Is 4K there yet?

[jaslan]

I saw a 32” Samsung 4K monitor for $373 and was tempted. The prices are coming down quite a bit but I am wondering if the support in the software is there yet. I think my GeForce GTX 1050 should handle it fine... Are there still some scaling issues or a lot of plugins, etc., that still haven’t added support for 4K? I am asking in a general sense not just specifically in terms of Cubase, although Cubase, Vegas Pro, and video games covers 95% of my computer time.

[Nickeldome]

Before you drool anymore on this '4K marketing hype' please take a look at this video. After watching this you'll probably realize there are more useful things to spend your money on?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNBiAV4UnM

[jaslan]

Before you drool anymore on this '4K marketing hype' please take a look at this video. After watching this you'll probably realize there are more useful things to spend your money on?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNBiAV4UnM

Thanks for the reply? ... No drooling going on here... In fact, I am probably more of a sceptic than most about 4K. I will agree that for small screens such as laptops, tablets, and phones, the 4K/Retina thing is just silly. For TV, where you are typically much farther from the screen for viewing, unless the screen is very large (60"+) there is also no real discernible difference AND even if there were, there is not much content available anyway. For computers, with a screen in the 32" range and a viewing range of, say, 3 feet, there is a difference, but it is really more about fitting more stuff on the screen (i.e. more pixels) in applications like Cubase and Vegas Pro, etc. Of course, it needs to scale nicely to be much help, hence my original question...

Are there still some scaling issues or a lot of plugins, etc., that still haven’t added support for 4K?

The link you provided is really a discussion about 4K TV, not computer workstation displays.

[Nickeldome]

The link you provided is really a discussion about 4K TV, not computer workstation displays.

You clearly didn't understand the fact about resolution! Computer monitors are no different from TV screens. if you want an unworkable small image in your face go for it. If you have 20/20 site and want the same image you have on your 2k screen today on a screen twice as big as your current but 6 feet away you can go for 4K?

Just to be clear! 4K is not an enhancement to your normal 1980x1080 view. it wont make your current display better or sharper. It will just display twice as much information as a your regular HD monitor and that will only make sense if you also use a monitor twice as big.

If you still don't understand just let me know?

[jaslan]

Nickeldome,
I understand perfectly though I could do without the condescension.

Computer monitors are no different from TV screens

The technology is the same but they are used in different ways and environments (i.e. different sizes and viewing distances).

It will just display twice as much information as a your regular HD monitor and that will only make sense if you also use a monitor twice as big.

That is basically what I said above. I AM talking about a larger monitor than my current monitor and I want to get more stuff on the screen.

if you want an unworkable small image...

Which is why my question is about the scaling of the applications... Ironically, it is actually you who is not understanding.
One more time... The question was...

Are there still some scaling issues or a lot of plugins, etc., that still haven’t added support for 4K?

If you still don't understand just let me know?

I have understood all along and don't need or want any reply from you. If you still don't understand, please just PM me and stop ruining my thread. I am trying to find out about scaling in the applications and you are turning it into a condescending lecture about pixel size and visual acuity, which I already understand.

break - break

If anyone ELSE has any information about the scaling in the applications I would be happy to hear it.

[peakae]

But scaling is not an issue if you run a big enough screen at native resolution and at 100% scale.
Scaling is still an issue, a lot of plugins and program's don't support HiDPI including the OS.
My 40 inch 4k TV is to small to run cubase at 100% scaling, 50 or 55 inch is fine. But at that size speaker placement becomes a challenge. I'm happy using two 27 inch 1440p screen's in front and an older low resolution screen to the side for plugins I want really BIG.

[jaslan]

So, two 1440 screens in a top/bottom layout? (2560x1440 I assume) So, effectively totaling 2560 wide by 2880 tall I suppose? How are you connecting them? I use a laptop with a Thunderbolt 3 dock so I can add some extra displays but can't get crazy with it. The dock has an HDMI and a Mini Display Port. The laptop has an extra HDMI out.
I like the idea. lot's of real estate. Still each screen individually has the right aspect ratio and the applications and plug-ins are still a pretty good size and not too small. I am still just feeling out the situation. Thanks for the input.

[Nickeldome]

I have understood all along and don't need or want any reply from you. If you still don't understand, please just PM me and stop ruining my thread. I am trying to find out about scaling in the applications and you are turning it into a condescending lecture about pixel size and visual acuity, which I already understand.

My apologies Jaslan. I was so preoccupied with the fact that so much people think that more resolution will look better on their current size monitor that I actually missed your point? In fact I just had the same discussion last week with someone that was so stubborn in accepting how resolutions work I probably took it out on you without realizing? Anyhow, I'm sorry for this! I'm currently looking into a similar scenario myself with maybe 2 x 32" 4K affordable monitors?

[jaslan]

I have understood all along and don't need or want any reply from you. If you still don't understand, please just PM me and stop ruining my thread. I am trying to find out about scaling in the applications and you are turning it into a condescending lecture about pixel size and visual acuity, which I already understand.

My apologies Jaslan. I was so preoccupied with the fact that so much people think that more resolution will look better on their current size monitor that I actually missed your point? In fact I just had the same discussion last week with someone that was so stubborn in accepting how resolutions work I probably took it out on you without realizing? Anyhow, I'm sorry for this! I'm currently looking into a similar scenario myself with maybe 2 x 32" 4K affordable monitors?

