what is the fucking point?! just focus on picture quality, you

>>62220228
Your eye not being able to distinguish a pixel doesn't mean it doesn't look better

>>62220228
Higher resolution = higher picture quality

File: 1490060136325.jpg (299KB, 996x954px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 996x954px

marketing, stupid normies love bigger numbers! see megapixels...

>>62220288
it's the same, stop fooling yourself. you can't see shit

Bigger TVs need more pixels to not look like dogshit. Plus, some of us hook up our PCs to them, and shit don't look right on multiple screens.
One big screen with the same square inch and resolution as multiples is better, any day.

>>62220323
What TV do you have?

>>62220399
I have two, FHD and UHD. both I watch from a distance of a few meters. YOU. CAN'T. SEE. SHIT.

>>62220418
Sounds like you just need glasses anon.
I can tell HD from FHD at 6 meters on a 40"

File: 200ppdengleski.png (114KB, 1373x860px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1373x860px

>>62220534

>>62220418
>I have two, FHD and UHD. both I watch from a distance of a few meters. YOU. CAN'T. SEE. SHIT.
That isn't normal anon. But it's ok, many people use glasses, so it's nothing to be embarassed about.

>>62220418
Sounds like you're either dumb, blind, or both.

>>62220317
it's mildly amusing that you're mocking apple when they've been the slowest in the "megapixel race"

same with screen resolution, cpu cores, and ram

>>62220595
It's to keep costs down and milk the sheeple.

>>62220534
>>62220565
>>62220577
placebo is powerful

On the good side, the (previously) good display tech are become cheaper.

File: 1503035716230.gif (236KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 320x320px

>>62220608
I'm seated about 12 feet from my 60 inch 4k tv. When I upgraded form my 55 inch 1080p, the picture quality was a huge noticeable improvement.

Refer to
>>62220553

>>62220618
Still hard as tits to find a UHD ultrawide monitor (3440x1440) at above 100hz... or even at 100hz at a decent price.

>>62220228
Wtf this asian girl is really big

>>62220288
No TV channel broadcasts in 8K and where do you obtain 8K media?

>>62220228
>what is the fucking point?!
i dunno, higher resolution?

>>62220553

Someone tell Best Buy

>>62220553
>graph made by people with bad eyes
The same graph 10 years ago would have 480i at 720p on the axis - did peoples eyes get better in 10 years?
What will the 2027 version of the bollocks graph show?

>>62220228
>just focus on picture quality
back to CRTs we go

Now you know why they push this shit. it's a nigger cattle treadmill to sell more pixels. more pixels = more material = more $$$$$

>>62220228
What kind if input does it have? Hdmi? Does it support 8k/60hz?

But I dont care really, I wont be buying it

>>62221752
>did peoples eyes get better in 10 years?
Probably self-justifications from people who want to avoid spending money. They didn't want to spend the money for 720p so they told themselves that 480i was good enough, but now that 720p is cheap as fuck, anything lower is ridiculous to them.

File: IMG_20170902_175254.jpg (1MB, 2160x2880px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2160x2880px

>>62224105
Bite me; 480i is still fine.

>>62221535
>TV channels

hello grandpa

>>62221535
in japan 8k tv channel broadcasts are a standard

>>62220553
that's like saying that cinemas should all be displaying their images in 1080P. trust me, it'd look like dog shit.

>>62224409
>Can the pixels over a photo

>>62224409
You again... If you're gonna CRT at least get a good one.
>>62224527
>hello grandpa
Hello underage b&
>>62224958
No broadcasts at 8K until the Tokyo Olympics tho.

>>62225162
hurr durr
https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/02/the-first-8k-satellite-tv-broadcasts-are-live-in-japan/

>>62225202
>Unfortunately, there's no way to watch the super high res feeds and 22.2 channel sound at home -- even with a $130,000 8K TV -- but interested Japanese residents can check out tests of the feeds at several public locations in Tokyo and Osaka.
>Didn't read the article
What did he mean by this?

>>62220418
Either you're blind or watching youtube at 1080p/4k and thinking that's a valid comparison.

