what does /g/ think about 4k/Ultra HD?
will 4K/8K formats catch on or is it too early/impractical?
what the fuck do you mean will they catch on? 4k is already the next standard
>>53177757
Aren't 4K monitors still considered meme technology?
>>53177781
No, it's just too expensive to be mass adopted.
4k monitors are expensive, but 4k televisions are relatively cheap.
4k movies will probably catch on quick, and the quicker 4k tvs sell, the cheaper I imagine monitors will get.
8k tvs is totally a meme though. 4k is borderline insignificant at tv viewing distance, but beyond that is pretty certainly pointless.
4k monitors make sense because they are much closer to your face. 8k monitors would be pushing it the same way 4k tvs are.
I don't get you guys.
Spending $400 on a video card is OK, but spending the same amont on a monitor, oh no that is too much money!
>>53178778
This
Your Video card and monitor should cost about the same
>>53178778
Because I have 3 monitors and having $400 monitors x3 is $1200.
I opted for $200 monitors instead.
>>53178827
You don't need 3 monitors. One is plenty.
>>53178956
How am I suppose to play a full screen game while watching a full screen movie?
>>53178956
shh don't you know, /g/ is the exception to everything.
Anyways, 4K is pretty much the next emerging standard.
>>53177713
It better because they sold the fuck out of this 4k tv meme
>>53177713
It will probably become the last viable consumer resolution before diminishing returns kicks in and makes anything beyond it essentially irrelevant.
>>53177713
Jews are pushing upgrades of media resolution slowly so they can jew you more. Think about that.
>>53178778
I spent $100 on my gpu and $150 on all my monitors
>>53177713
>optical discs
It's time to let it go, Hollywood.
>>53178978
One cannot properly do both at once
>>53177713
Resolution is irrelevant because most content which can be viewed on these monitors is a heap of shit.
Is there any significant improvement in watching a turd at 720p vs 4k?
It's a pretty small improvement. 1080p was a huge upgrade, but many people won't even notice the upgrade to 4K at normal viewing distances. I wouldn't bother at this point. Contrast and color accuracy are far more important than resolution. In a sane price range, 1080p will probably look better than 4K because 4K will sacrifice picture quality for resolution.
I'm still very glad it's catching on. Right now TV and streaming services offer barely acceptable 1080p content. For example, Netflix 1080p looks like crap. However, Netflix 4K downscaled to 1080p looks great. This means that my pirated Netflix shows will look better even when played on a 1080p monitor. Same goes for Youtube and normal TV. Though 4K is a meme, it will finally get content providers to release decent quality videos.
Typical marketing. Resolution is easy to understand, so companies make it as high as possible since it is impressive to people with little tech knowledge and makes the TV seem premium. In reality, 4K is borderline irrelevant at normal viewing distances and other factors are more important to picture quality. But those other factors can't be boiled down to one buzzword, so they're bad marketing.
In the '90s, it was
>more megahertz = more speed
In the '00s, it was
>more megapixels = better photos
In the '10s, it's
>more K's = better TV
Same old bullshit.
>>53180923
> 4K is borderline irrelevant at normal viewing distances
poorfag plz
>>53180923
>I haven't used a 4k screen but here's my uninformed opinion
thanks, anon.
>>53180971
>>53181042
If you sit 8-10 feet from your TV (as is typical), you would have to get into the 60" range before you start noticing improvements from 4K. And you would have to have a 100"+ TV before you see the full benefit.
You are arguing with physics and biology. Unless you are a hawk, you will not notice the difference with a typical screen size at a typical viewing distance.
>>53177713
yeah, 4k is goat and should become the standard in the next 2-5 years but 8k will need A LOT more time.
people who say you can't see a difference are just pulling that out of their arse. if you'd ever used a 4k screen, you'd know how much better it is provided the right content.
>>53177713
any group broke DRM and ripped this yet?
>>53180587
I'm sorry about your poverty.
>>53177713
So was Daiz truly ahead of his time.
Is he going to ruin movies next?
>>53180801
this.
Fuckers can't get decent bitrate to save their life, 10 bit and HEVC will help though
>>53177713
4K will catch on, 8K not (any time soon).
>>53181339
Oh, another thing to add:
It's not about the resolution, it's about the viewing area.
4K does you jack shit on a 17" display.
4K starts shining on a display that's 30" or above.
Same for TVs. 4K on a 50" TV that you're sitting 3 meters away from will do jackshit.
4K is designed for 100" TVs and above.
4k is coming whether I care or not.
OLED, I actually would like everything to go to.
with h.265 / vp9
display port
cheap SSDs
ofc it's gonna catch on, and 8k after it
>>53181377
I have 24" hd monitor
and 4k looks so much better than 1080p
>>53181449
Then you're probably sitting too close to it.
>>53181503
50-60cm from it
I just bought 9 1080p blu-rays for $9 canadian each. Good enough for me.
>>53181538
As suspected, that's ridiculously close. I'm sitting at more than double the distance from my ~24" 1080p displays.
