Does 1080p upscaled to a 4k monitor look better than 1080p on

>>57080346

same size 1080p monitor and a 4k monitor which upscaled 1080 to 4k will look the same in theory but why do you need 4k if you're gonna use 1080 most of the time? 4k is for the ppl who has a poor money/brain ratio.

I'd use 4k only if I was going to get a very very big screen. I don't recommend it if you're poor.

>>57080346
1080 upscaled to 4k looks awful, anon. i also thought that it should look perfectly sharp as its a straight 4:1 pixel mapping, but in reality it's a blurry mess for some reason.
if you can find a way to have the card rather than the monitor do the upscaling then it might be ok though.

>the 4k meme
normies pls go

4K is only currently useful for artistfags and rich autists. Wait until it becomes a bit more mainstream and cheaper.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 7680x4320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7680x4320px

>Buy 4K monitor
>use it at 1080p for years
>finally switch to 4K, 4K monitors now much better and cheaper than when first bought

>Does 1080p upscaled to a 4k monitor look better than 1080p on a 1080p monitor?
No and WTF.

Buy a 4k for the 2D graphics capabilities and the high DPI that lets you run 2560x1440 or 1920x1080 or 3840x2160 without seeing pixels in annoying way.

Alternatively just buy 2560x1440 which is obviously the best price/performance value today.

>>57081060
Well, the main reason I wanted 4k is so I can use it when my computer can handle it, e.g. I'll be playing a lot of Dolphin, which isn't very graphically demanding.

>>57081125
That's what I was planning, run recent games in 1080, run older or less demanding games in 4k, with the desktop being in 4k by default.

>>57081329
That's just what I'd heard from random forums on Google and I've never actually seen a 4k monitor except in stores, so I haven't been able to play with it.

Well, I sure as hell don't want to spend $850 on a monitor. If I can't find it or another on the cheap, I guess 1080p would be better if I plan to upgrade to 4k in a year or two? I'm just really sick of this 2009 MBP without a technically working GPU, so I guess my subconscious wants to overcompensate. I guess in the end it won't really be a huge deal, I'll still enjoy the games after all.

>>57081497
1080p is for TV and console fags. 1440p is 200 bucks and the best value resolution for PC today.

Just get a monitor that upscale everything to 2160p60
>>57081060
>Big screen
Enjoy that ms response rate newfag

>>57080346
No it'll look worse because the image needs to be scaled instead of being shown on 1:1 pixel mapping.

>>57081571
He doesn't give a shit, he just want to play anything that's plugged in at 4k, and in time he'll get a good 4k tower
Are you illiterate?

>>57081539
What about watching videos? Does 1080p upscale ok?

>>57081603
Yes, whether you're an animefag or not

>>57081609
Ok, cool. So since 1440p is so cheap, I guess that's the best option now, and 4k will be soon. Will a GTX 1070 be ok for 1440p medium to high settings? Don't really care about stuff like ultrawide.

>>57081616
Obviously I was talking about 1080p on a 1440p monitor, why would I upscale 1080p to 1080p?

>>57081642
4k is so 2015, don't settle for 1440p if you have a 1070 you should be fine for a long time

>>57081642
Get a 4k montitor for that delicious looking text rendering after using hidpi scaling. LG sells a "27 4K IPS monitor with freesync for just $400.

You can still play 1440p on a 4k monitor.

>>57081675
What's the ms and refresh rate on that. I'm thinking of getting one to upscale movies and animu to 4k 60fps. I know some TV have that button that do that by faking frames to make fps higher but idk if monitors have that

>>57081675
But I'm building my computer around Black Friday to save money and I want an Nvidia card because they usually make better high end stuff, at least last time I checked. Also enhanced PhysX. I really wish their GPUs would just support Freesync though, being the open standard it seems like it'll survive this mess. Would it be worth staying V-Sync until Freesync is the industry standard? Or the other way around for G-Sync?

>>57081694
I've never heard of a computer monitor with interpolation, but if you have good enough specs, get SVP. It's so much better than the stuff built into TVs. My Core 2 Duo with integrated graphics can easily do 480p animu, and nothing higher, so it shouldn't be that demanding.

>>57081741
Alright thanks I'll look into it

>>57080346
>1080p upscaled to a 4k monitor look better than 1080p on a 1080p monitor
I own a 23" 4k display and a 23" 1080p display. All my 1080p content looks the same on either monitor.

>>57081804
He asked a question. I directly answered it and misquoted it. L2Read.

no, non native res on LCDs looks like fucking trash regardless of the resolution.

