Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   Deal Talk (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Seiki 39-Inch 4K (3840 x 2160 Resolution) LED HDTV $639 Or Seiki 50-Inch 4K (3840 x 2160 Resolution) LED HDTV $869 + free shipping (http://slickdeals.net/f/6240186-seiki-39-inch-4k-3840-x-2160-resolution-led-hdtv-639-or-seiki-50-inch-4k-3840-x-2160-resolution-led-hdtv-869-free-shipping)

purificada 08-25-2013 10:58 AM

Seiki 39-Inch 4K (3840 x 2160 Resolution) LED HDTV $639 Or Seiki 50-Inch 4K (3840 x 2160 Resolution) LED HDTV $869 + free shipping
 
2 Attachment(s)
some pretty nice deals for Seiki 4K ultra hd hdtv's


Seiki 39-Inch 4K HDTV $639 free shipping with coupon code c1137259936
link [buydig.com]

Seiki 50-Inch 4K HDTV $869 + free shipping with coupon code c1137259698
link [buydig.com]

Yaemish 08-25-2013 11:09 AM

Nice low price for one of these. But consumers should know that at this time there are no media formats being sold that take advantage of this resolution and the resolution is so high, cable and satellite providers aren't going to be pumping ultraHD content into our homes without significant infrastructure upgrades.

NODES 08-25-2013 11:10 AM

and it is no good as a PC monitor the 30HZ is unbearable.

fourml8r 08-25-2013 11:16 AM

gonna need a lot of extra bandwidth

coolwaterz 08-25-2013 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaemish (Post 61537384)
Nice low price for one of these. But consumers should know that at this time there are no media formats being sold that take advantage of this resolution and the resolution is so high, cable and satellite providers aren't going to be pumping ultraHD content into our homes without significant infrastructure upgrades.


what about the "retina" display (aka WQXGA)
as much as i hate apple the high resolution makes the overall picture much sharper and clearer.

when im 2 feet away from my 55" i can see the pixelation but it becomes non-existent after 5-6 ft where i sit.

Guyman 08-25-2013 11:31 AM

never heard of this brand. pass

tooloud10 08-25-2013 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laphroaigh (Post 61537378)
Read this before you waste your money

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3319...k-led-lcd/

I see a few flaws in CNET's little test, like choosing two completely different technologies and testing them both in the kind of room that plays best for the cheaper set, but the bottom line for me is that if nobody ever "wastes" their money on bleeding-edge technology, nobody will bother producing any more bleeding-edge technology.

Thumbs up if only for Seiki having the cajones to disrupt the market like this. You may call the set garbage, but Seiki is doing us all a favor by releasing these things.

petard 08-25-2013 11:33 AM

I wish they had just put a DisplayPort connector on these, then you'd be able to do 4K at 60Hz with a PC.

TravisD94 08-25-2013 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laphroaigh (Post 61537378)
Read this before you waste your money

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3319...k-led-lcd/

Why would you take something like that seriously, they compare the image quality of a 1280x720p screen to a 3840x2160 watching a 1080i video. Of course the 720p screen will look better, it has to SHRINK THE IMAGE, while the 4K TV has to QUADRUPLE THE SIZE.

Why not talk about using it as a coding or work based monitor, with 4X the screen real-estate as 1080p [anandtech.com] for example. That's where this actually has an advantage. Sure you won't be able to get 60Hz, but come on, a 4K monitor for $640? Try to find something else with that resolution at that price range.

petard 08-25-2013 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laphroaigh (Post 61537378)
Read this before you waste your money

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3319...k-led-lcd/

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooloud10 (Post 61537708)
I see a few flaws in CNET's little test, like choosing two completely different technologies and testing them both in the kind of room that plays best for the cheaper set, but the bottom line for me is that if nobody ever "wastes" their money on bleeding-edge technology, nobody will bother producing any more bleeding-edge technology.

Thumbs up if only for Seiki having the cajones to disrupt the market like this. You may call the set garbage, but Seiki is doing us all a favor by releasing these things.

This is a terrible review. Show some 4K content on the 4K panel and downscale it for the 1080p panel and re-compare.

There isn't really much 4K content available yet but I don't see why they're comparing a low-end 4K panel to a lower-end 720p panel. A $500 720p panel better good specs other than resolution to make up for it being just 720p.

jmor 08-25-2013 12:09 PM

$900 bucks for a 39" tv? ripoff.

Strmtrper6 08-25-2013 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NODES (Post 61537404)
and it is no good as a PC monitor the 30HZ is unbearable.

It can however do 120hz at 1080p. Or is it called 2k now? Stupid naming conventions that marketers push.

Anyways, since it is exactly half the res, you shouldn't see much scaling issues I'd hope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmor (Post 61538144)
$900 bucks for a 39" tv? ripoff.

It is 50" for ~$900. And it is a 4K set.

Either way, I'm not touching them till they get their refresh up to 60 or preferably 120hz.

HardD99 08-25-2013 12:23 PM

are we really back to comparing lcd to plasma? we all know that plasma has great black levels.... thats beside the point tho for this screen.

Strmtrper6 08-25-2013 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooloud10 (Post 61537708)
I see a few flaws in CNET's little test, like choosing two completely different technologies and testing them both in the kind of room that plays best for the cheaper set, but the bottom line for me is that if nobody ever "wastes" their money on bleeding-edge technology, nobody will bother producing any more bleeding-edge technology.

Thumbs up if only for Seiki having the cajones to disrupt the market like this. You may call the set garbage, but Seiki is doing us all a favor by releasing these things.


Also, I love their comparison pics. "We want you to compare 3840x2160 to 1280x720... so here is a picture of both of them at the super high resolution of...610x201??

RonPaulFan 08-25-2013 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmor (Post 61538144)
$900 bucks for a 39" tv? ripoff.

Read again, $649 for the 39".

I would be using this for a monitor doing CAD work where I need the real estate but not color accuracy so I don't need to spend the $1000 for the best but smaller 30" computer monitors.

GoldenTiger 08-25-2013 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petard (Post 61537716)
I wish they had just put a DisplayPort connector on these, then you'd be able to do 4K at 60Hz with a PC.

Seriously... if they'd put the boards & connector to do 60hz or better, I'd be buying one in a heartbeat. As-is though I'm sticking with my 110hz 2560x1440 PLS monitor... I'll go 4K once I can get a ~60-75hz panel . Still, it's definitely good for us as buyers to have the market disrupted by these things, as it'll only result in quicker price drops on newer products. I'm still tempted to get one for coding, but I don't think it's worth it for me just yet.

rwmj5 08-25-2013 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmor (Post 61538144)
$900 bucks for a 39" tv? ripoff.

It's hilarious watching people's awkward responses to this product who have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about whatsoever.

I'm not sure if people commenting here are mentally challenged, ignorant, or trolling.

NODES 08-25-2013 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwmj5 (Post 61538444)
It's hilarious watching people's awkward responses to this product who have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about whatsoever.

