they may look blurry or jaggy, but not worse than what they look on 1440p or 1080p screen.

Yeah, that's generally how it works.

What I meant by "looking up close", is that when I move closer to the screen I still see schematics and text, and not an array of pixels.

The very definition of a screen rendering finer detail than the eye can see

 

[Fx]

I have a 24" right now for gaming and 27" at work. I don't see myself every wanting to go larger than 24" for gaming at a desk.

 

[RejZoR]

Huge monitors do have a room in gaming. And "immersion" is the name of the game. I once tried my 4K Philips LCD TV on PC running Natural Selection 2 on it at monitor viewing distance. And while it was a bit weird at first, the immersion was amazing. All you could see was ingame stuff, no bezel or wall around it. There was a huge problem with input delay and smoothness since it's a first generation 4K which only had HDMI support up to 30Hz, but I could see the potential. Having something with 60Hz input, low input latency and 4K at that size, it's a great replacement for silly VR if excellent immersion is what you're looking for.

 

[Flanker]

For some reason, I felt a bit sick in the stomach when I saw the title

 

[BluesFanUK]

HDR doesn't need to be 1,000 nits, that's eye searing bad.

Having owned an OLED B7 for the last 7 months I can safely say you don't need anywhere near that number to get the best of HDR.

 

[bug]

HDR doesn't need to be 1,000 nits, that's eye searing bad.

Having owned an OLED B7 for the last 7 months I can safely say you don't need anywhere near that number to get the best of HDR.

People forget that HDR1000 was meant for LCDs, because LCD's levels of black suck. Thus, in order to to display a wide enough range, the only solution is for white to go up.
OLEDs have deeper blacks so they can have a wide range of colors with lower brightness.

This addresses the current technical difficulties nicely, but raises another question. Can video be mastered for both technologies? And if not, how do you display that in a manner true to the original intent?

 

[TheOne]

I just bought a monitor that supports HDR10, but only has a peak brightness of 450nits and I would honestly be hesitant to use a screen this close if it could reach peaks higher than 500nits.

 

[Durvelle27]

3xHDMI 2.0, 2xDisplayPort 1.4, and an Optical Audio Output? Sounds like a TV to me minus a tuner but, my TV has a tuner and I don't use it because of the cable box so... I'd call that a TV.

I can agree as 2 of TV of my 4K TVs don’t even have tuners on them. Hell almost non of Vizios new 4K sets include tuners or RCA inputs.

 

[Metroid]

I use a 43inch LG 4K Monitor and just can't go back to a 27inch after using it, 4K on a 27inch screen doesn't feel right, 4K on a 43 is similar to 2K on a 27inch, i use mine for 3d modeling and gaming.

I'd say the minimum for a 4k monitor is a 43 inch. I have a samsung ue58 28 inch 4k monitor and dont use for 4k, i only use 1440p. 28 inch 4k is horrible and forget scaling cause i dont like it.

 

[bug]

I just bought a monitor that supports HDR10, but only has a peak brightness of 450nits and I would honestly be hesitant to use a screen this close if it could reach peaks higher than 500nits.

I wonder how is LG allowed to slap the HDR10 tag on something that neither uses local dimming (as required by HDR) nor covers anything beyond sRGB.

 

[PowerPC]

I just like the idea of a large screen like this with 4K (or even 8K) replacing multiple monitor setups and hanging a TV over the monitors. I mean, if you're gonna have 3 huge screens, why not just get one even bigger screen and use it for everything. Also makes more sense than the whole wide screen thing. If you wanted, you could probably disable half of the upper screen an have a wide screen, but why?

 

[Octavean]

I have a couple of 28" 4K PC displays as well as a 55" and a 65" 4K Smart TV. Today I wouldn't buy a 4K PC display unless it was at least 32". I can typically use the 28" displays without scaling but it does cause eye strain. 32" at a minimum is likely what most people would need for general use and comfort without scaling. Going larger from there shouldn't be a problem especially not in the ~40" +/- range.

 

[erixx]

this is beta material... be careful

 

[bug]

I have a couple of 28" 4K PC displays as well as a 55" and a 65" 4K Smart TV. Today I wouldn't buy a 4K PC display unless it was at least 32". I can typically use the 28" displays without scaling but it does cause eye strain. 32" at a minimum is likely what most people would need for general use and comfort without scaling. Going larger from there shouldn't be a problem especially not in the ~40" +/- range.

Thanks. I haven't had the time to check it out, but I figured 32" is where 4k statrs to feel at home

 

[TheOne]

I wonder how is LG allowed to slap the HDR10 tag on something that neither uses local dimming (as required by HDR) nor covers anything beyond sRGB.

No clue other than HDR seems to be a jumbled mess with Vesa trying to create a standard DisplayHDR certification to help sort it out, though I don't think it requires local dimming. This monitor does support HDR10 content and it does make a visual difference when being used and honestly I wouldn't want to use a monitor with 1000nits of peak brightness, even with FALD the bright spots maybe blinding this close.

 

[bug]

No clue other than HDR seems to be a jumbled mess with Vesa trying to create a standard DisplayHDR certification to help sort it out, though I don't think it requires local dimming. This monitor does support HDR10 content and it does make a visual difference when being used and honestly I wouldn't want to use a monitor with 1000nits of peak brightness, even with FALD the bright spots maybe blinding this close.

Yeah, many monitors seem to handle HDR input, while not outputting HDR. Without local dimming, an LCD simply cannot meet the contrast requirements for HDR. So what you get is some form of "enhanced" contrast, but certainly not HDR.
1000 nits is a different story (though still closely tied to the contrast requirements), see one of my above comments.

 

[Steevo]

3xHDMI 2.0, 2xDisplayPort 1.4, and an Optical Audio Output? Sounds like a TV to me minus a tuner but, my TV has a tuner and I don't use it because of the cable box so... I'd call that a TV.

And funny enough I was just thinking that if it were a few inches bigger it would be perfect as a TV, and at this size its an odd type of monitor/TV without a tuner.

 

[Pjokerxp_]

I want one now,
i already have a 43 inch moniitor!
but this 120hz am sold

 

[stimpy88]

WTF is wrong with the PC monitor market?

When are we ever going to get a PC monitor that is as good as a home HDTV? Any mid to high end home HDTV is going to be better than most of these so called gaming monitors, and most professional monitors too, and not to mention how much cheaper HDTVs are.

 

[medi01]

Can video be mastered for both technologies?

HDR is made with "different devices are... different" in mind.

 

[bug]

HDR is made with "different devices are... different" in mind.

Can you, please, elaborate?

 

[medi01]

Can you, please, elaborate?

Mapping HDR content to actual capabilities of the screen is a mandatory step in outputting HDR content.
AMD FreeSync 2's addressing of "HDR lag" is about doing this step in GPU (which should be much faster than letting TV do it), NV's "HDR GSync' is likely doing the same.