Gaymers buying 27" monitors three times the price of 43" equivalent tvs

>gaymers buying 27" monitors three times the price of 43" equivalent tvs
>"it's higher pixel density, you wouldn't understand"
>32" monitors are even more expensive
>but muh input lag
Yes friend I'm sure that twentieth of a second console gamers never notice is really improving your performance. I understand why you can't afford enough living space to sit a foot further from a display screen since you're shitting away thousands of dollars buying meme monitors every five years.

Attached: chrome_2019-04-22_08-04-26.png (312x766, 120K)

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.co.uk/LG-43UK6300PLB-43-Inch-Smart-Freeview/dp/B07BMY54PF
twitter.com/AnonBabble

You do you
While I do your mom, with my non shit monitor ;^}

holy fuck OP
h-have i been jew'd into buying a monitor?

I just like how the price of monitors haven't been going down for over a decade now. You should be able to get a basic 1080p display for the price of materials by this point, but nope.

>not buying display panels from alibaba and designing your own monitor

Yes. The input lag on monitors is typically like 6ms on a good monitor. On an average tv it's anywhere from 20ms-40ms. You can look up different tvs online to find out which tv's input lag isn't as bad, but even at 40ms most people won't even notice - you'd hear people complaining about tv input lag on console exclusives if that were the case (games like Dark Bloodborne, Nioh, Sekiro come to mind).
The 120hz in OP's pic is a meme though. That tv is one of the best budget 4k hdr tvs but it's 60 hz with an option of turning on interpolation.

have fun with your 6 bit colors

The 27" monitors should (unless people are retarded) have better colour coverage.
The 120hz there is backlight strobe shit and not actual panel refresh rate, but the main issue with the TCL 4 series is their abysmal DCI-P3 coverage (around 80%) along with horrendously low peak brightness. 6 series isn't that much more expensive and has better coverage. However, if you want full coverage then 4K 95% DCI-P3 monitors with at least some form of HDR for $350 USD.
43", for my area, is too low PPI as well. I don't like going sub 1 pixel/arcsec.

>twentieth of a second
I already notice 5ms (1/200) of extra input lag

Consoles use blast processing to speed the game up and delay the image so you don't notice the extra input lag. A good blast processing card on PC would be much more than these monitors.

Blast processing was just referring to DMA, kiddo.

everyone in this thread is replying to b8

TVs have shitty control boards in comparison.
You wouldn't understand because all you're comparing is the display size.

>An enthusiastic is willing to spend more money for a better quality product

Is there a way of turning off the fake 120hz referred to here? Wouldn't you almost have to literally press your eyeball to the monitor to be able to discern pixels on a 4k 27" monitor? Trying now with my 1080p 23" monitor I need to be a couple inches from the screen to see that level of detail. On my hd tv I can see pixels/blur from a couple feet away, which is definitely a lot better than the monitor experience, but at that point it's still far too close (rest of screen extends beyond field of vision). But sitting about 5 feet away I can lean back and forward, and leaning in feel like I'm almost getting seeing all the detail.
So what's the formula for being able to see as much detail as possible with a given resolution but being able to take in the rest of the picture with ease? Is it even possible with 4k on a monitor or tv? I know in my cinema the digital movie copies the projectors display are in 4k, and I sit in the middle row of seats. I have the entire picture comfortably in my field of vision and I'm getting the full benefit of the 4k resolution. But when I go with someone else they want to sit further back where you're not going to appreciate the 4k . So it's fine for me, but obviously having an entire theater's space and a projector at home isn't going to ever be available to consumers. And even then many people don't want a screen taking up a large amount of their field and will never want to experience 4k.
I remember seeing a 4k monitor once and thought 4k is a meme, but $250 isn't much, and from experience 1080p definitely isn't the max resolution people will be able to appreciate in their home theaters, it just seems like the leap from 1080p straight to 4k is not only too fast but probably will forever be unnecessary for movies, tv or video games. On the other hand there are other things pc users could use a 4k monitor for. Photo editing comes to mind where you won't have to zoom in and out as much to work on specific areas of the picture.

Technically the point of contrasting line distinction for humans with 20/20 vision is approximately 1 pixel per arcsecond, however the IEEE did a bunch of tests on people regarding the sensation of 'realness' on a bunch of shit of different pixel densities and compared to a real object. The diminishing returns up to 2 pixels/arcsec were pretty minimal, but hit exponentially after that point. Three was a moderate increase from two but four was jack shit of an increase compared to three, so there is a point for 4k 27" from normal viewing distances, yeah.

tl;dr

I've noticed this too. I could buy 27" for about $200 AUD iin 2013, I bought one late last year same size for $250AUD.
Something is up with that.

>40ms
Even as a non gaymer that's shit

27 inch monitors in 2019 are practically the exact fucking same as 27 inch monitors in 2007 it's like monitor technology has gone fucking nowhere

They are for internet content consumption, although I'd say more 2010 and on. 2007 your baseline 1080p monitors still didn't have 99% sRGB while they did in 2010. However, in terms of how much argb or DCI-P3 coverage you can get on baseline or cheap monitors now, it's far far better.
$350 used to get you like 80% argb (which is a smaller space than DCI-P3 by far), and now that will get you 95% DCI-P3 at 4K. Mid tier has progressed a lot
A 95% DCI-

tried playing guitar hero on tv and it was literally unplayable, even on gayming mode. literally couldn't do songs on anything beyond easy. plugged it into a monitor and started fucking shit up on hard/low expert.

>buys fuckhuge monitor
>puts it 500 yards away

lmfao

Is that real 4K or one of those pentile ones with loads of useless white pixels?

>be dumb gamer
>muh pixel density
>extreme myopia due to constantly focusing eyes to close distance
Enjoy your poor eyesight

>ree stop being right reee
>my 60" inch monitor at 2km distance is flawless ree

lmfao dumb nigger

It's your eyes, do whatever you want, not my busyness. Enjoy your poor eyesight.

The fucking STATE of monitors is disgusting right now - makes me not want to get a new pc and stick with my GTX 770 from 2013.

I want to play at 4K, because I cannot stand jaggies, but most software doesn't have adequate scaling, 4k monitors with decent input lag have shitty colours and they cost $1000s. AND to get 60 fps at 40k is nearly impossible, even with RTX 2080 Ti

Thinking about getting an LG C8, but I hear a lot about image burn-in?!

I used to use a 47" Samsung LED something-another.

I moved to 3 27" Asus something-anothers.

It works out a little better for desktop layout and such, and I get to do stupid stuff like 5870x1080 Skyrim.

Is this a meme? What are the colors like? No point in having high res if it's high res garbage.
Would be interesting to see a breakdown of this and other cheap 4k tv's. LG have one basically the same price amazon.co.uk/LG-43UK6300PLB-43-Inch-Smart-Freeview/dp/B07BMY54PF
Samsung and Philips are also doing 4k tvs. In comparison cheap 4k monitors all look like shit. Still, sounds like sketchy chink shit and you're obviously better off with a 1440p monitor.