I'm not sure if people commenting here are mentally challenged, ignorant, or trolling.


:lmao:

GoldenTiger 08-25-2013 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwmj5 (Post 61538444)
It's hilarious watching people's awkward responses to this product who have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about whatsoever.

I'm not sure if people commenting here are mentally challenged, ignorant, or trolling.

Survey says.... IGNORANT!

NODES 08-25-2013 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strmtrper6 (Post 61538276)
It can however do 120hz at 1080p. Or is it called 2k now? Stupid naming conventions that marketers push.

Anyways, since it is exactly half the res, you shouldn't see much scaling issues I'd hope.



It is 50" for ~$900. And it is a 4K set.

Either way, I'm not touching them till they get their refresh up to 60 or preferably 120hz.


You are not buying it for 1080P though...

pipdipchip 08-25-2013 12:41 PM

More than anything, these make great monitors for many non-game applications. That said, HDMI 2.0 can't come fast enough. DisplayPort would be great but I don't see them putting that on something sold as TV. I wish Seiki would make a Pro version of these with guaranteed 120hz refresh and DisplayPort.

bcg27 08-25-2013 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger (Post 61538412)
Seriously... if they'd put the boards & connector to do 60hz or better, I'd be buying one in a heartbeat. As-is though I'm sticking with my 110hz 2560x1440 PLS monitor... I'll go 4K once I can get a ~60-75hz panel . Still, it's definitely good for us as buyers to have the market disrupted by these things, as it'll only result in quicker price drops on newer products. I'm still tempted to get one for coding, but I don't think it's worth it for me just yet.

Agreed if this would do 60 Hz I would seriously consider it as a computer monitor. Can never have too much screen real estate. It's almost the same pixel density as my 27" 1440p monitor as well - about 4 ppi higher.

FreeeStufffer 08-25-2013 01:04 PM

just started my blu ray movie collection now there going to release ultra disc next dam :)

mythe 08-25-2013 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonPaulFan (Post 61538374)
Read again, $649 for the 39".

I would be using this for a monitor doing CAD work where I need the real estate but not color accuracy so I don't need to spend the $1000 for the best but smaller 30" computer monitors.

Still though, 30Hz is probably going to be terrible to work with. Just watching your mouse move around the screen and panning objects is just going to make it seem like everything is lagging. I'd much rather use 3 1080p monitors in a portrait set up. For $650 you can get 3 very nice ultra thin bezel monitors. Even one of the Korean 2560x1600 monitors for the same price would end up more useable than this imo.

proppat 08-25-2013 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonPaulFan (Post 61538374)
Read again, $649 for the 39".

I would be using this for a monitor doing CAD work where I need the real estate but not color accuracy so I don't need to spend the $1000 for the best but smaller 30" computer monitors.

I would say that this would be one of the better uses for this screen, except staring at a 30hz monitor all day would probably give you a headache.

tky 08-25-2013 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laphroaigh (Post 61537378)
Read this before you waste your money

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3319...k-led-lcd/

Thanks for the information. i saw this link and your right..

Brooklynite 08-25-2013 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laphroaigh (Post 61537378)
Read this before you waste your money

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3319...k-led-lcd/

That guy who wrote that is a complete moron. No wonder cnet has zero reputation in technology.

infamouskong 08-25-2013 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwmj5 (Post 61538444)
It's hilarious watching people's awkward responses to this product who have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about whatsoever.

I'm not sure if people commenting here are mentally challenged, ignorant, or trolling.

All of the above!

It would be a bad time to buy a 4k tv at the moment due to the lack of 4k content. That being said, the review that cnet posted on this tv is pretty stupid. Playing 720p-1080p content on a 4k tv is like playing 360p content on a 1080p display...you're not going to have a good time.

Strmtrper6 08-25-2013 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mythe (Post 61538818)
Still though, 30Hz is probably going to be terrible to work with. Just watching your mouse move around the screen and panning objects is just going to make it seem like everything is lagging. I'd much rather use 3 1080p monitors in a portrait set up. For $650 you can get 3 very nice ultra thin bezel monitors. Even one of the Korean 2560x1600 monitors for the same price would end up more useable than this imo.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tky (Post 61538852)
Thanks for the information. i saw this link and your right..

I wouldn't trust his left or his right. That guy is clueless.

eladelia 08-25-2013 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NODES (Post 61537404)
and it is no good as a PC monitor the 30HZ is unbearable.

Depends on the individual and how you intend to use it.

For people who do serious computer work that involves a lot of text (coding, spreadsheets, etc), 4K can be fantastic and you're not typically moving things around at a rate where that limitation matters.

If you want to do some of that work and then switch to gaming, you can just do your gaming at a resolution below 4K and your refresh rate is more than fine. Moderately-recent graphics cards can do 4K, but the market of people who have the computer hardware to game at 4K with decent framerates is very small. There are way more people out there who are writing, programming, doing CAD work, dealing with databases, opening 50 console windows to monitor various processes, etc.

Of course, there ARE people out there already routinely gaming at framerates around and below 30. People vary substantially in what they're comfortable with in this area, and the type of game you're playing has a pretty huge impact as well. (I remember when Civ IV first came out and there was a really bad memory leak in the initial version of the game that would slowly drop my framerate over time. Rapid motion in the game is minimal enough that I would get down around 10 before it was completely intolerable and I had to save and restart the game so that I could start the process over again. I was really really happy when they patched that...)

I have one of these, and it's been great to have. When 4K is needed, I have 4K. When I want 1080p to watch a movie, it's right there. My video game consoles are also hooked up to it, and they do just fine on it. When I want a resolution somewhere between 1080p and 4K for PC gaming, I can absolutely do that.

Having DisplayPort to get better refresh rates at 4K would definitely have been nice, but it's still a very useful item to have for my purposes, and I know there are other people who do a lot of work where a massive amount of screen space can be valuable who are benefiting from it as well.

It seems like there's a segment of gamers that has a serious "Princess and the Pea" complex.

fourml8r 08-25-2013 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infamouskong (Post 61538910)
All of the above!

It would be a bad time to buy a 4k tv at the moment due to the lack of 4k content. That being said, the review that cnet posted on this tv is pretty stupid. Playing 720p-1080p content on a 4k tv is like playing 360p content on a 1080p display...you're not going to have a good time.

not agreeing with the review, however scientifically (Me being a scientist) it makes sense to have the correct control in the experiment.

obviously showing 4k content on a 4k panel will look better than a 720p image. but that is an unfair test. a fair test is to display content that bother sets can render. the results do point out that there is more to the image than resolution (specs). contrast ratio also plays a part among other things.

but the whole thing is pretty dumb considering u will have nothing to watch on ur new 4k tv when u buy it.

jacure 08-25-2013 01:44 PM

In for 39in. Computer screen:)

gidal 08-25-2013 01:45 PM

Those never heard of the brand, like to read CNET reviews. Early adopters or ones in need for 4K cheapie only need to apply here.
No need to do apple orange comparo with eyefiniti, etc. NOT the same. Need faster/better 4K, SPEND more and get a Sony or LG.
Oh wait, different price point... can't do that comparo either.
Seiki 4K is unique at the moment. If you have to compare or try to justify, it's not for you.

