WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT?

WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT?

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/Dell-Monitor-P2415Q-24-Inch-LED-Lit/dp/B00PC9HFNY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463027991&sr=8-1&keywords=24 inch 4k
pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Can-you-see-the-difference-with-a-4K-monitor-729/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

5K is even more pointless

either 4K or 8K none of this inbetween bs

mfw 256x1440 master race

This.

Perfect resolution.

2560x1440 is blurry shit though.
5120x2880 is optimal if you're not playing video games.

What's pointless about 5k?

4K is 4 * 1920 x 1080
1440 is 4 * 1280 x 720
5k is 4 * 2560 x 1440

It's not an in between format. When consumer TVs go 8k, monitors will probably go 10k

So Hollywood Jews can sell you the same movies you already own all over again in super BD or whatever they come out with next.

Perhaps it's blurry because your monitor is not native to that resolution, if the monitor's native resolution is 2560x1440, then something else is fucked up.

It's blurry because it's low PPI.
My laptop is 15" 2880x1880 and my gaming desktop was 27" 2560x1440. I couldn't stand how blurry everything was on the monitor.
Now I have 27" 5120x2880

fuck you man.

I don't understand

>4K is 4 * 1920 x 1080
no it isn't
>1440 is 4 * 1280 x 720
no it isn't
>5k is 4 * 2560 x 1440
no it isn't

>256x

>2008
>"what the fuck is the point in 1080p HD?"

It's for muh 200 lines of code without scrolling on 40"

Holy fucking widescreen, and I though 16:9 was bad

Larger size?

Is 2048x1536 the best 4:3 resolution you can find?

that is 16:9

Are you having trouble with simple math?

2560 x 1440

2560 / 16 = 160

1440 / 9 = 160

boy was that hard

4*1920*1080=8,294,400
(2*1920)*(2*1080)=8,294,400

1 * 5

5 - 2 = 3

3 / 3 = 1

HL3 confirmed

What you said was:
>1440 isn't 4 * 1280 x 720

fffffffffffff

shit man

256x1440 is definitely not 16:9.

It's 8:45. That's not widescreen user

Good point, either way 8:45 ≠ 8:5

it isn't

4 * (1280 x 720) is

learn math, thanks

>he gets smartass tone
>thinks the first variable is the vertical

you're not very smart, are you?

How can PC reviewers seriously rate 4k ultrabooks with integrated graphics anything above completely abysmal?
There must be so much shilling going on when these machines are barely even usable.
My dad bought himself an ativ book 9 with an i5 processor, and it shits itself just from loading a youtube video. It runs Roller Coaster Tycoon with at fucking 10fps.
Everything is completely fucked up size-wise on the screen too.
People are so fucking stupid.

There is no reason to have anything greater than 1080p unless you have a beastly GPU.
You're fucking yourself significantly out of performance for the sake of muh extra pixels. The benchmark framerate differences for a 1080p vs 1440p are shockingly huge.

My 2012 rMBP runs the UI find with Intel's iGPU. Obviously it's better to run with the nVidia GPU though.

>4 * 1280 x 720
>4 * (1280 x 720)
>different values
You're a special kind of retarded.

>4K is 4 * 1920 x 1080
>no it isn't

$ bc
bc 1.06.95
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
(1920*1080)*4
8294400
3840*2160
8294400
[/code

thx

time to upgrade that toaster bub

My dick is shockingly huge

I have a 40 inch 4k monitor and I love it. Nearly all the screen real estate at a practical DPI that one can use, and no need to use multiple monitors. I did pay quite a bit for it since I was an early adopter, though.

I wanted 1440p & 144hz but they're only available in 27"

The best I can do at 24" is 144hz

Damn shame.

Anyone have any idea how long the OLED panels are from being put in consumer monitors? I'm hoping I can get something better at the same resolution even if it costs me an arm and a leg.

4K is a worthless pipe dream at this stage - won't see anything approaching 24 inches in 4k for a very long time.

Extremely smart actually, the joke just came to my head faster than issues with the joke did

Everyone I know who owns a 4k monitor never actually games using its native resolution.
They paid god knows how much more for a completely useless monitor that probably actually looks worse overall than if they just got a 1080p display.
Maybe people here are less retarded, but unless everyone on this board with a 4k monitor is also rich enough for a 3000+ dollar rig, then I'm fucking skeptical.

lol have you tried saving your allowance

>won't see anything approaching 24 inches in 4k for a very long time.

amazon.com/Dell-Monitor-P2415Q-24-Inch-LED-Lit/dp/B00PC9HFNY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463027991&sr=8-1&keywords=24 inch 4k

1440p looks fantastic on the right size monitor and just a 970 can run most of your shitty fucking video games on it.