>>62220228

>No arms

Sums up the nips nicely

>>62220288

But then theres also refresh rate and color accuracy. In most monitors and tvs you still have to compromise between resolution and refresh rate, unless you want to pay out of your ass.

8K is the point where diminishing returns gets pushed to the extreme - there *is* a meaningful advantage in using it over 4K, but anything beyond it is essentially indistiguishable. I recently went to an electronics store and saw a $100,000 100'' Sony 4K TV, and I was able to distinguish individual pixels at roughly three feet. While it'd be ridiculous to complain about that, I think that it exemplifies why NHK wants to beyond 4K.
You also need to see it beyond just a high-resolution play. ISDB-International is still on its first revision, a second one, 4K-capable, could carry perhaps 4 1080p channels using the same bandwidth as one current 720p SBTVD channel. NHK is also researching usage of 4096-QAM in TV broadcasting, which could give up to 96 Mbps bandwidth via standard digital TV bands. Imagine watching Blu-Ray quality TV via OTA? Imagine how premium cable, through a hypothetical ISDB-C2, could use this as a way of driving up demand by offering movie theater-like stream quality?

>>62220604
apple has some of the best smartphone cameras you idiot. it's not just about the number of pixels.

>>62224998
this, 4K already looks bad enough

>>62225202
>implying this is standard
No, the standard is 1080i.

lots of ppl ITT in denial.

if you have a computer monitor just switch Windows resolutions in "display settings" to lowest than highest.

even after doing this these people will reject the proof they just saw somehow.

>>62220288
higher resolution won't make up for poor budget and direction

When will 4k become common?

>>62227006
That's because you are literally right next to the monitor instead of 10 feet away.
Retard, use an aliasing test and go back and I fucking assure you that you won't get aliasing after a certain distance.

There are still morons who cannot see the difference between HD fullHD 4K and 8K. It's like day and night and solar eclipse and lunar eclipse

>>62220284
Is this shitposting? I genuinely can't tell the difference with how pants-shittingly retarded resolutionfags are.

>>62220228
>just focus on picture quality
I do care about resolutions as well but this is a totally great point.

I'll take any 1080p IPS or AHVA panel over any 4k or 8k TN panel any day.

What I actually use right now is 1440p AHVA panels on my desktop and a 1080p AHVA on my laptop (it came with a 1080p TN which I replaced).

Sure, 4k or 8k panels as a standard, even on laptops, would be nice. But for right now it would be great if they could focus on making computer screens not look horrible and not have washed-out colors.

As for televisions, I don't really care, not even a little. I haven't owned one in decades and I won't be buying one any time soon.

I want to get a window sized display and mount it on the wall to show pretty views and landscapes so I can pretend I'm not stuck in a shithole

>>62226683
>4096-QAM in TV
that sounds like it would be very sensitive to interference or noise

>>62220284
>Even though your eyes can't tell if it looks better, it might still look better. You just need to convince your eyes that it looks better and maybe they'll eventually agree.

>>62220284
That's like saying if they add audio frequencies that are lower and higher than the human ear can perceive, the audio quality is higher. Technically, it's higher, but it's also fucking useless because you can't hear it. Any whales in the vicinity might appreciate it, so there's that.

>>62220288
Higher resolution = upscaled image = worse qualitu

>>62224998
I mean, cinemas project on between FHD and 4K

I can see the pixels in the 4k TV, i'm all for 8K, so that we reach the point a TV will be a fucking Black mirror

>>62226683
I'm very sensitive to pixels too. I had the same impression as you, I can see the fucking pixels, so I'm all for the 8k to really improve finalize the screen marketing.
What are we gonna see next will be AR or VR, because the curved screens are memes for lonely people, and holograms seems way far from now

File: resolution_chart.jpg (111KB, 907x619px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 907x619px

>>62221752
This is Real Graphics, some error on Steve Jobs Retina measure on 300dpi.

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

Real retina display begins 500dpi to 600 dpi, Graphics say 4K is useless comes from Retina Apple formula.

https://mostly-tech.com/2013/11/08/debunking-the-retina-display-myth/

Note dpi means dots per inch measure length pixel,don't number of pixel on square inch, 2 times more dpi equals 4 times more pixel.