Vortex3D 08-25-2013 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaemish (Post 61537384)
Nice low price for one of these. But consumers should know that at this time there are no media formats being sold that take advantage of this resolution and the resolution is so high, cable and satellite providers aren't going to be pumping ultraHD content into our homes without significant infrastructure upgrades.

While you are correct, remember, a lot of general consumers who has the money to get the latest and greatest want to show off that they have the highest resolution UHDTV. Do they really understand or even care that there's no media for 4K resolution movies? I have seen friends who said come and check out my latest "TV" but they don't even have the movie to show me that can show that the "TV" can do. But they continue to try be impressed with the "TV" they have do in theory. And that is what 4K UHDTV manufacturers try to do.

It's kind of the same as most PS3 and X360 games graphics are made for 720p or lower but as long the "TV" can show "1080p" is enabled, they are happy but complained if the PS3 games can only run at 720p.

As always, perception sells, not fact.

jmor 08-25-2013 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwmj5 (Post 61538444)
It's hilarious watching people's awkward responses to this product who have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about whatsoever.

I'm not sure if people commenting here are mentally challenged, ignorant, or trolling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NODES (Post 61538484)
:lmao:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger (Post 61538492)
Survey says.... IGNORANT!

You're joking right? 4k is a gimmick on TVs smaller than 55". Unless you're sitting within a few feet you wont tell the difference between that and 1080 and the 30Hz refresh rate is horrible.

Unless you're using this as a monitor there's no reason to get it; and let's face it, there are much better monitors for $700.

How's that for ignorance?

wizziwig 08-25-2013 01:57 PM

Another review to consider:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cr.../index.htm

cstu 08-25-2013 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmor (Post 61539342)
You're joking right? 4k is a gimmick on TVs smaller than 55". Unless you're sitting within a few feet you wont tell the difference between that and 1080 and the 30Hz refresh rate is horrible.

Unless you're using this as a monitor there's no reason to get it; and let's face it, there are much better monitors for $700.

How's that for ignorance?

I don't need a monitor at 4k running 30hz. I also don't need 120hz at 1080p.

What I need to know is what resolution can this run at 60hz.

Can it run 1600 at 60hz?

lelcomedygold 08-25-2013 02:09 PM

lolol Seiki. WHY would anyone waste money on this crap? Ive seen gray market imitation "Sony" LCDs that look better than their crap. No self respecting B&M store should carry this brand, it belongs at a flea market.

woodygg 08-25-2013 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwmj5 (Post 61538444)
It's hilarious watching people's awkward responses to this product who have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about whatsoever.

I'm not sure if people commenting here are mentally challenged, ignorant, or trolling.

ignorant - but he's right unintentionally unless you're buying this for your pc.

s207307 08-25-2013 02:15 PM

Manufacturer links and deets:




39" SE39UY04 LED TV
4k2k, 120Hz
Size: 38.5" Diagonal Screen
Panel Resolution: 3840x2160
Maximum Color: 1.07 Billion

http://www.seikidigital.com/produ...detail.php




50" SE50UY04 LED TV
4k2k, 120Hz
Size: 50" Diagonal Screen
Panel Resolution: 3840x2160
Maximum Color: 1.07 Billion

http://www.seikidigital.com/produ...detail.php

chrisheinonen 08-25-2013 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petard (Post 61537736)
This is a terrible review. Show some 4K content on the 4K panel and downscale it for the 1080p panel and re-compare.

There isn't really much 4K content available yet but I don't see why they're comparing a low-end 4K panel to a lower-end 720p panel. A $500 720p panel better good specs other than resolution to make up for it being just 720p.

Because there is no 4K content available. There is currently no plan for 4K content to be available for likely another 12-18 months, and even then it will likely have an updated interface and set of specs compared to any current 4K display. The only 4K content actually available right now is upconverted content, which he tests using a Blu-ray player with a 4K scaler.

The point is between two display, with actual, current content that you actually watch, which looks better? If you have to have 4K, you're better off saving that money until there's a 4K standard and buying a higher quality set. If you want a better looking display overall with anything you'll watch today, buy the Samsung, save $700. If you only want the Seiki as a 39" desktop monitor that might be useful, but the 30 Hz might be too much of a drawback.

cstu 08-25-2013 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s207307 (Post 61539602)
Manufacturer links and deets:




39" SE39UY04 LED TV
4k2k, 120Hz
Size: 38.5" Diagonal Screen
Panel Resolution: 3840x2160
Maximum Color: 1.07 Billion

http://www.seikidigital.com/produ...detail.php

50" SE50UY04 LED TV
4k2k, 120Hz
Size: 50" Diagonal Screen
Panel Resolution: 3840x2160
Maximum Color: 1.07 Billion

http://www.seikidigital.com/produ...detail.php

Sucks that there's nothing in between 1080 and 4k.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lelcomedygold (Post 61539534)
lolol Seiki. WHY would anyone waste money on this crap? Ive seen gray market imitation "Sony" LCDs that look better than their crap. No self respecting B&M store should carry this brand, it belongs at a flea market.

Right, because you slap the word 'Sony' on it and suddenly it's an amazing piece of technology.

OCNewbie 08-25-2013 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laphroaigh (Post 61537378)
Read this before you waste your money

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3319...k-led-lcd/

Quoted for truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooloud10 (Post 61537708)
I see a few flaws in CNET's little test, like choosing two completely different technologies and testing them both in the kind of room that plays best for the cheaper set, but the bottom line for me is that if nobody ever "wastes" their money on bleeding-edge technology, nobody will bother producing any more bleeding-edge technology.

4K isn't really "bleeding-edge" technology, it's more of a gimmick technology.

eladelia 08-25-2013 02:26 PM

[QUOTE=cstu;61539644]Sucks that there's nothing in between 1080 and 4k.

This may be helpful (wasn't me who wrote it): http://www.amazon.com/review/R2DRBH1KNK9YBE

OCNewbie 08-25-2013 02:31 PM

Here's another 4k-related article I found that appears to be relevant (for anybody on the fence); I haven't read the article yet:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3319...ll-stupid/

mitchell8080 08-25-2013 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petard (Post 61537716)
I wish they had just put a DisplayPort connector on these, then you'd be able to do 4K at 60Hz with a PC.

Indeed, whoever managed this product during development should be fired.... How are you going to push a ultra res display with zero ability for enthusiasts to use it?

I would buy 2 at the drop of a hat if these had display ports for use as a desktop monitors.

Would love to reduce the 6 dell 24's down to just two monitors

SmokeyJ 08-25-2013 02:46 PM

simply amazing to see 4k tv's at this price.

Strmtrper6 08-25-2013 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisheinonen (Post 61539604)
Because there is no 4K content available. There is currently no plan for 4K content to be available for likely another 12-18 months, and even then it will likely have an updated interface and set of specs compared to any current 4K display. The only 4K content actually available right now is upconverted content, which he tests using a Blu-ray player with a 4K scaler.