>Everyone I know who owns a 4k monitor never actually games using its native resolution.
4K monitor owner here. Can confirm. I game at 1440p most of the time, since that's what most games run smoothly at on my hardware.

In some exceptionally rare cases I'll go down to 1080p, but usually I'll stick to 1440p and just slightly lower the settings to make it run smoothly at 1440p.

Only indie games and other low-spec stuff runs at native res.

>They paid god knows how much more for a completely useless monitor that probably actually looks worse overall than if they just got a 1080p display.
Or maybe I didn't buy it for fucking video gaming.

>not linking the vastly superior UP2415Q instead

>Thinks 4k is only used to make games look better

>paying more for over saturation
You don't need a wide gamut monitor and having one just means you have to worry about if your applications are color managed or not.

5120x2880 is 217 PPI, from personal experience anything over 140 PPI becomes difficult to read from any appreciable distance away. I sit 2-3 feet from my monitors.

I much prefer my 25" 2560x1440 (117PPI)

decently sharper than my previous 1920x1080 24" while providing a good upgrade in screen realestate.

5120x1440p FTW.

>anything over 140 PPI becomes difficult to read
Why would you buy a high PPI monitor and not use scaling?

>You don't need a wide gamut monitor
You do for 4K Blu-rays

>having one just means you have to worry about if your applications are color managed or not.
If they aren't, they aren't worth using

>Paying more for over saturation
It looks amazing in e.g. video games

Also, the UP has other improvements such as better uniformity, better backlight tech and better AG coating

Why would you buy a high PPI monitor and then use scaling?

I got this thread confused with another thread where people were talking about gaming performance
Plz no bully

Dear god, are you this retarded? Why the fuck are you in Sup Forums?

>let's buy a monitor with quadruple the resolution but then scale everything up so it's exactly the same as before
higher resolutions are MEANT to be used with higher display sizes

There are no consumer monitors that can do rec.2020 and the only thing rec.2020 is being used for with 4k Blurays is to contain some other wide gamut that is likely arbitrary.

>If they aren't, they aren't worth using
And then you're stuck with a wide gamut that won't ever be utilized properly.

>It looks amazing in e.g. video games
If you like neon maybe.

>Also, the UP has other improvements such as better uniformity, better backlight tech and better AG coating
Because it's a professional monitor. I'm sure those deviations are barely above the threshold of being perceptible, if they even are at all.

Because we have reached the point in consumer tech where the resolution is not the be-all, end-all regarding viewable dimensions.
Resolution is now about clarify and not physical size.
We have hit the crossover between distinguishing pixels and needing a larger footprint to get more viewable area, versus high PPI rates at almost any physical size, now.

It's a different game for us consumers and UIs have barely begin to acknowledge this.

> What is DPI and sharper images

Because it makes everything look better.

I'll take more usable resolution over higher scaled resolution every day.

Sure it might look 10% crisper, but it's not worth the trade off in usable desktop space.

dual 1440p 27" would be FAR preferable (and cheaper) for anyone doing work or productivity on the computer and not just watching anime.

>What is DPI
An inherently meaningless figure

Your DPI doesn't matter shit at the end of the day. What matters is how large each pixel is on your retina. ITU-R etc. have always and will always recommend about 1 pixel per arcminute which is pretty close the finest details we can actually resolve with our retinas.

And that has been true well before 2160p. TV has pretty much been consistently abiding by it for decades.

>and sharper images
Placebo. Your eyes can't resolve more. If a 2160p display looks sharper than a 1080p display to you, then you are using an incorrect setup.

It doesn't, for reasons discussed above. A 480p display at 1 pixel per arcminute will look EXACTLY the same as a 2160p display at 1 pixel per arcminute.

The latter will just be significantly bigger. 4K when implemented correctly enables a wider viewing angle (field of view). It doesn't affect clarity at all.

Go fucking read ITU-R Rec BT.1845, ITU-R Rec BT.2020 and ITU-R Rep BT.2246 before responding to this post.

High resolution monitors are not for your videogames. They are for tiling window managers, reading, graphic design, video editing, 3d editing.

>And then you're stuck with a wide gamut that won't ever be utilized properly.
Wide gamut displays also have better sRGB coverage

Hey I'm gonna pop in here quick guys, what can I do to be less completely tech illiterate? Is there a good site or something or should I consult wiki. I literally know nothing and reading Sup Forums threads regularly makes me feel angry and suicidal

pls do no bully, I never ever post here unlike most tech illiterates

>the thread dies instantly

>4 minutes between posts
>thread is dead
This isn't Sup Forums

Lurk moar, also read up on shit and tinker

leddit

Sounds like a plan stanley.
And I'll have you know I'm from r9k, not b, tyvm.
>tfw no gf

I already browse r/atheism for 13 hours a day and haven't learned anything about tech, nice try though

Why in god's name are you referring to television standards and viewing distances when talking about monitors?
A television is 3m+ away from you while a monitor is .5m or even less.

