Anybody viewing BI with 4k TV/Monitor?

[fenderman]

I appreciate what you are saying but its not the percentage of pixel loss, which is directly related to the resolution, it’s the pixel count as relative to the size of the image…that is why a vga image will look great on a small phone screen while it looks terrible on a larger monitor…as the image gets smaller in size the resolution can be downgraded significantly without being able to notice it on a monitor…
The user is way better off not spending the money on 4k and buying 1.3mp cameras..that way the actual image is improved...

 

[bp2008]

Well yes, it shouldn't be a high priority to have a 4K monitor, since as you say the money is usually better spent elsewhere. But once you have a complete camera system that you are happy with, a 4K monitor really makes a great difference in image clarity for the camera grid. Whether the difference is worth anything besides eye candy is another question entirely.

 

[MartyO]

Well yes, it shouldn't be a high priority to have a 4K monitor, since as you say the money is usually better spent elsewhere. But once you have a complete camera system that you are happy with, a 4K monitor really makes a great difference in image clarity for the camera grid. Whether the difference is worth anything besides eye candy is another question entirely.

I think I know why fenderman doesn't like large high res monitor. Its cause his nose almost touches the screen when he is looking at it, so he can't see all the cameras. ok that make sense.

 

[fenderman]

I think I know why fenderman doesn't like large high res monitor. Its cause his nose almost touches the screen when he is looking at it, so he can't see all the cameras. ok that make sense.

What are you taking about? If my nose touched the screen it would make a better argument for 4k...as you move away from a screen, the difference between 1080p and 4k becomes less noticeable when watching true 4k content....look I dont care...I could care less if you blow your money on a 4k monitor rather then get cameras that can produce a good image..if you choose to use toy vga cameras, thats your call...Just dont want others making the same mistake based on your misinformation...
In fact I urge you to buy the 4k monitor...let us know how it turns out..

 

[MartyO]

Sure it will be my TV for home, but BI pc will be attached so I can view cameras, it will sit under TV. What bothers me is content for 4k is mostly non existent. So it could be a waste cause only BI PC will be able to utilize 4k .

Sorry, I like to joke. you can take out the stick and ......

 

[MartyO]

Fenderman, hey you have mucho good posts. most of time.

 

[bp2008]

I just wish 4K was available affordably in projectors, but it isn't. 4K is most meaningful on truly enormous screen sizes, and I've been using 100+ inch projection screens as the TV for nearly a decade.

 

[MartyO]

I just wish 4K was available affordably in projectors, but it isn't. 4K is most meaningful on truly enormous screen sizes, and I've been using 100+ inch projection screens as the TV for nearly a decade.

Large screen I agree, my brother in law has a 50-55 inch 4k at his business, with 16 cameras (I think 3Mpixel) recorder is a 16 channel POE. In playback you can select 4 cameras, looks nice. FOV of his cameras are 20-100 feet, so 3Mpixel cameras make sense.

 

[MartyO]

Even with all 16 camera, looks nice.

 

[bp2008]

If it is an NVR he is using then I bet it is only outputting a 1080p video signal. Maybe not though?

 

[MartyO]

it definitely more than 1080p, next time there I get model of recorder and cameras

 

[erkme73]

This was a fun read. I think you guys are missing each other. What I think fenerman is missing is the extra real estate that you get with a higher native resolution. When BI can spread across 3840 pixels, you can display more content on a single screen. It's like have a laptop screen with a 1280x720 native resolution, and then moving to one with 1920x1080. Even if the physical screen is the same size, assuming your eyes are good/young enough, you can fit nearly 2x the amount of content on the same screen, with razor sharp clarity.

If I try to fit all 30+ cameras on my 1080p 70" TV, they fit, but they're very pixelated (btw, why does Chrome's spell check not know that pixelated is spelled correctly??!). I can only imagine that a 4k screen would allow those same images to come across with higher clarity, since each one has more real estate.

Agreed, the cameras, individually, aren't 4k, but their indexed/matrix view should be much clearer. And, let's face it... if the video card on the PC is pumping out 4k resolution to a 4k monitor, then unarguably, the monitor is displaying 4k content.

 

[fenderman]

There is no extra real estate.. A 24 inch screen is still 24 inches, whether it's 4k or 16k... The same exact number of cameras will fit and they will be the exact same size on the screen.. And it's not 4k unless the video source is 4k and it's displayed in full screen.. ...

Sent via Taptalk

 

[erkme73]

Ok, try putting two browsers side-by-side on a 24" monitor set to 800x600. Then do the same thing with it set to 1080p. Which one can you read? Which one is clearer, and doesn't run off the page? Now try to put FOUR browsers side-by-side on a 50" 1080p, and do the same thing with a 50" 4k. Again, which one will show the full four pages (without scrolling) and in full clarity?

When I say real estate, I don't mean physical screen dimension. I mean you can put more stuff on the screen and be able to read it, without having to look at it through a drinking straw.

I'm using a 70" Sharp TV as my primary monitor. I sit in my recliner in my family room, about 12' away. I can read everything on the screen reasonably well when it's set to the max 1080p resolution. If it were a 4k, I would NOT be able to use it at 4K as a monitor, unless I moved considerably closer to the set. My eyes just can't read tiny print from a distance any more.

But, if I had a 70" 2-4 feet away sitting at a desk, I would LOVE to have 4k. It would be like having 4 individual 1080p monitors in a quad configuration without the seams.

