>Buy 4K monitor >Open MSPaint.exe >Pick line tool, 1px,

>>57585851
>he doesn't know about pixel density
>he fell for the 4K meme

>he doesn't use drawing software with anti-aliasing forced upon every tool available

it's you're fault for not using the right software, my arbitrary choice of hardware and software is objectively the only valid solution

File: 1479425665474.jpg (59KB, 488x480px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 488x480px

>>57585904
>Having a PPI so low that he needs to blur everything to not see jagged edges

File: well shit.jpg (54KB, 500x460px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x460px

>>57585871
Apart from the 5K iMacs, is there are screen out there that has a high enough PPI that you can't see the individual pixels?

>>57585929
>having a PPI so high he can't see the thin line between insanity and satire

Well, that's definitely not how that works...

File: 5683602+_60ad1c6d075f5b1938bd1df13c92fc92.jpg (118KB, 862x720px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 862x720px

>>57586004
but it is anon

>>57585944
LG Electronics Ultrafine 5K 27"

>>57586077
Technically that's the same display as the 5k iMac...

>>57585851
take a picture of your screen.

Best Buy is selling a 4k Toshiba TV for 700 and giving a free PS4 Pro.

Somehow, I don't think it's that great a deal.

i fucking hate /g/tards who will say that whatever they have now is pretty much the best you will ever get, fucking retards, it will be fucking nice to have ridiculous (by today's standards) resolution and color depth and refresh rate etc

>>57586162
/g/ used to bitch and moan about not needing 1080p, and that 1680x1050 was the sweet spot for price/resolution. Guess they all sat there with their shitty "in the middle" resolution screens while the rest of the world got on the 1080p train.

>>57585851
You'll need an 8k to 12k monitor depending on the screen size.
>>57585944
>>57586077
>>57586096
>5k garabge
No not nearly enough.

>>57586460
Never and if it was it was some beaner or troll.

Remember, always do the opposite of what /g/ says.

>>57585851
5K monitors already exist and they're significantly more pixel dense, 14.7 million pixels vs 8.3 million pixels

>>57586004
That's actually a very good and simple way of testing resolution and judging whether there's any possible benefit in going higher from what you currently have.

>>57586507
>if it was it was some beaner or troll.
I wouldn't be so sure. Remember not to fall for the SSD meme, ok?

>>57587313
SSDs were trash till a few years ago.

File: tumblr_o3nv3kAdb21u156wzo1_400.gif (10KB, 400x546px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 400x546px

>Not wanting to see individual pixels
how will you look at pixel art then?

>not buying 12k monitor
lmao

>>57585851
soon...
Die flut kommt!

>>57588062
2x nearest neighbour scaling

I'm looking at new monitors right now, i really don't know if i should go for a more conventional 1080, an in between 1440, or 4k for possible longevity. At 27inches or so.

What distance are you from your screen?
At 50 cm, a 25 inch 4K has a dot pitch just under 1'
5K can go up to 33 inches and still be below 1'
8K is under 1' up to 50 inches... that's just excessive, desu

>>57588358
Higher is always better but just you really should judge other aspects than resolution.

>>57588476
>1 degree
>a whole fucking degree
fuck off luddite

>>57588729
>>57588476
wait you're not talking about degrees, what even is 1', fucking shart in mart

non widescreen organic led screen when

>>57588476
So the dot pitch is about half the screen size?

>>57588729
>>57588923
>>57588950
1 minute of arc...
The visual acuity of a person with normal vision

>>57588971
just because you can't actively distinguish each individual low-contrast pixel doesn't mean it doesn't affect the image quality

>>57585970
One internets for you good sir.

>>57589015
Of course not, image quality is absolute, not relative.
It just means you can't notice the technical flaws from that distance.

>>57588945
when they get good response times, when they stop burning in, when they don't have color shift across different brightness settings and when the near-black to black transition doesn't look like smudgy mess.

>non-widescreen
as a monitor? probably never, unless you mount it vertically.

What is a good PPI?

File: borkbjark.jpg (461KB, 1216x1448px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 1216x1448px

>>57585871
autist still using a crt in moms basement

>>57589099
k

>>57589250
what if I wouldn't care about that shit and would early adopt just because organic led want

>>57589334
well it won't help them to be released any time soon.

you can get oled panel tvs, laptop, tablets and mobile devices of many types. buy a tv and use it as a monitor?

File: 1473178046790.jpg (2MB, 3351x4768px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3351x4768px

>>57589376
>buy a tv and use it as a monitor?
I will

File: 300.jpg (221KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1600x1000px

>>57589272

>>57585944
only phone screens have that high PPI

Even 8K monitors won't make that go away. You'll need 16K resolution for a 24" monitor and 32K resolution for a 48" monitor.

Until those thing become affordable you'll have to make due with anti-aliasing.

If you want 1337 diagonal lines in 1080p-1440p monitors then you need to check out inkscape (open source, free).

>>57585944
I cant see jagged edges on the diagonal line on my 3200x1800 13" xps unless i get close enough that my nose touches the screen

we also need ultra high refresh rates/low persistence instead of this sample-and-hold blurry bullshit

>>57591046
Nope, the average human eye can't see past 60-90 FPS. 60 FPS monitors are more than enough for most.