I have a 4k video sitting in my temp folder right now. I got it off youtube. They've had 4k content since July 2010.

4k cameras can be had for under $500.

Superorb 08-25-2013 02:59 PM

If I could get a 32" LED set with higher resolution than my 1080p 32" LCD I'd do it. For a PC monitor I need higher resolution.

talkaboutdeals 08-25-2013 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCNewbie (Post 61539802)
Here's another 4k-related article I found that appears to be relevant (for anybody on the fence); I haven't read the article yet:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3319...ll-stupid/

The title of that article is deliberately meant to offend (and get you to click).

Some other gems over fairly recent years:
  • 1080 is no better than 720 at typical viewing distances
  • A smartphone is just a toy unless it has a physical keyboard
  • "Retina" displays are just hype, nobody needs more resolution

So yeah, I'm waiting for 60hz DisplayPort too. But you gotta give Seiki credit for slicing 2-3 years off 4K affordability. I'm surprised that CEO hasn't woken up with a horse's head in his bed.

Vortex3D 08-25-2013 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strmtrper6 (Post 61540014)
I have a 4k video sitting in my temp folder right now. I got it off youtube. They've had 4k content since July 2010.

4k cameras can be had for under $500.

At what picture quality or bitrate do those 4K Youtube videos are? Remember, highly compressed 4K video is worse than less compressed lower resolution video. It's also amusing to see so many places say they have 4K video but not a single one wants to show what bitrate their video is at.

Simply fate, if Youtube start to have low compressed 4K video with high bitrate, not many users can download them as they don't have the bandwidth.

I'm not saying this because I don't believe in 4K display but it's as good as if there are plenty of true (high bitrate) 4K movies available. Even another year from now, there is another problem with the movie studios releasing enough true 4K movies with 4K quality. Just because the source is 4K on film, it does not mean direct 4K film to 4K digital conversion is up to the quality. Remember, not all films are that well filmed in 4K even they are on 4K film. Same as digital. Example Star Wars Ep.1 was filmed in 1080p digitally. Do you think the movie will look like true 4K when it's to be converted to 4K someday? This will be an on-going problem with the movie studios will have in trying to release true 4K movies.

As I said, there will continue to have enough 4K UHDTV consumers because they want it even they don't have true 4K movies. It's the idea of feeling cool to have one to show off.

If 4K UHDTV is used as a computer monitor, that's a different story.

chrisheinonen 08-25-2013 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talkaboutdeals (Post 61540084)
The title of that article is deliberately meant to offend (and get you to click).

Some other gems over fairly recent years:
  • 1080 is no better than 720 at typical viewing distances
  • A smartphone is just a toy unless it has a physical keyboard
  • "Retina" displays are just hype, nobody needs more resolution

So yeah, I'm waiting for 60hz DisplayPort too. But you gotta give Seiki credit for slicing 2-3 years off 4K affordability. I'm surprised that CEO hasn't woken up with a horse's head in his bed.

Retina displays, 4K and everything else are all about context. Sit close with proper content and they look great. Sit too far away and you can't tell. If you want the math done for you, with lots of examples, you can find it here:

http://referencehometheater.com/2...-displays/

I raved about the 4K PC monitor I reviewed but I sit 2' away from it. I see no point for it in my living room where I am 9' away from a 50" screen. Different situations and different benefits.

cstu 08-25-2013 03:22 PM

[QUOTE=eladelia;61539756]
Quote:

Originally Posted by cstu (Post 61539644)
Sucks that there's nothing in between 1080 and 4k.

This may be helpful (wasn't me who wrote it): http://www.amazon.com/review/R2DRBH1KNK9YBE

Hmm, very tempted:

Quote:

2560x1440 (4 megapixel)@ 60hz

thehash 08-25-2013 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petard (Post 61537716)
I wish they had just put a DisplayPort connector on these, then you'd be able to do 4K at 60Hz with a PC.

u and me both...sometimes i just dont understand the logic manufactures use, im sure the display port dosnt cost that much to add. if this had display port i bet they would fly off the shelves.

Strmtrper6 08-25-2013 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vortex3D (Post 61540234)
At what picture quality or bitrate do those 4K Youtube videos are? Remember, highly compressed 4K video is worse than less compressed lower resolution video. It's also amusing to see so many places say they have 4K video but not a single one wants to show what bitrate their video is at.

Simply fate, if Youtube start to have low compressed 4K video with high bitrate, not many users can download them as they don't have the bandwidth.

I'm not saying this because I don't believe in 4K display but it's as good as if there are plenty of true (high bitrate) 4K movies available. Even another year from now, there is another problem with the movie studios releasing enough true 4K movies with 4K quality. Just because the source is 4K on film, it does not mean direct 4K film to 4K digital conversion is up to the quality. Remember, not all films are that well filmed in 4K even they are on 4K film. Same as digital. Example Star Wars Ep.1 was filmed in 1080p digitally. Do you think the movie will look like true 4K when it's to be converted to 4K someday? This will be an on-going problem with the movie studios will have in trying to release true 4K movies.

As I said, there will continue to have enough 4K UHDTV consumers because they want it even they don't have true 4K movies. It's the idea of feeling cool to have one to show off.

If 4K UHDTV is used as a computer monitor, that's a different story.

20-30MBps h264.

Bandwidth is just an excuse.

I never claimed anything about upscaling.

I was showing that there is content, including homemade movies.

teaberry 08-25-2013 04:00 PM

Actually displayport is royalty-free where HDMI cost manufacturer some pennies per device to the HDMI Gods :) Yeah I wish it has DP port too but I guess they aren't trying to sell this as a monitor and no consumer device has adopted DP.
Quote:

Originally Posted by thehash (Post 61540476)
u and me both...sometimes i just dont understand the logic manufactures use, im sure the display port dosnt cost that much to add. if this had display port i bet they would fly off the shelves.

The amazon review on the 50" is tempting me to pickup the 39" to replace my Auria 27" if the panel is IPS or MVA (anything aside TN). This is from that review below. I can live with 2560x1440 @60hz and I can even use the 1080p @120hz for occasional 3d gaming. I'm just not sure if my Radeon HD6950 2GB can output 4K and 1440p resolutions via HDMI (I think it can do 4K via DP and dual-link DVI).

for the ToastyX Custom Resolution Utility. Tweaking settings, and a few restarts later, this monitor is tested to be capable of the following refresh rates:

3840x2160 (8 megapixel)@ 30hz
2560x1440 (4 megapixel)@ 60hz
1920x1080 (2 megapixel)@ 120hz
1280x720 (1 megapixel)@ 200hz

89turboii 08-25-2013 04:02 PM

2016 Japan is standardizing 4k digital over the air broadcast, 2021 8k for Japan Olympics hd broadcast iirc. Amd still has yet to alleviate micro stuttering on mufti display configs which 4k currently requires iirc.

