decent mega-monitor?

[ted leslie]

Interesting! this should hopefully support seeing other tv/monitors of 4k
res. come down in price. I wonder if a current high end nvidia card would
drive this beast?
I can only hope they are twice the quality (in say a year), and similar
price, grab 2, portrait mount them as a dual monitor set up and get a nice
4320x3840 desktop.
No mention if 3d capable? reviews at the tiger url seem favourable. Given
this price I am definitely not getting another 1080p tv , clearly wait for
the 4k now.
-tl



On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:36 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh-pmF8o41NoarQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:

> There is a slow move towards talking about supporting "4k" HD TV.  This
> seems to mean 3840 x 2160 pixels (up from 1920 x 1080).  You hear of
> prices like $20k for TV sets.  Here's a startlingly low price:
> <
> http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7674736&CatId=4717
> >
> Only $1,499.97 for 50" 3840 x 2160 display.
>
> Specs:
> <
> http://static.highspeedbackbone.net/pdf/Seiki%20SE50UY04%204K2K%20LED%20HDTV%20Data%20Sheet.pdf
> >
>
> That sounds like a lot of money for a monitor but it isn't much more
> than a 30" 2560 x 1600.
>
> Does anybody know if this actually makes a good computer monitor for a
> conventional desktop?  I've noticed that some TVs look inferior as
> computer desktop monitors, even though their specs look appropriate.
>
> The refresh rate is probably not good enough.  The monitor is fed by
> an HDMI 1.4 monitor and I understand that the HDMI standard doesn't
> have enough bandwidth to drive this resolution at more than 30Hz.
> Apparently the next HDMI standard will improve this.  The display can
> refresh at 120Hz at lower resolution.  This limitation seems to be
> reported in the specs: the top resolution for component and HDMI is
> listed as "4k2k 30Hz".  Note: one of the user comments says that it
> does work at 120Hz at full resolution.  So I'm confused.
>
> The top VGA resolution listed is 3840 x 2160 (with no mention of
> refresh rate).  What VGA interface would drive that?  In my
> experience, VGA isn't great for LCDs because the two sides don't share
> a clock and this leads to unpleasant artifacts.
>
> This probably uses TN technology since that isn't specified (if it
> were IPS, that would be mentioned).  TN makes viewing angle critical
> and with a desktop monitor that big, only a portion of the screen
> would be in the sweet spot.  Mind you, the specs say 176 degree
> viewing angles, horizontally and virtically.
>
> This review damns it with faint praise as a TV.
> <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418007,00.asp>
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20130430/e1c7a717/attachment.html>