>eyes are so shit can't appreciate 4k much less 8k on anything less than 45 inches

>>57591085
nice meme dipshit

just because you can't distinguish each individual frame doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference. and those studies were probably done with CRTs, not LCD displays

http://www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking
http://www.testufo.com/#test=blackframes
https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2xoscc/is_90hz_a_fast_enough_refresh_rate_that_low/
>Nope. Carmack thought full persistence 120 FPS OLED would be enough and Abrash convinced him he was wrong (source: Quakecon 2013). They had a 95 Hz prorotype with a button to turn on/off low persistence and the difference was huge.
>To achieve 3 ms persistence with a full-persistence display you would need 333 Hz/FPS. Abrash believes VR should go below 1 ms (full persistence: 1000+ Hz/FPS).
>The longer the persistence the more wrong data your eyes see (the data is correct only in the short moment of the refresh). 11 ms (90 Hz full persistence mode) is just too long for our brains.

also there are countless blind tests on youtube where they tell the difference between 60/120/144 Hz

>>57591046
Or just a strobe.

>>57586162
dude higher resolution is literally a meme lmao

File: person-motion-blur-9110852.jpg (267KB, 1300x936px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1300x936px

>>57591146
I don't think you understand. While the human eye can "observe" shit at thousands of FPS, it cannot interpret all of that information.

The only information it is able to detect is around 60-90 FPS. Beyond thay human eyes will guess visual information in a desperate attempt to detect what they saw. See UFO sighting reports that turned out to be regular/experimental aircraft flying by quickly.

You can easily see this by moving your fingers in front of your eyes side to side quickly.

There are exceptions, you may be born with mutated eyes that allow you to clearly interpret like 200FPS but for most people this just simply isn't true.

>>57591347
no one has to be able to pick out a single frame from a continuous video stream, that's completely irrelevant, what's relevant is "the big picture" and that you're almost always seeing objectively incorrect data, especially in a video game where the data is only valid for an infinitesimal period of time

>>57585851
Likely never happening until the processing power to drive it is so trivial, or the manufacturing technique is more costly to make lower resolution screens.

4k already has such a high ppi on sub 30 inch screens that you need to scale the ui to comfortably read and use it.

get your fucking nose off the screen

File: Animhorse.gif (25KB, 307x230px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 307x230px

pic related looks nothing like watching a horse run in real life. temporal resolution matters. being able to pick out individual frames is about as useful as being able to pick out individual pixels. you're incredibly autistic if you insist that this is the only thing that matters.

File: jHHl3tTK.jpg (42KB, 627x627px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 627x627px

>>57591380
It's within your observation capacity so does it really matter?

You can show someone a video playing at 1,000,000 FPS on a 1,000,000 Hz monitor while listening to a recording recorded at 1,000,000 Khz and then show them that same video scaled down to 90FPS while listening to audio scaled down to 48 KHz.

Do you honestly think they will be able to tell the difference?

There's a point where you have to stop and think about the human limitations in the media you want to present. Of course this will change when we become machines but that's still decades away and probably not in our lifetimes.

>>57588027
they were never trash, just ungodly expensive for what they did.

>>57591479
>Do you honestly think they will be able to tell the difference?
yes, especially on a sample-and-hold LCD displays

look at the fucking ufo tests i linked, see it for yourself, and start your own VR company while you're at it, dumb shit

>>57591347
>>57591085
>>57591479
I really hope you die a horrible death. People like you are exactly why the monitor market is as shit as it is.

>>57586159
>PS4 Pro
that can be sold for 400$~ so the tv effectively is only 300

>>57591485
They were garbage with very limited number of read writes.

>>57591503
>>57591506
Fuck off placebofags. Go listen to your 1Thz/1,048,576-bit lossless music with cable lifters and magic stones.

>>57588632
no its not, remember higher resolutions demand more processing power, depending on application and power of the pc, this could really fuck with it. personally i'm productivity over looks, so I want a 48 inch 4k so i can have 4 bezel less monitors worth of screen space.

>>57588358
what do you normally do?
if its just use a computer, 1440p is likely the better option
do you play games? 1080 120/144 would be better
do you watch videos? 4k would be better due to how the scaling works full screen.

>>57591462
>57591462 (You)
>you're incredibly autistic if you insist that this is the only thing that matters

>>57591571
enjoy your $1 chink earbuds lol

>>57591571
Any credible test utterly shows how ignorant you are, kiddo.

>>57589376
dell has a 5000$ 100% adobe rgb panel, pretty sure its up to buy now.

I have both a 20‐something″ 4k monitor and a 13″ 3200×1800 laptop. The jagged edges are almost impossible to see from a normal viewing distance on the laptop, so we don’t have far to go

>>57591587
>>57591596
Hey what's the magic stones to get for my setup guys? :^)

I already have a $40,000 setup with ceramic and wooden cable lifters (used both for maximum quality). :^)

>>57589419
Considering I mostly watch videos on my computer, I could justify a tv as a second screen if its oled.

>>57591628
OK

what about vidya

>>57589272
100% depends on viewing distance.

80-120 is the sweet spot for not needing to scale anything in the os though.

300-1200 is what pictures are printed at in print media.

>>57591621
I mean maybe you're a degenerate? Sorry if you are. 120fps for me.

>>57591196
Strobing is a method of achieving low persistence, it's not an either/or thing.

>>57591654
Personally, for that i would just get a 1080p 120/144 hz display.

My main monitor is 24 inch 1920x1200, and I would never want a vertical resolution lower then that, so if i upgrade this, it would be to a 1440p 27 inch, of if I had money to burn, the philips 40 inch 4k

But i'm ok with having a monitor dedicated to gaming if it could be had cheap enough.

you want an all in one, you want to go with a high contrast 120/144 screen. I think benq makes a few that are either 3000:1 or 5000:1 contrast and are some of the best displays you can get in terms of contrast, but not sure if they are over 60hz... that contrast would be worth dropping the fps for though.

>>57591700
If your goal is less blurr then it is.

>>57585944
The z5 premium has 800ppi

File: Screenshoot .jpg (4MB, 7680x4800px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 7680x4800px

>>57585851
Get a custom made one.