80" screens with no artifacting

>A television is 3m+ away from you while a monitor is .5m or even less.
That's the point, people are doing it wrong by getting way too fucking close to their devices. Television has this shit figured out.

ITU-R's quality evaluations are independent of the use case. Stick to their recommendation and don't deviate from it.

Don't need scaling in that scenario.

R A R E
A
R
E

...

>That's the point, people are doing it wrong by getting way too fucking close to their devices.
Monitors are meant to be used from a much closer distance than TVs.

>ITU-R's quality evaluations are independent of the use case. Stick to their recommendation and don't deviate from it.
In that case let's look at the maths.
pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Can-you-see-the-difference-with-a-4K-monitor-729/

>At a viewing distance of 24 inches (which is about right for most desktop monitors) it is actually really surprising how soon you should be able to start making out individual pixels with a 1080p monitor. With 20/20 vision, if you want a monitor that is larger than just 15 inches you would ideally want a monitor with a 2K resolution instead of 1080p. Even with a 2K monitor, however, once you get above a 20 inch screen you should start to see a difference by using a 4K monitor. Between a 20 inch screen and a 30.5 inch screen there is no reason to go above 4K, but if you want a very large monitor you may consider using a 5K monitor once the technology matures a bit more.

>However, the average acuity for a healthy adult under the age of 60 or 70 is actually closer to between 20/13 and 20/17 (source 1 and 2). So if you are average and healthy, you should have a visual acuity of around 20/15 at which point the need for a higher resolution is even greater. At that visual acuity, for anything larger than a 15.5 inch screen you would ideally want to have a 4K screen. But even with just a 23 inch monitor, even 4K technically isn't good enough for your eyesight. 5K, which is still in its infancy, is really what you would ideally want for any monitor between 23 inches and 31 inches. For even larger screen sizes, you will have to wait for 6K or even higher resolutions to become available.

More bixels :ddd

How do you read the tiny text on those huge resolutions anyway?

Scaling, not being blind

Numbers sound about right.

I use a 31.5" 4K screen for reference, but I also view at a distance of about 70cm (which is slightly higher than the 24" they quoted).

Only controversial thing I can see in the article is why the god are they using ‘2K’ to refer to what I presume is 1440p? That's the dumbest possible way you could call it ever. 2K resolution is well-defined and well-known as 2048x1080.

One thing they gloss over though is the fact that you don't need to perfectly match the retina's peak acuity to achieve transparency, because the chance that we're doing controlled A/B test on fine-grained pixel patterns is rather slim during normal usage.

using that links spreadsheet for calculating your own setup my 1440p are perfect. Because I sit 48" back. 25" 1440p is just right.

Glad to have a verification.

For reference the ITU-R recommendation suggests that at a viewing distance of 24 inches and a resolution of 3840x2160, you have a diagonal of about 30.6".

1440p is twice the resolution of 720p

4 times*

Some of you are fucking retards

QHD is two times the res of HD
4K is four times the res of FHD
FHD is twice the res of qHD

:^)

dumb dumbposters
how do you even end up in Sup Forums?

why can't people understand how fucking RECTANGLES work?
>double the height
+
>double the width
=
>quadrouple the area

or you can just imagine what stacking 4 monitors into a giant rectangle would look like and count the pixels that way, if you're 15 and can only do common core math

I'm viewing this on a 1920x1080 monitor and it's all displaying just fine. Why would anybody waste money on this 4k shit?

>QHD is two times the res of HD
you mean 1440p and 1080p?
1440p is about 166% of the pixels of 1080p. It's not 2:1

Does 1920x1080 look bad on a 1440p monitor? I'm worried that if my GPU can't handle 1440p in a brand new game some day 1080p won't look as good because it's not a rectangular upscale.

Depends on what scaling algorithm you use, what type of content you're viewing, and what you expect to happen.

Downscaling always makes the display a lot shittier. Just stick to 1080p as it's very universal and good for people with decent PC's.

HD is 1280x720. 1920x1080 is FullHD

>why can't people understand how fucking RECTANGLES work?
This is Sup Forums and not /sci/.

Whats dci?

fuck yeah

This, but 800x600

>mAdE bY jOrDaN
>VNC
>Opera
>Chink program
wtf son

Why does Opera warrant 2 lines?

Jesus.

It must be one of those cumdrinkers from /bst/ and desktop threads.