>unless even bigger screens become a norm.
I don't think I'll ever understand why cuckolds choose to use 2 tiny little 24" monitors or crappy 27" 1440p ones when you can get a 40" 4k screen. When they're produced at reasonable prices, I'll be upgrading to an 85" 8k monitor for total content freedom.
A 40 inch TV is too tall to comfortably use often you'd also be relying on software completely to keep things organized but I hear that's a lot better these days. Two 20-something 16:9 or 16:10 displays is more versatile and gives you the same screen real estate. Only losing out for watching movies and playing games with no multitasking.
>>A 40 inch TV is too tall to comfortably use
Spoken like a true moron. My 43" monitor is as tall as my old 24" 1080p vertical monitor was.
The biggest thing for me when encountering morons like yourself is that I really do wonder how stupid you have to be to not understand your own vision range. Are you a chink, or do you walk around in a suit of armor? Because that's the only explanation I can find for why you think the 16 is fine, but the 9? Ooh, that's just too tall!
As for software organisation, I just use aquasnap, works fine. I can drag a window to an edge in half a second. A dual monitor setup is far less versatile, and offers HALF the real estate. Realistically, it offers even less than that because most 2 monitor setups totally neglect vertical aspect ratios. If they made a 50" 4:3 monitor, I would've bought that, vertical space is way more important than horizontal to begin with.
Do you not know how diagonals work? Look, I'll teach you something you should've learnt when you were 5. Say you have a square, the sides are 1 by 1. Guess what the diagonal distance between two corners is? Hint, it's not 1.
I prefer to game at 144 fps, preferably even higher. My 240hz screen is magical and when I switched my 65" TV from 1080p to 4k in Elden Ring I had to be 40cm in front of it to actually see a difference.
find a chainlink fence in a game and switch between 1080/1440/2160
it'll look better with each step, but still reach a distance threshold where it turns to shit...
so for chainlink fence rendering we do need 16k
It's like that for most tech related things honestly. Phones are comparable where we have reached a "plateau" in what we can achieve with them and now you're just paying hundreds of dollars for minor differences.
actually that would be 4K for a lot of old films. they are 1:1 reproduced digitally at that resolution. I think new movies, filmed entirely on film cameras, would require 8K to the full color and lighting. 16K is diminishing returns. the only use i could see would be better stadium displays or the multipanel displays you see ads on.
I remember one time I asked the TV guy at Bestbuy what the better TV was, 8k or 4k, and he said after 8k the human eye can't detect any higher resolution.
Man, that's so cool. I know we're far off from seeing good video game performance at that resolution, but new good high resolution films are gonna look so good on it. Can't wait for all those great films I'm gonna be able to watch on them.
I remember one time I asked the TV guy at Bestbuy what the better TV was, 8k or 4k, and he said after 8k the human eye can't detect any higher resolution.
>and he said after 8k the human eye can't detect any higher resolution.
I mean, he's just wrong.
But it depends on what you're talking about. For a TV and video? 4k is legitimately beyond the limit. You won't see any improvement over 1080p in 99% of scenes. For high contrast text on a monitor? 16k is getting close to the limit for full field view.
>But it depends on what you're talking about. For a TV and video? 4k is legitimately beyond the limit. You won't see any improvement over 1080p in 99% of scenes. For high contrast text on a monitor? 16k is getting close to the limit for full field view.
for WHAT SIZE
saying "x definition is fine" is pointless if you don't specify how big a screen it is. 16k on a sufficiently large screen would look like shit
The size doesn't matter, unless you're going to extremes. What matters is your distance from the screen. For desktop, that means at 3 feet, a 4k screen should be over 40", 8k should be over 80", and 16k is high DPI 80" (because 80" is about the limit of the visual cone, and going up to 160" gives zero benefits). You could buy a 27" 4k screen and have high DPI, but you will have what is functionally equivalent to a 1080p panel.
For living rooms, you double all these figures. 4k is minimum 80", 8k is minimum 160", etc. If you sit more than 6 feet away, those numbers get even bigger.
The key is having a PPD of 60 for optimum usage and "bang for your buck", and a PPD of around 120 for high DPI settings.
No it's not. Getting games are good framerates at 4k only just became a thing. And a lot of games are more demanding with ray tracing now, or even full path tracing. Anyone who values their framerate is not moving past this resolution any time soon. In fact only the highest end cards are doing ray tracing at 4k, mid tier has to settle for something else for decently high fps
No videocard can run modern AAA on 4k/60 fps native. Most 4k movies worth watching were not recorded in 4k. It really doesn't matter. You will still be seeing the same level of detail as the 1080 camera was able to record and will still see the same level of detail on your videogames as if you rendered it on 1080.