If you want to adhere to the ITU-R recommendation on the optimal pixel pitch, then you want to be sitting at 3.2 times the monitor's height (for 1920x1080), which in your case works out to around 120-130 cm.
>>53181195
well I had pc monitors in mind but your post made me wonder about tv's so I did a little test right now.
I took 2 pics from a wallpaper site, 4k and 1080p obviously, and opened them both on my 27" 4k monitor which is tiny if you consider it a tv.
I used the same part of both pics, being a human face. from a distance of 2.5m (8.2 feet) I could see tiny little hairs on the nose of the face on the 4k pic while the 1080p one was too blurry for that.
lets be real here, the difference was marginal and a still picture is very different from a video stream but it is only 27" and I have a hard time believing that there isn't a very noticable difference for 50"+.
>>53181728
1. A still picture is very different from a video stream. The average human eye (20/20) can easily resolve details to a greater degree in still images than what the ITU-R recommends for moving images. Above-average eyes can easily resolve detail to a greater degree
2. That might be subject more to the quality of the 4K -> 1080p conversion more than to the resolution itself. To eliminate variables, you have to perform the conversion yourself using proper tools (e.g. imagemagick configured to a widened linear-light mitchell-netravali BC-spline or so - or just usempv -vo opengl-hq)
3. For an optimal test you would want a 27" 4K monitor next to a 27" 1080p display. Or you can try to approximate it by using box filtering to sort of simulate the lower resolution, with some caveats. (If you're on Linux, you can do this by using sxiv, zooming in twice, and pressing ‘a’ to turn off anti-aliasing)
4. Scientific tests should be run double-blind. Based on your description, it probably wasn't, so bear that in mind when evaluating the results.
5. The recommendations are not based on what you can theoretically perceive, but as a function of cost effectiveness. After a certain point, you can only tell the difference by pausing the video and squinting at fine details. Is it worth spending an extra $1000 for that?
Just saying, there are a lot of contributing factors here that are hard to quickly discount.
>>53181900
agreed. I wouldn't sign a paper claiming you can see significant improvements from this distance based on my little experiment but you or whoever wrote:
>You are arguing with physics and biology. Unless you are a hawk, you will not notice the difference with a typical screen size at a typical viewing distance.
didn't exactly make a strong case either.
also, price or cost effectiveness were never part of this argument. obviously new technology is expensive but it will become cheaper as more panels flood the market and in 10 years, 4k will cost as much as 1080p does now. the question was if there is a noticable improvement and I believe there is.
>>53182208
>didn't exactly make a strong case either.
Yeah I don't think that poster is doing the physics and biology justice either.
These are things you can easily calculate yourself with some bits of google and wikipedia, mind.
I can't wait, all the ubiquitous 1080p content on standard broadcast tv is getting old. Hurry up with 4k industry!
4K Blu-ray will probably not take off for quite some time.
Blu-ray is already a fucking pain in the ass to read on anything but a dedicated player, which is a major turn-off for many people. And now people needs to buy new hardware to get a very marginal picture quality increase in comparison to the leap from DVD to blu-ray ?
Not to mention that most content didn't already look perfectly clear on blu-ray, so I don't think the leap in resolution will improve anything.
>>53178978
Watch better movies that command your attention.
Nothing broadcasts in 4k and virtually no content is available for your 4k TV.
Until that changes the technology is dead in the water.
Do you think the physical media aspect of it will be big?
I like to collect films that I enjoy and will go back and watch; however, I'm not crazy about buying 4k Criterions.
>>53178956
>You don't need 3 monitors. One is plenty.
For people who do actual work instead of muh games, one is definitely not practical.
>>53181265
>3 dell 2007fp
>some other dell monitor
>660 ti
>all for $250
I'm sorry you waste money on new hardware when used is much more cost efficient
>>53178956
Once you have more than one monitor, it's hard to go back. Considering getting 3.
>one for gaming
>one for media
>one for system monitoring/chatting
Unf
Also, 4k is meme.
>>53180659
>using botnet
4k is completely worthless. Our video compression technology is shit outside of x264.
>>53180659
>Not owning your media and having it stored safely locally so you can retain ownership.
Nice try MPAA.
My team is submitting a film to festivals
Not a single one has an 8K projector WTF is 8K what shoots it
Anyway only 7 film festivals around the world offer 4K projection
If it catches on it will take a decade...lol by the time 8K comes around there will already be three resolution formats which will outperform
Also we did a screen test with a RED and non of us could tell the diffract between 2 & 4K not even the ass hole DOP who insisted on the shooting the dam thing in 4K raw
>mfw the fucking PS4 doesn't support 4k, or 4k Blu Ray.
WHY
Fuck you all for not understanding what progressive and interlaced scan lines mean
It's not a resolution it's how each frame follows it self on screen in a sequence
How are you testing a still image ???
>>53182695
I think DirecTV has some specialty stuff in 4K but you're right tho. I wish whoever broadcasts the Super Bowl next year would do so in 4K/60fps. When the switch from SD to HD came around, many people will tell you they were first wowed by it when they saw their first sports games in HD which lead to big pushes in sales.
