Page 1 of 2 12 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 27

  1. Post
    #1

    50" computer screen, anyone using one (or close to it)?

    I'm currently sporting a 24" 1200p display and a 27" 1080p display.

    Thinking of getting one of those 50" 4K Veons to replace them.

    Anyone using a massive screen? Any drawbacks?

    I see it as stacking two more displays on top of my current ones, as Windows 10 allows dragging to quarters now.

    It's going into my laptop for coding, photo editing and browsing. I game on a different computer.

  2. Post
    #2
    Got my handy dandy, supery dupery power meter out.

    My 65" Veon uses 180W, my 27" uses 16W and my 24" uses 19W. To display the same relative screen.

    50" is 59% of the screen size of a 65", so two more displays would be 70W. Vs 106W (projected) of the 50".

    Energywise says just over half the power consumption, so 106W sounds right.

  3. Post
    #3
    If your editing photos why not get a proper monitor?

  4. Post
    #4
    Because it's done for fun and doesn't make me any money. And people who view my photos don't have a proper monitor, hell they don't even see a real representation of it. They view a compressed version on Facebook.

  5. Post
    #5
    Colour accuracy will be trash on a TV and the subpixel layouts aren't suited for PC afaik.

    Get this https://www.pbtech.co.nz/product/MON...nitor-3840x216

    Or this https://pp.co.nz/product/led-monitor...p4317q/AA74833

  6. Post
    #6
    nile wrote:
    Colour accuracy will be trash on a TV and the subpixel layouts aren't suited for PC afaik.
    What are the advantages of both of these?

    LCDs are all RGB are they not?

  7. Post
    #7
    suntoucher wrote:
    What are the advantages of both of these?

    LCDs are all RGB are they not?
    Nah, and those ones I linked are GBR or something like that but Windows has a thing to compensate. TVs don't render colour for accuracy, they do for entertainment, i'm sure you can find colourspace coverage for examples using google.

    I found this on google https://www.pcgamer.com/can-i-use-a-...puter-monitor/

  8. Post
    #8
    secondhand 4k 40" monitors pop up on trademe for around 5-600 which is a better alternative to a tv screen imo

  9. Post
    #9
    focus wrote:
    secondhand 4k 40" monitors pop up on trademe for around 5-600 which is a better alternative to a tv screen imo
    I'll have a look, problem is with that is that it works out to be 20" per screen. The 50" works out to be bezelless 25"x4

    Right now I'm using a 16:10 24" and a 16:9 27" so would be just under a perfect doubling. Aka stacking two more screens on top.

    My biggest concern is my neck having two towering screens above rather than the right and left.

    I'm not really bothered by colour accuracy, 50% of my time is coloured text on black (PHPStorm). 40% is Facebook and GPForums. 5% is KissAnime. 5% is hobby lightroom.

    I'm even planning to plug it into my E-Port dock, which isn't HDMI 2.0. So it will be running at 30hz.

  10. Post
    #10
    I have been using 40" and 43" 4k monitors (not TV's) for years. However, I have them on a wall mount sit/stand arm and have the matching separate sit/stand keyboard mount, so I am able to completely adjust the height and distance for them to sit comfortably 1 metre away (for 100% scaling on the 43").

    I wouldn't use one of those shitbox TV's as a monitor though, and you'd also struggle to use one without moving your head around on a desk anyway.

  11. Post
    #11
    HELL KNIGHT wrote:
    I have been using 40" and 43" 4k monitors (not TV's) for years. However, I have them on a wall mount sit/stand arm and have the matching separate sit/stand keyboard mount, so I am able to completely adjust the height and distance for them to sit comfortably 1 metre away (for 100% scaling on the 43").

    I wouldn't use one of those shitbox TV's as a monitor though, and you'd also struggle to use one without moving your head around on a desk anyway.
    This is the kind of stuff I'm interested in, actual experiences, but trying to see if anyone can clearly say why the TV would be bad. I can't work out what the difference would be based on my understanding of LCD tech.

    I have a good understanding of the advantages of better colour gamut, accuracy, post processing etc, but I don't think my use case will care.

    I leave my current monitors on blue light filter, so it's always super warm and super inaccurate. And the 1200p display is a Dell U2413h, so originally colour calibrated etc.
    Last edited by suntoucher; 18th May 2019 at 7:54 pm.

  12. Post
    #12
    Don't get a Veon, go in store and check the quality out for yourself. The price makes them look tempting, but their the worse looking panel out there imo.

  13. Post
    #13
    Pxndx wrote:
    Don't get a Veon, go in store and check the quality out for yourself. The price makes them look tempting, but their the worse looking panel out there imo.
    I have the 65" 4K on the wall, looks alright.

  14. Post
    #14
    suntoucher wrote:
    This is the kind of stuff I'm interested in, actual experiences, but trying to see if anyone can clearly say why the TV would be bad. I can't work out what the difference would be based on my understanding of LCD tech.
    There are TV sets which don't do 4:4:4 or have tacky motion 'improvement' algorithms hardcoded. People who buy those generally refuse to accept they made a bad choice and go around telling everyone that TVs are universally worse than monitors just because.

    If you're careful with what you buy you'll be fine.

    Recommend watch-listing the LG B8 - it was on sale under US1k previously. If you've already got decent gear then OLED is the natural upgrade path.

