So I need help. Apparently there's some stuff called scaling which I have no idea about (since I've been doing most of my gaming with PC and native resolution), and I'm curious if I were to buy a 4k monitor, would it have a 120 hz for 1080 resolution, and would it be good for gaming?
I want the 4k resolution for editing photos (and maybe for some games my hw can run on 60hz), but fast FPS I really would like to have option to play 120hz / 120 fps. Are the new 4K monitors good for this?
And what about the panel? Is the IPS a must-have? Because if not, there're stuff like this
Some help would be appreciated, I want to get a 4k monitor for my photog stuff, but I also want to have option to play OW 1080 @120fps
>>339792453
>4k
>ips
>1 ms response
holy shit nigger
>>339793038
The pictured Asus is TN, thus I'm asking if IPS is must have. It has 1ms response
Also is the G-sync or Freesync good to have? I noticed some screen tearing on https://youtu.be/EEMvkNSmXSY?t=327 :/
DON'T EVER PUT 1080P CONTENT ON 4K MONITORS
Despite what they tell you, no 4K display on earth currently has a 4:1 scaling process for 1080p, without this process, you are getting a blurred, scratched, interoplated, jaggied mess of pixels.
Even if 2160 x 3840 is exactly 4x as large as 1080 x 1920, the display will use an interpolator regardless of signal for the sake of compatability. The signal will not just blow up, 4 pixels will not just represent one, it will be interpolated, it will be ugly as fuck, and you will regret your purchase.
>>339794085
What about the newer monitors, are they better, or is this problem still with newer gen 4k monitors?
>>339795073
I never claimed to be a professional photo editor or professional photographer. It's a hobby, but gaming is also equally as important to me.
The notion that "it's not IPS, thus it must be bad" could be changing with never generation of panels. It seems that every panel design/choice has their pro/cons, and with newer tech there surfaces workarounds / newer innovation around those shortcomings.
>>339794085
Why the fuck? How are the manufacturers that dumb?
>>339794085
Any modern UHD does 4:1
>>339796718
Got anything to back that up?
>>339796718
He's saying it uses interpolation scaling instead of the fucking obvious nearest neighbor which would resolve any scaling issue from 1080p to 2160p.
Sad how TVs can do this but monitors can't, and apparently GPUs can't do this either?
>>339797714
I'll back that up if you back that ass up
>>339797901
This. Just got a 4K TV in a month ago for more recent stuff, and it does 1080p wonderfully, to the point where outside some jaggies it is hard to tell the difference in most cases.
Although this is probably just my TV, but there are some oddities. 1440p on my TV has a weird 30 FPS lock (Going to dive into the settings for it later and see if I can fix that), and going above 3,840 x 2,160 will display properly, but cut out the sound.
>>339792453
The explanation I heard was.
Tv's have dedicated uspcaler that does upscaling nicely, monitors are normally used with PC's so they dont have any uspcalers because it would be rarely used feature and would just baloon costs.
Also uspcaling to 4k increase input lag and can look very bad so for consoles its better to go with normal fullHD.
