Why are so many people falling for the 4K meme? Unless you're sitting 2 feet away or have an 80" tv, it's humanly impossible to see any difference from 1080p. And now we're 2 years into 4k tv's being on the market and there's still a total of 8 movies available in that resolution. Is the american consumer really this fucking stupid?
Because it's sharper?
Because all new TVs are made in 4k?
Because all the new TV technology is focused into 4k displays because theres' no reason to bother with shitty 1080p anymore?
Because people don't like 50 ppi on their 40"+ tvs?
Because people like more screen real estate when used with computers?
So tell me OP, how poor are you?
Someone once said never underestimate the stupidity of the American consumer. Is there anything Samsung doesn't make? I think they can afford a lost leader or try to force a technology once in awhile where the application does not yet exist. Personally, I haven't had a TV or cable subscription for more than 10 years, it's a continuous commercial you pay for as far as I can tell.
4k content will be delivered on demand - not through traditional media. So who cares if 4k bluray is shit?
>Netflix / Amazon are already heavily invested in it.
>Current-gen consoles all support it
>1080p isn't crisp AT ALL at 50+ inches
>Lots of these new sets have other benefits besides 4k
If you're in the market for a new TV I don't know why you wouldn't buy 4k unless you're on a tight budget.
>>Netflix / Amazon are already heavily invested in it.
Unless they magically convince Comcast to upgrade everyone to gigabit speeds 4k is FUCKING USELESS since the bitrate will be lower than good 1080p bitrate anyways.
I don't mean we'll go back to 1080p.
Sure it's here to stay.
But it's no longer what advertisers will focus on.
4K is standard.
HDR is the new thing you have to dump your old shitty non-HDR 4K dinosaur for.
Neither of those companies have had issues taking Comcast to court over access issues.
When a significant portion of their customer base is screaming for 4k content and the networks refuse to oblige shit will get messy - both are filming all their original content in 4k, pretty sure they're ready for a fight if needed.
I agree with you, if you're in the market for a TV you might as well get a 4K one.
But if you have a 1080p TV already, you are better off waiting for content and for prices to drop.
Resolution is only a tiny piece of the puzzle. Things like the source capture and the bitrate are far more important than what resolution is used.
e.g, the 720p DIMENSION rips of "Mad Men" look better than most BluRay movies. Despite the low resolution, they had the raw capture to work with and it was shot with a very good camera. I guarantee that those episodes, even at 720p, would look better scaled up to 4K than Hulu's "native" 4K content.
>falling for the X meme
When will newfags stop using this gay phrase?
Do you even know what a meme is?
Sounds like the USA is holding back technology as it tries to hang onto its low bandwidth lines while the rest of the world standardized bandwidths that are 10 times greater at the same cost or less.
4K Monitors: Can you actually see the difference?
For desktop monitors, the answer is very clear: yes! Even a person with just 20/20 vision should be able to see the difference on any monitor larger than just 20 inches in size and the difference becomes greater and greater for larger monitors. Laptops with much smaller screens are a bit less clear-cut but the answer is still a firm "yes". For the average healthy adult with 20/15 vision, you should be able to easily tell the difference between a 2K and 4K 15.6" screen at a distance of 22 inches. And if the choice is between a 1080p screen and a 4K screen (which are usually the two resolutions found on current laptops), 4K will be noticeably better at a viewing distance of 32.5 inches or closer. If you have 20/20 or worse vision the difference might not as noticeable unless you sit closer to the laptop, but in general the math says that there is definitely a benefit to having a 4K screen even in a laptop.
He's not wrong about HDR making a more noticeable difference though.
Getting a bunch of big players invested in 4k is the best thing you could ask for in terms of the market bullying tyrant ISPs like comcast into providing sane service levels to customers.
>tries to hang onto its low bandwidth lines
Don't worry, Comcast is set up pretty well from a legal standpoint to do nothing for the next decade. Competition is illegal when you throw money at politicians.
>40mbs unlimited fibre (yes, unlimited) for £20 a month in a student flat in the UK.
>4g on phone, also with unlimited data, used 200gb last month, £30 per month w/ device
Must really suck to be American when it comes to data.
As far as I'm concerned, there is basically zero 4K content.
To me, for content to truly be 4K, that would mean that if the 4K source is compressed to 1920x1080 but still maintains the same bitrate, but lost significant picture quality when scaled back up to 4K, it is true 4K.