File: gsmarena_001.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>57591732
luddites BTFO

>>57591783
jesus christ i need this

>>57591725
I don't think you understand. Saying "Or just use a strobe." to somebody promoting low persistence is completely redundant because strobing is a method of low persistence.

>>57591783
Nigger everybody can see that this shit is resampled from a lower resolution.

>>57591347
>>57591146
>>57591085

military did the research, humans can accurately identify shit up to 300fps, and its though the the max perceivable fps is somewhere around 500

>>57591710
I want an organic LED display that actually has a small computing unit behind each pixel acting as the graphics card. This could lead to immense power and cost savings and could mean a far better optimized result. Basically GPUs have so many cores because we so many pixels.

When they begin to be able to print screens on glass surfaces, technology could be further advanced, leading to application of an additional silicon layer. This silicon layer would inhibit controlling as well as computing circuits, for each individual pixe.

>>57591855
Is it? :^)
4chan limits the file size + jpg compression and reduced quality to fit under 4mb

>>57590230
The first 720p phone I got legitimately blew me away at how good that dense of a PPI looked. I upgraded to a 1440p phone recently and I could honestly barely tell the difference from 720p.

Unrelated to your post but I honestly don't think phones need to go above 1080p. I know we'll still be getting 4k phones that are completely overkill though.

>>57591866
>doesn't post source
whatever you say, whiteflagger

>>57591533
the first ones were all slc that had millions of writes, but something like 40-80$ a gb, at least this is where I started to pay attention to ssds

then tlc came along, cut the cost of manufacture down but also limited writes to about 5000 times,

current ssds have sub 1000 writes, but are big enough to never die unless you use it as a scratch disc or purposefully break it.

>>57591884
1080p on a 6 inch phone looks kinda shitty, could definitely be better, and that's with all kinds of anti-aliasing, it's quite bad without anti-aliasing

>>57591912
your on your own looking for the source, it was the air force if i remember right, and they used slides having people identify what the planes were, and most could do it accurately up to 300fps.

>>57591916
>purposefully break it

Gee, I wonder who would want that

>>57591923
i mean, if you think back to some years ago, we were completely fine with 320x480 and such resolutions, now in hindsight it looks like complete ass

>>57591977
I'm thinking the people who handle review sites, who just randomly wrote data to a few ssds to see when they would die... I think samsung managed to get a 256 drive out that had 1.4pb of writes before it gave up completely.

>>57591997
Yeah it's not like a tri-core ARM chipset with shitloads of RAM can have an algorithm that mixes a timer with I/O so that it only breaks after a few years

I'm not projecting my own ideas on coorporations, coorporations made me start thinking this way.

And it's not like I'm the first man on the moon just having invented that idea m'lao

>>57591795
right one looks best tbqhwyfam

File: alola2.jpg (4MB, 7680x5429px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 7680x5429px

>>57591876
>jpeg compression makes gigantic oversized blue/orange text sharpening artifacts and uniform three pixel wide aliasing before there's major macroblocking

Wow amazing :v)

>>57591979
look like ass is very relative, remember, we also had much smaller screens, and the screens were crts that handled non native resolutions like a pro.

I had a 17 inch 1600x1200 crt, that i ran at 1024x768 because text got to small on the higher resolution to read.

as for playing games, I remember carmageddon, one of my favorite games at the time, I only ever used software render even after i could 3d accelerate because it looked like shit when everything had a sharp edge.

>>57592054
the phone would be useless far before the drive would ever die, and if someone did this with the pc, there would be an industry wide shitstorm the likes we have never seen before.

>>57592089
>there would be an industry wide shitstorm
Yeah, just like with the suicidal foxconn employees, nvidia with 3.5 GB VRAM, non-overclockable CPUs from Intel, missing updates on smartphones of any kind, Apple wanting $150 for something they fucked up themselves..

A shitstorm would change so much!

Those companies must be really scared of fucking the customer over already. Just look how many people are avoiding Apple, Nvidia or Intel already!!

File: symbols.png (55KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1280x720px

>use shitty drawing software
>output looks shitty
WOW

pic related made in inkscape

>>57592151
No one gives a fuck about foxconn employees outside of a small vocal minority, that and "Apple pays a company who drives employees to suicide money"

The nvidia shitstorm ended in a class action that nvidia lost, and they had to pay everyone who bought a 970 what was it, 20$ or 40$

Intel making non overclockable cpus, you realize you are a vast VAST minority if you overclock, a small shit storm over that and what are you going to do, use amd? at least till zen, intel has no incentive to make all cpus overclockable, especially when a dual core i3 can compare favorably against an i5, if you could oc the shit out of it, why get anything below an i7? You would completely kill off everything outside of their E lines,

smartphones, at least on android side, have had this problem from day one, and you either accept it or get apple, its not like 10 years in they start fucking you on updates.

and what apple thing was 150$ for something they fucked up? also, its apple, when has there ever been a shit storm in their userbase when they fuck them over?

>>57585944
Basically all phones from over a foot away
VR from over 3 inches away
A 24" 4K monitor from over two feet away
Or pretty much any TV in a normal sized living room

>>57585944
Aliasing artifacts manifest themselves regardless of the scale; rotating lines will always have artifacts and brightness spots on them almost no matter how far you increase your PPI

You can take a 800 dpi mobile display and still see artifacts from non-antialiased lines.

>>57592342
Proof: http://www.testufo.com/aliasing-visibility#test=aliasing-visibility

Get up and walk as far away from your screen as possible. That way you're pretty much simulating the appearance of a 1000 dpi screen.

Still see the artifacts?