>>62220288
>Higher megapixel count = higher picture quality
this is u rn

>>62228318
>like audio frequencies above the human range
It's actually more like audio sample rates being so high you cant distinguish the individual samples.

Honestly 4K is more than enough since you're not just hugging the fucking TV. Frankly if you need so much resolution for reading, you use a monitor instead on a desktop, not a fucking TV.

Besides there's a difference between "not looking like shit" and "not looking absolutely perfect". It's like a resolution over 1080p on a 5.5 inch phone, it only would exist for VR, otherwise you can't justify it. You can't. Not "oh my eyes are so finicky and so different to yours that they can see the difference between 400 and 450 PPI. No. Fuck off.

>>62221752
Real
https://www.engadget.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/

>>62220534
You literally cannot. Trust me. I am a turbo autist about this subject and have argued for better image quality for years but this is something even I will admit.

6 meters?
40"?

You absolutely cannot tell the difference between 1920x1080 and 3840x216.

>>62220647
The increase in picture quality could be due to several other factors. Your 4k television may have a better contrast ratio, for instance.

>>62228706
1 meter, 50 inches, 2160p

It's pretty glorious.

>>62228470
this is bullshit
i can see a difference between 720p and 1080p from 13 feet on a 42 inch screen

Did you guys use 4k with production software like Maya Houdini or Nuke? Its fucking awesome. if 8k will allow for a similar jump in "comfiness" then its worth it

>>62220228
>no one cares about ridiculous resolutions.
Then why do they sell units you retard?

>>62220228
>our eyes can't see the difference

Bullshit. If that were true, you wouldn't need anti-aliasing for games and such, would you?

>>62220418
Blind or just retarded?

>>62228765
Companies also manage to sell units of gold plated $10,000 "premium" digital audio cables. There's another sucker born every minute.

>>62224998
This

>>62228741
>1 meter
just kys already

>>62228751
This is bad graphics
>>62228470
And this is Real Graphic
>>62220553

>>62228773
the fuck is that comparison? are you an idiot?

>>62224998
Well, 35mm is actually really similar to 1080p in potential quality

>>62228345
i don't know a cinema that doesn't project on at least 4k

Eh, atleast you know this will be the final endgame for resolutions, since it's already overkill.

>>62228741
And how is that relevant to anything I said?

>>62220228
because telling a consumer that a tv supports 12 bit color depth with rec.2020 color gamaut with a native contrast ratio of 700000:1 and can emit 1100 nits and supports true brightness hdr(2) log gama doesnt sell.... saying OH MAH GAWD 8k PIXELLLZ makes people who want to watch football buy a tv.

>>62228846
Well being a turbo autist I was sure you'd argue with me. Way to let your species down.

>>62220553
I have a 4k 43" TV that I sit about 10 feet from. This clearly justifies 4k from that distance

>>62228905
The only problem is where Dafuq can I get 4k content?

>>62228843
just wait for 16K, THE NEXT BIG THING

>>62228905
stop lying

PSA: The ideal distance to sit from a screen for cinematic content results in a 45 degree horizontal field of view. This is usually 1/2 way to 2/3rds of the way back in a movie theater. It's also the sweet spot for surround sound.

You can calculate a screen's horizontal width for a 16:9 screen by multiplying by the diagonal width by 0.872

Then multiply the horizontal width by 1.2 to find the 45 degree FOV distance you should sit at. Or 1.54 for 36 degrees, the alternate THX standard.

For photographic content, there's no fucking way you can tell the difference between 4k and 8k unless you sit much closer to the screen than the ideal distance. It's pointless.

>>62228785
>that massive discrepancy
really makes you think

>>62228843
4K was supposed to be the endgame

8K is getting pretty good for video but gpu rendered stuff could use a lot more resolution because video takes an integral over the surface area of the pixel and over time but realtime-rendered gpu stuff only gets 1-16 point samples per pixel

>>62220228
resolution is literally the easiest way to increase picture quality without having to master something on a 1k+ nits capable device that will burn your retinas in

>>62229972
1080P are 1920 X 1080, but 4K 3840 X 2160 real 4K was 7680 X 4320, industry believe huge gap 16 times was so big then create "4K" and "8K"(real 4K).

