What is the point of 4k on small display?

Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by techlife95, Jul 2, 2017.

  1. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,330
    Messages:
    11,844
    Likes Received:
    1,874
    Trophy Points:
    631
    This thread isn't about gaming on a laptop. It is about being able to tell quality differences on a small monitor (see first post).

    I grant you that the monitor advancements made will be just as (if not more than) important than the pure resolution increases I'm looking forward to. But none/little of those advancements will be implemented or make sense in an equal resolution monitor of today in the near future (up to 2 years away) and especially in the medium/far future (up to a decade away).

    They will be implemented along with the higher resolution panels that are inevitably coming over that same time period.

    Even if they are introduced in the low resolutionmonitors we have today; where the new display tech coming down the road will shine isn't with what we have now (resolution-wise). It will be in the future monitors that, for those that care, will make today's monitors seem like a coarse and veiled example of viewing the subject matter (whether it be fine art, word/excel files... or simply their O/S) they're most interested in.

    How can I tell that today's notebook monitors/screens have so far to go? Because if I compare an image of the view I have from my studio window (yeah; I'm a pro photographer) - the view out the window still looks better. ;)

    (And that is also true for the many times higher quality monitors I use too - let alone the lower quality examples found in notebooks).

    All the tech you wish for and all the resolution increases I'm hoping for, together, still won't achieve that standard I hold all tech to; the real world as interpreted by our senses, directly.

    Gaming on a 4K notebook is different but similar too. But I've never mistaken any game*** as a real 'experience' either (at any resolution).


    *** Note: I don't and never have 'gamed' - but I've watched over the shoulder of gamers... ;)

     
  2. Prototime

    Prototime Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    90
    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    623
    Trophy Points:
    106
    I'm well aware that this thread isn't just about gaming at 4k (I read this entire thread before posting, not just the first post). None of the points I made in my post are restricted to gaming.

    As for making things photorealistic (or "window realistic"), resolution increases per se will not achieve this. As I believe you've recognized, advancements in other display technologies are more important for reaching this goal. But those advancements will most likely end up only on high-res displays. It's similar to why I have a 4K television now: I would be fine with 1080p, but the best-looking televisions (read: best contrast ratios, motion blur, etc.) are all 4K now. Where you and I might part ways is my understanding that there's nothing, other than market forces, that ties advancements in other display technologies to high-res screens. There's no technological reason why we can't have QLED displays that are 1080p. And for most display sizes and normal viewing distances, the difference between that display and a 4K display with QLED would not be drastic (and the difference between 4k and 8k unnoticeable). But we're never going to get tech like that on lower-res screens, so despite the diminishing returns of resolution increases, we'll all end up with 4k and 8k displays eventually (and we can only pray for better scaling).
     
  3. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,330
    Messages:
    11,844
    Likes Received:
    1,874
    Trophy Points:
    631
    Assuming 'equal quality' as per:

    See:
    http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...-on-small-display.806507/page-2#post-10559255


    Higher resolution can and will achieve making things appear better than photorealistic. Especially see the last paragraph in the above link about how blocky shadows are and how physically more pixels achieve better results.

    An 1080P display with QLED will look inferior to a 4K display for the same reasons; our eyes don't only expect the largest range between bright and dark colours - they expect that displayed range to not be blocky either. 1080P guarantees 'blocky'. 4K+; less so.

    The optimal distance to enjoy even a 34 Foot 4K screen is ~25 feet or less. Anything closer is better for those with lessor vision. Anything farther and the resolution offered by that 34 Foot 4K screen is wasted (even with above average eyesight).

    When there are 8K and higher resolution panels that we can put in our notebooks; I'll bet that they'll exist for a reason (and I hope I'll be able to take advantage of them at that time too). Not everyone will - but that is true for most high end tech.

    Our eyes (and all of our senses, actually) are not static in how they process stimulus. They have a very large range indeed.

    There are no current monitors (certainly not 'consumer' versions...) that can approach even 10% of what our eyes can handle. We have a long way to go (hardware wise).

    More pixels is what will drive this. Because it is the easiest on the hardware requirement side and will give the biggest result as far as our eyes/brains are concerned. Purely because the graduations between colors and brightness (or, lack thereof...) will be smoother and will for a time*** be able to fool our vision (eye/brain) to believe it is (more) 'real' than anything we have seen reproduced before.

    *** Until the next time we see the next step up in the tech(s) used to reproduce our analogue world (and senses) with mere digital hardware (i.e. in discrete steps, not continuous...)

     
  4. Prototime

    Prototime Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    90
    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    623
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Where does this number come from?