>>57080346
>Pic related is the monitor I'm looking at
That is 1440p, no?

>>57082128
XB271HK is 4k, XB271HU is 1440p

>>57082140
Thanks!

>>57081141
>>57081147

>call it a meme as im too poor to buy any of it.

4k is easily affordable now.

>>57081793
>>57082104
>1080p looks the same on 4k display
>1080p looks bad on 4k display

Which is it? And are curved monitors a meme or are they actually good?

>>57083273
It's a mixed bag. Some stuff looks good upscaled, some doesn't. Some stuff refuses to be upscaled (like fucking Steam).

Curved is OK for gayman and flicks, but that's it.

>1080p sony is more expensive than a 4k samsung
Thank god my house is bomb proof

>>57080346
Worth keeping in mind that 4k is exactly 2x the vertical and 2x the horizontal resolution of 1080p, this means scaling is pixel perfect, in 4k you simple group 4 pixels in 2x2 grid and make them the same colour to get a representation of 1080p.

How good that looks largely depends on the size of the screen and so the pixels per inch (PPI), what you find is that a lot of 4k monitors are very big (typically 27" or more) and 1080p are typically 27" or below.

I've always maintained the pixels are a bit too large to have 1080p at 27" although plenty of people do it just fine. So you could probably get away with decent looking 1080p on a 27" 4k monitor.

If you shoot for something like a 32" 4k monitor like I have, then the pixels look really blocky at 1080p, the reason I shot for 32" 4k is because it's pretty much the right size to keep text readable at native 4k without having to use scaling in OS/Apps but still a high PPI to make games look amazing.

I'd rather drop a few settings like HBAO and stuff like that, in order to get the frame rate I need for 4k, rather than drop to 1080p, really the only game I do that on is Rainbow 6 and that's to keep the frame rate closer to 100fps for competitive play. Games like Doom and GTAV run smooth as fuck at 4k with a GTX1080

>>57080346
You can run desktop mode fine in 4K with mid tier gpus today, if you be gayming on the other hand you can just downscale the resolution in the game to achieve appropriate performance levels.

Most new titles also have a native resolution scale slider as well so you can have the game and its UI elements be in 4K and the game itself rendering at whatever resolution you want. All relative to what technologies the game supports of course.

>>57083273
1920x1080 (1080p) on 3840x2160 (4k) is indistinguishable from 1080p on native res. There is no shitty aliasing because it scales perfectly.

Of course, if all of your content is 1080p, you're retarded to upgrade to a 4k monitor since it's identical.

>>57081556
thank you I will.

>>57084377
>1920x1080 (1080p) on 3840x2160 (4k) is indistinguishable from 1080p on native res. There is no shitty aliasing because it scales perfectly.
This is true but again read here >>57083621

It depends on the size of your monitor, there's really a max size that 1080p looks good at, 24" is fine and 27" is really stretching it, certainly 1080p at anything bigger than 27" looks really blocky because the PPI has become so low.

>>57081245
kek this

>>57084544
Well, that should be obvious if you've ever looked at a 1080p HDTV.

If you have two identical monitors, except one is 4k and the other is 1080p, 1080p content will look the same on both. If 1080p looks like shit at 27", it will look like shit regardless.

>>57084915
Sure, absolutely right. But my point is that if you're buying a new 4k monitor, then there's pressures that make you want to target larger sizes, things like usable native resolution with text (not really usable below 30") and the general suitability for 4k at larger sizes.

A lot of people looking for 4k are looking for at least 30" and that's really not as suitable for 1080p as say 24"

I'm looking at different 4k 40"-43" monitors and wonder if anyone here have experience with any of them?

I've looked mostly at the Dell P4317Q, but from what I've heard the image quality is not really as good as I want it to be (I'm a artist fag).
Are there any other slightly better ~40" 4k monitors for around $1500? I'll also game a bit on it, so low input lag are a little important (preferably below 10ms)

>>57081125
As someone who's been using a 4k monitor for the last year, it's fucking hilarious to hear people still spouting this.

1080p content looks EXACTLY the same on a native 4K monitor as it would on a 1080p one. It doesn't look worse, it doesn't look better, it looks the exact goddamn same. The second you hear anyone spout this nonsense about scaling issues, immediately discard their opinion, they haven't the faintest clue what they're talking about.

>>57088211
I have 0 practical use with 4k monitors. But shouldn't 1080p look better on it because of the lack of screen-door effect?

