What is the fucking point?!

what is the fucking point?!

just focus on picture quality, you fucking retards. no one cares about ridiculous resolutions. our eyes can't see the difference

>what should we do with the next gen TVs?
>ADD. MORE. PIXELS!!!

Other urls found in this thread:

engadget.com/2016/08/02/the-first-8k-satellite-tv-broadcasts-are-live-in-japan/
carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
mostly-tech.com/2013/11/08/debunking-the-retina-display-myth/
engadget.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/
9to5mac.com/2017/06/01/iphone-8-sony-camera-sensors/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Your eye not being able to distinguish a pixel doesn't mean it doesn't look better

Higher resolution = higher picture quality

marketing, stupid normies love bigger numbers! see megapixels...

it's the same, stop fooling yourself. you can't see shit

Bigger TVs need more pixels to not look like dogshit. Plus, some of us hook up our PCs to them, and shit don't look right on multiple screens.
One big screen with the same square inch and resolution as multiples is better, any day.

What TV do you have?

I have two, FHD and UHD. both I watch from a distance of a few meters. YOU. CAN'T. SEE. SHIT.

Sounds like you just need glasses user.
I can tell HD from FHD at 6 meters on a 40"

...

>I have two, FHD and UHD. both I watch from a distance of a few meters. YOU. CAN'T. SEE. SHIT.
That isn't normal user. But it's ok, many people use glasses, so it's nothing to be embarassed about.

Sounds like you're either dumb, blind, or both.

it's mildly amusing that you're mocking apple when they've been the slowest in the "megapixel race"

same with screen resolution, cpu cores, and ram

It's to keep costs down and milk the sheeple.

placebo is powerful

On the good side, the (previously) good display tech are become cheaper.

I'm seated about 12 feet from my 60 inch 4k tv. When I upgraded form my 55 inch 1080p, the picture quality was a huge noticeable improvement.

Refer to

Still hard as tits to find a UHD ultrawide monitor (3440x1440) at above 100hz... or even at 100hz at a decent price.

Wtf this asian girl is really big

No TV channel broadcasts in 8K and where do you obtain 8K media?

>what is the fucking point?!
i dunno, higher resolution?

Someone tell Best Buy

>graph made by people with bad eyes
The same graph 10 years ago would have 480i at 720p on the axis - did peoples eyes get better in 10 years?
What will the 2027 version of the bollocks graph show?

>just focus on picture quality
back to CRTs we go

Now you know why they push this shit. it's a nigger cattle treadmill to sell more pixels. more pixels = more material = more $$$$$

What kind if input does it have? Hdmi? Does it support 8k/60hz?

But I dont care really, I wont be buying it

>did peoples eyes get better in 10 years?
Probably self-justifications from people who want to avoid spending money. They didn't want to spend the money for 720p so they told themselves that 480i was good enough, but now that 720p is cheap as fuck, anything lower is ridiculous to them.

Bite me; 480i is still fine.

>TV channels

hello grandpa

in japan 8k tv channel broadcasts are a standard

that's like saying that cinemas should all be displaying their images in 1080P. trust me, it'd look like dog shit.

>Can the pixels over a photo

You again... If you're gonna CRT at least get a good one.
>hello grandpa
Hello underage b&
No broadcasts at 8K until the Tokyo Olympics tho.

hurr durr
engadget.com/2016/08/02/the-first-8k-satellite-tv-broadcasts-are-live-in-japan/

>Unfortunately, there's no way to watch the super high res feeds and 22.2 channel sound at home -- even with a $130,000 8K TV -- but interested Japanese residents can check out tests of the feeds at several public locations in Tokyo and Osaka.
>Didn't read the article
What did he mean by this?

Either you're blind or watching youtube at 1080p/4k and thinking that's a valid comparison.

>No arms

Sums up the nips nicely

But then theres also refresh rate and color accuracy. In most monitors and tvs you still have to compromise between resolution and refresh rate, unless you want to pay out of your ass.

