95% of the world's tv stations are still 480p
99% of movies are not even available at 4k
gaming at 4k is pointless and requires immense power
you will see a difference between 4k and 1080p ONLY if you sit 1 foot away from a 55inch screen
keep in mind that 4k is literally 1080p multiplied by 4
thanks
Text renders just fine in 4k.
Not to mention that there are and probably will be more and more 4K screens on 5-5.5'' smartphones...
that is one of my triggers. 4k makes no sense on anything smaller than 65 inch
I seriously don't know how someone thought that mobile VR would succeed and started implementing 4K screens. It's just not the right tool for the job.
Text looks nice though
these normals will think they are gaming at 4k on their Samsung
how fuckin normal can they get?
Here's an interesting article: m.androidcentral.com
Interesting point... 4k is marketed mostly for entertainment purposes when most entertainment is not available or not practical at 4k.
But for things like productivity I can see it, video editing, software with large complicated GUIs, but yet this is not being focused on in marketing terms. Like ultrawide monitors for instance.
tfw I do sit 1 foot away from a 55inch screen. It's great.
i got a 50inch 1080p tv. all cable channels are at 480p or less. movies i download can b 1080p BUT those fuckin letterbox ruin the 1080p. i game at 1080p
so only 5% of the time i use the 1080p resolution
Are the built in scalers any good or only on expensive models? Could I just run it at 1080p if it has a shitty scaler?
No. But 4K is only useful for gaming and desktop work.
The scaling is horrible sometimes. But it improves a lot. You can benefit when you edit large images.
Text looks extremly sharp, making it more enjoyable to read. You get a load of additional space, which becomes handy when you hoard files. Games look sharper and smoother (But this requires also much more performance).
I might have some problems now, but in 2-4 years I can still use my screen when others need to upgrade. 1080p will be outdated then, or have a similar position like 1024x768 and 1366x768 now.
>95% of world's tv stations are 480p fucking what?
You got Sauce on that? Even in shitty triopoly land of Canada they have fucking everything in 1080i.
>99% of movies not available in 4k.
No shit retard. Nd before bluray/hd dvd proper Launched 99% of movies weren't on either of these? Shit doesn't just get 100% adopted overnight.
>4k gaming is pointless and requires immense power.
Tonally user, the jaggies add character! Also 1080 can handle it reasonably well, give it a gen or two.
>The only way you will notice the difference
Fucking stupid, i notice it on a 30" monitor.
55" sweet spot is fair for tvs though, might as well go for 4k at that size once it becomes standard but not a deal breaker for anything smaller. Rather get an oled 1080 then 4k led at the price for
>the jaggies add character!
if u got jaggies at 1080p I suggest you lower tv sharpness and add some sort of AA
fxaa works fine on most games
>you will see a difference between 4k and 1080p ONLY if you sit 1 foot away from a 55inch screen
Maybe if you're legally blind. When was the last time you had your eyes checked?
>aa
Yes, because blurring it is better than increasing resolution.
Don't get me wrong i use MSAA anyway(not fxaa, what the fuck is wrong with you?), and it's not a terrible problem at 1440p but to say AA is a substiute for increased resolution is just stupid.
you clearly never watched some 16:9 1080p content
letterboxed movies can never be 1080p. since the letterbox takes 1/3 of the screen
ok then. have fun buying two nvidia 1080 just to become a meme
I don't think it's worth it at current prices, + i wanna go OLED at the same time. I am just saying your being an idiot.
Not him, but i don't get your point.
The letterbox film is the same ppi, so if he can or can't see the difference shouldn't change.
while you have a (wildly exaggerated) point, moving on to 4k will help to push resolutions up.
it'll make those who're still recording or broadcasting below 1080p finally upgrade.
1080p is the new low standard and that'll help all of us.
while I agree about the phones, 4k is brilliant on a 25-27" monitor.
>65 inch
Let's say 20 inch.
