Only excited about 4K so i can get higher quality versions of classic nude scenes

>only excited about 4K so i can get higher quality versions of classic nude scenes

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=C-iu8o5EObg
audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/1080p-and-the-acuity-of-human-vision/understanding-1080p-resolution-in-displays.html
copulins.freeservers.com/catalog.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I know this isn't a porn thread but I'd just like to say that I prefer to watch my porn in 480.

But I NEEEEED that 4K HDR HFR 3D Cheese Pizza!

This

Porn just looks better that way

Stretch marks and tit job scars truly are best in high definition

agreed

I don't need to see the cellulite and folliculitis and shit

I don't get that. But, whatever floats your goat I guess.

yeah why would I want to see dandruff on eyelashes

>tfw there are serious diminishing returns the higher up in resolution you go
>tfw paying thousands of dollars for a marginal increase in quality
>tfw can't even tell unless you're sitting a foot way from the TV unless you have tiger woods vision

Son, you just have poor vision. I can taste all the pixels in 4K video.

what if you have good eyesight?

you can't get proper 4K out of 35 mm film reels

>trying this hard to justify wasting hundreds of dollars

But I guess you have no choice. If you let yourself accept the fact that you've wasted all that money you'd have a nervous breakdown.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to see all the wrinkles and blackheads on an actors/actresses face.

seriously when I see some porn at 40000k and you can see each individual wrinkle and scar and other shit on their face I feel like killing mylsef

>tfw people will spend large sums of money to upgrade and then spending their time wondering if they can actually tell the difference instead of just enjoying the movie.

The diminishing returns, man. It's not wurf it

Why would you lie so poorly?

What you CAN'T get proper 4K out of is the 2K masters half of them just take and upscale, rather than going back and doing a proper 4K master (which is sometimes impossible completely since the effects were rendered at 2K).

>seriously when I see some porn at 40000k and you can see each individual wrinkle and scar and other shit on their face I feel like killing mylsef
this is why you've never had sex

>justifying to spend hundreds of dollars
Sorry son, but you might be poor. I don't even notice when I spend hundreds. Thousands I care about, but hundreds no.

I'm a PC masterrace, I can tell the difference between resolutions. But keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better when you can't actually afford it.

The funny thing is it actually the opposite.

People with poor vision benefit more from higher resolutions.

You can get 8k from them actually.

The fuck are you on about nigger.

I can taste your sour grapes my guy

No that's because I'm too esoteric for normies

>not being excited over 4k Joey
>youtube.com/watch?v=C-iu8o5EObg
what hte fuck is wrong with you, can't you see the texture of his big fat nose

He has a point. But the problem is porn itself. Visual stimuli can only go so far, so that's why women in porn have to be more sexually appealing by looks alone. Seeing shit likes scars decreases the visual appeal.

When you're actually having sex with a real grill, the stimuli is so much powerful that shit like scars doesn't really matter unless you're some sort of playboy who gets laid so much he needs the best of the best.

So are you saying that my 20/20 is poor, because I enjoy watching youtube 4k videos? Or are you just trying to sound smart by being borderline retard?

I think you are the poor nigger here son.

I prefer High res VR vids.
>People with poor vision benefit more from higher resolutions.
That doesn't make sense.

and it's largely useless because everything goes through old-age, wrinkle-reducing filters anyway.

we should be in a golden age of porn (and feets of stars) but quality is shit like the aol dialup age

Who hurt you?

>I'm a PC masterrace,

I literally fucking said "unless you're sitting a foot away from the TV"
Like, I don't know, when at a computer desk.

When you're just watching a movie on the couch in your living room on the TV, 4K offers nothing.

If women in ultra-high-def don't turn you on, you're either watching crack-whores in too much makeup (likely) or gay
Higher resolutions forces porn production companies to find attractive women

Otherwise we may as well stick to blurry 144p shit where we can sort of imagine that something sexual is happening

>Ali Rae did her BLACKED scene before they went 4K
WHY

If it's analogue, you should be able to upscale to any digital quality that you want, honestly. What's stopping you from going higher than 8K?

>we should be in a golden age of porn

we are, clips4sale/mydirtyhobby changed the porn game forever

I watched 4K videos just a week ago, from a couch on a 4K tv, and we even compared them to bluray movies. I don't know who you are trying to convince other than yourself, but people can see the difference. There were three of us watching and a single sad user here protesting. Guess what I hold true?

Why do you watch BLACKED?

I didn't mean availability; yes that is awesome. I meant the ever-higher quality video and pictures.

But 80 million megapixel photos of Tay Tay which should let you zoom in to her lips or feets or anywhere in-between does you no good if it looks like melted over Velveeta everywhere. Even Playboy airbrushing wasn't this bad.

>So are you saying that my 20/20 is poor, because I enjoy watching youtube 4k videos? Or are you just trying to sound smart by being borderline retard?
Wew. Never said that. Just said that people with poorer vision benefit more from higher resolutions not vise versa. No need to be edgy about it.

>That doesn't make sense.
Why not? If you view something in 4k at 10 feet it will look more crisp than 720p at 10 feet. Of course people with poor vision will benefit from this more.