>>57592272
You're just an apple hater, get over yourself

>>57588358
At 27" id say 1440p for a computer. 1080p and 4K scale fine with most videos, but 1440p scales perfect with 720p and decent enough with 1080p
4K at 27" is just stupid

>>57588062
point/box sampling

>>57585851
nigger literally just lean back a little bit

>>57587313
>That's actually a very good and simple way of testing resolution and judging whether there's any possible benefit in going higher from what you currently have.
No it isn't. It's a fucking terrible test.

For a good test, you first of all need to use typical content. That means photos, for example. When you get to the point where you can't see the difference between a photo and a slightly downsized+upsized version of the same photo, your pixel density is high enough.

>>57592372
How so? What I said about them is the truth, their fan base eats everything they do up and asks for more, within 6 months, you will hear the praises of the dongles.

File: Screen Shot 2016-11-19 at 10.55.18 PM.png (402KB, 700x359px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 700x359px

>>57592402
>How so
You defend every company except Apple in that reply, you even start bashing them as well.

It's very obvious that you hate them with a passion. You even proceeded bashing them in the second reply:
>What I said about them is the truth, their fan base eats everything they do up and asks for more, within 6 months, you will hear the praises of the dongles.

File: hexagon_pixels.png (158KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1280x720px

>>57592319
Nope, without anti-aliasing you can still see the shitty jagged pixel blocks.

All this pain and suffering is due to a bunch of faggots that used the square pixel instead of the hexagon ones. Faggots thereafter did the same despite people complaining about the jagged lines.

>>57592434
the first thing,
>No one gives a fuck about foxconn employees outside of a small vocal minority, that and "Apple pays a company who drives employees to suicide money"
It makes news, so that's why it was everywhere, no one gives a shit about them

the second, nvidia fucked up so bad they had to refund people 20-40$ for each 970 they bought.

the third, how did i defend them? overclockers are a minority, and what will they do? there is no other option outside of amd and amd shit the bed for a few years, so people will pay that 50$ tax to oc if they really want to.

on the smart phone side i gave apple credit, they update their shit and its not a month to half year long process before you can get the newest version... weather thats a good thing or not is a question because many updates on older hardware make the older stuff run like shit.

and on the last one, I called the userbase fucking retards who lap everything apple does up... remember the 'you are holding it wrong' If the phone you cant hold like a phone was any indication, the people who buy apple products and fanboy it are complete retards because they keep fucking doing it, change the connecter for no real reason, fuck over the user base, no more headphone jack, fuck the user base over, no lightning on the macbook pro, fuck the user base again and they KEEP FUCKING BUYING THEIR SHIT.

nvidia is losing significant amounts of market share, I cant tell if thats with gamers or not, but amd with from 18% up to 34% now, people are both tired of nvidia's shit, and nvidia has burnt one to many bridges to the point big businesses are starting to drop them in favor of amd.

But fucking apple users... they deserve everything they get when they keep buying the shit that fucks them over every step of the way.

>>57592072
Told you, back to /vp/ with you retard.

:^)

>>57592551
Nope

>>57592598
t. ray charels

>>57588092
>12k monitor
>Not having a 32K monitor
Plebs like you make me glad that the current year is 2112. Seriously, "Full HD" content looks akin to 8bit on a 5k monitor to me now I've been spoilt.

>buy 21" 4K monitor
>Literally cant see a 1 pixel vertical line while sitting in my chair
>1pixel diagonal line is STILL visibly jagged
I think ms paint is just designed to be trash

>>57592574
You defend them because it is irrelevant how many people use a product.

Intels current behaviour is as if Volkswagen would release a Golf that has a tempo limiter built in, except for the GTI sports high end version, which is basically the same car, just the tuned version of the motor with more horsepower.

There is no point of limiting the speed of the small models, regardless of how quick the quick ones are. Look at Intel until sandy bridge arrived. They survived just fine and had the capital to outperform everybody in the market, so there was no need observable that would lead to the assumption that they from now on have to cripple the small processors.

I reject to accept such a behaviour of a company without saying anything.
Regardless if there is competition or not.

And concerning the $150 Apple thing I meant the touch disease which is basically just bad solder joints, so Apples fault kek

>>57592679
No blame your monitor manufacturer for cucking customers with square pixels. See >>57592551

>>57592551
Why not just use hexagonal pixels from now on?

>>57592551
>>57592711
You are fucking retarded

>>57592721
Because square pixels makes monitor manufacturers more money.

>>57592722
t. LG/Samshit shill

>>57591583
>no its not, remember higher resolutions demand more processing power
clearly that's not what i meant there. assuming you can run it, there's no downside to higher resolution and aside from video games you really don't have to worry about being able to display content at high resolutions.

>>57591085
>Nope, the average human eye can't see past 60-90 FPS.
yes it can. this is yet another /g/ meme. while you aren't able to spot individual images here, the fluidity of motion is greatly improved at higher refresh rates. especially if the response times are adequate and if you are controlling the fast moving content with your own input(for example moving things on screen with a mouse, aiming in a shooter).
>60 FPS monitors are more than enough for most.
obviously yes.

>>57592398
a single, high contrast, aliased and static line is a perfect way to test it. you'll confuse your vision with complex imagery and colors which will obviously be harder to spot differences in. this isn't about what's enough, it's about what could still be perceived as an improvement to whatever resolution you use now and thus can be beneficial in some ways. oversampling by using a higher screen resolutions than what your eyes can resolve also helps to mask aliasing on moving imagery. it won't erase it all, but it can still give a perceivable improvement in visual fidelity. i doubt anyone looks at the screen at the exact distance either so having a bit of overhead is fine.

>>57592551
nigga what

>>57585851

anything but 4k is going to look like shit on a 4k monitor. that's why i haven't gotten one

>>57592721
1. It's stupidly expensive to manufacture, enjoy paying 10 times as much for your monitor
2. It won't solve the issue of jagged lines at all
3. It makes everything significantly more complicated. Enjoy most of your graphical software not even existing, let alone rendering well.