8K is the point where diminishing returns gets pushed to the extreme - there *is* a meaningful advantage in using it over 4K, but anything beyond it is essentially indistiguishable. I recently went to an electronics store and saw a $100,000 100'' Sony 4K TV, and I was able to distinguish individual pixels at roughly three feet. While it'd be ridiculous to complain about that, I think that it exemplifies why NHK wants to beyond 4K.
You also need to see it beyond just a high-resolution play. ISDB-International is still on its first revision, a second one, 4K-capable, could carry perhaps 4 1080p channels using the same bandwidth as one current 720p SBTVD channel. NHK is also researching usage of 4096-QAM in TV broadcasting, which could give up to 96 Mbps bandwidth via standard digital TV bands. Imagine watching Blu-Ray quality TV via OTA? Imagine how premium cable, through a hypothetical ISDB-C2, could use this as a way of driving up demand by offering movie theater-like stream quality?

apple has some of the best smartphone cameras you idiot. it's not just about the number of pixels.

this, 4K already looks bad enough

>implying this is standard
No, the standard is 1080i.

lots of ppl ITT in denial.

if you have a computer monitor just switch Windows resolutions in "display settings" to lowest than highest.

even after doing this these people will reject the proof they just saw somehow.

higher resolution won't make up for poor budget and direction

When will 4k become common?

That's because you are literally right next to the monitor instead of 10 feet away.
Retard, use an aliasing test and go back and I fucking assure you that you won't get aliasing after a certain distance.

There are still morons who cannot see the difference between HD fullHD 4K and 8K. It's like day and night and solar eclipse and lunar eclipse

Is this shitposting? I genuinely can't tell the difference with how pants-shittingly retarded resolutionfags are.

>just focus on picture quality
I do care about resolutions as well but this is a totally great point.

I'll take any 1080p IPS or AHVA panel over any 4k or 8k TN panel any day.

What I actually use right now is 1440p AHVA panels on my desktop and a 1080p AHVA on my laptop (it came with a 1080p TN which I replaced).

Sure, 4k or 8k panels as a standard, even on laptops, would be nice. But for right now it would be great if they could focus on making computer screens not look horrible and not have washed-out colors.

As for televisions, I don't really care, not even a little. I haven't owned one in decades and I won't be buying one any time soon.

I want to get a window sized display and mount it on the wall to show pretty views and landscapes so I can pretend I'm not stuck in a shithole

>4096-QAM in TV
that sounds like it would be very sensitive to interference or noise

>Even though your eyes can't tell if it looks better, it might still look better. You just need to convince your eyes that it looks better and maybe they'll eventually agree.

That's like saying if they add audio frequencies that are lower and higher than the human ear can perceive, the audio quality is higher. Technically, it's higher, but it's also fucking useless because you can't hear it. Any whales in the vicinity might appreciate it, so there's that.

Higher resolution = upscaled image = worse qualitu

I mean, cinemas project on between FHD and 4K

I can see the pixels in the 4k TV, i'm all for 8K, so that we reach the point a TV will be a fucking Black mirror

I'm very sensitive to pixels too. I had the same impression as you, I can see the fucking pixels, so I'm all for the 8k to really improve finalize the screen marketing.
What are we gonna see next will be AR or VR, because the curved screens are memes for lonely people, and holograms seems way far from now

This is Real Graphics, some error on Steve Jobs Retina measure on 300dpi.

carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

Real retina display begins 500dpi to 600 dpi, Graphics say 4K is useless comes from Retina Apple formula.

mostly-tech.com/2013/11/08/debunking-the-retina-display-myth/

Note dpi means dots per inch measure length pixel,don't number of pixel on square inch, 2 times more dpi equals 4 times more pixel.

>Higher megapixel count = higher picture quality
this is u rn

>like audio frequencies above the human range
It's actually more like audio sample rates being so high you cant distinguish the individual samples.

Honestly 4K is more than enough since you're not just hugging the fucking TV. Frankly if you need so much resolution for reading, you use a monitor instead on a desktop, not a fucking TV.