4k is still in its infancy and has its quirks but the seiki definitely has its place in the current market...

4k bragging rights for the masses, tu

thehash 08-25-2013 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teaberry (Post 61540706)
Actually displayport is royalty-free where HDMI cost manufacturer some pennies per device to the HDMI Gods :) Yeah I wish it has DP port too but I guess they aren't trying to sell this as a monitor and no consumer device has adopted DP.

The amazon review on the 50" is tempting me to pickup the 39" to replace my Auria 27" if the panel is IPS or MVA (anything aside TN). This is from that review below. I can live with 2560x1440 @60hz and I can even use the 1080p @120hz for occasional 3d gaming. I'm just not sure if my Radeon HD6950 2GB can output 4K and 1440p resolutions via HDMI (I think it can do 4K via DP and dual-link DVI).

for the ToastyX Custom Resolution Utility. Tweaking settings, and a few restarts later, this monitor is tested to be capable of the following refresh rates:

3840x2160 (8 megapixel)@ 30hz
2560x1440 (4 megapixel)@ 60hz
1920x1080 (2 megapixel)@ 120hz
1280x720 (1 megapixel)@ 200hz

hmmm 1440p damn u now u go me wanting to buy this lol....i think 1440p is only display port and dual link dvi, because people that buy those dell 1440p monitors say it only works with displayport or dual dvi and the hdmi only does to 1080p.

mrwhitethc 08-25-2013 04:09 PM

I'm confused, the CNET guy says he has 20/15 vision but his picture shows him wearing glasses? Could that be right?

Also he lists being NIST and and ISF trained yet he complains about not seeing additional detail between the sets. Since when can you add more detail just by upscaling a picture? The detail that was there in IMAX print and on the 35mm film was lost once it was converted to 1080p, as in there's only 1920x1080 pixels that actually exist on your blu-ray disc, any difference you think you spot is trickery by the upscaler, softening/enhancing/contrast it can all make the picture more pleasing to your eye but the detail was already there or it wasn't.

Am I off my rocker here or does anyone else find his whole article a sham, especially with listing his credentials.

Also guy in the comments gives the code to reduce the backlight, gotta love the internet, someone always knows more than you, find that guy and learn cnet!

mrwhitethc 08-25-2013 04:18 PM

Also I would really love to run ultra widescreen 2560x1080 since that sexy dell monitor is very close in price is there any way to emulate that and force black bars on 2560x1440 to make it 2560x1080 since most games won't force a larger field of view at the 16:9 resolution but will at 21:9 resolution. Then I could switch back and forth seemlessly.

thehash 08-25-2013 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrwhitethc (Post 61540824)
I'm confused, the CNET guy says he has 20/15 vision but his picture shows him wearing glasses? Could that be right?

Also he lists being NIST and and ISF trained yet he complains about not seeing additional detail between the sets. Since when can you add more detail just by upscaling a picture? The detail that was there in IMAX print and on the 35mm film was lost once it was converted to 1080p, as in there's only 1920x1080 pixels that actually exist on your blu-ray disc, any difference you think you spot is trickery by the upscaler, softening/enhancing/contrast it can all make the picture more pleasing to your eye but the detail was already there or it wasn't.

Am I off my rocker here or does anyone else find his whole article a sham, especially with listing his credentials.

Also guy in the comments gives the code to reduce the backlight, gotta love the internet, someone always knows more than you, find that guy and learn cnet!

this is a better review ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFkdWHfb1kM

teaberry 08-25-2013 04:23 PM

Well the answer is not simple. It depends on the manufacturer of the display and the video card. Some video card manufacturers implement HDMI output to max out at 1080p or 1200p. Same goes for display makers.
Quote:

Originally Posted by thehash (Post 61540810)
hmmm 1440p damn u now u go me wanting to buy this lol....i think 1440p is only display port and dual link dvi, because people that buy those dell 1440p monitors say it only works with displayport or dual dvi and the hdmi only does to 1080p.


hypermotard 08-25-2013 04:48 PM

I agree, if I could run one of these at 1440 res at 60hz refresh I think I would be all over this for use as a pc monitor. :)

Someone mentioned that there are much better pc monitors available for $700... Where?

mrkent 08-25-2013 04:49 PM

Is the seiki still a great option as a monitor for someone who doesn't work with graphics?

hypermotard 08-25-2013 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrkent (Post 61541200)
Is the seiki still a great option as a monitor for someone who doesn't work with graphics?

Read the reviews for it on amazon. Some people seem happy with it as a monitor, mostly for doing photo work it seems. Gaming is not an option except at lower resolutions. What a waste to not have a 60hz refresh rate at 4k res. :( If it had this capability then dell, hp, sony, etc would be losing pc monitor market share to seiki like mad....

GoldenTiger 08-25-2013 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmor (Post 61539342)
You're joking right? 4k is a gimmick on TVs smaller than 55". Unless you're sitting within a few feet you wont tell the difference between that and 1080 and the 30Hz refresh rate is horrible.

Unless you're using this as a monitor there's no reason to get it; and let's face it, there are much better monitors for $700.

How's that for ignorance?

You're just showing your ignorance further. 4K content IS available via redray for viewing on a TV, and this deal offers a 55" TV ;). However, the main reason people buy these right now is for computer use, in which case you ARE sitting within a few feet. It's not "unless you're using this as a monitor", it's the main purpose for which anyone would currently buy it (gaming & computer use like CAD).

Please, do inform me of these awesome $700 monitors that have 3840x2160 resolution and are better. I'd love to know ;)! /rhetorical-question

Your whole post basically is akin to saying "If you're not buying food to actually eat, then there's no real reason to get it". Obviously people are buying food to eat, normally, and that is its primary purpose. Bye now! :wave: :wave:

Quote:

Originally Posted by hypermotard (Post 61541256)
Read the reviews for it on amazon. Some people seem happy with it as a monitor, mostly for doing photo work it seems. Gaming is not an option except at lower resolutions. What a waste to not have a 60hz refresh rate at 4k res. :( If it had this capability then dell, hp, sony, etc would be losing pc monitor market share to seiki like mad....

Huh? Gaming is doable with high-end cards like the GTX 780 just fine ;) at 4K. Refresh rate is a bummer though.

hypermotard 08-25-2013 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger (Post 61541298)
Huh? Gaming is doable with high-end cards like the GTX 780 just fine ;) at 4K. Refresh rate is a bummer though.

