Not sure about brightness the 1000 NITS is nice but thats only on 10% of the screen, my guess is pretty sub-par for brightness across a larger area of the screen. Brightness has been a problem with OLED since the beginning.

Speaking of TVs. Really miss dual picture and picture in picture. And never understand why it dissapeared. My first LCD 42" TV had it. It was so nice. One half of screen was TV and other half was VGA input computer. Nowdays I would use one half to play movies from USB and other side a computer. If ended my hacking session, and started playing, then closed TV portion and VGA portion goes full screen. Have not find this function even in some exotic chinese models.

Cyberdyne wrote on 2024-05-15, 03:29:

Speaking of TVs. Really miss dual picture and picture in picture. And never understand why it dissapeared.

Probably because you were like one of four people in the world using it.

I have this feature on almost every one of my desktop monitors (which are "sort of" high end), and haven't used it even once. I admit it would probably be more useful on a large screen TV. The LG C1 OLED which I have, seems to support some form of PIP, as 'Multi-view', but it is limited to specific apps and app combinations, and does not give you a full flexibility of inputs.

One segment where I would expect this feature to have gained more traction - is the security segment. I envision it being useful viewing video from multiple security cameras and other sources on the same screen. Although it is probably handled by software like everything else nowadays.

The thing is. I like to see... mostly hear old sitcoms/redlettermedia if I am ... awake. And retro computers do not shine mutch in multitasking to play video in the backround. One screen was just convenient. Now i use an old Android phone with offline videos and mostly plug in the wall(old battery). Just pointless to run 2 full size screens.

I own a TCL MiniLED 75" 4K TV and it is amazing..

People tend to use smart apps on their TV for the major streamers and when built in Netflix no longer works people get a new TV.

I have a 720P 32" TV in my room because I still play 720P content like XBOX and DVD's on it plus OTA broadcasts that are 720P or 1080i. The TV in the Livingroom is a 55" 4K smart TV that has never seen 4K content.

For LCD stand alone computer monitors I have 1024x768 (17") 1280x1024 (19"), 1680x 1050 (22"?), 1980x1024 (23 and 24"). 1080P gaming is just fine for me same with general computer work. Old school computers are best on a CRT where one of my 14", 15", 17", or 19" screens can display whatever low resolution is needed at a flicker free frequency. My old school consoles get connected to my 27" Panasonic TV. I also have a high end Panasonic 27" flat screen CRT TV with perfect black that needs fixed. That TV had picture in picture and S-Video in both in front and back making console gaming easy. Never bothered to fix it because I have other options nor junked it because it is 100 lbs. and probably easy to fix when I need to. I also have one of those old SONY CRT Pro video monitors to show output from my old analog video editing gear.

When I was younger, I kept upgrading CRT monitors because I wanted higher resolution plus a better dot pitch and refresh rate at least until I hit 19" and anything above that was too heavy for my particle board computer desks and also the back end needed too much overhang. To be honest playing an old 320x240 CGA game on a 14" monitor was just fine, same as watching a VHS tape on a 27" CRT TV. I should connect a VHS VCR to the 4K TV (I think it has a RCA in) just to see how good the built in scaler is on it, but I assume it would look like crap.

For using my primary PC, I stick to 1080p. Never been interested in trying 1440p and 4k resolutions. Mainly because I've been happy with my 144Hz 24" Samsung Monitor which can go up to 1080p. But who knows? If somehow my monitor starts to crap out then I'll might try out a 144Hz 27" as a upgrade.

For using vintage hardware, that depends. On a Pentium II machine, I tend to play some demanding games like Unreal at 512x384 resolution to squeeze in more frames. That is because I don't own a 3dfx card and oftentimes DirectX can be a hit or miss (like the W-buffer issue when using a TNT2 M64 for instance)

Desktop resolution I mostly use is either 800x600 or 1024x768 but sometimes I use 640x480. Though I do believe screen resolution is more important when using vintage Macintoshes because certain games don't really scale on higher resolutions. Whenever I fire up Wolfenstein 3D for instance, I make sure the resolution is at 640x480.

One more thing - wasn't the move from HD to 4k a bit rushed? I mean, 1080p is by far the most popular resolution for gaming (at least according to Steam's hardware & software survey as of April'24), and that's pretty understandable, as only the most powerful & expensive GPUs and CPUs allow to run modern AAA titles in 4k in 60+ fps at anything above medium details.

But it's not only the PC hardware that can barely keep up with the jump to 4k! Where I live, the terrestrial TV stations have only just moved to HD, with some still broadcasting in SD AFAIK. True 4k content can only be found online via streaming or on UHD Bluray discs, which isn't the most popular format out there, is it? And you'd be hard pressed to find an HD TV set in any physical store, it's all 4K now. And I think we can all agree that 1080p doesn't always look all that good when displayed on a 4k TV.

Move from HD to 4K was actually fairly gradual through 1440p on the desktop. Media jumped from HD to 4K straight with BluRay so TVs followed suite, unlike desktop monitors.

Yeah, but regular ol' Bluray is in HD rather than 4K!

revolstar wrote on 2024-05-16, 11:46:

One more thing - wasn't the move from HD to 4k a bit rushed? I mean, 1080p is by far the most popular resolution for gaming (at least according to Steam's hardware & software survey as of April'24), and that's pretty understandable, as only the most powerful & expensive GPUs and CPUs allow to run modern AAA titles in 4k in 60+ fps at anything above medium details.