I can't believe I'm even replying to this shitty bait

>>57592736
>a single, high contrast, aliased and static line is a perfect way to test it.
No, because aliasing isn't something you solve by throwing more pixels at it.

The onyy way to solve aliasing is to anti-alias, and that's how it's done in practice. Test on well-behaved content, not fucking aliased garbage.

>>57592741
>1080p on a 2160p monitor looks worse than 1080p on a 1080p monitor
found the retard

>>57592736
>yes it can. this is yet another /g/ meme. while you aren't able to spot individual images here, the fluidity of motion is greatly improved at higher refresh rates. especially if the response times are adequate and if you are controlling the fast moving content with your own input(for example moving things on screen with a mouse, aiming in a shooter).
I can see the individual frames of 60 fps monitors, and so can you.

Try moving your mouse cursor in a circle without looking directly at it. See all those evenly spaced afterimages? There's your 60 Hz

>>57592732
Nope

>>57592732
>Because square pixels makes monitor manufacturers more money.
The only reason this is true is because hexagonal pixels would lead to a death of the monitor industry since nobody could afford them and no software would exist for it

Yes, making a monitor that works earns you more money than making one that doesn't. Good job figuring that one out, sherlock

>>57592696
Oh that shit, jesus, and the fanbase will still buy the next one... completely forgot about that little bit of planned obsolescence.

back to intel, prior to the sandy bridge generation, intel had clear cut versions of cpus that had very little overlap, and what you paid for was the base clock speed, there was no way for a, lets say celeron to overtake a core 2, and there was no way for a core 2 to overtake a core 2 quad

but in the case of the i3 and i5, the i3 could overtake an i5 overall, especially in cases where threading is used optimally, and an i5 can easily overtake an i7 in cases where threading isn't so good (note i mean the actual threading, and not just multicore use) To make up for that, intel stopped letting every chip overclock. and to further cement that, amd provided no real competition, multi threading was good, but single core was shit and still is unacceptably bad, so who is going to use amd over an intel? you suck it up and use the intel. that minor fraction of people who shit stormed over not being able to overclock, what do you think they use now? either an i5k or an i7k

zen will likely change how intel deals with overclocking, at least the gen after the zen is released

but ssd, you have at least 20 different companies, all of whom are good enough that you could use any of theirs and have better fail rates than a hdd, if one of them put in a program to write the thing dead over a period of time, they would be a brand that is no longer listed on sites as a product to buy, because the negative press would kill them

its not like phones where you effectively have 2 oses, its not like cpus where you have 2 manufactures, you literally have so many you can't name them all and they all preform just about the same

>>57592745
>1. It's stupidly expensive to manufacture, enjoy paying 10 times as much for your monitor

Nope, if they were able to make diamond pixels on the galaxy S4's display and not charge thousands for the display then making hexagon pixels isn't going to be much more expensive.
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Diamond-pixels-here-is-a-close-up-of-the-Samsung-Galaxy-S4s-display_id42483

>2. It won't solve the issue of jagged lines at all
[X] patterns will no longer be jagged which would improve the blockiness found in so many images.

>3. It makes everything significantly more complicated. Enjoy most of your graphical software not even existing, let alone rendering well.
Nope, the pixels would still conform to a square grid overlay. Software would not have to be changed. At worst they would implement the ability to turn off anti-aliasing in [X] patterns.

>>57592741
Literally double the pixels of 1080p and it fits 2160p flawlessly
It's arguable that 1080p looks even better on a 4K screen because of better interpolation, thinner lines between pixels
There's a lot of reason to avoid 4K but 1080p is not one of them

>>57592342
With a high enough ppi, a black 1 pixel wide diagonal line on a white background (pic related) will appear to be a smooth line. You can simulate this by moving away from the screen until you can't tell the individual pixels anymore. The reason for this is that our vision can resolve a lot of detail when we focus on a single area and that area has a high contrast.

>>57592872
>He thinks they're not square just because the image is rotated by 45°
Don't fucking kid yourself, it's still a square pixel arrangement

>>57592736
more processing power means less battery life in most cases, on a desktop higher resolution without scaling means smaller text, and on a side note, zooming in on things can fuck with the programs, take chrome and images, if someone posts something 2000-2000 and bigger it usually causes the browser to hang for a second or two, till I manually zoom the image down (and no there isn't a real option in browser besides chrome, opera is chrome, firefox killed itself, and safari is not an option) not sure how that would work on larger screens, but needing to zoom in the images probably has an adverse effect.

and then you have games, you either window it, and its 1/4th the size it use to be, full screen it and hope the engine isn't shit, potentially crash out because 4k is just so much fun that way. or play it at 4k, in which case you need 1200$ worth of hardware to hope to 60fps everything.

I can't imagine how much 4k must hit programs like 3d cad, that shit runs like shit even without 4k.

File: square.png (222KB, 774x774px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 774x774px

>>57592872
>>57592951
Pic related, this is how they're addressed

>[X] patterns will no longer be jagged which would improve the blockiness found in so many images.
Wow, so an exact 45° line will look slightly different. Good job. It will still look awkward due to the inconsistent spacing, and literally every single other angle will look just as bad if not worse. Fantastic idea.

>Nope, the pixels would still conform to a square grid overlay.
That makes no fucking sense at all. So you want square pixels, but you don't want square pixels? My head is full of fuck at this point.

>>57592951
>Don't fucking kid yourself, it's still a square pixel arrangement
No shit, just like the hexagon pixel layout.

>>57592767
>No, because aliasing isn't something you solve by throwing more pixels at it.

