Tfw 99% of 1080p video is actually 540p and 4K video is actually 1080p

>tfw 99% of 1080p video is actually 540p and 4K video is actually 1080p

Is 4:4:4 video ever going to become a thing or are we going to have to download "8K" video for 4K TVs/monitors and "16K" video for 8K TVs/monitors for all eternity?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling
youtube.com/watch?v=kIf9h2Gkm_U
whatdigitalcamera.com/technology_guides/bayer-filter-work-60461
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

unless you are editing video
you wont notice 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 anyway

4:2:0*

And yes you will when compared to 4:4:4 video especially on a big TV.

Wtf you can't divide 2 by 0.

Yes you do.

But you can blaze it

Some TV are 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, codec video begin use 4:2:2 as max color, plus add compresion.

Sensor on cameras use Bayer filter means 1/4 colors(1 red,2green,1 blue), means need 8K camera to get 4K color, only Blu-ray UHD will had 4:4:4 on future...

The Martian was recorded on a 2K camera.
It was sold as a 4K bluray movie.
What does this tell you?

People aren't using luma subsampling. Your 1080p video is still 1080p.

YAMERO

No, you wont, from zooming in or out, i zoomed out till pixels were no longer noticeably larger than a single pixel on the right image, in color there is next to no noticeable difference,

Everyone compresses the hell out of video for bandwith, something even if bandwith was plentiful, they would still likely do outside of jerking off to major events where they brag, because there is better shit to do with said bandwidth.

for video, in motion, there is no real difference between 4:2:0 and 4:4:4, even doing something where you have no real compression, gaming, 4:2:0 is only slightly noticeable.

4:4:4 is really just for normal computer use with text, now back to the size of the image, it is around 1.5x1.5 inches on a 24 inch 1080p

lets say this was a small living room tv of 48 inches, I would be at least 6 times further away watching it then I am right now, at that distance, it honestly doesn't fucking matter 1 bit. for it to matter, you would need to have a legitimate home theater and sit in the front row.

u gais r dumb

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling

quality of the camera and optics matter FAR more then absolute resolution?

op you are a retard if you put a 540p video into after effects and export it at 50k the quality will be 1000 times better

Yeah, that's why I said luma subsampling you fucking retard. Your 1080p video is still 1080p.

>muh chroma
Fuck you.

how about instead of being blown up faked images, we use real images,

this one is 4:4:4

Note the color on the red and blue text area

here is 4:2:2

again note the same area

>for video, in motion
>posts static image of text to argue against this point

And here is 4:2:0 again note the same area

again note the same area

Now, look through them at the windows interface text, and the small bit of the background.

you barely if at all see a difference, and that is when you zoom in to the point he pixels are 400-800% bigger

In video, again note the text here is literal worst case scenario, chroma 4:2:0 is almost unnoticeable, and it takes shit with single pixel widths to pick it out.

>cuck bro fox
lmao

What am I looking at?

>puzzled.jpeg

Hey bud. Chroma subsampling is used for video. You know, that thing where you have to store literally millions of pixels across tens of thousands of frames.
Spoiler alert: if you're doing a screen recording you can use whatever subsampling you want, or even an alternative format.

what is your fucking point?
I have you 4:4:4, 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 in a real world not wiki dramatized version.

Yeah dude, the quick brown fox on shitty primary colors using a disgusting font is definitely real world. You might be surprised to see what people are using video for. Check out a cool website called Youtube, there are many examples of real world video use there. You'll find that chroma subsampling doesn't effect the results nearly as much as you think, especially since luma is far for important for the visual.

You have shown that perhaps subsampling is not a great choice for screen recordings. Cool.

Holy fuck I have never been this fucking confused in my life.

then why does 1080p video on a 1080p screen look the same as 4k video on a 1080p screen?

>cuck brown fox
4:2:0 knows what's up

It doesn't

youtube.com/watch?v=kIf9h2Gkm_U

yeah it looks even worse if you don't downscale it properly, but if you do then it looks the same.

i fuckin knew it.
has anyone noticed how much better VHS video camera footage looks compared to fucking encoded video because of the bitrates

just to make sure we're on the same page here;
Yes, a 4:4:4 1080p video with high enough bitrate will be indistinguishable from a 4K video on a 1080p monitor.
However if the video was encoded with 4:2:2 or worse subsampling, 4K will look noticeably more detailed.

Holy shit so OP was right. I was actually gonna buy a 4K monitor but fuck that, I'll wait until 8K video becomes widespread.

First 8K TV,monitor will become widespread before video and camera need 4 times more resolution.

Real gamechange on display is REC2020 plus HDR.

whatdigitalcamera.com/technology_guides/bayer-filter-work-60461

So in order to get the maximum from my 1080p TV I have to watch 4K content on it.
Sweet.
brb downloading some 4K movies

>has anyone noticed how much better VHS video camera footage looks compared to fucking encoded video because of the bitrates
no?

Yes