Thanks. I really do appreciate and accept it.
I have been considering just adding an additional monitor but the lost border space, mounting and connection complications made me think it might be easier to just get one, larger 4K display. Another advantage of a single larger display over multiple individual displays is the ability to stretch workspaces across the borders without a "break". But, as mentioned, unless the 4K it is significantly larger, the plug-ins and apps need to be able to be stretched to scale to a larger, more workable size. I know some apps and plug-ins have resizable "windows" but the GUI elements in the window don't actually resize (I think Groove Agent 5 is one example of this, but I am not sure because I don't have it). Anyway, I may need to wait a little longer or just consider a multi-monitor solution.

[Patanjali]

Before you drool anymore on this '4K marketing hype' please take a look at this video. After watching this you'll probably realize there are more useful things to spend your money on?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNBiAV4UnM

The problem with all these 'you can't see it' and 'retina' type of reviews is that they go on theory and forget that people can actually tell the difference, at least when it is pointed out. While 300dpi printing is better than 'retina', 600dpi printed text looks so much smoother.

We essentially have two sets of vision perception:
a. A hi-res greyscale.
b. Lower res colour.

Somehow, in the integration going on in our eyes and brains, we 'see' it as hi-res colour. Just another part of the digital illusion going on inside us, like with the multi-filter/PCM digital processing going on with our hearing.

We can see the difference 4K makes, but it highly depends upon what we are looking at. Anything with sharp edges, like text and line drawings is obviously smoother when it can be rendered into more pixels, as the smoothing algorithms have more pixels into which to put mid-colours to visually change edges to look smoother.

Unfortunately, PC programs, while often using scaling font technology, like true-type fonts, still render into absolute pixel spaces, which is why everything shrinks down when using smaller hi-res displays.

When using smaller hi-res displays for PCs, if the text is too small to read, then only scaling the display will improve the readability. It does mean that one is ending up with lower effective resolution than if one could read with the native display resolution.

However, this is what we have basically been paying so much extra for top-end phones. You might have noticed that phone prices are largely defined by the resolution, all other facilities being the same, but small text looks so much better on hi-res ones.

I looked at one of the new 8K Samsung TVs the other day, and even right up close, I could not discern individual pixels on a 85" display. With that pixel density approaching that of phones, all text would have excellent readability when scaled to match text sizes with lower-res TVs, so Cubase and all plugin screens would be eminently readable and look fantastic.

While we may be able stretch our budgets for a top-of-the-line phone, TV/monitors with similar pixel densities are rightly expensive, and we generally don't seem to want to give them the same priority for lavish spending as we do for phones.

[Patanjali]

I would say that for this it is really still early, and there is no need. It is better to save on this and purchase better components.

Are you referring to 4K or 8K?

If 4K, my 2 TCL 49" 4K TVs together cost the same as EACH of the four 30" 2560x1600 Dell monitors I used to have, but have the same number of pixels as the 4 of them. Bargain!! 43" 4K TCLs are now at AU$495 from many shops. My 30" Dells were AU$1500 at the time.

SOK-MUS.Inverted-T_monitor_setup_cropped.2009-09-01.jpg

(24.47 KiB) Not downloaded yet

If one wants flexibility in layouts, 4K is much better than multiple lower-res monitors, especially for the tracks window. Plenty of people use 4K TVs as monitors. Just have to see the plethora of chat going on in various forums since 4Ks became cheap years ago, not just music ones.

I used to have a 4K TV as the main monitor and one Dell HD touchscreen either side for controls (inputs, etc).

SOK-MUS.Studio-speaker_layout.small.2014-07-09.jpg

(37.92 KiB) Not downloaded yet

8K will offer a working area similar to mixing desks. When they make it to Surface Hubs, with multi-touch screen, then some serious audio uses become possible. Of course, they will cost, but then their cost will come down as more people get on board, as with 4K TVs, where FHD is becoming suitable only for small TVs.

...better components.

Better is a value judgement that each person makes for themselves, and according to their own preferences, so spending money on a 4k (or 8k) may be a 'better' component choice for some than buying 'better' computer monitors or other studio equipment.

[Patanjali]

Re 8K.

I noticed today that Samsung 65" 8K TVs are now AU$6k, which is only AU$1,700 more than the Samsung 55" 4k i bought a few years ago.

That 65" 8k has just a bit more than the area of two 43"4ks, but with twice the pixels. Of course, at native resolution, that is small text, so scaling to 150% in Windows would make it effectively the same pixels as the 2 4ks, but with much better-rendered smooth-outlined text than tiny pixelated natural.

The main problem with using 8k TVs on a computer is getting a video card that can handle 8k HDMI. There are cards that can handle DisplayPort 8k monitors, such as those based upon the GTX 1080.

[Jeryr]

Dude, already have 8k

[Patanjali]

Dude, already have 8k

And...???

[pianowillbebach]

It depends on what you're looking for. My roommate has a 4k laptop and the screen is so incredibly clear. However, he also has a super small laptop and does a lot of stuff where he needs really crisp graphics. I personally don't see a *need* for 4k with my own devices. However, if you find a good deal and want to have it, then it's worth it for you.

Basically, 4k is good, but not great enough to shell out more money. But, if you want it, then you do you.