It is. If you have enough pixels and a small enough lines separating them (to reduce the screen door effect), aliasing will be impossible to detect by the human eye. Increasing PPI will give a sharper image until the PPI becomes higher than a human eye can perceive at a normal working distance.

>>57592952
Playing upscaled 1080p would have absolutely no intrinsic reason to crash, it runs just like 1080p, upscaling (especially straight up 1:2 upscaling) costs the GPU almost nothing
And CAD programs wouldn't likely be affected too much, what you're waiting on is drive speeds, memory and processing/decoding, not the straight lines and pixels themselves. The DISPLAYED graphical element isn't very hard to render in 4K when CAD programs are rendering MUCH much more graphical elements MANY more times a second than the 60fps tangle of basic lines on your screen

>>57592858
Do not forget that buying a Intel i3 over an Intel i5 is still buying Intel.

It's just jewish behaviour I completely disagree with.

Everything questionable and bad in the world can be defended - even atomic catastrophies by calling them collateral damage.

Calling dual cores i3 and then calling all quad cores i5 and i7, however then later on releasing dual core i5 as well, is another jewish move.

It's like fantasy AMD GHz numbers or calling 533 MHz DDR RAM 1066 MHz. It's just bullshit to confuse and fool people that are either dumb or just simply not interested in investing time reading the small fine print of the walmart laptop they bought.

>>57585851
>buy 4k moonitur
>its 32"
>was a complete idiot and didnt get a 1440p 24"


cuckd

File: 1477375730073.jpg (69KB, 960x544px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 960x544px

I'm curious, why do pixels have to be confined to groups of 3-4 dots/squares of colors to represent them?

Don't we have the technology to just make a single dot change between all the color hues?

>>57593034
That's like trying to solve motion flicker by increasing the FPS to 1000 Hz instead of just adding a tiny bit of blur

Brute-forcing your way through aliasing instead of just using anti-aliasing is stupid and wasteful.

>>57593028
So you want a square grid with all the aliasing problems of a square grid but you want it to magically be hexagons instead as if that's going to change anything?

Okay...

>>57593111
>Don't we have the technology to just make a single dot change between all the color hues?
In a word, no

>>57593111
No we dont, not with leds

>>57593060
not so much games scaled up, there are a number of games i play/have played that refuse to respect the resolution you set till you are in the game, that can be crash prone.

>>57593066
back during the ghz race, amds numbers meant a hell of alot more then that do now, as for ddr, there is a reason they call it 1066, and that was largely consumer end back then, ddr would have looked worse on paper next to other ram.

also, is there a dual core i5 on the desktop? i know laptops do this and can do it for the entirety of the i3-i7 lineup.

>>57593143
If yous like you ran the world we wouldn't even have computers to discuss this. In the future, there will be 8k+ screens and this won't be an issue any more.

Adding blur has trade offs, it degrades the image quality. More PPI increases the clarity. Sure, it's a brute force way to solve the problem, but it is in the end the best and only way.

>>57585851

let's just waitfag 8K 27" monitors and complain about their upscaling and normie refresh ratios when they come out and perpetuate our paragon cycle of rationalization in our value of good sense

>>57593186
>>57593066
>but computer
>INTEL 6TH GENERATION I7 INSIDE(tm)
>Dual core
Hey at least I still got an NVIDIA GTX GRAPHICS CARD

>>57593186
>dual core i5 on the desktop?
3470T

The biggest issues are the all in one devices like laptops, as you already mentioned.

>>57593111
leds make one color and they make one color good

rbg together are able to make white.
cmyk is used in printing because they can make the base colors, but the base colors could not make them without adding white.

some tvs use yellow along with rgb just to give the color a bit more resolution, not sure if they still do, but it was a feature on more then a few.

>>57593212
is it a mobile cpu or a desktop? I know some prebuilds have basicly laptops inside of them.

>>57593269
RGB and CMYK are different because RGB is for light (which combined makes white) and CMYK is for light absorption (like ink on paper, combined makes black)

>>57585904
>you're

no wonder trump won, you're all idiots

File: 1477105212068.png (228KB, 292x785px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 292x785px

Hexagon pixelfag here. I accept defeat, this shit isn't compatible with the standard RGB LED/LC setup for individual pixels and even if there was a way to make a single pixel display all color hues it would be better if it was octogonal or just a plain circle.

>>57591519

you might not be privy yet but 300 dollar 4k tv's are a thing and have been for the past month.

even up to 55 inches.

rgbw panels, sure, but honestly after owning one for a couple weeks i'm not even hating anymore.

This seems like a great thread to ask:

I'm pretty much set on buying a LG 27UD68 but I'm curious about a few things that someone with a 4k monitor might be able to answer for me. Unless I have a fucking expensive computer running games at 4k is not really viable, seeing as this monitor has free-sync down to 35hz I'm considering just getting an rx 480.

If I was to change my resolution in a game from native 4k to 1440p it wouldn't look too bad on the 4k monitor would it? It of course wouldn't be as sharp as the native 4k resolution but it would still look pretty sharp seeing as it's generating like 2/3 of the pixels naturally and only 'stretching' the missing 1/3, right?

And if down the line a pretty graphics intensive game releases that I want to play and I'm forced to change my resolution all the way down to 1080p would that look like absolute shit on the 4k monitor? At this point it's only rendering 1/4 of the pixels and then stretching the missing 3/4 to the rest of the screen so I'd imagine it's not the best of experiences. However, when you plug a console into a 4k monitor that's what is happening and people still do that and don't complain too much, so it must be somewhat bearable, right?

