Your 1440p Monitor Could Be Using a 4K Panel

[Eric3988]

What I don't get about monitors; you can buy a 4K big screen TV 50" and up for less than for a 4K 30" PC monitor

 

[mtcn77]

It might be possible, but eDP scalers with 4K support aren't cheap, and the ones under $60 usually can do no more than 30Hz. 2k scalers are now relatively cheap.



Pretty sure that you can't solve this with just a firmware update. Not all scalers are fast enough to handle 4K@60Hz.


P.S. Good thing I went from 1080p to 2160p straight away. Even managed to overclock my monitor to 72Hz (can do FHD@90Hz, but no more...).

A FullHD display can be overclocked to 73Hz without any mods, but the ghosting overshoot did it for me. I'd rather have a good scaler & slower refresh rates. The timing buffers don't take extensions lightly on this particular scaler. It posts an out of range error. 80 Hz is unstable, too. It is all related to the scaler, after all.

 

[Prima.Vera]

4K display running with 1920x1080 input, where each pixel simply gets doubled in width and height, so a 1:1 mapping exists and everything stays sharp.

I am sorry, but I have to contradict you on that. FROM EXPERIENCE I can tell you straight that 1080p scalled down from 4K resolution looks way worst than native 1080p on a same size display.

 

[R-T-B]

I am sorry, but I have to contradict you on that. FROM EXPERIENCE I can tell you straight that 1080p scalled down from 4K resolution looks way worst than native 1080p on a same size display.

That would be a bad scaler in your monitor though. There is no reason that should actually happen.

Sadly, that's also incredibly common.

 

[phanbuey]

This is low. If I had such a monitor, I'd return it for a refund. They never stop trying, do they?

Now, if a 1080p display came with a 4K panel, that would be interesting, since the picture would remain perfectly sharp and it would reduce the screendoor effect. I'd keep such a monitor for the sheer novelty.

This won't affect me, because I'm gonna jump straight to 4K when I'm ready to replace my main monitor. Now, if it uses an 8K panel...

You would be massively overpaying for a 4K panel...

I mean... as an ex-factory production guy i get it... this actually makes a TON of sense if you're trying to keep the cash steady by leapfrogging an already dead standard (1440p which is a clear stopgap) - but whoever mage the decision clearly just didn't understand how scaling works.

If i was them... i would offer some sort of support ticket that they could complain and flash the monitor to 4k to existing customers **then label the new boxes**. Most people wont notice it... and the ones that do... get a free upgrade to 4k since they care about that.

offer new customers a 'dlc' upgrade to new resolution... It's the Mcdonald's way.

 

[W1zzard]

I am sorry, but I have to contradict you on that. FROM EXPERIENCE I can tell you straight that 1080p scalled down from 4K resolution looks way worst than native 1080p on a same size display.

I'm talking about upscaling: displaying a 1080p image on a 4k monitor

 

[R-T-B]

I'm talking about upscaling: displaying a 1080p image on a 4k monitor

He is too. Sadly many displays seem to even do 1:2 scale ratios with a bad bilinear (or similar) filtering technique.

Obviously if making a commcercial product, you'd hope they would configure it to scale right.

 

[qubit]

You would be massively overpaying for a 4K panel...

I mean... as an ex-factory production guy i get it... this actually makes a TON of sense if you're trying to keep the cash steady by leapfrogging an already dead standard (1440p which is a clear stopgap) - but whoever mage the decision clearly just didn't understand how scaling works.

If i was them... i would offer some sort of support ticket that they could complain and flash the monitor to 4k to existing customers **then label the new boxes**. Most people wont notice it... and the ones that do... get a free upgrade to 4k since they care about that.

offer new customers a 'dlc' upgrade to new resolution... It's the Mcdonald's way.

Ya, I likely would. I was just talking hypothetically in the future when 4K becomes the standard and 1080p is fading, a 4K panel is likely to become cheaper to produce.
I think that whoever made our hypothetical monitor would be unlikely to do the decent thing and offer a flash to 4K since it would cannibalise sales of their more expensive 4K monitors. You never know though.

He is too. Sadly many displays seem to even do 1:2 scale ratios with a bad bilinear (or similar) filtering technique.

