I run 4 40” 4K monitors, unfortunately not HDR, [Sceptre U405CV-UMS televisions] with KingOne USB-C to HDMI adapter cables and a Thunderbolt 3 hub from OWC on my 2017 MacBook Pro 15”.
That makes it hard to get excited about much. Got the monitors for $200 each on Amazon and couldn’t be happier. Why would I pay $349 for an indiscernible difference?
Because it isn't indiscernible. The pixel density is a bit over one-half on the televisions versus this monitor, the television isn't as bright, the backlight is different on the TV and worse, and the response time on the television is much, much worse. I'm glad it works for you, and I like the specs as a television. I just don't like it as a monitor.
And, the present price on the televisions are about $400 each. They appear to be discontinued. Televisions in the same $200 price range that you paid have similar issues, though.
I run 4 40” 4K monitors, unfortunately not HDR, [Sceptre U405CV-UMS televisions] with KingOne USB-C to HDMI adapter cables and a Thunderbolt 3 hub from OWC on my 2017 MacBook Pro 15”.
That makes it hard to get excited about much. Got the monitors for $200 each on Amazon and couldn’t be happier. Why would I pay $349 for an indiscernible difference?
Because it isn't indiscernible. The pixel density is a bit over one-half on the televisions versus this monitor, the television isn't as bright, the backlight is different on the TV and worse, and the response time on the television is much, much worse. I'm glad it works for you, and I like the specs as a television. I just don't like it as a monitor.
And, the present price on the televisions are about $400 each. They appear to be discontinued. Televisions in the same $200 price range that you paid have similar issues, though.
Pixel density lower? No shit...28” is tiny. Try running native 4K resolution desktop on a 28” 4K screen.
1) This is not the same television as the OP had, nor the same performance characteristics. 2) This is also not $200, as the OP's was. 3) Again, if this works for you, great. I don't have room for a 43-inch television on my desk, and I'll argue that most people don't. 4) AFAICT, that's 10.1ms response time, not input lag.
I’ve seen this display in a couple of demonstrations, and quite frankly, it’s very mediocre. It doesn’t come close to any HDR requirements. The so called 400 nit minimum for HDR is sop to manufacturers who build cheap displays that can’t do HDR. Earlier this year I was at a broadcast tech convention where I spoke to a Sony engineer working on advanced displays. They had two 80” (approximately, I don’t remember the exact size, but both were the same, and in the low 80’s) TVs. One was OLED, and the other LED backlit LCD. These were $11,000 displays, so not cheap. We were discussing technical requirements, and I asked which he would recommend for a true HDR playback. He said the LCD model, because it could reach 900 nits, while the OLED could only do 550.
i agree. 400 nits doesn’t even come close to a real minimum. Yes, with the so called HDR on, you can see a tiny difference. But just because there is that tiny difference, a fraction of a stop, photographically, doesn’t mean it’s HDR. In fact, many monitors and TVs can do 300-350 nits. It’s not that uncommon anymore.
I run 4 40” 4K monitors, unfortunately not HDR, [Sceptre U405CV-UMS televisions] with KingOne USB-C to HDMI adapter cables and a Thunderbolt 3 hub from OWC on my 2017 MacBook Pro 15”.
That makes it hard to get excited about much. Got the monitors for $200 each on Amazon and couldn’t be happier. Why would I pay $349 for an indiscernible difference?
Because it isn't indiscernible. The pixel density is a bit over one-half on the televisions versus this monitor, the television isn't as bright, the backlight is different on the TV and worse, and the response time on the television is much, much worse. I'm glad it works for you, and I like the specs as a television. I just don't like it as a monitor.
And, the present price on the televisions are about $400 each. They appear to be discontinued. Televisions in the same $200 price range that you paid have similar issues, though.
Pixel density lower? No shit...28” is tiny. Try running native 4K resolution desktop on a 28” 4K screen.
1) This is not the same television as the OP had, nor the same performance characteristics. 2) This is also not $200, as the OP's was. 3) Again, if this works for you, great. I don't have room for a 43-inch television on my desk, and I'll argue that most people don't. 4) AFAICT, that's 10.1ms response time, not input lag.
1) No, but it's reprenentative of current monitors since the older TVs will perform less well than 2019 TVs 2) See #1. 3) It's smaller than 2 or even 3 monitors many folks have. Which is why I elected to have a larger 4K display running my desktop at native resolution vs two smaller monitors running at a lower desktop resolution. Want to bet most folks aren't running 4K native desktop resolution on a 27" monitor? For the folks that don't understand what I mean...it means sliding the display resolution at Default for Display or all the way to the right for "more space" and not the middle. 4) 10.1ms is input lag in game mode. The 80% response time is 5.6ms. The 100% response time is 12.4ms.
I run 4 40” 4K monitors, unfortunately not HDR, [Sceptre U405CV-UMS televisions] with KingOne USB-C to HDMI adapter cables and a Thunderbolt 3 hub from OWC on my 2017 MacBook Pro 15”.
That makes it hard to get excited about much. Got the monitors for $200 each on Amazon and couldn’t be happier. Why would I pay $349 for an indiscernible difference?