I'm investing in the 4k monitor mainly because I want the extra pixel real estate to improve multitasking/productivity, gaming is a lot smaller of a thing I do on the side so I don't really give a fuck as long as it's a somewhat bearable experience

>>57585851
i want to reverse engineer classic ms paint so bad to bring it to linux

>>57594531
bump, surely someone with a 4k monitor can give me some clarification

>>57592551
You are a fucking retard, this will only worf for 45" tilted lines

>>57585904
>He uses image editing software to create eppin memes instead of something like digital drawing and coloring where you never want antialiasing

>>57593191
>Adding blur has trade offs, it degrades the image quality.
It's not “blur”, it's called staying below the fucking nyquist frequency. Go learn some signal theory, and more importantly, what aliasing is.

Hint: It's trying to represent frequencies with a greater precision than what your device is capable of. It's NEVER right, no matter what your resolution is.

>>57594531
>If I was to change my resolution in a game from native 4k to 1440p it wouldn't look too bad on the 4k monitor would it? It of course wouldn't be as sharp as the native 4k resolution but it would still look pretty sharp seeing as it's generating like 2/3 of the pixels naturally and only 'stretching' the missing 1/3, right?
Depends mostly on the quality of the upscaling, honestly. You can do a bad job upscaling and you can do a good job upscaling. Also, you can just letterbox and not have to worry about it.

Most monitors and GPUs will generally do a shit job upscaling, as will most games. But some programs (e.g. mpv) and games (e.g. The Talos Principle) get upscaling right, so it wouldn't make a difference.

>>57594531
>And if down the line a pretty graphics intensive game releases that I want to play and I'm forced to change my resolution all the way down to 1080p would that look like absolute shit on the 4k monitor? At this point it's only rendering 1/4 of the pixels and then stretching the missing 3/4 to the rest of the screen so I'd imagine it's not the best of experiences.
Point resampling a 1080p image onto a 2160p monitor will look equivalent to a 1080p monitor of the same size.

>>57585944
plenty of monitors. basically any 4K monitor at or under 24". any 5k monitor at or under 27". you get the idea.

the retards on /g/ buying 55" 4k displays as computer monitors either don't get it after like 4 years or continue to have garbage operating systems that can't scale, and therefore they have no interest in packing pixels into 24 or 27" displays.

>>57585851
Pixel Density

>>57595172
>>57595183
Not too concerned about programs, most of them scale pretty well like you mentioned. What's letterbox though?

I did a little research and apparently 1080p upscaled on a 4k monitor (with AA on) looks bearable in game, things close are sharp but everything far away is a little blurry. 1440p upscaled on a 4k monitor (with AA on) is apparently pretty good, not quite as good native 4k but pretty close considering the less amount of performance required to run 1440p compared to 4k.

I think I might just go with a gtx 1070 (despite the monitor having free sync) just because it means I'll have no problems running anything at 1440p (upscaled) on the 4k monitor. Rx 480 just doesn't have enough power behind it, having two of them just causes too many problems/isn't supported and free-sync isn't even supported in half of the shit either so I think it makes more sense in my case to go with the more powerful single card (gtx 1070) and just upscale and hope for the best.

>>57595360
>I did a little research and apparently 1080p upscaled on a 4k monitor (with AA on) looks bearable in game
It depends on the upscaling technology which depends on the game and/or your GPU and/or your display (depending on which one is doing the upscaling)

Stop jumping to conclusions based on some screenshot you saw online, it's more complicated than you're making it seem

>>57593212
dual core "i7" is slower than a desktop i3.

>>57593372
>you're
you're means you are, idiot. Kearn some fucking grammar b4 you school someone

>>57593372
*your

>>57591009
>You'll need 16K resolution for a 24" monitor and 32K resolution for a 48" monitor.
what are you scaling out from? a smartphone's pixel density?

File: 1450327357927s.jpg (8KB, 250x247px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x247px

>>57595435
an hero please

>>57586507
>Never and if it was it was some beaner or troll.
they were obviously trolling but they definitely existed newfag

>>57591855
low persistence doesn't equal less blurr though...

even at 8k you're still going to be able to see that unless the monitor is like 15". a 27" monitor at 8k is lower ppi than most phones.

>>57595788
this is true if you work with a 15" screen the same distance from your face as you hold a smartphone, which virtually nobody does. the same is true of 27" monitors.

the easy rule of thumb is to take whatever the normal resolution is at any given size and double it. 24" used to be 1920x1080, so now it's 3840x2160 (or ~4k). 27" becomes 5k.

the math is simpler than figuring out the optimal pixel density given any arbitrary distance, individual visual acuity, etc... and scaling by 2x is a lot easier than any scaling involving interpolation.

>>57588062
>posts an example of how to do it
you do realize that image is upscaled, don't you?

>>57595875
maybe if you have bad eyesight. i can easily see an aliased line on a ~300ppi phone sitting at monitor distance.

File: 6035f5ba86f7427d2cec40b22198a49d0a27675a25fccc8812e2f7cea2c7fd74.png (1MB, 1373x1015px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1373x1015px

>>57595519
fuck you too

>>57592777
It's a fact.

>>57591783
How you got a custom made monitor?

>>57592991
There is no other angle, inbred.

>>57592172
ayy lmao

File: 3LCD.png (70KB, 308x329px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 308x329px

>>57593111
because you need at least 3 colors to mix together to display every other color
there are some display technologies which have each subpixel either behind one another or projected over top of one another, creating full color, single-element pixels

>>57592272
>also, its apple, when has there ever been a shit storm in their userbase when they fuck them over?
You really don't know too much macfags. Sometimes they are worse than the manchildren in /g/

File: 1452874578241.jpg (272KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1920x1080px

4k 120hz 24" WHERE

>>57595939
ok

>>57593372
Trump won because the U.S. is a republic not a democracy. Last time I checked they didn't need 162,000,000 votes to win.