But it's not only the PC hardware that can barely keep up with the jump to 4k! Where I live, the terrestrial TV stations have only just moved to HD, with some still broadcasting in SD AFAIK. True 4k content can only be found online via streaming or on UHD Bluray discs, which isn't the most popular format out there, is it? And you'd be hard pressed to find an HD TV set in any physical store, it's all 4K now. And I think we can all agree that 1080p doesn't always look all that good when displayed on a 4k TV.

It's all about your TVs upscaling. 1080P can look great on a 4k TV, it looks great on mine. Even 480P content is acceptable on my 4k TV. I gave my mother a spare Red Dwarf Season 2 DVD I had for her to watch, it looks fine on my 4k TV but from what she tells me it looks so bad its unwatchable on hers. Of course her TV cost a fraction of what mine cost, so there ya go...

I always though Backwards compatability was an unnecessary feature on consoles, I never used it, but on a TV being Signal and Resolution backwards compatible is super important unless you want to try replacing all your media with each upgrade.

revolstar wrote on 2024-05-16, 11:46:

But it's not only the PC hardware that can barely keep up with the jump to 4k! Where I live, the terrestrial TV stations have only just moved to HD, with some still broadcasting in SD AFAIK. True 4k content can only be found online via streaming or on UHD Bluray discs, which isn't the most popular format out there, is it? And you'd be hard pressed to find an HD TV set in any physical store, it's all 4K now. And I think we can all agree that 1080p doesn't always look all that good when displayed on a 4k TV.

i admit i dont have a 4k so havent experienced 1080 on 4k myself, can it be that bad? i'm fine with dvd on a 1080 for instance. if i sit far enough away my mind does the best upscaling 😀

i dont mind broadcasters trailing behind, i'd rather they carry on with less and not give up yet, its a slowly disappearing industry - i guess almost all broadcast tv, radio and so on will slowly go as everything becomes 5g, 6g and more and more connected/online

It's like Shaggitarius said, it probably all boils down to the quality of the TV's built-in upscaler, but it's always some sort of compromise, innit?

revolstar wrote on 2024-05-16, 20:18:

It's like Shaggitarius said, it probably all boils down to the quality of the TV's built-in upscaler, but it's always some sort of compromise, innit?

A lot of the good ones seem to add what appears to be minor grain and error diffusion, not sure that’s really just upscaling at that point

High-end realtime scaling/analogue noise reduction/MPEG2 mosquito noise reduction/MPEG2 macroblock reduction/etc products from the likes of Faroudja, DVDO, etc used to be a thing.

There was also somewhat similar functionality in some products meant for the TV broadcast and cable/satellite industry. These were arguably not always configured optimally.

dr_st wrote on 2024-05-14, 08:51:

I would argue that from a practical POV - the 4:3 vs 16:9 (or wider) argument may have mattered during the early days of 16:9, but not anymore. With a large enough screen and a high enough resolution, you can take any widescreen monitor, have it displayed a centered 4:3 image, and still enjoy higher resolution and a physically larger picture than you would during the era of the last 4:3 screens. The reverse argument does not hold, because 4:3 screens that can display centered 16:9 would be way too tall.

Your argument holds IF you have the space for that large 16:9 display. Sure, 4:3 content looks good on a 65" or 75" 16:9 display. But, not everyone has a desk and / or desire to cart, say, a 42" 16:9 computer monitor around to display 4:3 content big enough.

However, if you want a 4:3 AR in a laptop these days you're SOL. That's why I think there's demand for a 15" 4:3 laptop screen. Like we saw in the '90s and early 2000s, but with much better display technology (OLED, for example), lower power consumption, better color and refresh rates, etc. And better CPU speed and much more RAM. For portability and able to run modern software *and* DOS bare metal in the proper AR while "filling the screen" without ridiculous distortion. That's such a pain, and 99% of laptops these days do not have a 1:1 pixel display mode; they all stretch the image to fill the 16:9 AR.

The 3:2 screens on the MS Surfaces is pretty nice. I've also seen at least one new 16:10 gaming notebook out there.

You can still buy good quality 24" 16:10 desktop monitors brand new. See the Asus ProArt line for example.

These can display 4:3 resolutions pretty nicely as well.

zyzzle wrote on 2024-05-18, 00:12:

Your argument holds IF you have the space for that large 16:9 display. Sure, 4:3 content looks good on a 65" or 75" 16:9 display. But, not everyone has a desk and / or desire to cart, say, a 42" 16:9 computer monitor around to display 4:3 content big enough.

Yes, if your desk is very narrow and cramped, you might have a problem. If you really want a 21" 4:3 screen, and don't have a room even for a 24" 8:5 monitor, then you might feel sorry that there are no 21" 4:3 monitors in the market. I believe that is the exception, not the norm.

zyzzle wrote on 2024-05-18, 00:12:

However, if you want a 4:3 AR in a laptop these days you're SOL. That's why I think there's demand for a 15" 4:3 laptop screen. Like we saw in the '90s and early 2000s, but with much better display technology (OLED, for example), lower power consumption, better color and refresh rates, etc.

4:3 is not back yet, but 3:2 is available in some screen sizes.

zyzzle wrote on 2024-05-18, 00:12:

That's such a pain, and 99% of laptops these days do not have a 1:1 pixel display mode; they all stretch the image to fill the 16:9 AR.

I believe the GPU can take care of 1:1 / aspect scaling in most cases.

Its Happening.
This was unthinkable and unaffordable just a few years ago.