I liked your post goldentiger. Spot on! :) I did read on the reviews that when gaming at above 1080p that the 30hz refresh rate equated to a maximum of about 30 frames per second and that there was massive input lag between the controls and the video display. They also went on to say that it was awesome gaming at 720p at 120hz refresh. Perhaps someone here that owns the monitor can chime in to how it is for gaming. I think I also read that although the 50" can handle 120hz refresh rate at 720p, the 39" model could not. Perhaps I am wrong though, I researched these monitors a couple months ago. Maybe a firmware update has fixed some of them by now too.

edit: maybe it was that the 50" could do 1080p at 120hz and the 39" could not...

wantnano 08-25-2013 05:19 PM

even as a monitor, wouldn't it be bad since it's supposed refresh rate is 30hz?

hypermotard 08-25-2013 05:21 PM

Here is the difference between 39 and 50 inch models from an amazon review:

There is only one reason why this TV does not get 5 stars (as I am reviewing the 39 inch model). Unlike the 50 inch model the 39 inch can't do >60Hz. This is a big bummer as there is significantly more input lag at 60Hz and it makes the TV from being great for gaming but poor for gaming and only good for production use. IMHO gaming is the only thing where >30 hz is actually *necessary*. Sure its nice to have but not required IMHO. Gaming at 60hz is bareable but with the added input lag its not great. The lack of 120Hz on the 39 inch model significantly lowers its value in my book.



The input lag is apparently unbearable per a couple reviews for gaming at 30hz. The input lag gets better with higher refresh rates, and supposedly it is much better when running at 120hz. I don't have the monitor though so anyone with first hand knowledge is welcome to chime in!

Strmtrper6 08-25-2013 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hypermotard (Post 61541588)
Here is the difference between 39 and 50 inch models from an amazon review:

There is only one reason why this TV does not get 5 stars (as I am reviewing the 39 inch model). Unlike the 50 inch model the 39 inch can't do >60Hz. This is a big bummer as there is significantly more input lag at 60Hz and it makes the TV from being great for gaming but poor for gaming and only good for production use. IMHO gaming is the only thing where >30 hz is actually *necessary*. Sure its nice to have but not required IMHO. Gaming at 60hz is bareable but with the added input lag its not great. The lack of 120Hz on the 39 inch model significantly lowers its value in my book.

Thanks. If true that is really helpful but also really disappointing.

They list the specs as 120hz so I'm curious as to who is wrong.

*edit - Looks like it has some issues. Reported to be closer to 105hz at 1080p(not horrible but disappointing) and the 50" seems better in all regards. Some complaints about the scaler as well. There is also a review there that they did hit 120hz.

GoatSaver 08-25-2013 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaemish (Post 61537384)
Nice low price for one of these. But consumers should know that at this time there are no media formats being sold that take advantage of this resolution and the resolution is so high, cable and satellite providers aren't going to be pumping ultraHD content into our homes without significant infrastructure upgrades.

Yes, other than up-scaling bluray players and PC's, which a good number of people have. I wouldn't bother with this set personally, but your argument is against 4k in general, and it's silly. The nicer 4k displays have amazing up-scaling built in, not as cool as native 4k, but better than 1080.

eladelia 08-25-2013 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wantnano (Post 61541560)
even as a monitor, wouldn't it be bad since it's supposed refresh rate is 30hz?

Really depends on what you're planning to do.

4K resolution is really nice when you want to have a whoooole lot of information on the screen at once. This is good for programmers, writers, people doing CAD, and that kind of thing.

The refresh rate is visible if you're moving something around quickly (scrolling through pages, moving your mouse rapidly, etc), but you don't spend a whole lot of time doing that when everything you need to see is almost constantly visible because you have so much screen real estate.

For gaming with very rapid motion (like FPS games), 30hz can easily get irritating. There are some people who do 30 and below fps while playing, though mostly I think those are people who REALLY want to play the latest game, but can't do a graphics card upgrade just now. I'm sure it's not fantastic, but they apparently cope because I know people do it. (Lower FPS while gaming is more tolerable on games that don't involve a ton of motion, like strategy games where you spend a lot of time looking at maps and charts, and not so much hurriedly spinning around to shoot someone before he gets you first.)

The nice thing about this as a monitor is that I can use 4K when what I'm doing calls for 4K, and I can drop to lower resolutions (and have better refresh rates) when I want to game (I'm actually sticking to 1080p for gaming right now. I'll have a new graphics card very soon that'll let me experiment more without running into the limits of what the computer can do well so often.)

For someone like a professional computer programmer, anyway, being able to have a ton of information visible at once can be HUGE for productivity, and can make something like this well worth having. If you just wanted to watch Netflix, on the other hand, buying this would be silly compared to just getting a 1080p set for half as much. It depends very much on what you're planning to do with it.

hypermotard 08-25-2013 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strmtrper6 (Post 61541600)
Thanks. If true that is really helpful but also really disappointing.

They list the specs as 120hz so I'm curious as to who is wrong.

*edit - Looks like it has some issues. Reported to be closer to 105hz at 1080p(not horrible but disappointing) and the 50" seems better in all regards. Some complaints about the scaler as well. There is also a review there that they did hit 120hz.

I know... :( I SOOOOOO wanted the 39" monitor. The 50" needs to run 4k res if used as a monitor, then it is like 4x 25" monitors running 1080p each which is great although it may very well cause neck strain,etc from looking up. At lower resolutions you would need to sit like 6 feet away, and that would require a HUGE desk. I am hoping that they put out a new version of the 39" that has dp input- 60hz at 4k res would warrant laying out $300 for a video card and $700 for a monitor.

Supposedly 30fps is liveable on lower resolutions but it really looks bad on higher resolutions. The higher the resolution, the more noticeable it becomes. And supposedly the input lag on top of it (because the computer must draw 4 times as many pixels at half the refresh) makes for a very disappointing gaming experience. At least this is what some of the purchasers have been saying in their reviews.

RandomDealz 08-25-2013 06:06 PM

I wouldn't pay a premium for a 4K TV if it's going to be crippled by the HDMI limits of a refresh rate of 30HZ at the 4k resolution. Paying $640 for a Seiki that most people be will using at 1080p ( gaming, video) isn't a good value .Unless you are using it for something where the 30hz refresh rate won't be a hindrance it might be a TV to consider Their reliability also has to come into question, I've seen some of the reviews of sets they've had out longer, and they aren't good. Until HDMI 2.0 is out that can support
higher HDMI refresh rates, all 4k sets will have their full potential limited.

rsriram22 08-25-2013 07:16 PM

speaking of 4k tv's, i understand that the video to support the same may not be available yet, but what about images (jpgs etc).. would they look 'better' on a 4k tv vs a HD (1080p) screen - example being a desktop wallpaper . am also assuming that my PC will have a decent video card (radeon HD 7k series etc)?

thanks

TravisD94 08-25-2013 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsriram22 (Post 61542982)
speaking of 4k tv's, i understand that the video to support the same may not be available yet, but what about images (jpgs etc).. would they look 'better' on a 4k tv vs a HD (1080p) screen - example being a desktop wallpaper . am also assuming that my PC will have a decent video card (radeon HD 7k series etc)?

thanks

Of course, as long as the image is bigger than 1080p. 4k wallpapers are easy to find on google. And you'd have to look up your graphics card's benchmarks at 4K if you want to be sure.

RonPaulFan 08-25-2013 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mythe (Post 61538818)
Still though, 30Hz is probably going to be terrible to work with. Just watching your mouse move around the screen and panning objects is just going to make it seem like everything is lagging. I'd much rather use 3 1080p monitors in a portrait set up. For $650 you can get 3 very nice ultra thin bezel monitors. Even one of the Korean 2560x1600 monitors for the same price would end up more useable than this imo.