>is this the WORST meme of all time?
no 21:9 ultrashortscreen is
It cracks me up that 4K is actually 2160p, but they say 4k cause makes for a better buzzword. I think we're hitting a point of diminishing returns in tech innovation, just like in the videogame industry. 1080 was a big jump, 4K will be a lesser jump, and maybe we'll eventually end up at 6 or 8k, but I think companies will find another spec to fight over by then. I still own more DVDs than I do blu-rays, I think people are just going to stop caring.
progress of any kind is worth embracing. You'd have to be retarded to not want higher res displays.
Wake me up when 4k 144hz displays don't cost as much as a car.
I have a problem with the constant pushing of 4K for smartphone displays.
4k will be a meme for another 5 years. How 4k TVs are even selling is beyond me, but I guess there will always be people willing to shell out $1000+ for a TV. 4k movies likely won't be a thing for another 5 years and the difference is negligible for TVs under 40 inches.
Gaming at 4k would be nice but very few games even support it without mods and it's just too costly right now. It should make AA obsolete on 24 inch monitors though which is sweet.
For monitors it's useful, for TVs it pointless unless you get like a 80 inch screen.
I'm not ready to dive into 4K yet so I'll go for the middle road and buy a 1440p at 144hz
You still need a powerful graphics card to run everything smoothly on a 1440p monitor though.
I just got a new 4K TV and desu 1080p vs 4K isnt a big deal. but HDR is fucking glorious.
even on 4k there is shit like 蒙
>99% of movies are not even available at 4k
And 90% of movies available at 4k were filmed and mastered below 4k.
Fuck you, ultrawides actually make sense. I am loving mine.
Is 1440p also a meme?
Because im thinking of getting a new monitor
And in 2-4 years time people will be able to get 4k displays dirt cheap and with higher refresh rates than yours possibly.
it is a meme. op here. the difference from 1080p is so minimal its not even funny
what? literally all tv stations here are 1080i
it's not. it's like heavily AA'd 1080p but a lot clearer
Where? Here in Germany we don't have a single station broadcasting in 1080i/p. Then again I haven't watched television in a few years. But I'm pretty sure it's still the same.
I agree with this.
is 240 htz a meme refresh rate for my monitor?
>95% of the world's tv stations are still 480p
In what third world shithole? The current 1080i/720p standard in the USA was introduced 20 years ago and even earlier in Japan and Europe.
Slovakia/Czech republic here. Even we have Full HD stations, you gotta have some too.
>and even earlier in japan and europe
[citation needed]
>Look it up
>They were a year behind
Had it backward, oh well
>a canadian shitposter
Wew lad
Speaking of displays, what monitor would I buy if I want good black level and color accuracy?
5k is the best thing to ever happen to me.
Japan had analog high definition in the 1980s, but it was super expensive and no one used it.
en.wikipedia.org
fack off pedo -_-
>1080i/720p
>standard
SO WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT OF 4K THEN?
>4K
M A Y
A
Y
^_^
>not having 5k
High resolutions are the future. Who cares if video doesn't look better in it? You use your monitor for more than just videos and video games, I hope.
>has a 4k screen
I like this mentality, but it'll more likely push the broadcast minimum to 720 at best since 720 and 1080 both scale to 2160 perfectly. It's a meme magic resolution that pretty much all content looks good on provided adequate ui scaling.
I'm not sure how the jump from 720 to 1080 is a bigger jump than 1080 to 4k. Seriously now..
Tweak some settings and be sure to get g sync / freesync and it won't be a problem unless you're on some budget card. As long as your have a good mix of med-high settings leaning towards high that's perfectly fine.if you're looking at mid-town settings then yeah, just buy better hardware. While not ideal, triple buffering is also a wonderful thing. But in all seriousness, depending on what I'm playing I'd rather do 4k on medium with a 40fps minimum for the picture quality. But some games don't really scale that we'll when increasing some settings.
Standard broadcast is still in 480 in the US with the option for HD channels / content.