>144p or 4k

Seeing blonde, blue eye'd qties get conquered is porn kino

What's it with Americans thinking "20/20" (called 1.0 or 100% in the civilised world) is some kind of super vision? It's literally the average corrected vision, for people of all ages. If you're young and only have 20/20 you're actually below average, most young people have 120%.

BLACKED outputs in 4k?
Really?!
Most films still don't master in 4k
Fair play

i've found that detail often goes down the higher resolution they go in porn. i guess they're using the cheapest 4K cameras they can get.

some of the stuff a decade ago, like brandon iron stuff, is DVD resolution but the detail seems so much higher and natural. weird, really.

There's a limit to quality pixel count.

Am not 'merican and our vision test doesn't go higher than the score I got, both vision and color recognition. So I don't know what your 120% is, but what ever is the maximum, I have that.

It's not so much as an American thing as it is an autistic Sup Forums thing. His whole post screams pretentious autist, so it's no surprise he thinks 20/20 is some sort of godly vision.

I have 20/15 personally. It doesn't really make a difference I don't think. As long as you aren't like 20/30 or something you're fine.

Why do you watch the site that puts so much focus on the black guy though? it's really fucking gay

>they fell for the 4k meme

I have no idea what those numbers mean. If you don't have perfect vision, you basically need glasses, even if you don't think you do.

I only have -0.25 on each eye and it feels weird looking without glasses now, I had no idea I even needed glasses before.

20/15 means I can see letters at 20 feet what someone with 20/20 would need to stand at 15 to see.

20/30 means I need to stand 20 feet to see letters someone with 20/20 would see at 30 feet.

>Just said that people with poorer vision benefit more from higher resolutions not vise versa

You're an absolute idiot, you know that? That makes zero fucking sense.

Take this thought to the extreme, I have -6 dioptries, literally less than 20/200 / 0.1 vision. Without glasses everything looks like 30x20 pixels to me. Explain to me how I benefit from the difference between 1080p an 4K, let alone VHS and 4K, rather than somebody with eagle vision who could actually make out those miniscule differences.

There is no theoretical maximum but the highest recorded in humans would be 20/10. You don't have 20/10.

>I prefer High res VR vids.

VR SCREENS IN GOGGLES ARE STILL TOO LOW RES AND LOW PPI FOR PROPERLY IMMERSIVE VR, AND FORGET ABOUT PHONE SCREENS STRAPPED TO YOUR FACE

I can't tell the difference between 1080 and UHD

you touch it with a stick

...

YOU BLIND NIGGA

PROBABLY COMPARING ON A 1080P SCREEN

ANYWAY HFR IS THE WOW FACTOR IN VIDEO, 60FPS-120FPS 1080P IS WAY MORE IMPRESSIVE THAN 30FPS 4K

MOST 4K SCREENS HAVE DOGSHIT REFRESH RATES AROUND 30HZ, THEY CANT DO MOTION TO SAVE THEIR LIVES

PLASMA HAS 600HZ SUBFIELD REFRESH, STILL THE KING OF MOTION REPRODUCTION

No, I don't have that crazy lasik vision. But I have perfect vision. Anyway, I can see and appreciate the higher resolution of 4K over HD in distances from my computer monitor to a tv from a couch.

I have actually been advocating for 4K over 3D for as long as I have been handling Red One cameras and files. I believe they add to the immersion more than 3D at the moment. Even more so is the fov is increased i.e. IMAX.

Guess how I know you haven't seen 4k VR porn yet

>You're an absolute idiot, you know that? That makes zero fucking sense.
No you are. Higher resolutions allow people with poorer vision to see things better. I'm not saying they will magically see things the same way someone with 20/20.

I'm saying 4k will benefit 20/30 more than 20/20 compared to 1080p. This is a fact.

>I'm saying 4k will benefit 20/30 more than 20/20 compared to 1080p. This is a fact.

No, it is the ramblings of a madman.

>i guess they're using the cheapest 4K cameras they can get.
considering that a considerable amount of professional hd porn is shot on consumer camcorders, this is very likely

if they used proper cameras, they'd have to pay people who know how to use proper cameras

There is nothing factual about your post. I don't even know how you can argue what you do.

Person A (perfect vision) : |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Person B (not-perfect vision): ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| |||

It doesn't matter how you increase the resolution, person A will always see more of the image.

>900x900

Also, 4k is shit. You can get 8k and 16k cameras now.

The same thing was said when we went from VHS to DVD then to Bluray.

Also, you need glasses.

if you can see less detail, then you want the best picture possible
imagine vision as a multiplier to an image
perfect vision is 1
real-life is also 1
So someone with perfect vision in real life = 1x1 = 1
Let's call hd video 0.75
Perfect vision watching an hd video = 1 x 0.75 = 0.75
Let's say someone has less than perfect vision and needs glasses. We'll call it 0.5

Glasses-person watching hd video = 0.5 x 0.75 = 0.375
Now, do you think the overall quality (the result of the equation) will get better or worse (higher or lower) if the quality is increased?
PROTIP: it will get better

lrn to maths

>debating fact
Do you not understand this is, in essence, how we do eye tests?