Also I just want the cable companies to update their goddamn codecs to modern times and a 4K push just might do it. Most everything is still broadcast in 720p or 1080i using MPEG-2 and looks like shit despite taking up nearly 8GB per 1 hour of live action content.
Is there any reason why I shouldn't use a 4K TV as my monitor?
>>53185106
>WTF is 8K what shoots it
Nothing, really. If you want to shoot 8K with a decent camera you'll have to wait a few years and save up a few million USD
>>53185195
You mean apart from the egregious image quality and shitty subsampling?
>>53185195
Are you a graphic designer or a VFX artist? No?
Don't waste that $$ on a monitor (used to calibrate true colour and that it)
Just port an HDMI from your tower to the TV and enjoy
>>53185206
Does every 4K TV have bad subsampling?
>>53185224
Well, I'm currently using a regular 1080p Samsung TV as my monitor since my old one died and the TV was lying around. HDMI makes it unbearable though, I use DVI-D.
>>53185195
Input lag.
>>53185106
>Anyway only 7 film festivals around the world offer 4K projection
Strange, because most projectors in north america are now digital / 4K
>As of 31 March 2015, 38,719 screens (out of a total of 39,789 screens) in the United States have been converted to digital (15,643 of which are 3D capable), 3,007 screens in Canada have been converted (1,382 of which are 3D), and 93,147 screens internationally have been converted (59,350 of which are 3D).[18]
The only difference is its just being marketed as such, people just keep enjoying that clear picture in the cinema.
The change over happened in the last few years and hardly anyone noticed.
>>53182747
I think so. People will want the convenience of streaming everything but the reality is most people don't have the bandwidth for good quality 4K. Not to mention the data caps many people are under would be blown in no time if they watch a decent amount of movies/TV.
>>53185429
This is why HEVC 265 is going to be standard for 4K
Physical media is dying a slow death.
Just like 1080p blurays never really took off, neither will this physcal media
>oh you have a bluray player ? guess what , you need to buy a new one to work with this new format
>we *promise* its the last time!
My phone/cable company already offers 4K video (i havent see the quality)
>bought 4k tv
>no 4k content to play
Well I can connect my computer and play 4k YouTube I guess.
>>53180659
yeah sure, everybody has stable 40Mbps connections.
(pic related)
>>53185539
you can do photo slideshows.
>>53177713
Porn has decided 4K is the next thing, and so it shall be
Porn is why we have High definition televisions, why VHS won over Beta, why bluray won over dvd. Porn is what forces new tech in the entertainment industry
>>53185612
>why VHS won over Beta
oficially, VHS won because it had more storage capacity than Beta.
>>53185592
>24fps
no
>>53185276
>Does every 4K TV have bad subsampling?
Basically every 4V does.
There's no point making 4:4:4 TVs when 99.999% of the content they will display is subsampled.
>>53185641
and what do you prefer, watch 60Hz of judder?
>>53185654
I think you mean "upsampling".
>>53177781
No you've been on /g/ too much
>>53185612
>why VHS won over Beta
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddYZITaxlTQ
I think its anecdotal to say porn, I think it is a case of suvivorship bias, porn just happen to pick the right format and now everyone thinks porn was the deciding factor.
I would argue Bluray won because of the PS3, meanwhile the PS3 sells millions of units and puts a bluray player in all those homes too.
Why spend hundreds of a HD HD player, when for the same money or a bit more you can get a BR player AND a playstation ?
At a time when downloading/streaming porn was huge, how/why would they be the deciding factor in this ?
>>53185612
Beta was better than VHS from a quality standpoint so that is a bad thing, also it was bluray vs hd dvd. HD DVD lost because it wasn't backed by a major film studio like bluray was.
>>53185673
120hz actually
24x5.
No judder
get fucked
>>53185634
>>53185745
>>53185764
I've used both Beta and VHS.
It's a big stretch to say that one looked better over another. They both had full vertical resolution (otherwise televisions wouldn't show a picture), and the only difference was a little bit of horizontal resolution.
>>53185958
From a pure technical standpoint when factoring quality beta was a superior format, vhs was cheaper and could hold more footage so it won.
>>53180659
This can work actually, sure you are limited by DRM but you can still use plex or whatever to enjoy your personal media
>>53186095
Not picture quality.
The earliest recorders differed by only ~10 horizontal lines, and the Beta recorder had slightly less noise.
At the time videorecorders were commonly connected by a modulated coaxial signal (rather than component), so the difference was moot anyway.
Even in ideal circumstances the 'betamax quality advantage' is tiny, but at the time it was even smaller.
>>53177781
>Aren't 4K monitors still considered meme technology?
no its retards and/or poorfags on /g/ being autistic
>>53185787
Back to the future 60fps black Ray 9k edition Marty Mcfly mode bootleg
>>53177781
Yea, when DVDs came out literally the entire world threw out their VHS players that same exact day and everyone all bought $2000 dollar first generation DVD players