>>62226708
>Apple has some of the best cameras.
You're thinking of Sony.

>>62230106
yeah

https://9to5mac.com/2017/06/01/iphone-8-sony-camera-sensors/

File: 1470076395199.png (113KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 300x300px

>>62220228
>mfw 4K OLED screens are still as expensive as they were 5 years ago

God damn it, hurry up. My old Plasma is already getting noticeable burn-ins.

42" at 4k is perfect for windows. No scaling, size still manageable, monitor doubles as decently sized TV.

>>62228182
Linus recently made a video about that, using some weird ultrathin LG screen.

>>62228182
Get a poster.

>>62230233
funny thing is, current gen OLED TVs has serious burn-in issues

>>62220553
>buy a huge TV.
>sit a mile away so that the screen looks as big as a 5inch

>>62224998
They've been projecting at 2K for years, anon. 2K is 2048x1080.

>>62231242
looks like shit. going to the movies is an overrated normie social thing

>>62220228
I want to focus on her resolution

>>62220228
She's big

>>62232653
4K

>>62232653
yeah what's up with that is she literally like 6 feet tall?

>>62220228
You don't consider resolution an aspect of picture quality?

>>62228286
It is, I imagine it's contingent on more technological advances.

If you dont like it dont buy it and stop complaining about it, it will only drive down the price of less resolutions so you can afford it.

>>62220228
>our eyes can't see the difference
OP confirmed retard.
4K is retarded on a smartphone/laptop but on a fuckhuge TV it really makes sense, just like 4k.

>>62232653
Tfw no cute and tall jap gf ;_;

>>62220228
Resolution is a single number. Picture quality is complicated. It's way easier to just trick consumers into thinking more K's are better

>>62233296
>Picture quality is complicated
hurr light gets arranged into a grid, obfuscating detail no matter how large the resolultion

so complicated. your brain is fucking niggerlicious thanks to all the mit dumbfuckery floating around. the CIA has put you niggers into a little prison.

>>62233325
>what is contrast
>what is color accuracy
>what is brightness uniformity
>what is pixel response time
>what are viewing angles
>etc

>>62233534
you REALLY don't want your pet niggers to know the moment you arrange real life to a grid of pixels, that's when your image quality changes.

don't worry, your niggers will never know. they're docile little fucking faggots.

>>62233205
no it doesn't

>>62220228
As much as I love my Sony Android TV and comfort that comes with Google's services, does it really have to be this much of a botnet?
Never have I seen the government abusing the normies as much as this. The Matrix is almost real lads.

>>62220228
8k is the final resolution. At a fov of around 110, 8k is (((retina))).

Hopefully, it becomes mainstream in a few years around cheap OLEDS so we can finally max out this LED tech tree and start working on holograms seriously.

File: -ImISnBe.jpg (18KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x400px

>>62230233
>Be me
>Wait for OLED for years
>Can't take it anymore and go a head and buy an HDR 4K Android TV
>LG and Sony decide to make 2017 the year for OLED TV's

Please kill me.

I don't care what anyone says.
4K is a meme that exists to Jew you out of your money.

File: file.png (390KB, 785x960px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 785x960px

Well the goal is to reach film resolution, and we are still far from IMAX.

According to this, 70mm IMAX = 18k

2K/1080p was great for 16mm scans
4K for 35mm
8K for 65/70mm

>>62220228
>y-your eyes can't see m-more than 180p a-anyway!
>t. Resolutionlet

>>62220553
I hate this graph because it is shit.

They need to make the cut offs for the graph 40 feet and 80 inches.

>>62234635
>imax
>climax
l-lewd

>>62220317
>marketing, stupid normies love bigger numbers! see megapixels...
I doubt these "normies" are the ones buying 8K television sets

>>62235032
>television sets
>not for normies

>>62235068
>8K resolution
>for normies
yeah no

>>62235079
normies bought 4k tvs years ago, 8k is coming

File: pointing_at_you.jpg (51KB, 304x304px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 304x304px

>>62235105
>normies bought 4k tvs years ago
says the fuckboy who
>cannot solve a system of differential equations
>does not know a functional programming language
>cannot read sheet music
>types at a rate slower than 100 words per minute
>drives a car with an automatic transmission
>listens to mp3s
>has less than 12 TB on his home server
>does not play a musical instrument
>can't run a mile in under 6 minutes
peasants like you make me sick

What was the point of LCD/LED TVs? They are objectively worse than the Plasma TVs they "replaced."