People with better vision can read the smaller letters. People with poorer vision cannot. If those letters were on a screen, then the resolution could be bumped up. The smaller letters would become crisper and easier for both people to see. The effects would be more noticable for the person with poor vision because resolution increases have diminishing returns. Maybe you should think critically about things instead of assuming you're intuition is right all the time.

see
I never said "seeing more" either.

what resolution do our eyes sea in?

4.5k
It's why 6k or 8k is a meme
You test this by moving your eye really close to a wall and seeing the individual pixels

I hope you guys realize that what you are saying is literally the same thing as:

>"You profit MORE from 4K if you sit 20 feet from your TV than if you sit 10 feet from it"

Which of course if the exact opposite of reality.

Morons.

As long as YIFY can get those files down to < 2GB I'm all on board with 4K

all this talk about resolution is fine but what about HDR?

>can't refute the arguments
>makes up an unrelated strawman instead
gd going

>what resolution do our eyes sea in?
480P 8BPC @ 30FPS

ANYTHING ABOVE THAT IS A MEME, TRUST ME I AM EXPERT

You lack critical thinking skills or know you're wrong but keep trying anyway. Nobody is saying:

>You profit MORE from 4K if you sit 20 feet from your TV than if you sit 10 feet from it

I'll try one more time before digging up sources for you:

20/20 and 20/30 are standing equal distances (3' by your picture) from a TV.

The TV is at 1080p. It is then switched to 4k resolution.

20/20 will not notice a difference. However, 20/30 will. That's because someone with 20/30 see things at 20 feet how 20/20 will see things at 30 feet. His vision is poorer. He wasn't seeing what 20/20 was seeing at 1080p in the first place (or maybe he was, don't feel like computing that), but now that it's been jumped to 4k he is for sure seeing things how 20/20 was seeing them before. He's not seeing more obviously. He just benefits from it more.

8 Bit Per Corner?

>all this talk about resolution is fine but what about HDR?

HDR really depends on mastering. Some shows look meh because of bad master (Marco Polo), some look very good (Daredevil or Grand Tour).

I don't mind low-res porn, but I wish the frame rate was higher. I need 60 fps.

>unrelated
It's literally the same thing as I already said, it is the very definition of visual acuity. Someone with 20/40 vision sees the same details as someone with 20/20 vision who stands twice as far away. Want to know how someone with worse vision sees the TV compared to you? Just move farther away from the TV than him.

Same thing here. You're literally saying someone who sits 30 feet away from the TV would benefit more from 4K than if he sat 20 feet away. By definition, the difference in visual acuity between the same guy sitting at 20 and 30 feet distance, or a 20/20 and a 20/30 guy sitting at the same distance, is one and the same. So either you also agree with this retarded statement:

>someone who sits 30 feet away from the TV would benefit more from 4K than if he sat 20 feet away

Or you retract all of your mindless drivel.

PROTIP: People who see the TV like pic related don't benefit at all from minor increments in detail as they are completely lost on them anyway, as opposed to people with sharp vision OR people who sit very closely where they can actually make out the difference.

It's like saying hearing-impaired people benefit more from very expensive headphones than audiophiles with perfect hearing.

Makes a huge difference in VR. You'll be wishing for 90fps.

I can never watch regular cuck porn ever again after experiencing VR

what about VR cuck porn?

What the fuck is wrong with? Quit strawmanning my fucking argument.

>someone who sits 30 feet away from the TV would benefit more from 4K than if he sat 20 feet away
I NEVER said that.

People with poorer vision benefit more from higher resolution than people with better vision. I'm not saying they actually see more ,just the relative benefit they have you fucking idiot.

audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/1080p-and-the-acuity-of-human-vision/understanding-1080p-resolution-in-displays.html
>One thing to keep in mind is that they are based on having 20/20 vision. If you have worse vision, you can sit closer, and if you have better vision, you will want to be farther away than what is indicated there.

So if both people are at equal distances an increase in resolution will allow the person with poorer vision to "see" 1080p instead of having to move closer. Because of diminishing returns, the person with better vision won't see as much of an increase in detail RELATIVELY than the person with poorer vision will. Just stop fucking replying already.

>When you're actually having sex with a real grill, the stimuli is so much powerful

Succubi hijack your mind with a biological attack.

copulins.freeservers.com/catalog.html

Haven't seen someone so daft in a while. Not even a hint of trying to process someone else's argument.

>"a + b = c"
>"Okay, so you're also saying "a = c - b" ?"
>"I NEVER said that."

Nice strawman shitposter.

You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means.

I do.

>someone who sits 30 feet away from the TV would benefit more from 4K than if he sat 20 feet away
That's a fucking strawman. Because I'm talking about two different people with two different eyesights. Not one person.

You're strawmanning just like the other user said because you're too proud to admit you were wrong.

>That's a fucking strawman

No it's the literal definition of how visual acuity is measured.

>No it's the literal definition of how visual acuity is measured.
You're retarded.

oh boy that sure showed me gimme some more of those hot unfounded opinions my dude