>>57592875
>>57592777
It only works theoretically, since most 4k screens will still visibly blur 1080p input by not using nearest neighbour scaling correctly.

Would be nice to know which manufacturers do this right.

>>57596794
>It only works theoretically, since most 4k screens will still visibly blur 1080p input by not using nearest neighbour scaling correctly.
scaling is an operating system setting. if your OS is scaling shit poorly don't blame it on the monitor.

>>57596803
If you give a monitor 1080p input, it'll use its hardware scaler, no matter what.

>>57596830
so set it to native and tell the operating system to scale everything by 2x. again, at the software level this isn't a problem. stop overcomplicating shit.

it's embarrassing when os x is still years ahead of other operating systems on something. os x, which uses perhaps the most broken file system in the world and command line tools that are at best several years out of date.

>>57596850
Yeah, obviously, since then it's no longer 1080p input, duh.

Most people don't use OSX though, since it's a piece of shit.

>>57596884
>Most people don't use OSX though, since it's a piece of shit.
ok

File: matalan-school-uniform-girls.jpg (334KB, 1600x902px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1600x902px

>buy monitor
>it takes up space on my desk
>doesn't completely fill my field of vision
>wastes loads of electricity
>no perfect 3d
>no simulated holograms
>no badass heads-up display that no one else can see while I'm walking down the street

Ocular implants that project the image directly onto my retinas, when?

>>57596004
I bet you also think resampling an audio file from 48 kHz to 96 kHz lowers its quality

>>57596794
Why are you relying on your screen to do the scaling?

Monitor firmware is universally shit

>>57596884
The point is that you get 1080p in every way that matters.

Right now it seems every laptop worth getting has a 4k or other high res display..

Why not do the same for a desktop, even if you are not, say, playing games at native res?

>>57597535
literally the only reason is if your operating system is garbage and doesn't scale well.

>>57597535
I guess i should say i mostly play single player, RTS, 4x type games. And i don't take multiplayer too seriously... so high refresh rate isn't a massive concern of mine, like it would be for other people here.

Would any PC games use similar upscaling techniques that the PS Pro uses.

E.g. Checkerboard technique?

>>57596830
No you dummy
And of course if you scale in your GPU like you should it outputs the upscaled 1080p at native 4K resolution

>>57589272
200-300 PPI is decent.

2k is okay for 12"
5k is okay for 24"
8k is okay for 30"

>>57585851
Surely for a line of diagonally aligned 1 pixel squares to be scaled down enough for you not to be able to distinguish its narrow and wide points, you would have to be unable to distinguish a sqrt 2 pixel wide line from a 0 pixel wide line, i.e. you would not be able to see it in the first place?

>>57585944
There is a 24" 4k monitor from Samsung.
Alternatively, the 15" 4k panel in the XPS 15

Or any of the overkill 5" 1440p or higher smartphone panels.

why dont they just make phone screen but put a bunch of them together inside one big case that way we could have like 50k monitors and stuff right

>>57592172
These lines look jagged as hell.

>>57591884
Try going back to 720p after 3 months on 1440p.
I did. I couldn't see the difference much, but my eyes could definitely feel it.

>>57591795
>806PPI
Jesus, and I thought my phone's 453PPI screen was overkill

File: send help.jpg (63KB, 658x429px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 658x429px

>bought 4k ips monitor 1 year ago
>few months later I got into fps gaymin again
>errybody says you need 144hz
>know exactly how painful it would be to have a two monitor setup with 144hz 1080p tn and 60hz 4k ips next to it

what the fuck do I do?

>>57598294
downsample the 4k to 1080p so it gets more fps on the hartz

>>57598294
144hz is a meme

t. 1440p 60hz IPS pro

What kind of work do you do that benefits from more than 60 Hz?

>>57592358
it looks like complete shit even if i walk back as far as my room will let me

>>57595761
Yes it does, image persistence causes the blur because of eye motion. Understand what you're talking about before spouting shit you don't understand.

>>57598420
work? none.
just gaymen.

ITT retards who don't understand that resolution is an angular measure. Pick up a physics or astronomy text book.

>>57598574
i've lost count on how many of these threads i've read and not once seen someone use the term arc.
highfive science bro

>>57585970
Nice

>>57591479
>no difference cliché

0/10

>>57592551
hexagon pixels might help but it would be more helpful to not align them in a perfect grid. see the z5 premium screen in >>57591795

>>57592991
>It will still look awkward due to the inconsistent spacing
pixels in a video game represent point data. it would actually look much better if the pixels were smaller (and brighter to compensate)

>>57591795
Hnng thlooks like a woven handkerchief.

What's a good 144Hz Monitor?

I was thinking of this http://au.pcpartpicker.com/product/rkphP6/asus-monitor-vg248qe

..but I heard because of the small screen size, 60 fps is headache inducing

I have an Asus GeForce GTX 1080 8GB STRIX

>>57597597
Talos Principle supports lanczos
World of Warcraft supports bicubic
Rest probably uses biliear

No idea what PS uses

>>57585851

200% scaling you dipshit.

>>57585944

A 4k 23''

>>57596654
Trump still won based on actual vote numbers though.

>>57596654
>Trump won because the U.S. is a republic not a democracy.

The US is a democratic-republic, actually.

>>57596983
That's not even a valid comparison. It would be like trying to resample a sped-up, low-freq audio file to the correct speed (or vice versa), rather. And yes, the quality will be lowered.

>>57598945
Except there is no difference to human perception in what he described you retard.

>>57591479
They will. It's about temporal resolution. The aliasing is obvious at anything less than infinite of both.

>>57600901
Source: my ass.

>>57591884
I completely agree, I don't want anything beyond full HD on my phone, it's just a waste of battery beyond that imo