Obviously if making a commcercial product, you'd hope they would configure it to scale right.

That's what gets me. All they have to do is map signal pixel to 4 real pixels and that's it, but no, they insist on anti-aliasing the picture, which looks crap. And of course, there's no option to turn it off since "it looks better" according to them. I've seen a friend's 4K monitor do that with a 1080p signal. The only saving grace is that the smoothing artefacts are smaller due to the hi res panel.

 

[bug]

He is too. Sadly many displays seem to even do 1:2 scale ratios with a bad bilinear (or similar) filtering technique.

Obviously if making a commcercial product, you'd hope they would configure it to scale right.

That can be worked around easily: let the driver do the upscaling. The monitor will see 4k input and leave it alone.

 

[qubit]

That can be worked around easily: let the driver do the upscaling. The monitor will see 4k input and leave it alone.

Yup, that's worked for me when displaying 960x540* on my 1080p monitor. The kicker is when you give it a 1080p signal from a Blu-ray player, DVR etc that can't do the driver trick and you're forced into watching a soft picture due to that retarded scaler.

*That's a real cramped desktop!

 

[bug]

*That's a real cramped desktop!

Don't worry about it, my first Windows desktop was running at 640x480

 

[dorsetknob]

Don't worry about it, my first Windows desktop was running at 640x480

On 14" of joyful CRT just like i was

 

[bug]

On 14" of joyful CRT just like i was

Neah, I was enjoying a lavish 15" at the time

 

[qubit]

On 14" of joyful CRT just like i was

Stoppit, you're making me feel old! I so remember working with a small CRT like that in the 80s.

 

[jabbadap]

I meant the downscaling of DSR may help with the distortions.

Hmm can one use such a thing with desktop. I know with Xorg one can, but is there similar to windows? Like W1z says gaming and media are not the worst outcome of this but normal desktop usage.

Other than that I doubt these panels are in any high refresh gaming monitors, but cheaper 1440p@60Hz ones.

Stoppit, you're making me feel old! I so remember working with a small CRT like that in the 80s.

Thank you for make me feel young, my first monitor was 15" crt with 800x600 maximum resolution, about 90s...

 

[Ubersonic]

I so remember working with a small CRT like that in the 80s.

Please select graphic device:

(1) Monochrome
(2) CGA
(3) EGA
(4) VGA
(5) Hercules
(ESC) Back to DOS

 

[qubit]

Please select graphic device:

(1) Monochrome
(2) CGA
(3) EGA
(4) VGA
(5) Hercules
(ESC) Back to DOS

None, Acorn A3000 32-bit computer, 16 colours on desktop. 256 colours out of 4096 possible, but really slooow. They really were superior back in the day, then Acorn fucked it all up... but that's a subject for another thread.

 

[TheOne]

Hmm can one use such a thing with desktop. I know with Xorg one can, but is there similar to windows? Like W1z says gaming and media are not the worst outcome of this but normal desktop usage.

You can.

 

[mtcn77]

At second thought, I'm guessing the s*itshow cannot be remedied without extending the Nyquist limit('resolution/2' artifact free spectral resolution) by increasing the pixel count.
Think about it: you increase the resolution to 4K and whatever ratio the previous native pixel was to the new pixels get you a higher band-limit.
Note: written under the effect of this epic blogpost.

 

[tehehe]

What strikes me the most is this : " German site Prad.de reports that sources close to monitor panel manufacturers told them that the production cost of a 27" 4K 3840x2160 panel is lower or at least equal to that of a 27" 2560x1440 QHD panel "

In other words we could/should have 27" 4K pannels for much cheaper !

Not really. Panel is only one cost-crucial component of a monitor. The other is electronics that must be much faster (and more expensive) for 2160p than for 1440p.

 

[ubercake]

So the story came out a little while ago. Are there any specific makes/models or is this all just a rumor?

 

[RH92]

Not really. Panel is only one cost-crucial component of a monitor. The other is electronics that must be much faster (and more expensive) for 2160p than for 1440p.

More expensive ? Yeah probably but how much more expensive is the real question ? Enough to justifie the price difference between 2160p and 1440p equivalent monitors ? ..... hard to believe !