Besides there's a difference between "not looking like shit" and "not looking absolutely perfect". It's like a resolution over 1080p on a 5.5 inch phone, it only would exist for VR, otherwise you can't justify it. You can't. Not "oh my eyes are so finicky and so different to yours that they can see the difference between 400 and 450 PPI. No. Fuck off.

Real
engadget.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/

You literally cannot. Trust me. I am a turbo autist about this subject and have argued for better image quality for years but this is something even I will admit.

6 meters?
40"?

You absolutely cannot tell the difference between 1920x1080 and 3840x216.

The increase in picture quality could be due to several other factors. Your 4k television may have a better contrast ratio, for instance.

1 meter, 50 inches, 2160p

It's pretty glorious.

this is bullshit
i can see a difference between 720p and 1080p from 13 feet on a 42 inch screen

Did you guys use 4k with production software like Maya Houdini or Nuke? Its fucking awesome. if 8k will allow for a similar jump in "comfiness" then its worth it

>no one cares about ridiculous resolutions.
Then why do they sell units you retard?

>our eyes can't see the difference

Bullshit. If that were true, you wouldn't need anti-aliasing for games and such, would you?

Blind or just retarded?

Companies also manage to sell units of gold plated $10,000 "premium" digital audio cables. There's another sucker born every minute.

This

>1 meter
just kys already

This is bad graphics
And this is Real Graphic

the fuck is that comparison? are you an idiot?

Well, 35mm is actually really similar to 1080p in potential quality

i don't know a cinema that doesn't project on at least 4k

Eh, atleast you know this will be the final endgame for resolutions, since it's already overkill.

And how is that relevant to anything I said?

because telling a consumer that a tv supports 12 bit color depth with rec.2020 color gamaut with a native contrast ratio of 700000:1 and can emit 1100 nits and supports true brightness hdr(2) log gama doesnt sell.... saying OH MAH GAWD 8k PIXELLLZ makes people who want to watch football buy a tv.

Well being a turbo autist I was sure you'd argue with me. Way to let your species down.

I have a 4k 43" TV that I sit about 10 feet from. This clearly justifies 4k from that distance

The only problem is where Dafuq can I get 4k content?

just wait for 16K, THE NEXT BIG THING

stop lying

PSA: The ideal distance to sit from a screen for cinematic content results in a 45 degree horizontal field of view. This is usually 1/2 way to 2/3rds of the way back in a movie theater. It's also the sweet spot for surround sound.

You can calculate a screen's horizontal width for a 16:9 screen by multiplying by the diagonal width by 0.872

Then multiply the horizontal width by 1.2 to find the 45 degree FOV distance you should sit at. Or 1.54 for 36 degrees, the alternate THX standard.

For photographic content, there's no fucking way you can tell the difference between 4k and 8k unless you sit much closer to the screen than the ideal distance. It's pointless.

>that massive discrepancy
really makes you think

4K was supposed to be the endgame

8K is getting pretty good for video but gpu rendered stuff could use a lot more resolution because video takes an integral over the surface area of the pixel and over time but realtime-rendered gpu stuff only gets 1-16 point samples per pixel

resolution is literally the easiest way to increase picture quality without having to master something on a 1k+ nits capable device that will burn your retinas in

1080P are 1920 X 1080, but 4K 3840 X 2160 real 4K was 7680 X 4320, industry believe huge gap 16 times was so big then create "4K" and "8K"(real 4K).

>Apple has some of the best cameras.
You're thinking of Sony.

yeah

9to5mac.com/2017/06/01/iphone-8-sony-camera-sensors/

>mfw 4K OLED screens are still as expensive as they were 5 years ago

God damn it, hurry up. My old Plasma is already getting noticeable burn-ins.

42" at 4k is perfect for windows. No scaling, size still manageable, monitor doubles as decently sized TV.

Linus recently made a video about that, using some weird ultrathin LG screen.

Get a poster.

funny thing is, current gen OLED TVs has serious burn-in issues

>buy a huge TV.
>sit a mile away so that the screen looks as big as a 5inch

They've been projecting at 2K for years, user. 2K is 2048x1080.

looks like shit. going to the movies is an overrated normie social thing

I want to focus on her resolution