Anybody viewing BI with 4k TV/Monitor?

@nayr...the OP has 8 VGA cameras...he will not be able to tell the difference...do the math...the pixel loss is about 10 percent in a matrix view ....
As far as 1080p cameras, if you sit directly in front of the screen then you can notice the difference however if you are at a normal viewing distance you simply cannot notice the pixel loss...because the image is small to begin with.....I cant tell the difference between full screen 1080p on a 25" monitor and 6 cameras in a matrix at normal viewing distances because while you lose pixels the image gets smaller....that is why a cell phones image looks great even though its a low res substream...We can agree to disagree :)
 
well I guess I was following the OR (Original Replier) and not the OP :P

And I dont know how much weight should be put into "Normal Viewing Distances" with a dedicated security display.. unlike a TV you typically install these in a location they can be seen from all viewing distances.. from across the room to nearly putting your nose against it to investigate something..

Example, I have a dedicated display at my computer for my cameras.. plus two 27" monitors for work that are much greater than 1080p.. the computer monitors are mounted parallel to the wall and I always view them from the exact same position.. the normal viewing distance is 99.999% of the time.. My Camera monitor sits in the corner at a 45 degree angle and can be seen everywhere in the room, and even through the doorway as you walk by in the mudroom.. There is not really a normal viewing distance for that monitor, because I watch it from all distances.. and when there's activity I get even closer.

I think your taking alot of lessons of home theatre design and trying to apply them to security monitors.. security displays are not about quality, there about information.. more pixels = more info, even if the quality hasn't really improved.
 
Even in a security setting 2x1080p beats 1x4k simply because the image of each camera in the matrix is larger and you can see it better......where are talking about typical home systems here no 32-64 camera installs...a 4k monitor is the last thing anyone should spend money on particularly if you are running vga cameras...The op intends for the 4k tv to replace his living room tv..its a complete waste for security camera purposes...if you have other 4k content then that is a different story...money should be spent on quality cameras and recording devices...if you have money burning a hole in your pocket, then who am I to stop the purchase, but its not going to improve the systems objective in any way.
 
yeah its far too early to jump into 4k without a valid reason for it.. if I had twice as many cameras as I do now, I'd look at a small cheap unit for my office but as it stands no, my 4x720p substreams are fine on a 22" 1080p display.

1080p TV's are so fucking cheap right now that even if my home theatre TV blew up tomarrow I'd not buy a 4k TV.. would still be smarter to buy a huge bargin TV and wait until it goes to the junk yard in a few years.
 
Yeah, I cant believe no one makes a no frills hdtv without the smart crap....put the extra effort into great picture, quality build and a decent remote....
 
I think the first thing to get 4k in my house will be me replacing my two 27" 1920x1200 desktop monitors with 4k equivalents.. I'll probably cycle my existing computer monitor over to the security camera monitor if I can get em all to fit side by side.

then a few years later perhaps I will get one for the home theatre.. when I can get a massive one on Black Friday for under a grand, then there will be content.
 
Two things I found interesting from article

1)For TV watching, 4k only make sense for screen sizes over 80 inches, assuming 10ft viewing distance
2) But for PC, 4k makes sense for 30 inch monitor, assume 2-3 ft viewing

Costco and BJs puts 4k TVs on display so your only 3-4 ft away when viewing, nice trick.
 
My brother, a software engineer, uses a 50" Vizio UHD TV for his primary monitor at his home office. He has additional (legacy) 1920x1200 monitors scattered nearby, but that 50" makes me drool every time I visit. The sharpness and quantity of text and images he gets on that screen is mind-blowing. To see a schematic at 1:1 dpi resolution at 4K makes you realize how even 1080 is like looking at a billboard through a drinking straw.

I've seen 55" UHD TVs for well under $1k on SlickDeals.net. I'm tempted. My current setup has my i7 desktop attached to a single 1080P 28" monitor by way of an HDMI splitter. The splitter feeds my 70" 1080P TV in the family room via an 80' HDMI cable. Thus a single always-on PC can be used in both locations.

If I ended up getting a 4k, I'd have to get two, since Windows (or the HDMI splitter) can't mirror a screen to two different resolutions.

I know there are easier ways to do what I'm doing, but it's wired, it's working, and I'm content. I just have to look away when I visit my brother, or Best Buy, or HHGreg, or...
 
No. In fact, none of the TV's I've used as a PC monitor have had issue with turning off overscan. It's just a matter of selecting 'dot-by-dot', 'pixel-for-pixel', or '1:1'.

I think some of the older TVs that were 720p, but actually 1366x768 had issues with 1:1 mapping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom