Gaming on 4K TVs....anybody doing it???

[Josh128]

Agree 4K is pretty useless right now for all but the most high-end PC gamers and A/V enthusiasts. Blu-Ray hasnt caught up and Im skeptical if broadcast will ever catch up due to finite radio spectrum available for terrestrial and satellite broadcasts. I think youre more likely to see internet video move to 4K WAY sooner (yeah, its already being done) than those previously mentioned systems. Its possible to buffer internet video such as Youtube and Netflix, which cant be done with real-time video transmission.

With new codecs and compression schemes will come new opportunities, of course, but its not as easy to force broadcasters to upgrade their expensive equipment as it is to get end-users to do it.

[Ed Oscuro]

Blu-Ray hasnt caught up and Im skeptical if broadcast will ever catch up due to finite radio spectrum available for terrestrial and satellite broadcasts.

Hadn't thought about this before, but yes, it's clear that mobile / remote devices (all that Internet of Things stuff) is going to eat up all the radio spectrum, probably sooner rather than later, to the point that it'd be extremely wasteful to dedicate a huge portion of the spectrum to non-essential broadcasts that use up a lot of space (audio stations should hold the line pretty well, especially since they needn't use much space and the frequencies don't seem much good for highly demanding content) when standards will have moved on from non-interactive 2K content.

[Bahn Yuki]

Hey Bahn Yuki,

Is this the exxact model reciever you are talking about?
http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model. ... s=Receiver

And great to hear about the SCART to HDMI converter working for you. I was under the impression that they add a bunch of input lag. Nice 4k set up.

Yea that would be the 609. The scart to hdmi converter adds about 1 frame of delay according to the 240p testing Suite on a Sega genesis.

As for buying 4k, you don't get it just solely for 4k. You get it for low latency, great pq, great features, options and 4k content would be last. However watching Netflix and Amazon prime in 4k is stunning and puts Blu-ray to shame.

I have three 4k tv's and they are well worth it when I bought them last year.

[BuckoA51]

I dunno, 4K Netflix is supposed to be disappointing due to all the compression it requires, and only a small step up in PQ from Blu-ray and a downgrade in audio quality.

https://www.avforums.com/article/is-4k- ... -ray.10589

I hope 4K blu-ray happens, I know the world is moving away from physical media in general, but videophiles really need a 4k physical disc format for the ultimate wow factor. There's just not going to be the bandwidth around for high quality 4k streams for a while unless compromises are made.

I'd totally have 4k for PC gaming if I had the cash for better PC parts though.

[neorichieb1971]

I will want 4k optical blu ray discs when they come out if the prices are right. I was really asking from a home theatre standpoint anyway. I don't have any intention of gaming in 4k. My main pet peeve right now is that my amp/receiver is not HDMI 2.2 compliant and therefore will be needing a blu ray 4k player with 2 HDMI's. One for the full range color and the other to pass to my receiver for audio. But it appears none of the blu ray companies are going to have 2 outputs.

[creamygarlicdip]

4k would be nice if the content was there, for instance sports might be pretty cool, but current broadcasts are at 1080i or 720p as far as I know.

Unfortunately i don't think the average consumer understands what is required to get the benefits of 4k tv.

id rather watch a 1080p video on youtube with a better image quality than a 4k image with all the compression artifacts.

[Hoagtech]

I would love a 4k display to tinker with screeners on my server tower. 256 Gb of ram would finally find its home. But I wouldn't be able to hold any screeners on my ssd's. And the cost to upgrade my SSd and my gpu to a different series would be too much. I guess I could play with video samples until then. If I had a 4k display.

The real worry I have with even getting the content is my broadband company wouldn't throttle me after the first video

[Bahn Yuki]

http://m.costco.com/Vizio-49%22-Class-( ... 16991.html. 49" 4k tv for $500 is tough to beat

[parodius]

Is really Vizio a US-exclusive brand ?

[Ed Oscuro]

Is really Vizio a US-exclusive brand ?

No, but I don't know how many of their products they sell elsewhere. They do sell some products in Asia, though.

[evil_ash_xero]

How does 1080 look on a 4K TV anyway? It seems like that is getting to be the main option nowadays.

I'm guessing some TVs do the upscaling better? Is it going to make my PS3 games look like dookie?

[gray117]

How does 1080 look on a 4K TV anyway? It seems like that is getting to be the main option nowadays.

Spoiler

Nearly all look fine from what I've seen .... constantly curious about picking up something 4k and tv sized (32-42) for my desktop ... but input lag seems to be the issue though - at least for us euro types... I don't think there's a uk 4k tv under 40ms, with many seemingly quite very much higher when combined with good (not even best) image processing.

We may have gotten scart back in the day but at least in the UK we're not seeing some of those vizio/similar slightly more budget, and better input lag, 4k sets about ... yet ...

edit: I'm probably a bit behind the times here - eyeing up some of the more recent offerings myself now

[evil_ash_xero]

I was looking at some TVs on https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag. And almost everything they were reviewing was 4K. The input lag wasn't bad for the top ones. Not monitor level, but not bad for a full screen HDTV.
I was just worried they were going to look bad in 4K. But lots of people say they look fine.

I can't remember how many ms are in a frame. Isn't it like 13 to 15? I can't recall.

The LG UJ6300 and the TCL S405 caught my eye, since they have low input lag, and I can get them in '43. I would have to rearrange my game room to be able to sit at a comfortable distance from the average '50 plus TVs.

[gray117]

1 sec == 1000 ms
60fps == 16.6 ms per frame which most round to 15 == practical limit of a 60hz refresh.
30fps == 33.3 ms per frame which most round to 30 ... and I would say is what most people consider as 'a frame of lag'

... I must admit to eyeing up that list of tv's myself right now

... on the surface I think I almost have to find a reason not to get a LG 43UJ634V ... turns out image retention and pixel structure may well rule out for monitor substitution ...

[evil_ash_xero]

1 sec == 1000 ms
60fps == 16.6 ms per frame which most round to 15 == practical limit of a 60hz refresh.
30fps == 33.3 ms per frame which most round to 30 ... and I would say is what most people consider as 'a frame of lag'

Thanks a lot. I had been told ages ago, but couldn't remember.