QUOTE(adilz @ Jun 7 2016, 03:28 PM)
Assume you one one 27" 1080P monitor and another 27" 4K monitor, well the 1080P video will look the same in both. But if you run 4K content, it will look sharper on the 4K monitor than it will be on 1080P monitor. Sharpness depend on monitor size and res, and the of course the resulation of the content.
My 5.5inch phone screen with 1920x1080p res looks sharper than my Samsung 28" 3840 x 2160p monitor. Why? Coz the phone crams 400ppi whereas the monitor only 153ppi. A 28" FHD will only hacve 78.68 ppi. You can calculate ppi for any given screen size and resoution from this website
https://www.sven.de/dpi/only 4k i saw was on a 51'' HDTV becauz was considering whether to get 4k tv or not, whether any point for astro content

Looked nice but i'm sure the demos were running 4k content.
so watching on 1440p 1080p stuff won't add more black bars will it?
i'm using a dell u2413 24'' GBR monitor. colors look great, though for gaming it lacks gsync so stuck at 60hz refresh using triple vsync buffering....
also my table top can't fit a bigger monitor, as well as the existing 24'' is plenty big enough for my vision... so i don't particularly feel the need for going up to 27'' and above.... also the other reason, 1440p required a more stronger card to run in ultra settings at native reso, but for pascal this is not an issue any longer. even a 980ti was pretty acceptable, but i did not hop on that bandwagon.
QUOTE(SSJBen @ Jun 7 2016, 04:45 PM)
3440x2160 is an EXACT 4 times increament of resolution over 1920x1080. All a monitor or TV need to do is to quadruple the FHD image into UHD without any further calculations. This is different to when 480p was upscaled to 1080p, or 720p going to 1080p. Neither 720p or 480p were linear increase in pixel count when being upscaled to 1080p, which is why 480p often looks like horseshit in FHD (even with the best post-processing scaler).
1080p looks like 1080p on a "4k" screen because it's a linear increase, not because your "screen looks smaller". You can play a 1080p image on a 120" screen through a 4k projector, you'll actually see next to no difference between that and a 1080p projector to a 120" screen assuming all post-processing are disabled. Of course, the 4k projector would have much more advanced technologies to further boost a 1080p image to look even better than it originally did. This goes the same for most of the high-end "4" (UHD) TVs on the market now a days.
did not know this

but does resolve some of my concerns going for higher reso...
QUOTE(SSJBen @ Jun 7 2016, 04:45 PM)
All a smaller screen does is that it has much higher ppi/dpi, which will help mask aliasing issues, giving a perception things look sharper and better. The latter of which is actually down to panel quality as small panels are much more easier to produce in high quality than big panels are.
this i did know. and was why i stuck to a reso closer to 1080p because of this very reason.
QUOTE(SSJBen @ Jun 7 2016, 04:45 PM)
As a side note, instead of aiming to go for 4k60p, I heavily recommend people to go for a 1440p (QHD) at much higher refresh rates if gaming on PC is the main target. 1440p at 120hz (or 144hz) is a whole new level of improvement IMO. Even better if one can have Gsync, that's godlike upgrade there.
I'll keep drilling this point, 1440p @ 120hz (or 144hz) with Gysnc is the best sweetspot for PC gaming now. 4k60p is just 1080p60 with sharper visuals, of which does almost nothing to improve gameplay.
yeah i forgot this point. as far as i know 4k is capped at 60... compared to 1440p reso monitors that reach up to 144hz... if not mistaken
for a gamer they may prefer faster refresh.... i would anyway