>>57088211
see thats odds apart from me, i went from a 720p(26 inch) to 4k (28 inch)in one jump and 1080p on the 4k is far more blurred and hard to read than 720p at 26 inches. 4k is beautiful though native but 1080 is horrific dont know why as i thought it was a meme until it happened to me.

>>57088287
It's still one thousand and eighty square pixels of light from top to bottom, regardless of whether or not the monitor can or can't display twice as many

>>57090002
Yeah, sure. But the space between the squares should be smaller than on a native 1080 screen. If the monitors are the same size.

>>57090059
Maybe I don't have the golden eye but I can't see the spaces in between pixels

>>57090103
And if I did, I would be seeing the same ones, as going from 16" 1080 on a laptop to 41" 4K monitor is the same PPI and I'm not about to buy a tiny 4K monitors

>>57090137
I doubt you would have a 41" monitor at the same distance as a 16" laptop.

Not shilling Apple here, but check this site out.
http://isthisretina.com/
It shows the distance needed between you and the display (based on size and resolution) where you won't notice the pixels.

>>57090250
Well I would be using both screens about 2 feet in front of my face
I have a 4K tv and don't even care that it's 4K when I'm 30ft away I just look at it like a giant not-shit-dpi tv

>>57090250
But that's just looking at pixels, not looking in between pixels like that anon was saying

>>57090318
Why would you want a 41" 4k monitor 2 feet in front of you?
A 27"-32" inch monitor would probably be better.

>I just look at it like a giant not-shit-dpi tv
Yeah, that's sort of the point of 4k.

>>57090397
Because 41" 4K is the logical next step up from 27" 1440p

>>57090397
Because 41" 4K would be the same dpi, just on a yuge screen
Isn't that the point?

>>57090336
My point was that a monitor with a low PPI should (in theory) have a more prominent screen-door effect.
But even if you've got a 40" 4k monitor with the same PPI as a 20" FHD monitor the 20" should have a more noticeable screen-door effect since you probably sit closer to the 20" than the 40"

>>57090423
Depends. you'll get a clearer image on a 4k 27" than a QHD 27". Perhaps the clearer image is more important than the physical screen size. And if you have good eyes the extra pixels will give you a larger working space, even if the monitor is the same physical size.

>>57083273
Curved is nice for monitors. Displaying a lower resolution than your monitor's native resolution is always going to look worse.

>>57088211
THIS IS BULLSHIT, THIS ANON IS FUCKING LYING. I HAVE A RETINA DISPLAY AND SCALING MAKE IMAGES TO LOOK PIXELATED. IT'S THE SAME THAT HAPPENS WITH OLD GAMES MADE FOR LOW RES CRTs, IF YOU JUST DO A 2X SCALING IT LOOKS TERRIBLE. DON'T TRUST 4k SHILLS.

1920x1080 looks like garbage lol

>>57090505
He's talking about 4x scaling. Since it would fit perfectly with the square pixels.

But on another note:
1080p on 1080p monitor, or 1440p on 4k monitor.
What would look best?

>>57080346
Might be just me. But I'd rather have an ultrawide monitor than 4k atm
Windows doesn't scale 4k very well so you're not really gaining all that much productivity.
And with vidya, you'd have to have a real powerhouse to play at 4k

>>57081060
4k is for 3 things

1) you want an oled, as the only oled monitor is 4k and my fucking god is that worth it if you have the money

2) you want to get rid of a multi monitor setup, remember 4k is 4 1080p monitors in one. that screen real estate on the 40 inch ips monitor is no joke.

3) and the worst reason is hardware based anti aliasing. in the future games will have 4k quality textures, but let's be honest, we have games that are over 50gb big and the textures still aren't even 1080p quality, so this is such a far out in the future reason its not worth it at this time, so antialiasing, and that is a shit reason.

>>57080346
720p and 1080p fit into 4k perfectly, so there is no scaling issues if you run the monitor at a lower resolution.

remember when hd came around and sd content looked like absolute shit, a large reason for that is how poorly it scaled.

>>57090605
Antialiasing gets more and more useless with the higher dpi you have, and I thought textures for 1080p games were already crazy high resolutions because if you're looking at a textures at a weird angle in game, it would need to be a much higher-res textures to see it at a weird angle at 1080p

>>57090605
I want 4k for a greater overview when using Photoshop, since the jaggies on my current FHD display is completely ruining any detail in the image.

Where do I fit in on your list?

>>57090695
The high-dpi, high-price bracket

>>57090605
Are there even any OLED monitors on the market yet?