>>62235893
LCD/LED was brighter = looks "better" in the showroom
FUD about burn in on plasma
"LED" was the "new" thing vs. "old" plasma
LCD/LED was cheaper
Plasma was more power hungry, got hotter
Plasma couldn't be as thin as LCD


I believe plasma had a practical lower limit on pixel size, as well, which would've made it obsolete by now anyway with 4k sets the hot new thing

>>62220317

obviously not a photographer. you can never have enough megapixels. 18 wasn't enough for me when the 7D dropped and I lust for the 40-50 MP models we have now. cropping is freedom you double nigger.

>>62235135
can i post this on /r/iamverysmart?

>>62236433
>31773379mpx camera
>pic look a washed mess

File: peasant.jpg (231KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 500x500px

>>62236471
I released that copypasta under the GPL license

you have to attach one of these two images with your post

>>62236433
Megapixels is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for good image quality. We still use fucking Bayer filters on less than 35mm equivalent sensors with shitty DR and no amount of megapickels is going to fix that.

>>62228824
You do know that most films are just 2k on the silverscreen? Except for really high buget that may have a small number of scenes rendered at 4k. It may be shot at 4/8k. But it is 99% presented in 2k. So please visit a cinema that does not blur the image by upscaling.

>>62235893
>They are objectively worse
Can you back that up?

>>62220228
>what is the fucking point?!

4K TVs have come down in price a lot recently, and they need a new model for people willing to blow $10K on a TV

>even if there's no 8K content yet

File: IMG_1749.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

my Kuro is now 10y old and it's still better than any lcd/oled crap. best anime machine ever made in human history

>>62234635
>Well the goal is to reach film resolution, and we are still far from IMAX.

Why? There's no benefit whatsoever for actually watching the content at home or even in a theater. 70mm was ridiculously detailed because an analog medium doesn't have processing and storage overhead like a digital medium and every copy made after the master loses detail, so you need to start with a lot. You project it with a lightbulb. You didn't need to make an 18k matrix display. TLDR: Because they could

But none of this makes sense for digital media. You should just stop where the human eye can't see any more detail at a viewing distance humans actually enjoy.

>>62236433
This is an argument to film content in 8k, which was never disputed

It's displaying it at the home which isn't worth the expense because it isn't worth anything at all over 4k.

>>62236752
It's common knowledge that plasma had better color and contrast compared to LCD. No one cares that you didn't know or don't believe it. Google it or don't.

>mfw lcd tv from 2011 that supports only 720p still working nice and all
Feels good to not fall on the marketing meme unlike most of /g/

>>62220553
4K is enough at 3 ft for a 40" sooo...not sure why its saying 8K

>>62220288
most things will look worse every time the resolution is bumped because most things compress the content even harder so they dont need to waste more expensive bandwidth and so it works on shitty consumer hardware & dialup tier internet connections.

>>62230292
This.

And my GPU is not good enough so I run games in windowed 1080p, which is like running them in a 23" 1080p monitor.

~40in 4k is like bezel free 4 23" 1080p's

>>62236895
TADA

>>62234635
But imax screens are like 20 meters diagonal and you sit idk how far away, so we need to calculate that the real equivalent "resolution" is within the home setting of 6-12ft distance with a 40-70" display.

>>62237786
BANRI

>>62236779
>they need a new model for people willing to blow $10K on a TV

This is the beauty of capitalism. This shits going to keep getting better and cheaper.

>>62220228
It's easy to sell big numbers

Also why did everyone lie and tell me that 4k was a massive gain from 1080p?

>>62237855
Honestly the only reason I got 4k was for:
>>62237751

For more real estate for desktop computering. I still only watch 1080p content.