>95% of the world's tv stations are still 480p
>Caring what poorfags in turd world countries have when you can get better
Lel
>you will see a difference between 4k and 1080p ONLY if you sit 1 foot away from a 55inch screen
You will see it at any distance closer than 218cm (86 inches), actually, according to isthisretina.com
>Standard broadcast is still in 480 in the US with the option for HD channels / content.
i have eyes in my eye sockets. i pay for cable tv and i know my shit. no fuckin way tv is at 720p
It depends on your viewing distance you fucking idiot.
Unless you're playing some sort of fast paced competitive game and are pumping out 200+ fps. Yes, yes it is. Your Chinese cartoons will look better at 120fps because you can dedicate more power to higher scan and masking settings rather than injecting more frames.
Depends on your budget, really.
Best trade-off between color accuracy, color range and black levels currently is by far OLED. Which display to get depends highly on your budget. If you want the absolute best, no holds barred, get a Sony BVM-X30.
Apart from that, you could try getting a mythical unused reference CRT, but since they aren't being produced anymore, most of the used garbage you can get in practice will have severely degraded phosphors by now.
If neither of these are options (i.e. you need something cheaper and more accessible), and you really care about your blacks, you could get a Super-PVA panel instead. Those have exceptional black levels, but suffer from off-center color inaccuracy (similar to TN panels).
Diminishing returns. The difference between 120 Hz and 240 Hz is virtually imperceptible even at very high viewing angles (e.g. 90° and above).
The difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz is readily noticeable and a significant improvement. The difference between 24 Hz and 60 Hz is night and day even to untrained viewers.
The ITU-R has done boatloads of studies on this when deciding on the right picture format to standardize for BT.2020 / UltraHD. See ITU-R Reprt BT.2246-2 for more info.
(If you're curious, they ended up standardizing both 60 Hz and 120 Hz, for “normal” and “high” quality respectively)
>Sony BVM-X30
Sony BVM-X300*
Wallpaper please ^.^
It differs between providers and channels. But standard TV is still 480. That's literally why they still distinguish the hd channels separately and charge more for it. It's fucking stupid because at this point in time, who is paying for cable and doesn't at least have a 720p TV? When I said option for HD I meant 720/1080 I didn't consider the need to specify.
I was planning on getting a 980 Ti, according to my research it should be enough to get 60fps on most modern games with every setting set to the max. I might get another and run them in SLI in the future but for now that should be enough.
Personally (GTX 970 owner here), if the game doesn't run natively at 4K on max settings I'd just turn the resolution down to 1440p or 1080p to compensate.
Max settings at 1440p > Medium settings at 2160p any day of the week. (IMO)
>But standard TV is still 480.
That's not what I meant by standard, so what some cables companies do to rip people off doesn't matter considering almost all 480i/p channels in the US are just cropped/rescaled/reencoded versions of the 720p or 1080i stream. Even all of the free OTA channels are like this in my area.
What are your other triggers? So I know how to keep you comfortable, like a child in crib.
Thanks for the advice. I wanted something better than 1080p for my next upgrade but I don't think it's time to switch over to 4K just yet.
In my opinion 1440p is the next sweep spot.
But user
Those don't even exist yet
> your third world country not broadcasting 4k
But really, 480p is like a bad youtube video, that must suck.
If you only care about gaming and literally nothing else in your life matters, I would agree with you.
I was torn between a 1440p monitor and an ultra-wide actually, since I also program and the extra screen real estate would be great to have.
Screen real-estate is primarily a function of the apparent screen area (screen diagonal divided by the viewing distance).
The resolution only determines how good text looks on said screen area, it doesn't actually give you more working space (unless you increase your monitor to compensate).
That's why I got a 32" display for productivity (at 4K res, to make it not look like a piece of shit)
4k is great on a 22''~24'' screen with that high as fuck PPI :^)
Or to use as a render setting to super sample@1920x1080
It's also decent for editing/workstation stuff, though you'd want a 27'' display for that.