I already have 3 monitors
24" 1080p
28" 1200p
24" 1080p

cstu 08-25-2013 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thehash (Post 61540476)
u and me both...sometimes i just dont understand the logic manufactures use, im sure the display port dosnt cost that much to add. if this had display port i bet they would fly off the shelves.

I suppose it's worth waiting for the next gen of these that has it.

petard 08-25-2013 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teaberry (Post 61540706)
Actually displayport is royalty-free where HDMI cost manufacturer some pennies per device to the HDMI Gods :) Yeah I wish it has DP port too but I guess they aren't trying to sell this as a monitor and no consumer device has adopted DP.

The amazon review on the 50" is tempting me to pickup the 39" to replace my Auria 27" if the panel is IPS or MVA (anything aside TN). This is from that review below. I can live with 2560x1440 @60hz and I can even use the 1080p @120hz for occasional 3d gaming. I'm just not sure if my Radeon HD6950 2GB can output 4K and 1440p resolutions via HDMI (I think it can do 4K via DP and dual-link DVI).

for the ToastyX Custom Resolution Utility. Tweaking settings, and a few restarts later, this monitor is tested to be capable of the following refresh rates:

3840x2160 (8 megapixel)@ 30hz
2560x1440 (4 megapixel)@ 60hz
1920x1080 (2 megapixel)@ 120hz
1280x720 (1 megapixel)@ 200hz

Not a good idea to run this thing at 2560x1440. That isn't native resolution nor is it an integer divisor of it, meaning upscaling will happen on the monitor and it'll look bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thehash (Post 61540810)
hmmm 1440p damn u now u go me wanting to buy this lol....i think 1440p is only display port and dual link dvi, because people that buy those dell 1440p monitors say it only works with displayport or dual dvi and the hdmi only does to 1080p.

HDMI 1.4 can do 2560x1440. Those Dell monitors just don't support HDMI 1.4

teaberry 08-25-2013 07:56 PM

Yeah, I usually don't trust scalers. So how bad can it be to run desktop and Adobe LR4 in 30hz? I mean if you just watch blu-rays in 24p, shouldn't be a big deal? But again, I dunno what type of panel is in this TV.
Quote:

Originally Posted by petard (Post 61543576)
Not a good idea to run this thing at 2560x1440. That isn't native resolution nor is it an integer divisor of it, meaning upscaling will happen on the monitor and it'll look bad.



HDMI 1.4 can do 2560x1440. Those Dell monitors just don't support HDMI 1.4


superuser1 08-25-2013 08:25 PM

There is virtually no 4k content, and by the time there is 4k content, these will be much cheaper. Watching a cable stream is going to look exactly the same on a 720p TV as it will upscaled on a 4k TV.

DextarRogue 08-26-2013 12:43 AM

Spend the money on a Panasonic VT series plasma, you will be blown away by the picture quality.

I have a Panasonic 80U as our main living room TV (from 2008) and everyone that watches it still tells me how incredibly clear it is. I paid a lot for it back then but it was such a fantastic investment.

GnatGoSplat 08-26-2013 07:56 AM

I see a lot of comments about how this monitor "probably" sucks at 4K@30Hz for gaming.

Can anyone who has actually played games on the 39" at 4K comment on the gaming experience?
I mostly play action RPG games like Skyrim, Fallout, etc.

tky 08-26-2013 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strmtrper6 (Post 61539124)
Agreed.



I wouldn't trust his left or his right. That guy is clueless.

I hear you.
How ever is this a good deal?

Strmtrper6 08-26-2013 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tky (Post 61549842)
I hear you.
How ever is this a good deal?

I'd wait, unless you want to use it as a giant 120hz 1080p monitor.

For what it is, the price is good. But most people will want 60hz+ for 4k content as well.

tky 08-26-2013 08:11 AM

On amazon there are some good and some not so good reviews
Here is one

http://www.amazon.com/review/RK1U...deID=&tag=

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strmtrper6 (Post 61549922)
I'd wait, unless you want to use it as a giant 120hz 1080p monitor.

For what it is, the price is good. But most people will want 60hz+ for 4k content as well.

Thanks. Why would they want 60hz for 4k?

hypermotard 08-26-2013 08:29 AM

If you read through all the reviews on Amazon it appears that these 4k monitors work well as a 4k monitor if you don't watch videos or game on them. When you do these things you need to switch to lower resolutions. There is also a possible reported issue of no 120hz at 1080p on the 39" (but reportedly works on the 50"). The people that seem happiest with it are the ones that do photo or pdf editing. Think of it more like a giant high resolution electronic photo/document editor/viewer that can also be used as a 1080p tv/monitor...

I agree with the others, without 60hz refresh at 4k res it is mostly useless for most of us as a pc monitor. Hopefully they will add dp or another connection that will allow this to happen sometime in the near future. The price is great compared to the Sony - the 55" Sony sells for like $4000 which is like $1000 per K! This 50" is only $225 per K. It is a slickdeal for something that a majority of us cannot utilize. :(

cstu 08-26-2013 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tky (Post 61550062)
On amazon there are some good and some not so good reviews
Here is one

http://www.amazon.com/review/RK1U...deID=&tag=


Thanks. Why would they want 60hz for 4k?

For use as a monitor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tky (Post 61549842)
I hear you.
How ever is this a good deal?

As a TV, no, you're better off with a good 1080p than this.

As a monitor, maybe, if you're ok with 1440 @ 60hz.

tooloud10 08-26-2013 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cstu (Post 61552006)
As a monitor, maybe, if you're ok with 1440 @ 60hz.

I can't imagine that anyone would be happy using any LCD monitor at anything but the native resolution or at a resolution that scales perfectly.

psyctto 08-26-2013 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooloud10 (Post 61552090)
I can't imagine that anyone would be happy using any LCD monitor at anything but the native resolution or at a resolution that scales perfectly.

that's the kind of great advice you get in threads... from people that have no idea what they're talking about.
this thing at any resolution other than it's native will be horrible.

as PC monitor this thing is probably complete garbage.

pesok 08-27-2013 01:34 AM

i am just glad to see that there are manufacturers that are bringing new tech without the "latest/greatest" price tag tradition. Hopefully major brands will be influenced by this and for that i salute Seiki - good job!

Having said that a Display Port(royalty/license free) or any other connection that would allow >60Hz @ native 4k resolution would make this TV/Monitor a must have for a lot of users(such as myself) providing it doesn't go up in price because of the change. Just drop HDMI connectivity completely(saving $10k +0.15/set(or 0.05/set with logo) in royalties for the manufacturer) and just have a DP and optionally DVI-DL(although its on its way out) or VGA(good old) or component/composite(older devices not left in the dust) - theoretically should make these cheaper to make for Seiki as well as allowing us to use that beautiful LG panel @ its full potential

Xiroteus 08-27-2013 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NODES (Post 61537404)
and it is no good as a PC monitor the 30HZ is unbearable.