Not sure if this belongs here, but is Asus the only manufacter doing 1440p 144hz IPS monitors? I read their QC is awful and I don't want to play monitor lottery

>>57091572
I think so
It's just crazy expensive to make a moderately sized, 1440p monitor with that kind of refresh rate on an IPS, and it only has a small market for that pricetag
It might not be asus's fault entirely just technological/financial limitations from where they buy their panels

>>57091572
Asus, Acer and that other chink brand that starts with a P. The QC is godawful.

>>57091648
>>57091609
Thanks, then I'll be going with a TN panel.
From what I heard there's little difference anyway.

>>57090634
Higher dpi is what I'm calling hardware based anti aliasing.

as for textures, to me, If I can look at an image and see 1 pixel of the texture being 2-8 pixels of the screen, that is an issue. there are almost no games that don't suffer from this problem.

the first serious sam game had easily the best solution. Have a low resolution main texture, then put a mask on top of it, there you go, far away detail and up close detail... wish more games would do this, especially with things like roads.

>>57090695
you would fit in either the first one where the oled suits your needs or the 40 inch work space.

>>57090724
there is one tv, holy shit was that amazing to look at, and there is one oled monitor for 5 grand that is 100$ adobe rbg.

>>57080346
>Does 1080p upscaled to a 4k monitor look better than 1080p on a 1080p monitor?


no

>>57081125
>i also thought that it should look perfectly sharp as its a straight 4:1 pixel mapping

incorrect, that's not how scaling works

>>57091572
the panels are all the same 8 Bit AUO AHVA panel ASUS Acer and Viewsonic implement them and ASUS being a chinkshit company makes the worst one and most expensive too. Get the Viewsonic XG2703-GS instead it's the most recent and best/cheapest

>>57092161
>far away detail and up close detail

It's called mipmapping. It's been in common use since 3d was a thing.

>>57093266
No, it hasn't, or you just don't know how it was done in serious sam, can only think of serious sam as the only game that pops up in my mind as doing this. Possibly it was just more prominent in serious sam as every surface did it, something I know for a god damn fact no other game does.

>>57083273
Any upscaling of very sharp content (computer GUIs for instance, video game graphics in some cases) will look "soft" or blurry. Content that's generally soft to begin with, such as video, even anime, will look just fine on 4K, you probably won't be able to tell the difference.

Native 4K computer-generated graphics, whether some UI or a video game, look incredibly sharp and detailed, the difference is obvious if you're not too far away.

>>57083621
>Worth keeping in mind that 4k is exactly 2x the vertical and 2x the horizontal resolution of 1080p, this means scaling is pixel perfect
That's more theory than standard in practice. I have a 4K screen and 1080p scaling is most definitely not pixel perfect, it looks very, very blurry. I don't care since I never feed it anything below 4K anyway, but don't go around spreading misinformation. Neither display scaling or NVIDIA GPU scaling is pixel perfect, it's extremely obvious with an OS UI alone.

Video looks fine because it's not as sharp and doesn't contain such fine detail items like small fonts all over the place, but even something like video games will look visibly blurry. Maybe some monitors have scalers that treat 1080p as a special case and scale pixel-perfect, but you'd have to shop around for that as it's most definitely not a standard feature you'll have no matter what.

>>57093499
>I have a 4K screen and 1080p scaling is most definitely not pixel perfect, it looks very, very blurry.
stop letting your OS do the scaling. 1080p on 4k is pixel perfect.

>>57092189
>want the best panel with the best colors and the input lag of a TN panel
>$5000
life is unfair.

File: MKglao5.gif (732KB, 303x270px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 303x270px

>>57092161
this is true with 4:4:4 chroma sub sampling master race, otherwise:
>>57093499
this is true. (you) probably has a 4:2:2 chroma sub sampling "4k" display.

>>57092189
Are you talking about the Dell UP3017Q? I can't even find a store that sells them (in my nation).
And I've heard that OLED has a tendency for burn ins, and quickly loosing colour quality.
So buying literally the first gen of OLED PC monitors would probably be very retarded.

And from what I can find there are no 40"-45" 4k monitors that covers more than sRGB while being 10bit and 60hz

>>57096820
How do I make sure that I get a 4:4:4 display?

>>57093499
>>57093994

What is "pixel perfect" anyways?

Closest value? - congrats, you now have a 1080p screen.
Average value? - congrats, you now have a blurfest.