1440p is pretty much a waste, though. Hardware isn't at a point to get a consistent 120-144fps out of it, and it doesn't offer much of anything for editing/workstation over 1080p.
-Posted from a 3200x1800 XPS 13
>1440p is pretty much a waste, though. Hardware isn't at a point to get a consistent 120-144fps out of it, and it doesn't offer much of anything for editing/workstation over 1080p.
Of course it wouldn't. Resolution is mostly independent of screen real estate.
Definitely, get an average overclock and you shouldn't have any issues really.
Like I said it all depends on the game. They're getting a lot better at distinguishing the different graphical settings, but some games it really isn't a huge issue. Like forza and it's fucking procedurally generated foliage. Jesus Christ. If you're running mixed settings there are certain key things to go for that make the biggest impact. Texture detail, anistropic filtering, shadows, lighting and physics tend to be the biggest things to focus on.
I dunno if Nvidia has this, but for amd, if you actually use the raptr program. It has a built-in game optimization system that will take information from your system over time and generate an optimized settings profile for your hardware and that game. I've never tested it myself, but I do have a friend who says it makes a big difference in some titles. Though some games have really good built in settings optimization on their own as well.
It's all subjective, but max everything is objectively better just because you know you're getting the full experience. But it's really annoying that people still perpetuate the meme that if you can't run it at max, then you can't run it at all. Different strokes for different folks.
I remember a time when playing competitive games where I would disable shit like textures, not for muh fps but because there was an actual visual advantage to removing all the environmental clutter on your screen. But those games weren't particularly nice to look at to begin with I suppose.
It's even worse when they're pushing screens bigger than 1080p for BATTERY powered PORTABLE devices. And retards buying the meme, because "bigger numbers are better" or "muh vr".
>the world's TV stations
Yeah well 99% of the "world's" TV stations are irrelevant to anyone except from the ones in their country. So if you live in a non-shithole, Pajeet, most TV stations broadcast in HD.
We have to advance resolution wise because refreshrate doesn't do much at this point anymore.
Once you go past 144hz the refreshrate is so negligable you probably won't notice it, so what else can you do to improve the quality of your viewing? Obviously increase resolution.
And that's how it will go. 4k will be the next thing because it has to be.
>It's even worse when they're pushing screens bigger than 1080p for BATTERY powered PORTABLE devices. And retards buying the meme
Say that to my face and not online motherfucker and see what happens.
[spoiler]But really, it is pretty much a meme for anyone who doesn't need to do editing work[/spoiler]
this.
The entire gaming industry would die if there wasnt tiny "improvements" in technology. nobody would've bought an xbone based on the game experience. the games are an afterthought. the only thing that matters is graphical benchmarks.
He said world, and most of the world is third world. Check your privilege.
>63° while not doing anything
the future is now
My brother just got a HDR 4k and we compared. You can pick up the 4k instantly. The HDR is an added bonus. Even his pleb wife can pick it up when we did blind tests
Can you shitpost somewhere else please?
That's Photoshop and Adobe being retarded with a 30% CPU usage process.
It idles and shitposts at 34-38c. And even when it's under load and up to 70c it doesn't feel like it or really "run hot," it's also still pretty much entirely silent barring when running full 3d applications.
Do you know what shit posting is
Yes, worthless comments void of any information.
>tfw I got memed into a 15.6 inch 4k screen on my thinkpad
I'm so on the fence with it to be honest lads. I do photo and design work so the ppi is close to print resolution which is nice but there are some issues:
>half the apps can't scale without looking like shit
>performance and battery life compromised
>have to scale shit up 200% unless it's native 4k
It's also made my work way more anal about resolutions. I used to deliver samples and stuff at 1200px but now it feels cheap to give anything less than 2400px
>The only reason technology advances is because of video games
Go back to Sup Forums you retard.
This isn't as much of a problem on Loonix compared to Windows. It's probably because gtk/qt programs allows sharing the same scalable vector icons.
>480p
you mean 576i