> he unironically believes higher than 1080p is legitimately

The Walking Dead film making process is pure cancer. They literally try on purpose to look shit, grainy as fuck, like old film. But, it does prove how futile it is to go high res in many cases, an especially with restored film since 99% of the time film and restored film looks identical at 720p and above.

Literally try it, get a 720p bluray source of walking dead and a 1080p, if you see a difference I'll eat my own shit.

>>59765496
Games. Also resolutions like 4320p and 6480p are simple integer scaling from 1080p.

In between resolutions like 1440p and 4k are worthless though.

>>59765527
>simple integer scaling
>4k is useless
What did he mean by this?

I consider 1080p the minimum with 1440 preferred.
1440p 60fps is all I need and I lucked into a x1600 tn monitor years ago that is still going strong, Whatever works for you in fine bub. 4k is nice but waaaay too expensive

>>59765496
Fonts

>>59765543
How young are you? Do you really not know what integer scaling is?

>>59765496
>needing more than 640 kB of memory

The Walking Dead technical specs from imdb

Camera Arriflex 416, Zeiss Super Speeds MK I
Panavision Cameras and Lenses
Laboratory CineFilm Laboratory, Atlanta (GA), USA
Light Iron (digital intermediate: season 6)
Negative Format 16 mm (Kodak Vision3 500T 7219)
35 mm (VFX shots)
Cinematographic Process Super 16

Holy fucking shit, they are still 35mm.
Kubrick used 70mm in fucking 1968.

>>59765550
Explain to me like I'm 7 years old. I thought 2 was an integer.

>>59765527
isn't 4k 2160p?

>>59765579
It is, he's just a big ol' dummy.

>>59765565
omfg, it's not even 35mm, they even list 16 fucking mm there. Jesus fucking christ, welcome to the 1920s. Kubrick who knew his shit - he was a photographer before a director - filmed 2001 on 70mm and that's why it looks like being from the mid 80s/90s while it's from fucking 1968.

>>59765567
That is what it means
>>59765579
>>59765587
I didn't just mention 4k you autistic little shits.

>>59765579
still kinda useless though for 99% of the time since almost all downloads I find are max 1080p, or at least they when I have to watch them, I don't usually go for re-releases months or years later.

The human eye can't see above 24fps 720p, everything higher is literally placebo

>>59765602
>make a mistake
>get angry when called out on it
>call people autists
I'm having a chuckle here m8

>>59765496
Not everyone cleans toilets as a living, some use computers. The extra space a single 4k resolution monitor brings is superior to having 2 1k monitors.

>>59765618
No mistake was made. You just have poor reading comprehension. You saw the 4k and missed the 1440p part. Your autism blinders kicked in and left you helpless.

>>59765517
They use 16mm film. That's fucking retarded. It's why it's pointless to go high res on it.

>>59765631
>space a single 4k resolution monitor
not everyone was born stupid, resolutions don't have space, monitor sizes do.

>>59765656
Are you really saying a 1440p monitor and 1080p monitor of the same size (let's go 27') have no difference in content displayed?

>>59765636
>1440 and 4k are worthless
>and 4k
Guy, you should stop now. You made a mistake. It happens.

>>59765705
no you strawman using piece of shit. I said what I said.

>>59765726
>1440
>integer scaling from 1080
May need to up your autism pills. You're deeper down the spectrum than your doc thinks.

>>59765726
for movie and tv series viewing it usually is. 99% of sources are 1080p max. early on at least.

File: 1488554875350.jpg (124KB, 920x900px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 920x900px

>>59765527
>Anti-aliasing exists and works great
>Would rather render in 6480p

Gamers

>>59765749
Endgame resolutions, kiddo. Getting into 300+ dpi territory for monitors.

Any competent person told you 1440p was a waste and an in between resolution.

>use higher than 1080p monitor
>Pixels smaller than the human eye can see
>12pt font is 0.01mm high
>Need to scale everything
>Most software except muh gaymes isn't made for this
>reeeeee why can nobody make software that can be scaled

File: 1491053123125.jpg (174KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 800x600px

>>59765753
>Believing upscaling is even the solution
I can't see smaller than 1080p pixels anyway. Can't even read 12pt font without getting close to the screen.

It's pointless, buddy. Gamers are no different than audiophiles. They spend tons of money on excessively powerful hardware that runs their games at framerates multiple times faster than their monitor can display, so then they have to spend hundreds of dollars on pointless faster monitors at 144hz when their eyes can't see past 80fps.