>No videocard can run modern AAA on 4k/60 fps native
Modern AAA is all garbage anyway, what do I care? I can run new games in a window or use DLSS shit, and old games all run at 500fps.
most media max out between 1080p and 4K, 8K also requires a lot of space so I dont think 8K will really get much traction as 4K (I know it slow but it picks up these days)
>hey here's this TV that can output 16k >99% of content is still being made in 1080p >at best
It's embarrassing to see 4k TVs still being advertised largely with promotional materials rather than content actually made in 4k
>crispy smooth 4k/30fps unless i spend $3000 extra or compromise on lesser graphics >meanwhile 1440/140hz looks the same and i can turn all the bells and whistles like super ultra rtx and detailed pubes
4k is a meme for games
8K is already sucker bait, there's no two ways around it. When you have to focus to actually notice a difference, you should be realizing that the difference doesn't matter.
He knows a lot about TVs and does a lot of really in-depth testing and compairsons. Going to a trade show once a year for content is fun but you're insane if you think that's his entire job.
God damn do I hate norimes. I love how all the 4k oled tvs are super cheap now and all smartphones get superAMOLED displays while monitors are stuck in 2014 fricking kill me
idk man anything beyond 4k just sounds like a diminishing returns unless even bigger screens become a norm.
>unless even bigger screens become a norm.
I don't think I'll ever understand why cuckolds choose to use 2 tiny little 24" monitors or crappy 27" 1440p ones when you can get a 40" 4k screen. When they're produced at reasonable prices, I'll be upgrading to an 85" 8k monitor for total content freedom.
A 40 inch TV is too tall to comfortably use often you'd also be relying on software completely to keep things organized but I hear that's a lot better these days. Two 20-something 16:9 or 16:10 displays is more versatile and gives you the same screen real estate. Only losing out for watching movies and playing games with no multitasking.
>>A 40 inch TV is too tall to comfortably use
Spoken like a true moron. My 43" monitor is as tall as my old 24" 1080p vertical monitor was.
The biggest thing for me when encountering morons like yourself is that I really do wonder how stupid you have to be to not understand your own vision range. Are you a chink, or do you walk around in a suit of armor? Because that's the only explanation I can find for why you think the 16 is fine, but the 9? Ooh, that's just too tall!
As for software organisation, I just use aquasnap, works fine. I can drag a window to an edge in half a second. A dual monitor setup is far less versatile, and offers HALF the real estate. Realistically, it offers even less than that because most 2 monitor setups totally neglect vertical aspect ratios. If they made a 50" 4:3 monitor, I would've bought that, vertical space is way more important than horizontal to begin with.
>43 inches is 37.5 inches
ok Black person.
Do you not know how diagonals work? Look, I'll teach you something you should've learnt when you were 5. Say you have a square, the sides are 1 by 1. Guess what the diagonal distance between two corners is? Hint, it's not 1.
dual monitors are morono too, you can never use both comfortably
I prefer to game at 144 fps, preferably even higher. My 240hz screen is magical and when I switched my 65" TV from 1080p to 4k in Elden Ring I had to be 40cm in front of it to actually see a difference.
Things that didn't happen for 500, Alex.
find a chainlink fence in a game and switch between 1080/1440/2160
it'll look better with each step, but still reach a distance threshold where it turns to shit...
so for chainlink fence rendering we do need 16k
It's like that for most tech related things honestly. Phones are comparable where we have reached a "plateau" in what we can achieve with them and now you're just paying hundreds of dollars for minor differences.
I'll just wait till 256k
Isn't 8K already equal to 35mm film resolution? How long until we exceed the resolution of a retina with 20:20 vision?
The human eye cannot see 35mm film
actually that would be 4K for a lot of old films. they are 1:1 reproduced digitally at that resolution. I think new movies, filmed entirely on film cameras, would require 8K to the full color and lighting. 16K is diminishing returns. the only use i could see would be better stadium displays or the multipanel displays you see ads on.
you can make this argument for 4K.
Good to know, I was gonna upgrade lmao but that saved me a thousand bucks. Thanks bros.
Is 4k still a meme? Should I just get a 1440p?
go to a store with a 27 inch 1440p monitor and a 32inch 4k monitor and test it out yourself
1440p/144hz is perfect all the way up to 32"
The problem is that current specs don't even allow decent refresh rates at 8k. HDMI and Displayport need upgrades.
I can't go back to anything less than 4k now.
Man, that's so cool. I know we're far off from seeing good video game performance at that resolution, but new good high resolution films are gonna look so good on it. Can't wait for all those great films I'm gonna be able to watch on them.
I remember one time I asked the TV guy at Bestbuy what the better TV was, 8k or 4k, and he said after 8k the human eye can't detect any higher resolution.
I chose to believe him.
It depends on the viewing distance. At 10ft, you can't tell the difference between 8k, and 4k. Actually, at 4ft, you can't tell the difference.
Most people sit 9ft away from their TV. if you sit further than 8.6ft away, you cant tell the difference between 4k, and 1080p
Honestly 1080p is all you really need. Anything else is heavy diminishing returns.
>Honestly 1080p is all you really need. Anything else is heavy diminishing returns.
You are listening to idiots
I gave both a try personally though and I prefer higher refresh rate over more pixels
>and he said after 8k the human eye can't detect any higher resolution.