>>57097011
>What is "pixel perfect" anyways?
>Closest value? - congrats, you now have a 1080p screen.

Yes, and this is exactly what I was saying. Unlike other screens 1080p scales to 4k perfectly.

Also like I've been saying, it's pointless to have a 4k screen if all of your content is 1080p.

>>57096950
He's talking bullshit.

All screens are "4:4:4" (aka RGB)
It's only movies that are usually less, so they take up less data.

Also the sensors used to record "4K" movies have only 1/3rd the amount of (sub-)pixels of a 4K screen.
This is why 4K screens are retarded: """""4K""""" movies looks perfect in a 1080p screen, but crappy on a 4K screen.
So until we have 8K movies, just stick with 1080p screens.

>>57083273
>And are curved monitors a meme or are they actually good?

It's really nice for big 21:9 displays. I think it helps by simply bringing the edges of the screen closer to your face and at a better viewing angle. It's pure garbage for 16:9 TVs however. Literally serves no function at all.

File: 400_lbs.jpg (274KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1500x1000px

>>57096950
I'm the anon you replied to, you simply have to look it up on a case by case basis. I spent 3 weeks researching tv's before I bought one... look for "4k, 4:4:4 @ 60hz" in the specifications. basically chink/off brand crap isn't really 4k... also look at the wikipedia article on "chroma subsampling" so you don't end up like this idiot:
>>57097059
RGB and chroma sampling are entirely different.

>>57097109
For TV's it's purely a meme.

Drawbacks:
- Makes the likelihood of glare much higher.
- Makes it harder to watch for anyone not sitting exactly dead center.

Benefits:
- (none)

Curved computer screens are a possibility when used in a dark room, but also mostly a meme.

>>57097144
You're talking about the cable/interface not being able to handle RGB at 60Hz.
Specifically only having HDMI 1.4 and not 2.0


Therefore you either have to use a slower refresh rate, or use chroma subsampling to reduce the data rate.

It has nothing to do with the screen itself, and all modern screens should have HDMI 2.0

>>57097144

So I looked up a monitor which I've been a bit curious about (Dell UP3216Q) and I can't find shit concerning chroma subsampling when reading about it.

Which makes me suspect it's as >>57097059 said. At least when it comes to PC-monitors.

>>57083477
depends where you are, sony is both cheaper and better in most countries because of the panel lottery

>>57097425
Non 4k Bravia is expensive because it is almost 3/4th the price of 4k samsungs

>>57091609
That is bull, plasmas have the most expensive drive circuitry of any display type and they were selling 60 inch panels for $400-500 at one point

ASUS is milking the market while the memes are fresh

>>57097444
In any case Samsung 4k models use misleading motion figures, I'd take a 1080p Sony with 5:5 pulldown and black frame insertion over any base model 4k garbage going around

>Samsung’s Motion Rate means different things depending on whether a TV is 1080p Full HD or 4k UHD. For 1080p TVs, the Motion Rate number is equal to the real refresh rate. For 4k TVs, the Motion Rate number is twice the real refresh rate. A UHD TV with a Motion Rate of 120 has a 60 hz panel.

>1080p SCALES PERFECTLY ON 4K PANEL
>NO YOU IDIOT IT BLURS

It really depends on how the scaler operates. If it's clever, it will probably map by nearest neighbor (doubling the pixels) as a special case, otherwise it will do whatever flavor of bilinear or bicubic scaling and make it blurry. I have no experience with 4k displays, but from what I understand it really varies on a per-model basis.

>>57096820

A 1080 signal scaled by nearest-neighbor on a 4:2:2 downsampling 4k display would display exactly like on a non-downsampling one, since the discarded horizontal chroma resolution wasn't there in the first place. Then who knows what other crap the panel DSP does to make it blurry.

>>57097222

Yes, no proper PC monitor applies chroma downsampling. Things get different when sizes get in the 40's and they start becoming TVs.

>>57092161
>textures

Mipmapping is an ubiquitous practice, like >>57093266 said. If you notice it happening, it's proably because it's badly implemented. Or maybe it's an entirely different technique.

>>57092161
>>57098425
Again, on textures.

I think it's because Serious Sam uses bilinear filtering whereas most other recent games use trilinear or anisotropic filtering, which smoothly interpolate between different sized textures in a mipmap based on the distance (so you don't notice the transition, but it happens).

One last detail and then I'm out:

>>57098425
>since the discarded horizontal chroma resolution wasn't there in the first place

Unless the monitor is severely limited and does chroma downsampling even on 1080p.