  15. Post
    #15
    What? besides the price difference, that OLED TV would make a terrible monitor because of burn in, it took ages for monitor makers to be able to create them for this reason - and they are stupidly expensive.

  16. Post
    #16
    Yeah burn in is a thing - it makes screensavers relevant again. If you leave the windows desktop blaring 24/7 it might even cause a problem eventually.

    People really think 1k is stupidly expensive for something that looks better than every backlit display on the market?

  17. Post
    #17
    focus wrote:
    secondhand 4k 40" monitors pop up on trademe for around 5-600 which is a better alternative to a tv screen imo
    or $700 new with 3yr warranty..

  18. Post
    #18
    ^Yep, and that is one of the models I have - though I paid around a $1000 for it on sale when it came out a couple of years ago.
    lumpy custard wrote:
    Yeah burn in is a thing - it makes screensavers relevant again. If you leave the windows desktop blaring 24/7 it might even cause a problem eventually.

    People really think 1k is stupidly expensive for something that looks better than every backlit display on the market?
    The cheapest LG OLED (locally) is seven times the price of the TV he is looking at. And I was referring to OLED monitors being stupidly expensive - they are several thousand dollars.

  19. Post
    #19
    I use a panasonic Z800 series TV for PC. 55" 4K, HDR, FLAD, Game Mode with decent response time... 60hz though :/

    TBH it's a bit silly. It's too big for the room, if you're sitting at desk with keyboard and mouse.

    Mint for controller gaming a bit further back, but im honestly looking to replace it with a high refresh 1440p monitor.

    If it wasn't more expensive to get a monitor with good HDR than it is to buy a TV, i'd have one already

  20. Post
    #20
    lumpy custard wrote:
    There are TV sets which don't do 4:4:4 or have tacky motion 'improvement' algorithms hardcoded. People who buy those generally refuse to accept they made a bad choice and go around telling everyone that TVs are universally worse than monitors just because.

    If you're careful with what you buy you'll be fine.

    Recommend watch-listing the LG B8 - it was on sale under US1k previously. If you've already got decent gear then OLED is the natural upgrade path.
    Looked up what 4:4:4 actually means after reading nile's article saying that lower than 4:4:4 will result in fuzziness on some text. Other than that it confirmed my belief that LCD tech is LCD tech.

    Hit this:
    https://www.geeks3d.com/20141203/how...our-4k-uhd-tv/

    Which led me here:
    https://forums.geforce.com/default/t...oma-hdmi-2-0-/

    And to this file:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	TextTest_1920x1080.png 
Views:	31 
Size:	28.3 KB 
ID:	226124

    Which is perfectly readable on the 65" 4K. I'm going to guess that it should be fine on the 50" as well but from my understanding Veons are cobbled together from leftover parts so may not necessarily be.

    Here's my one(My phone photos are apparently larger than GP allows, why is there still a 2mb limit when it's going to be shrunk anyway? So this is a screenshot of a photo taken of a picture on a screen)
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot_20190519-101028_Gallery.jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	197.3 KB 
ID:	226125

    Also the LG monitor I'm using apparently hates that test. Heaps of the middle lines have a flicker. The Dell is perfect, the Veon actually didn't flicker at all. So if the 50" is as good as the 65" then it may actually be an improvement if I finally decide to get it.

    Looking closer at the photo, I can see a bit of crap on the blue and red which may mean it's not 4:4:4 but this is what I'll mostly be looking at:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	php.PNG 
Views:	30 
Size:	104.7 KB 
ID:	226126

    Just ****ed around with the settings on the LG and got rid of the flicker.
    Last edited by suntoucher; 19th May 2019 at 11:22 am.

  21. Post
    #21
    I use a 58" warehouse toshiba as my daily pc screen - it's good. I'm about 2.5m away on a couch. 4k. HDR (which I don't use.) Colours seem fine. it's 444.

  22. Post
    #22
    Pxndx wrote:
    Don't get a Veon, go in store and check the quality out for yourself. The price makes them look tempting, but their the worse looking panel out there imo.
    First time I saw a 65" Veon TV in someones lounge I was disgusted at the picture, it was a 1080p version I admit, but for some reason it looked pixelated and the colours seemed wrong a lot worse than their Samsung, which had blown up.

  23. Post
    #23
    I've used a 49" Sony X900E as a gaming Tv, with my computer also hooked up to it (on my racing rig I used to have)

    I used to code on it for my contract work. I'd say that you aren't any more productive with it. It's only better for gaming.
    The colour reproduction is pretty good, blacks are good, looks better than my Dell for sure, HDR compatible, 4k etc. and also supports 1080 @ 120hz if you need it.

    Nothing was wrong with the specs, or quality, it was just TOO big to be productive.

    I've gone back to my 25" U2515H Dell now for my main productivity usage, and I find it a lot better.

    DO NOT GET A VEON, you'll regret it. You need to aim higher if you were to go the TV route.

    Remember Resolution != Quality

  24. Post
    #24
    Sweet, everyone against seems to just be complaining about colour or just general "I don't like Veon" so I've decided to get one. I already own a Veon and have no issues with it, and colour accuracy means nothing to my use case, as long as it's not blasting me at night when the lights are off.

  25. Post
    #25
    I seem to remember reading also that the panel in the 65" was a lot better than the smaller models - though I could be misremembering
    that.