It seems content just ain't ready.
http://televisions.reviewed.com/fea...=usat&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=collab
http://televisions.reviewed.com/fea...=usat&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=collab
Anybody viewing BI with 4k TV/Monitor?
- Thread starter MartyO
- Start date
When he views it (all cameras running at once on the screen) its 4k content, each camera doesn't need to be 4k.
- - - Updated - - -
Whats your setup, screen size and PC?
- - - Updated - - -
Whats your setup, screen size and PC?
fenderman
Staff member
- Mar 9, 2014
- 36,891
- 21,407
Its not 4k content just because its viewed on a 4k screen...the image of each camera as displayed on any display cannot be better resolution than the actual camera sensor...simple fact..
I started viewing my cams on a Samsung 28 inch 3840x2160 monitor in about February 2014. But the monitor has an intermittent connection problem that causes the monitor to vanish off the system one or two times a day. It is super annoying because windows detects this as a change to the monitor configuration (as though the DisplayPort cable had been unplugged), so everything would go black and my programs would all get resized and moved to the primary monitor. Eventually I swapped the 28 inch 4k for an older 27 inch 2560x1440 that doesn't misbehave. Sure it is noticable that the resolution is lower, but it is reliable and that is what matters more.
viewing 64 cameras at once is content, resolution at which 64 cameras at once are viewed determines if the content is 4k, 1080p ect ect.,
Hey kind of monitors do you use?
fenderman
Staff member
- Mar 9, 2014
- 36,891
- 21,407
No, that is not how resolution works......you can have 500 cameras on the screen, its not 4k content..
I use 1080p monitors or TV's..anything more is throwing money in the trash..
You will absolutely not get a better image on a 50 inch 4k monitor vs a 50in 1080p monitor unless you are watching a 4k camera in fullscreen.
fenderman
Staff member
- Mar 9, 2014
- 36,891
- 21,407
Fenderman, you crack me up. Don't you ever watch all your camera on the screen at once.? Or is that a waste?[/QUOTE]
Of course I do...however, using a 4k monitor if your cams are vga (like yours), or even 1080p is absolutely not going to improve the image at all. Spend the extra money on a decent camera.
Of course I do...however, using a 4k monitor if your cams are vga (like yours), or even 1080p is absolutely not going to improve the image at all. Spend the extra money on a decent camera.
It had to be the Samsung monitor at fault. I tried different DisplayPort cables, different power bricks, different graphics cards, even different PCs. Same intermittent problem regardless. Unfortunately I was impatient and bought an international version of the monitor from ebay before it was released locally in the USA so I couldn't have it replaced on warranty. The monitor is stable if used on HDMI connection (limited to 30hz refresh rate), so some day I may hook it back up that way.
Not true. When you display a grid of multiple cameras, you would be surprised how much difference it makes. A 1080p display will only comfortably fit only six VGA cameras without scaling the videos. A 4k will comfortably fit 24 VGA cameras without any scaling. Try to display the same 24 VGA cameras on a 1080p display and they will all be scaled to 320x240ish!
In more modern terms, consider a setup with four 1080p cameras. To display the all 4 camera views on a 1080p monitor simultaneously, they have to each be scaled to just 960x540 resolution. But a 4k monitor can display them all in full resolution at the same time.
fenderman
Staff member
- Mar 9, 2014
- 36,891
- 21,407
Every time you add a camera there is less screen space allocated to each camera...therefore it doesnt matter what actual resolution is, because as the resolution is lowered so is the viable space, all that matters is what the eye can detect....it will look the same...money is better spent on decent cameras..I display much more than four hd 2/3mp cameras on a 1080p screen and the image looks just as good as in full screen because the are scaled down in size...using a 4k monitor with a vga screen is like putting race tires on a pinto...
I think you are missing the point. Lets assume you have nine 2MP cameras in a 3x3 all-cameras grid. To display this grid without any quality loss, you would need a monitor with resolution 5760x3240.
Nobody has a single monitor capable of displaying 5760x3240, so the all-cameras grid has to be downscaled to fit the monitor. A 1080p monitor only has 11% of the pixels, so the grid has to be downscaled to 11% of its original size! You lose 89% of the pixels!
A 4K monitor has 44% of the pixels, so the grid only has to be downscaled to 44% of its original size. You only lose 56% of the pixels this way, and you retain and display much more of the image data.
Nobody has a single monitor capable of displaying 5760x3240, so the all-cameras grid has to be downscaled to fit the monitor. A 1080p monitor only has 11% of the pixels, so the grid has to be downscaled to 11% of its original size! You lose 89% of the pixels!
A 4K monitor has 44% of the pixels, so the grid only has to be downscaled to 44% of its original size. You only lose 56% of the pixels this way, and you retain and display much more of the image data.
Speaking from personal experience, the improvement in camera grid image quality between a 1080p and 4K monitor is immense. It is every bit as big as the difference between a 640x480 camera and a 1.3 MP camera (in fact, the difference is exactly the same -- a doubling of image dimensions).