It's literally the exact same thing as a guy that buys a 1500 dollar pair of headphones and gets an orgasm to a FLAC of a shitty song that wasn't recorded hi-fi in the first place.

>>59765732
Kek literally no one is giving you shit about 1440, not one mention.

>>59765749
it is not like anti-aliasing does not have its own issues

>>59765806
This. The frame rate of the human eye is anywhere between 20 and 100 Hz depending on how light it is

>>59765806
>>59765819

You have terrible eyesight. Sorry for your degenerate genes.

>>59765815
and rendering 300% more pixels is the solution?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You're gonna need a magnifying glass to type a resume in 12 point

>>59765729
Well what you said made no sense to me bro. That's why I asked for clarification but you are too retarded to explain yourself.

FWIW everytime I've upgraded resolution it is purely for more desktop "space".

>>59765829
Yeah, and I may as well also believe audiophiles when they say they have finely tuned hearing and can sense the difference between a 2000 dollar and a 3000 dollar pair of headphones

Let's be real, you're not getting off to the better resolution, you're getting off to the amount money you invested in your ridiculous computer

>>59765732
Literally nobody mentioned 1440, were talking about how you made a mistake by saying
>and 4k
Because 4k resolution is 2160p, exactly double 1080p, so it does scale from 1080p. You made a mistake in your "argument".

>>59765848
Photographers can see the difference. They must be lying though right?
>>59765866
>Literally nobody mentioned 1440,
I did, retard.

Guys did you know that when increasing pixel density once you cant count the pixels still increases image quality? crazy, I know.

>>59765496

fonts

/thread

I like higher than 1080p. I have a meme 2560x1080p monitor so I would love to have some cinemascope shit in high resolution, but I can't find that.

>>59765758
But anon, 4K 32" screens is the minimum needed to be productive these days.

Yes, I am aware that the standard width for code is 80 columns and that is only 1/10 of the left of my first screen, but it's all about real estate.

I bought a new Sony 60" 1080p just recently. I bet I won't go 4K for another 5 years at least. Come at me.

>>59765848
us military already did tests, humans are able to accurately identify objects shown at 400fps, if you cant tell the difference, you have shitty genes, get over it.

>>59765833
I want 100dpi, I am about 2-3 feet away from my monitor at any given moment and this is the edge of what is easy to see without any scaling applied, which kills any advantage in screen real estate.

as for games, anti aliasing is objectively shit, I don't need you to put vaseline on the lense just so its harder for me to tell I have a shit monitor, I know I have a shit one, would rather have the pixels be sharp.

as for rendering 300% more... there is an upside, you are able to see further away objects, you have sharper visuals, so on so forth.

But until gpus go mcm, the hardware just doesn't exist to go 4k without issue, same with higher resolutions, even if they mcm, without dies taking gpus the hardware just wont exist.

>>59765565
>35 mm
by quick shitty math, 320x320 = 1sqmm
35mm is 24x36 so
11520x7680
my shit math on 70mm comes to
70x32, this is rough estimate at best due to only knowing the aspect ratio and not haveing mm in plain english like 35
22400x10240
and 16mm has 2 variants
12.25x7.41 and 10.26x7.49
these come to
4006x2371 and 3283x2396

all of these hit 1080p easily

>>59765656
there is a limit to how small you can make text and still read it, a larger 1080p monitor does not fix this, a 40+inch 4k does.

>>59765705
yes and no, the difference is resolution, not screen realestate.

that 1440p monitor would have smaller, harder to read text then the 1080p if you did not up the scaling. but at 27 inches, and 1440, that may not be an issue, but a 4k at 27inches, it sure as fuck is, and out the window goes all the screen real estate due to the small size not being able to read text without it scaled.

>>59765845
1080p at 24 icnhes is 91 dpi
1440p is 122
4k is 180

1080p at 32 inches is 68dpi
1440p is 91
4k is 141

1080p at 48 inches is 45dpi
1440p is 61
4k is 94

I say the sweet spot for monitor resolution without digital scaling to make text bigger is around 90-120dpi, any higher and its a bit to hard to read without your nose pressed into the glass or tossing out all the practical benefits of the higher resolution to real estate, any lower and any lower and you would have to scale it the other way, and make everything literally harder to read, not just in a the display is to small sense, but in a shit is to blury, on to of pixels being easier to see, something that with a 1920x1200, its very hard to do outside of high contrast areas.