 

[fenderman]

I understand what you are saying..but with camera images, as you add more cameras to the matrix the image gets smaller negating any loss of resolution...unless you sit too close to the screen ....same way a low bitrate low res image looks great on my 5" cell phone screen...its all about the screen size to resolution and how far you are away from the tv...that is why its almost impossible to tell 720p tv from a 1080p tv on the smaller tv's when you sit at a proper distance...in fact I believe that unlike blue iris, many NVR's (probably most, though I havent mess with standalones in quite a while) display the cameras substeams in the matrix view...because there is little benefit to higher res and they would need a much more powerful processor...
Even if it was better its the last thing anyone should spend money on....

 

[erkme73]

A 5" cell phone with an 800 x 400 resolution vs. a 5" cell phone with a 2160x1400 resolution will most certainly show a difference. I think you're getting hung up on the physical size. Assuming your eyes are good enough (or you use a magnifying glass), having the application stream at a higher bit rate, even on a smaller screen, will still appear clearer than the same sized screen at a lower native resolution.

My Samsung Note 2 had a 1280 screen. My Note 4 has a 2160 screen. You would think that at 5.5", that wouldn't make a perceptible difference - but it does. The same YT videos on the Note 2 look infinitely clearer on the Note 4 - and they're streaming at the same bit rate. That is, the resolution of the content was higher than the screen resolution on the Note 2.

I really thought that I could help translate what looked like two people speaking different languages - but I think it's clear you really don't see the advantage to having a desktop with 3840x2160 pixels vs. 1920x1080 when displaying items that aren't specifically using 4k resolution.

My suggestion to you, if you haven't tried it already - watch a 4k monitor being used as a PC display. If it isn't for BI specifically, it'd be for the increase in multi-tasking.

 

[fenderman]

A 5" cell phone with an 800 x 400 resolution vs. a 5" cell phone with a 2160x1400 resolution will most certainly show a difference. I think you're getting hung up on the physical size. Assuming your eyes are good enough (or you use a magnifying glass), having the application stream at a higher bit rate, even on a smaller screen, will still appear clearer than the same sized screen at a lower native resolution.

My Samsung Note 2 had a 1280 screen. My Note 4 has a 2160 screen. You would think that at 5.5", that wouldn't make a perceptible difference - but it does. The same YT videos on the Note 2 look infinitely clearer on the Note 4 - and they're streaming at the same bit rate. That is, the resolution of the content was higher than the screen resolution on the Note 2.

I really thought that I could help translate what looked like two people speaking different languages - but I think it's clear you really don't see the advantage to having a desktop with 3840x2160 pixels vs. 1920x1080 when displaying items that aren't specifically using 4k resolution.

My suggestion to you, if you haven't tried it already - watch a 4k monitor being used as a PC display. If it isn't for BI specifically, it'd be for the increase in multi-tasking.

I have played with 4k monitors and dont see a benefit..in fact for pc and laptops I prefer lower resolutions....I dont like having to increase text size in windows and some programs dont scale properly...
Yes if you put your face right up to the screen it might look better, but thats not how monitors are supposed to be used....worst part is the OP is considering a 4k screen for vga cameras...that is as backwards as it gets..

 

[bp2008]

Here are some typical monitor PPI (Pixels per inch) measurements, ordered ascending by PPI. Most common monitors fall between 90 and 110 PPI.

Resolution	Diagonal	PPI
1920x1080	27 inches (68.58cm)	81.59
1920x1080	24 inches (60.96cm)	91.79
1920x1200	24 inches (60.96cm)	94.34
1920x1080	23 inches (58.42cm)	95.78
3840x2160	44 inches (111.76cm)	100.13
1920x1080	21.5 inches (54.61cm)	102.46
2560x1440	27 inches (68.58cm)	108.79
1920x1080	20 inches (50.8cm)	110.15
3840x2160	40 inches (101.6cm)	110.15
3840x2160	39 inches (99.06cm)	112.97
3840x2160	28 inches (71.12cm)	157.35
3840x2160	24 inches (60.96cm)	183.58

I ran a 28 inch 4K monitor for about a year and the high PPI made it difficult to use for anything but cameras, which were extra sharp on this monitor. If I had been using Windows 8.1 I could have scaled just that monitor, but Win7 does not provide that option. I was happy to swap it on my desk with a 40 inch 4K TV a few months ago. The TV works nicely as an unscaled computer monitor because like erkme73 says, it is "like having 4 individual 1080p monitors in a quad configuration without the seams".

 

[MartyO]

http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/


nice article for comparing monitor resolution.

 

[nayr]

I dont say this very often, but your wrong fenderman.. dunno where the disconnect is, but its there somewhere..

the higher resolution your camera monitor, the more cameras you can fit on the screen without loosing quality..

If I have 1 1080p Video stream being displayed on a 1080p monitor.. no loss, got it?
If I have 4 1080p Video streams being displayed on a 1080p monitor, I am only getting 1/4 of the pixels.. Got it?
If I have 4 1080p Video streams being displayed on a 4k monitor, I am getting much more than 1/4 of the pixels.. nearly got all 4 streams displaying without any pixel loss.

One Very large UHD 4k Display is going to be roughly the same realestate as four small 1080p monitors.. Nobody is talking about viewing a single non 4k stream on a 4k monitor, which is where you seem to be stuck at.

Dunno if you have ever tried loading 64 cameras up on a 1080p monitor, but the end result is a massive loss of pixels.. far below SD TV quality, regardless the resolution of the original cameras.. a 50" 1080p display with 64 cameras and a 50" 4k display with 64 cameras is going to be worlds apart in clarity... and worth the money if you can get the same quality from 1 monitor vs 4

IMHO Nobody should be trying to load 64 cameras up on a 27in or smaller monitor, regardless of resolution..