>>62220647
The resolution probably isn't what you're seeing bub...

>>62237855
4K is great for gaming. For movies and shows it's shit.

>>62220317
>normies branding themselves like cattle

>>62236433
This anon gets it.

>tfw super pleased with my d750
>then the d850 gets announced, 45.7mp
fug

>>62238047
I was using it for gaming, it was shit.

>>62220228
Ultimately it's all pointless. No matter how good your resolution, Pornhub will still only let you watch at max 720p unless you create an account.

>>62237855
Your monitor is like a foot away from you.

>>62221535
Thats wrong. Some Japanese TV channels broadcasts in 8K


Techn luddites should be shot and raped. Everytime.

>Non uniform backlight which makes black look like a bunch of clouds
>Shitty post processing that makes everything look like it's been smeared with vaseline
>Shitty frame interpolation makes you feel like a seizure is coming right up.
>Hiding shitty view angles with Curved ®© tvs
>Smart meaning stealing your data and stuffing your screen with ads while being so slow you might as wel turn on your computer to look at something
>Shitty input lag even on the most expensive tvs
>Shitty scalars introducing al kinds of artifacts when using analog inputs
>Not using the vesa mount standard
>Creating a dozen HDR "standards"
>Introducing HDCP and the cancer it included
>Shitty gimmicks like a mic in your remote
>Still having all the connections and AC to DC conversion stuck to the back of the tv instead of a separate box from which a single cable could run to the tv (like LG has on their very best models and xiaomi had for years on their cheap as rice models)
>Still featuring shiny screens without even a hint of anti glare
>Thank god 3D is dead again so we won't have to fiddle around with that
>Shitty integrated sound focusing on being thin instead of supplying you with bigger speaks you could place out of sight
>Still haven't standardized on a single remote protocol/technology


Why are modern TV and their manufacturers so god awfully shit?

>>62238598
>>Shitty input lag even on the most expensive tvs
My samsung 4k tv is actually really good about this, navigating the UI is super quick and snappy

>>62238707
Input lag isn't about navigating the tv, it's the amount of time a signal goes from being an input signal to actually being shown on screen. Due to all the processing and scaling it's quite a bit worse than it used to be.

lol 4k is almost as bad as 3D for lack of content 8k is even worse

>>62238738
Oh, fair enough. Though, I've seen a lot of tvs have a 'gaming' mode that disables this, but I agree-- would prefer to just have raw output instead of processing. Definitely prefer monitors to tvs because of this.

>>62238827
Even with gaming mode they still apply all kinds of processing. Why, we'll never know.

>>62238598
>Shitty post processing that makes everything look like it's been smeared with vaseline
it's called soap opera effect

>>62238944
People who actually experience that are peasants, desu. Higher framerates are better, can understand not liking interpolation artifacts though.

>>62239014
lcd have very poor motion resolution and that's why it need ultra high frame rate to mask this problem

>>62220228
>our eyes can't see the difference
that's where you're wrong kiddo

>>62231323

Cinemas are infested with niggers

>>62239336
There used to be this fantastic cinema in town. 21+ only, id at the door, typically $14 a ticket. Reserved seats. The 21+ filtered out the annoying children, the $14/ticket filtered out the poor unwashed masses, and the reserved seats meant you could get perfect seats in advance, allowing you to get to the theater whenever you wanted. As an added bonus, there were only 2-3 trailers before a movie, and they were usually GOOD trailers.

Of course AMC fucking bought them out and ran them into the ground with 7-8 shitty trailers and commercials before movies, no more 22oz bottles of beer, and inexplicably more expensive movie tickets.

>>62239414
>reserved seats is not a fucking basic

'murrica gentlemen.

>>62239582
Yeah no shit, trust me I fucking wish it was everywhere. Only premium cinemas offer it.

>>62239414
They did this to Sundance in Seattle. Some straight bullshit

>>62239701
I was talking about sundance specifically. Fucking loved that theater. that was my go-to, now I'm lost

File: 1461036262096.png (2MB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x900px

>>62228470
>>62220553
>implying it's as simple as that
>not taking into consideration monitor sharpness settings, PPI, rgb accuracy ...