I don't know if any actual content falls into these requirements.
yeah he just said you won't notice it while being far away
>all new tvs are 4k
no, they are not
>all new tv tech is focused on 4k
no, it's not
>50ppi on 40"tv
you just repeated your 2nd line idiot
>more real estate
it's just a higher resolution
>Higher resolutions are a meme
>More than two cores is a meme
>SSDs are a meme
You'd think people on /g/ would care about technology but every time one of these threads pops up it's some poorfag trying desperately to make older hardware seem better.
it sucks to be in America in general. People still believe that our democracy works, even when the democracy part is nothing more than a cloak that hides the oligarchy underneath
what's the point of 4k anyway?
Making everything high res where it's not needed?
> Ehrmagerd hi-res icons (more than 3 MB)
Websites with high-res images are loading fucking slow? (Nah! Not our problem get a better Internet connection you pleb.)
Use high res where it reasonable!
Photos for example, but user interfaces, text (Fuck you Windows clear type), programs DO NOT NEED an exorbitant resolution!
4k Movies, at home?
You can't even SEE the details when the camera is moving, because >motion< ?
Why would anyone want to see the faces of actors at the highest level of detail that is possible, why, why, why?
In addition higher res. means higher processing power, means higher power consumption, means electricity bill will explode!
Can't there be a movement for economical computing / entertainment, by NOT using "oh my god so fancy" high resolutions?
you don't even NEED a computer
you can live in a mud hut if you want to, there's literally nothing stopping you
but in case you didn't notice this is the fucking TECHNOLOGY board, some of us would rather live in the future rather than the past
I mean it doesn't need to be competitive gaming to be a strike against that idea does it? i feel like the input lag would be at least somewhat annoying no matter what you are playing and how casual you are, and you have to weigh that vs the benefit of the higher resolution.
Nope, when I got my 70 inch tv I looked for the lowest input lag I could, only 7ms, and since its sitting next to my monitor when I am mirroring the screen there is a very noticeable lag on the tv.
man also i gotta say, even just the user interface looks so fucking nice on higher resolutions
im not one to judge people for being poor and i'd definitely want to upgrade other parts of my computer first (solid state is I think the absolute biggest quality of life upgrade to a computer) but man what a joke it is to pretend that higher resolutions are a meme...
although I'd rather have a monitor than a tv hooked up to my computer any day. that's definitely more important than having 4k, no question about it.
But what about a future with high prices for resources?
Using a low power device can be better for your wallet? Why not?
For text lower resolution is better, because if it's crisp an clear (black letters on white ground without "Windows Clear Type"), you still can read it.
Disable anti-aliasing --> Sharp lines, because the letters fit exactly into the pixel pattern of the screen!
Why would you need additional pixels only to make the text look as if it was text in a book?
It's not a book, it's a computer screen and it should look different (for everything else (if you REALLY want to read text as if it was a book) there's E-paper (consumes no energy to display text, only to change the display --> extremely efficient))
[ ] = Blank pixel
[X] = Black pixel
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][X][ ][ ]
[ ][X][ ][X][ ]
[X][ ][ ][ ][X]
[ ][X][ ][X][ ]
[ ][ ][X][ ][ ]
you need to put the tv into game mode or whatever it has, that turns off the processing and will take the input lag down to basically unnoticed.
enjoy your burnt retinas kid
As long as you can only get shitty 30hz pannels with retardly high input lag, they are worthless. I bought a nice 1080p last year and have no intention of replacing it till I can get at least 120hz so I can upgrade my computer at the same time.
According to that the absolute lowest input lag on an HDTV is still a whopping 17ms, and the TV costs $2,200.
4K TVs are significantly more expensive than 4K monitors, but they're meant for different purposes. You buy a TV to watch video. You buy a monitor for comfortable computer usage.
>Why would you need additional pixels only to make the text look as if it was text in a book?
Maybe because the clarity of printed text in a book is makes it much easier to read than a low resolution computer display?
>you need to put the tv into game mode or whatever it has, that turns off the processing and will take the input lag down to basically unnoticed.
Decent TVs don't need game mode to take advantage of their full capabilities. With big TVs you wont do better than 5-7ms of input lag unless you pay a retarded ammount.
>You buy a TV to watch video. You buy a monitor for comfortable computer usage.
Cant say I know anyone who dosent have a TV and a monitor hooked up to their PC. People watch video on the PCs now, not to mention doing all your computer stuff from your couch is super comfy.
>not realizing how retarded this is
the autism is strong here
I was recently visiting some friends who have a CRT TV. It was one of the nice ones and the picture was really good.
Compared to the shitty screen I have at my own house, this was a lot better although it is obviously a lot older than the one I have.