    Past a certain point (and that point is already upon us), pixels increases cannot play much of a role in achieving photorealism on notebook displays. I assume you're familiar with tools and diagrams like those available here, which describe the viewing distance and sizes needed to take advantage of high-res displays: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

    The optimal distance to see 4K on a large 25" monitor is a mere 1.5 feet/0.46 meters. When 8K comes around, you'll have to sit much closer than that to see the difference between 4K and 8K, and even closer for smaller laptop displays like 15.6".

    Most likely, the reason will be for marketing more than for anything inherent about 8K improving picture quality. Just as many consumers are buying 4K televisions not realizing that they will likely sit much too far away from the screen to actually benefit from it, they will do the same for 8K, and 8K display technology will likewise be put into computers despite offering marginal benefit at normal viewing distances.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
  5. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,330
    Messages:
    11,844
    Likes Received:
    1,874
    Trophy Points:
    631
    See:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view

    That 'number' is my personal estimate. I think it may even be too high. From the quote above; don't get caught up in the f-stop 'numbers'... there are many more things that make a difference to how we perceive images.

    With our eyes able to possibly see a single photon (see link above) - more pixels allow for smoother graduations in both brightness and colors - that is 'photorealism' to me. In nature; you don't see a hard line dividing one specific color to another - even if it may seem like that at first glance.

    That link is the same one I have already posted; being able to see the resolution 'difference' is not the same thing as being able to get a higher quality image view from the same distance.

    TV's are not computer monitors (thankfully). Watching a movie for a couple of hours with friends is not the same thing as staring at a computer monitor when you're trying to complete a project.

    When a small handheld device (less than 6") shows clearly the benefit of higher (and higher) resolutions with how easy on the eyes it is - even with scaling - a notebook's monitor will be just as eagerly anticipated - even at 12" (and larger).

    With your analogy of consumers buying 4K TV's and then sitting too far for optimal viewing? I have to agree. However, that doesn't negate the other benefits they get with a 4K TV vs. their older 1080P models. Yeah; the effective resolution may be the same at their viewing position, but mere resolution by itself isn't what is the draw to them in the first place.

    With seemingly step-less graduations (shades and colors) vs. their previous model, the upgrade is easily worth it. Even to a same size screen. And assuming their eyesight is good, of course.

    There are many more important aspects to consider than just viewing distance, FOV and simple 'resolution' when all of the previous aspects have been properly addressed.

    You are welcome to believe that marketing will be the reason to only offer those improvements in the latest, high resolution models.

    I know that just like computer platforms; a full build on the new tech is (almost) always preferable to upgrading just certain components and living with the compromises that entails. ;)


     
  6. Tanner@XoticPC

    Tanner@XoticPC Company Representative

    Reputations:
    342
    Messages:
    2,658
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Trophy Points:
    181
    These numbers seem more applicable to controlled laboratory settings. I'd be skeptical of them being useful in determining what a good consumer product is.
     
  7. Ramzay

    Ramzay Notebook Connoisseur

    Reputations:
    457
    Messages:
    3,124
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Trophy Points:
    231
    This is how it's always been. It was the same with TN vs IPS panels. A really good TN panel (aside from the inferior viewing angles) could go toe-to-toe with a really good IPS panel. But all the development (at the time) when into the (pricier) IPS panels, so you were often left with only inferior TN panels to choose from.

    Same thing now. A 4K panel is usually superior to a FHD not because the increased resolution makes it better, but because OEMs produce better quality 4K panels than they do FHD ones. OEMS could make a FHD panel that was just as good (albeit with a lower PPI) than a 4K panel. They just don't seem to want to anymore. Likely they figured out they can charge more for a similar quality 4K panel, and hence see increased profits from doing so.
     
    Prototime likes this.
  8. Tanner@XoticPC

    Tanner@XoticPC Company Representative

    Reputations:
    342
    Messages:
    2,658
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Trophy Points:
    181

    Odd in laptops, considering the relatively high quality FHD panels available for standalone monitors still. Though that's mostly on the high refresh low latency side.
     
  9. jaug1337

    jaug1337 de_dust2

    Reputations:
    2,050
    Messages:
    4,747
    Likes Received:
    829
    Trophy Points:
    181
    I just bought a 3440x1440 widescreen 21:9 monitor, and even on a 34" widescreen, the text is barely readable, 27" just barely goes, but dear lord going lower is impossible, now scaling all of that down onto a 17-18 inch laptop, or 15 inch, is out of this world.

    Also, my monitor isn't even 4k. Jesus, I wish scaling in Windows wasn't utter cr**.
     
  10. Tanner@XoticPC

    Tanner@XoticPC Company Representative

    Reputations:
    342
    Messages:
    2,658
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Trophy Points:
    181
    The tiny text is something you just have to put up with if you want that sweet shorter battery life and lower framerate. The compromises we make.
     
    Ramzay likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page