Because it isn't indiscernible. The pixel density is a bit over one-half on the televisions versus this monitor, the television isn't as bright, the backlight is different on the TV and worse, and the response time on the television is much, much worse. I'm glad it works for you, and I like the specs as a television. I just don't like it as a monitor.
And, the present price on the televisions are about $400 each. They appear to be discontinued. Televisions in the same $200 price range that you paid have similar issues, though.
Pixel density lower? No shit...28” is tiny. Try running native 4K resolution desktop on a 28” 4K screen.
1) This is not the same television as the OP had, nor the same performance characteristics. 2) This is also not $200, as the OP's was. 3) Again, if this works for you, great. I don't have room for a 43-inch television on my desk, and I'll argue that most people don't. 4) AFAICT, that's 10.1ms response time, not input lag.
1) No, but it's reprenentative of current monitors since the older TVs will perform less well than 2019 TVs 2) See #1. 3) It's smaller than 2 or even 3 monitors many folks have. Which is why I elected to have a larger 4K display running my desktop at native resolution vs two smaller monitors running at a lower desktop resolution. Want to bet most folks aren't running 4K native desktop resolution on a 27" monitor? For the folks that don't understand what I mean...it means sliding the display resolution at Default for Display or all the way to the right for "more space" and not the middle. 4) 10.1ms is input lag in game mode. The 80% response time is 5.6ms. The 100% response time is 12.4ms.
To be clear, when you jack down the scaling menu, it isn't changing monitor resolution, it is only changing the proportionality of the user interface. So this monitor still has that native, full resolution with the full pixel density.
I run 4 40” 4K monitors, unfortunately not HDR, [Sceptre U405CV-UMS televisions] with KingOne USB-C to HDMI adapter cables and a Thunderbolt 3 hub from OWC on my 2017 MacBook Pro 15”.
That makes it hard to get excited about much. Got the monitors for $200 each on Amazon and couldn’t be happier. Why would I pay $349 for an indiscernible difference?
Because it isn't indiscernible. The pixel density is a bit over one-half on the televisions versus this monitor, the television isn't as bright, the backlight is different on the TV and worse, and the response time on the television is much, much worse. I'm glad it works for you, and I like the specs as a television. I just don't like it as a monitor.
And, the present price on the televisions are about $400 each. They appear to be discontinued. Televisions in the same $200 price range that you paid have similar issues, though.
Pixel density lower? No shit...28” is tiny. Try running native 4K resolution desktop on a 28” 4K screen.
1) This is not the same television as the OP had, nor the same performance characteristics. 2) This is also not $200, as the OP's was. 3) Again, if this works for you, great. I don't have room for a 43-inch television on my desk, and I'll argue that most people don't. 4) AFAICT, that's 10.1ms response time, not input lag.
1) No, but it's reprenentative of current monitors since the older TVs will perform less well than 2019 TVs 2) See #1. 3) It's smaller than 2 or even 3 monitors many folks have. Which is why I elected to have a larger 4K display running my desktop at native resolution vs two smaller monitors running at a lower desktop resolution. Want to bet most folks aren't running 4K native desktop resolution on a 27" monitor? For the folks that don't understand what I mean...it means sliding the display resolution at Default for Display or all the way to the right for "more space" and not the middle. 4) 10.1ms is input lag in game mode. The 80% response time is 5.6ms. The 100% response time is 12.4ms.
To be clear, when you jack down the scaling menu, it isn't changing monitor resolution, it is only changing the proportionality of the user interface. So this monitor still has that native, full resolution with the full pixel density.
To be clear it reduces the usable desktop space. The increased pixel density helps with artifacts and sharpness. While image editing program may not scale the canvas (it depends...many like photoshop doesn’t scale it) the image itself may be too small to work with unless you zoom...which again, results in a smaller workspace.
Comments
IPS, 10.1ms input lag, chroma 4:4:4, hdr peak brightness 359 cd/m²
Pixel density lower? No shit...28” is tiny. Try running native 4K resolution desktop on a 28” 4K screen.
2) This is also not $200, as the OP's was.
3) Again, if this works for you, great. I don't have room for a 43-inch television on my desk, and I'll argue that most people don't.
4) AFAICT, that's 10.1ms response time, not input lag.
i agree. 400 nits doesn’t even come close to a real minimum. Yes, with the so called HDR on, you can see a tiny difference. But just because there is that tiny difference, a fraction of a stop, photographically, doesn’t mean it’s HDR. In fact, many monitors and TVs can do 300-350 nits. It’s not that uncommon anymore.
There's no way I could shoe-horn a 40"+ monitor in to my workspace.
2) See #1.
3) It's smaller than 2 or even 3 monitors many folks have. Which is why I elected to have a larger 4K display running my desktop at native resolution vs two smaller monitors running at a lower desktop resolution. Want to bet most folks aren't running 4K native desktop resolution on a 27" monitor? For the folks that don't understand what I mean...it means sliding the display resolution at Default for Display or all the way to the right for "more space" and not the middle.
4) 10.1ms is input lag in game mode. The 80% response time is 5.6ms. The 100% response time is 12.4ms.
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/retina-scaling-bug-photoshop-not-accounting-for-macos-retina-scaling
if you work with word or editors for code development it certainly results in a smaller work canvas.