Resolution is not that big of a deal. On computers you have to implement scaling because it is too small, on TVs you have to upgrade the communication in order to deliver and it is not worth it.
What we need to increase is color depth.
If you hooked up directly and only to the tv would you even notice this alleged input lag ?
>i doubt it
I feel this input lag non sense is just another way to justify spending globs on money on bullshit that probably doesn't help you at all.
if input lag is such a big deal, then we should be hearing many many complaints about it, but we really dont.
Even with the explosion of Halo and COD console players, its barely a peep..
Maybe the same people who insist on lowering input lag are the ones that also buy gunnar eyewear.
>Wow, its like im viewing my computer monitor through my piss bottles!
Just have a big den and after trying projectors felt they were lacking compared to just using a TV.
Seems you are the confused one, I stand behind what I said.
>If you hooked up directly and only to the tv would you even notice this alleged input lag ?
What are you even talking about? Its connected directly to my computer, there is no way to connect it indirectly.
He's just a retard.
Many TV's buffer several frames and process them.
That's where the "input lag" comes from.
If you disable such features it should be pretty much instant.
Still a terrible idea to sit so close to a TV.
But fine for gaming from your couch.
>there will be rgb E-paper
e-paper works by flipping over little balls that are black on one size and white on the other.
Can't really have more than 2 colors so you have to dither and shit.
each their own, but from my experience a display can be too big.
Just like sitting in the front row at the movie theater sucks and not just because of the neckstrain.
Periphiral vision sucks on humans, and with a huge ass display you just make shit way worse and at any given time you're probably only viewing the equivalent of a 27" display comfortably on such a huge display for close.
>Why are so many people falling for the 4K meme?
Because they fell for the HD smartphone maymay.
Wing Commander: Privateer is in lower resolution. But because the screen is larger and the graphics have a higher resolution, the player can process more information quicker.
im happy with my 60 inch 1080p tv, i sit far enough back so i dont see the pixels when watching movies and playing vidya.
im also happy with my 27 inch 1080p monitor where i also cant see the pixels because im blind as fuck anyway at close range
4k works as a meme because it's based on a number.
to the average tech consumer bigger numbers = better.
they actually have no idea about what makes ones TV better than another, which is also why they think bigger is better.
Feel bad for you anon, you are retarded
Are you really that autistic to not notice the UHD res?
Damn, I bet you must also believe the xbone looks identical to the PS4
That's because there's many different factors to a TV's image that the image doesn't account for.
Contrast, Gamma, etc.
There should be no surprise that a newer 1080p that's a company makes with their best tech is better than some cheap 720p that they are mass producing for idiots.
>Why are so many people falling for the 4K meme? Unless you're sitting 2 feet away or have an 80" tv, it's humanly impossible to see any difference from 1080p.
This is not true for most people. (It's true for me, because I'm slightly nearsighted but wouldn't want to wear glasses to watch TV- and maybe it's true for you too- but it's not true for most of the population.)
Why are so many people falling for the HD meme? Unless you're sitting 2 feet away or have an 40" tv, it's humanly impossible to see any difference from 480p. And now we're 2 years into HDTV's being on the market and there's still a total of 8 movies available in that resolution. Is the american consumer really this fucking stupid?
it's pretty good never get jewed for the lastest memes
You can change it to "where every fucking pixel is visible"
The point of 4k is that the picture is supposed to be so smooth so that you can't see the pixels the way you do when you sit close to a 1080p screen.
>it's good always living like shit compared to everyone else
so what you're saying is that you'd happily use a brick 1 minute slower than anyone else's phone because "it was cheap." retard.
And its true on screens smaller than 30in's.
Today though since 1080p screens are dirt cheap there is no point in getting a 720p screen when the cost difference is ~$20.
4k on the other hand is still insanely high and unless you sit two feet away, or are extremely anal about "pixels" you won't notice a difference between 1080p and 4k on a 30in screen.
At those resolutions if you "do" notice its most likely quality of gama, the screen type, refresh rate and such. Straight color accuracy.
50+ yes you will but your typical 30in and below? No.
>unless you sit two feet away, or are extremely anal about "pixels" you won't notice a difference between 1080p and 4k on a 30in screen.
What kind of idiot buys a 30 in TV?
They don't even make shit that small.
4K is great for home theater, but you still need really big screens to see the detail. For 9 feet, you need a 80 inch screen for 36 degrees and an 100 inch screen for 45 degrees. With a 65 inch TV, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 4k and 1080p at that distance.
What we need more than 4k though is better bit rates for broadcasted TV, 1080p doesn't even look its best right now. Japan is broadcasting 8k, why?