>>59766239
Good choice.

>>59765496
1440p at 144hz is heaven in earth to be honest

>>59765932
And everyone else was talking about 4k, retard

You really should stop being a cheap troll and do something more useful

>he unironically believes that consumer choice is a legitimately bad thing
>he's so far under a rock that he doesn't know about 4k streaming, video games OR GODDAMN VECTOR FONTS

>>59765527
>1440p is useless
can't i get a clean 720p image on a 1440p monitor since it's exactly half?

>>59766931
>harder to read text

Text isn't hard to read unscaled even on a 4K monitor. I think you niggers need glasses.

>>59765603

>Downloads

Pirate life strikes again, huh?

>>59765496
> he unironically believes higher than 1080p is legitimately needed
we need to improve until we reach 150 PPD
1080p is not even close
If you don't know what PPD means, you don't know what you're talking about

> not even sources above it exist usually, having to upscale/distort
Everything rendered goes above 1080p, like desktops, apps, games, there are a lot of 2160p encodes of movies and tv series, lot of youtube and other video providers that go beyond 1080p and actually look better on a higher resolution display.

> most are even grainy like pic related that 720p is their max
A shitty final render of a shitty tv series proves what?
Also you probably download the smallest 1080p encode, which is no wonder looks shit. You need high bitrate too.

I wonder when those chinks crack the DRM of 4k Blu-ray.

>>59765565
>>59765594
16mm is fucking beautiful you uncultured retards

way to know literally nothing about cinematography

>>59765496
>> he unironically believes higher than 1080p is legitimately needed
It's obviously totally needed.

I've used a 3x1080p setup for years.

I recently updated one to 1440p, will do the others the coming months. The difference is huge. As for content.. a lot of videos on jewtube already support both 4k and 1440p. I know there isn't much in terms of movies yet but pr0n's already there.

It won't be that long until you're looking at that huge collection of 1080p moving like you looked at that divx collection when HD became a thing.

One last little detail on game reviews: Testing at 1x1080p or 1x1440p seems a bit idiotic. What's the point of having a GPU with lots of outputs if you don't (ab)use them, eh?

>>59765848
Remember when everybody was saying 60fps is retarded cause your eyes can't see past 30fps? That's what you sound like.

>>59766888
You simply don't understand photography not imagery, so stop pretending everything is """"simple maths""""

File: autismintensifies.jpg (15KB, 502x417px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 502x417px

>>59766605
Kek, that's dumber than average, goddamn, /g/ is worse than ever before

>>59765496
>being a mindless zero-interaction-media drone
Of course you don't need more than 720p, you would be fine with a single flashing pixel for your small mind

>>59765932
everyone is talking to you about 4k you fucking moran

>sub 4k on 24" or above monitors
>being a dpilet in 2017

>>59765496
Imagine for a second and yes the idea seems crazy but just try picturing it alright? There are rumors that some people actually work on their computers. Some even say there is a grain of truth in them.

>>59769674
well lets see here 1080p text is around 2mm tall, and that's a capital letter unscaled, so lower case are half that size, now you want to make it 1/4th the space they take up? yea, that goes into unreadable at non nose touching the screen distances, back the fuck up from your monitor.

>>59771479
the research is readily available retard, google some simple words.

>>59771405
1mm of film is 320 pixels worth of info, so what is 320 times 36, and what is 24 times 320?

very simple math if you aren't retarded.

File: suchinsight.png (97KB, 1440x851px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1440x851px

people on /g/ must literally have a learning disability or something.

>>59773271
Holy kek.

>>59773271
More than 5 motherfucking years later.

>>59765496
>thinking that media consumption is all that 4k is good for

>>59765833
>You're gonna need a magnifying glass to type a resume in 12 point
>how does DPI scaling work?

Seriously dude? You don't know how this works? 12pt should be the same size on any correctly configured monitor, that's the point

Higher than 1920x1080 may not be needed except in a few cirumstances but HDR is the hot new meme.

Increases the cozy factor of Forza Horizon 3 and Resident Evil 7 tenfold.

Those are the only two games I own that support it but I can't wait until it catches on.

>>59773697
see >>59773271
you're not going to get through to people who literally have cognitive disabilities.

>>59773730
>gaymes gaymes gaymes
Fuck off, fucking childish faggot.