That was my first thought yet it looks like more time is needed. There is no real 4K content and if one cannot use it for a PC I cannot think of any reason to purchase yet.

GnatGoSplat 08-27-2013 06:17 AM

So far, I have seen plenty of people who own it saying it's perfectly suitable as a monitor, even gaming at 4K the low refresh rate is noticeable, but not intolerable if you turn off Vsync.

Every single person who says it's unsuitable as a monitor does NOT own it and has NOT seen it in action, in person.

Really hard to get a non-biased opinion since people who own it may be trying to justify or make the best of their $700 purchase, and those who say it's unsuitable are just going entirely on specs.

hypermotard 08-28-2013 09:47 AM

From the reviews on Amazon (I read them all) gaming is not acceptable at 30hz because of *input lag* Games look ok but start tearing as the action speeds up, but the time between making a command and watching it executed on screen is unbearable at 4k 30hz.

I think the most important question is will the 39" monitor do 1080p at 120hz? I read on Amazon that the 39" would not do over 60hz but that the 50" would - and the same guy that wrote the review had both monitors in his possession. The difference in viewing distance on a 50" between 2160p and 1080p would be huge, but on the 39" it could probably be doable with a custom wall mount. I'm guessing off the top of my head that the monitor would need to be about 32" away at 2160p and maybe 48" away at 1080p...

Does anyone own the 39" monitor and were you able (or not able) to run 1080p at 120hz? IMO the 39" monitor might be feasible to use at 4k 30hz for light computing and cad/photoshop, and then switch to 1080p 120hz for gaming and heavy computing. I think this would be a pretty sweet setup, and it would not require crazy graphic card requirements.


EDITED: I am answering my own question. I found a review online in which the reviewer claims that he was able to run at 4k 30hz, 1440p at 31hz, and 1080p at 120hz. He also states that an older firmware may be to blame for the 39" monitor not going above 60hz. Here is the review if anyone is interested:

http://www.terracode.com/Seiki_SE...ew_P1.html

GnatGoSplat 08-28-2013 11:36 AM

I think I read that same review on amazon with the input lag. I only noticed just that one guy mentioning input lag when gaming, so I can't help but wonder if it's his video card. I didn't see too many other people trying it with different video cards.

hypermotard 08-28-2013 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GnatGoSplat (Post 61600726)
I think I read that same review on amazon with the input lag. I only noticed just that one guy mentioning input lag when gaming, so I can't help but wonder if it's his video card. I didn't see too many other people trying it with different video cards.

I think a few others mentioned the input lag too but I could be wrong as I researched this about 6 weeks ago. Really the only people that want to game at 4k is hardcore gamers, and they are going to be the most irritated at the 30hz refresh rate. You need multiple titans to run modern games at that resolution. Anandtech states 4x titans ($4000 in video cards) are needed to run Metro 2033 at 4k res/max settings at an avg 60fps (60hz refresh cap). $2000 in Titans are going to be the minimum for pulling in 30-60fps on modern games at 4k res/max settings. I am quite happy gaming at 1080p - and 120hz refresh should be a bonus- but it is more desktop real estate on the cheap that interests me here. If they come out with a new model that supports 4k at 60hz then these monitors will likely be on fire sale - at least I hope so...

GnatGoSplat 08-28-2013 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hypermotard (Post 61601582)
I think a few others mentioned the input lag too but I could be wrong as I researched this about 6 weeks ago. Really the only people that want to game at 4k is hardcore gamers, and they are going to be the most irritated at the 30hz refresh rate. You need multiple titans to run modern games at that resolution. Anandtech states 4x titans ($4000 in video cards) are needed to run Metro 2033 at 4k res/max settings at an avg 60fps (60hz refresh cap). $2000 in Titans are going to be the minimum for pulling in 30-60fps on modern games at 4k res/max settings. I am quite happy gaming at 1080p - and 120hz refresh should be a bonus- but it is more desktop real estate on the cheap that interests me here. If they come out with a new model that supports 4k at 60hz then these monitors will likely be on fire sale - at least I hope so...

Damn. My desktop's primary purpose is for gaming, so if it takes that much GPU power to game at 4K, I guess I might as well forget it. I'm not a hardcore gamer, I just like a big monitor and the smoothness of tiny pixels. Guess I will stick to 1920x1200 for awhile longer.

hypermotard 08-28-2013 12:43 PM

Yes I was taken by surprise by that too. :( Here is the Anadtech review with the benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/712...x-settings

The problem is that 4k res is 4 times the number of pixels of 1080p, and when daisy-chaining video cards they lose some rendering power when combined. I do not think my ATI 7790 1GB video card would have a prayer at 4k except maybe on very old games.

GnatGoSplat 08-28-2013 01:42 PM

Wow, I was hoping a HD 7950 might work, but looks like I'd be lucky to get 15fps with one of those. Granted, I play older games like Skyrim, but looks like you need dual Titans to get decent frame rates even on many older games. Guess I will put this idea to rest.

Oh well, by the time a ~$200 GPU can handle 4K gaming, I'm sure there will be plenty of 4K 60Hz monitors.

hypermotard 08-30-2013 01:09 AM

39" is now about $60 cheaper at Tigerdirect provided that they do not tax you.

http://slickdeals.net/f/6249356-Seiki-39-Inch-4K-3840-x-2160-Resolution-LED-HDTV-549-99-shipping-30-at-Tigerdirect

mircury 08-30-2013 10:01 PM

Deal is still alive. Just got the 50 inch. So I've got one of each now.

monkeybiz 09-04-2013 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xiroteus (Post 61567248)
That was my first thought yet it looks like more time is needed. There is no real 4K content and if one cannot use it for a PC I cannot think of any reason to purchase yet.

I found a reason, As of today, there are 70 native 4K movies and shows available
http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/2075...k-service/

Let's just say this isn't another fad like 3D. One caveat, service only for Sony ultra?
Quote:

Sony Entertainment Network's Video Unlimited 4K download service is now live, offering feature films, movies, short-form videos and TV shows in native 4K Ultra HD resolution for download to consumers with a Sony Ultra HD Media Player and Sony 4K Ultra HD TV.
Seems rather foolish but it won't be the first time.

Xiroteus 09-04-2013 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkeybiz (Post 61736040)
I found a reason, As of today, there are 70 native 4K movies and shows available
http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/2075...k-service/

Let's just say this isn't another fad like 3D. One caveat, service only for Sony ultra?

Moving along like that will help, my biggest reason would be as a computer monitor. The greatest weakness I saw was pricing. I hardly pay eight dollars for 1080P movies that I can own let alone just to rent. Not that I am really buying anything these days. I do wonder how much better 4K would be on disk without being so compressed.

I know a lot of people would move over to 4K movies while some stopped with blu-ray. Of course one can just continue new NEW films at 4K and not worry so much about films they already own.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:00 PM.


1999-2014