>Japan is broadcasting 8k, why?
because they aren't a bunch of cucks held by by aging technology like you americans have.
People laugh at how far America is behind, especially with the internet.
US is faster than most EU countries in terms of internet speeds. Fact. Speedtest and other sites literally showed the entire US (including Hawaii/Alaska/flyover states) being faster than many EU countries.
Don't they have that because their governments budgeting for it forever ago?
I really don't want the United States congress in charge of that shit. And we can't add good internet to our national debt.
>Even with the explosion of Halo and COD console players, its barely a peep..
you're kidding, right? your ability to notice input lag on a slow console FPS is about the same as if you were playing monopoly or some shit on it.
Why are so many people failling for the widescreen meme? There are literally no reason to buy a 34" 21:9 when you can get a 40" 4k and put a custom resolution.
I just got a 4k curved TV and it's pretty nice. I always thought curved was a really dumb gimmick. After staring at the same model, curved and flat side by side, I could notice a big difference. Curved feels so much nicer and enhances the immersion. I don't think I can ever go back to a flat screen again.
This, 4K on tvs is retarded but a great improvement on computers where you can actually make good use of the extra pixels, tv is shit anyway, Id rather have better stories than muh super hd effects.
there's always 4k porn.
The biggest problem with 4k is actually how much detail it shows. Porn is a great example. People who you might have thought were hot as fuck are pretty fucking ugly.
Same goes for hollywood celebs. The cost of making a film in 4k is not just the equipment but the absurd amount of makeup/plastic surgery/etc that's needed for the actors.
>Same goes for hollywood celebs. The cost of making a film in 4k is not just the equipment but the absurd amount of makeup/plastic surgery/etc that's needed for the actors.
Ummmm people have been using film with higher quality than 4k for over 60 years now.
Japan and Korea don't have rural communities like we do.
Their idea of "rural" is several villages in the middle of a mountain, our idea of rural is one family per 20 miles or more.
We have magnitudes more rural than their flimsy idea of rural.
To compare a continent sized country to a country smaller than California is butt-fucking stupid.
Compare cities to cities if you want a correct estimate.
Wanna know how he owned you? Easy.
You didn't answer: how poor are you?
Why is there people making cars out of solid gold and buying pet tigers? Easy.
Because mad cash.
Now go study and become rich so you can buy your 4k TV and shut the fuck up.
I have a 22 inch 3840x2400 monitor that I sit 3 feet from and see pixelation quite easily. I have very good eyes, so I might not be normal, but I can't imagine not being able to see the difference.
But with video, like a TV normally does, its less noticeable.
Looking at poor quality images still are poor quality.
4k isn't magic.
Also at that small of a screen the most difference you'll see is in font sharpness and 4k content when it does come.
Absolutey. Sharpness isn't the only thing in the world. I'm fully aware. I'm just saying its one thing that is improving.
Luckly other areas are being improved with OLED even though its got bad reliability as of now.
>comfily using an 11 year old panny plasma with slightly tuned voltages for deeper black and brighter, perfectly uniform white levels
>28,000+ hours and 10,000 plus switch ons and counting
>with memeplayerv display-sync and 3/4 lobe elliptical windowed-Jinc sampling it absolutely slaughters the 4k meme tvs
feels good man, brand new this tv cost less than some of the latest memeshit while having a much higher shipping weight and bill of materials, in the meantime most people have upgraded two or three or more times with worse results
I recently (~5 months ago) bought a 1080p 50" Sony but I recognize the value in 4K TVs. They're just a little too pricey for me at the moment; I'll wait until their prices hit the point of normalcy that 1080s sat at for so long.
One thing I notice though is that 4K TVs routinely perform better in the realms of color, viewing angle, contrast, etc which is good reason for buying them even if the resolution increase isn't readily apparent in your home theater setup.
Just bought a new 70" tv for the living room.
Went with a 1080p.
Don't feel like watching up-scaled shit for the next few years and pretending it looks better than content in it's native resolution un-stretched.
If you are getting a new tv definitely try to go with a something above 60HZ though.
Everything in motion looks more realistic and seems like it has better depth, it's almost disturbing at first. Everything kind of looks like a high quality Spanish soap opera.
I have to agree with this. I use a 1080p projector to make a 95" 16:9 image with my bed 9' away from the screen.
Unless the porn is very well shot, lit and good makeup used I prefer to stream it at 720p.
...and the obligatory man arse and balls bouncing up and down in every clip isn't pretty when it's 5' tall.