I mean, he's just wrong.
But it depends on what you're talking about. For a TV and video? 4k is legitimately beyond the limit. You won't see any improvement over 1080p in 99% of scenes. For high contrast text on a monitor? 16k is getting close to the limit for full field view.
>But it depends on what you're talking about. For a TV and video? 4k is legitimately beyond the limit. You won't see any improvement over 1080p in 99% of scenes. For high contrast text on a monitor? 16k is getting close to the limit for full field view.
for WHAT SIZE
saying "x definition is fine" is pointless if you don't specify how big a screen it is. 16k on a sufficiently large screen would look like shit
The size doesn't matter, unless you're going to extremes. What matters is your distance from the screen. For desktop, that means at 3 feet, a 4k screen should be over 40", 8k should be over 80", and 16k is high DPI 80" (because 80" is about the limit of the visual cone, and going up to 160" gives zero benefits). You could buy a 27" 4k screen and have high DPI, but you will have what is functionally equivalent to a 1080p panel.
For living rooms, you double all these figures. 4k is minimum 80", 8k is minimum 160", etc. If you sit more than 6 feet away, those numbers get even bigger.
The key is having a PPD of 60 for optimum usage and "bang for your buck", and a PPD of around 120 for high DPI settings.
would need to have an 80" 8k TV in front of me to have the same PPI as the monitors im used to
Gotta keep consoomers buying something, just double the number and quadruple the price. Simple as.
This shit is just getting dumber and dumber most TV channels barely support 1080p and for 2k the file size for movies/shows are already moronic.
CONSOOOOOOM
CONSOOM CONSOOM CONSOOM
I GOTTA CONSOOM
GIVE ME THE HIGHEST NUMBER
I DON'T CARE IT'S USELESS TECHNOLOGY
I MUST CONSOOM
No it's not. Getting games are good framerates at 4k only just became a thing. And a lot of games are more demanding with ray tracing now, or even full path tracing. Anyone who values their framerate is not moving past this resolution any time soon. In fact only the highest end cards are doing ray tracing at 4k, mid tier has to settle for something else for decently high fps
No videocard can run modern AAA on 4k/60 fps native. Most 4k movies worth watching were not recorded in 4k. It really doesn't matter. You will still be seeing the same level of detail as the 1080 camera was able to record and will still see the same level of detail on your videogames as if you rendered it on 1080.
>No videocard can run modern AAA on 4k/60 fps native
Modern AAA is all garbage anyway, what do I care? I can run new games in a window or use DLSS shit, and old games all run at 500fps.
2K is all a man needs. Any more is in poor taste. It's simply gratuitous; it's gluttony.
4k RDR2 on my 77 inch tv was the greatest gaming experience i've had in over a decade
2K for games, 4K for movies. When 4K 144Hz monitors become a thing that's the peak for gaming. Anything more than that is diminishing returns
most media max out between 1080p and 4K, 8K also requires a lot of space so I dont think 8K will really get much traction as 4K (I know it slow but it picks up these days)
I have 4K OLED and never play in 4k because my HDMI cable is too long.
Don't care. Still using 1080p 60fps.
>hey here's this TV that can output 16k
>99% of content is still being made in 1080p
>at best
It's embarrassing to see 4k TVs still being advertised largely with promotional materials rather than content actually made in 4k
It reminds me 16 cylinder engines when v8 considered the optimal design for the price/robustness
who are these fricking tvs for
morons mostly
So, who is this for, the rich? The thieving mutts?
This does nothing for gamers, since they don't want even more input lag.
>crispy smooth 4k/30fps unless i spend $3000 extra or compromise on lesser graphics
>meanwhile 1440/140hz looks the same and i can turn all the bells and whistles like super ultra rtx and detailed pubes
4k is a meme for games
>PS5 still struggling with 1080p
But the marketers told me it could do 4K with 200 FPS? What the frick is this.
16k is only really going to come to home users if it ever gets "cheap enough so frick it why not?" rather than being an actual desired resolution.
All these TV manufactures chasing higher K numbers when the real R&D homies making TV's in L's.
8K is already sucker bait, there's no two ways around it. When you have to focus to actually notice a difference, you should be realizing that the difference doesn't matter.
how big is the 5 minute stock footage? 500gb?
this but 720p upscaled to 6billion K
I still have a 1080p monitor and a gtx 970. why do i need more?
>build 4k machine
>mclovin' it
just wait until 1MiB K
1080p 45-60fps is enough
How is the new 4060 treating you?
never had anything past 1080ti
currently have an RX6700 xt
Dude i want this job, this is the easiest fricking job in the world and this got has a monopoly.
He knows a lot about TVs and does a lot of really in-depth testing and compairsons. Going to a trade show once a year for content is fun but you're insane if you think that's his entire job.
God damn do I hate norimes. I love how all the 4k oled tvs are super cheap now and all smartphones get superAMOLED displays while monitors are stuck in 2014 fricking kill me
Why are they making these when the EU is banning 8k televisions?