Is 5k a meme?
Why would anyone need this?
>>54109264
>Why would anyone need this?
Why would anyone need more than 10 MB of space?
>>54109280
For my 1080p videos
>need
Why do you need 4k?
Why do you need 1080p?
Why do you need 720p?
Why do you need 2 pixels? to rub them together?
>>54109264
5K is basically 2560x1440 "retina"
Why would you need it? To edit 4k videos with.
for higher PPI.
5K might just become a niche format , the same way 1920x1200 became when 1080p became the defacto standard.
>>54109264
All "Retina" garbage are memes.
>muh slightly sharper text
>blurrier images and videos due to scaling
When will it stop mattering though? what will people say when we have 50k resolution?
>>54109332
>poorfag detected
Why would you not want sharper text and images , i don't understand this.
>>54109264
Anything past 1440p is a meme as far as computer monitors go.
>>54109362
Text is sharp enough with subpixel rendering. Images are not sharper because the vast majority of content out there are targeted to regular DPI displays.
Smartphones get a free pass because their displays are small and are much closer to your face.
>>54109264
>Why would anyone need this?
> professional shoopers who want a bigger display
that's about it for the ~27" market segment.
I currently have a 40" 4k, and it's great, and while ~200 dpi screens do look pretty damn nice, 40"-45" 8k is not coming any time soon, sadly.
hopefully by then every major OS has decent scaling systems in place.
>>54109332
>blurrier images and videos due to scaling
I don't think you understand how PPI works
>>54109264
16K when?
>>54109264
No aa in vidya
>>54109404
>much closer to your face.
>not holding your phablet at arm's length
Apple said you need it so you must really need it
>>54109297
And to have a non-garbage effective resolution+DPI for 27" displays.
>>54109417
>I currently have a 40" 4k,
so basically the same PPI as a 20" 1080p display
By going with such a physically large display I think you guys are missing the point of high PPI displays.
>>54109423
It is you that doesn't know how it works. Content doesn't magically gain more detail just because you got a high res display.
>>54109426
>16K when?
that would be 400 dpi on a 44" screen, anon.
that's not coming any time soon.
even the Nips are a few years from 8k, and that shit might flop hard given lackluster market response to 4k, lack of legacy >4k film content, etc.
>>54109264
To edit 4K content AND shitpost at the same time.
>>54109480
It's not going to lose any either. Modern scaling algorithms are probably a lot better than you think they are.
Resolution whores who have a lot of money.
>>54109480
obviously not, but if you scale it 200% it doesn't become any blurrier because the ratio isn't something weird like 1: 1.5 pixels.
a 1080p full screen video will look the same on a 4K and 1080p monitors of the same size
>>54109480
Most people consume far more text than they do images, especially those who program for a living. What really matters is the razor sharp text.
>>54109477
>By going with such a physically large display I think you guys are missing the point of high PPI displays.
No, I see the value in high *resolution* displays for what I currently need.
I wish my display and software setup was 200 dpi, but I for what I do (coding), I'd rather have four times the area with no bezels than a multi-mon setup with a bunch a 24" 4k or 27" 5k screens.
>I don't understand something, I'll call it a meme!
Its for being able to edit 4K content at its actual resolution on screen with additional space for editing software. Use your fucking brain.
>>54109264
4K is film industry standard which is shot through 35mm cameras. 8K is used for IMAX films using 70mm cameras. 5K has always been a meme and will probably be this >>54109325
Getting a 4K TV smaller than 80" is fucking retarded. The point of 4K is to increase screen size and for the resolution to be not pixelated.
>>54109547
>mactard tells others they need to use their brain
Oh the Irony!
>>54109547
> editing 4k video on a toaster
shiggiest of diggies, anon
>>54109352
Eventually there will be a resolution limit on what an eye can perceive on lets say a 23-27' monitor,this will be reached relatively soon I believe.
Masive resolutions might have niche in future cinemas and the like if they moved from projector to digital. Or a niche in video editing.
Personally I don't think consumer res will need to go past 8k or so before it is impossible to distinguish higher resolutions on limited screenspace.
>ITT: people who have used a 4k display, arguing with people who haven't.
>>54109566
>use the only machine I know of which was built around editing 4K content
>suddenly I am a Mac user
Are you this petty and retarded?
>>54109564
I think a 60" or 70" 4k TV could easily be big enough, especially for a smaller room.
But I agree that 40" 4k monitors still make more sense for most users than 24" ones.
>>54109477
>wanting high ppi when 1080p@21" is still fine
>>54109585
>iMac
>built around editing 4K content
>calls others retarded.
Fucking hell, just kill yourself.
>>54109602
In textbook autistic fashion, you just repeat something back to the person who said it without adding anything.
>>54109585
>implying a Mac can successfully edit 4K videos
it's an oxymoron m8
>>54109599
I have a 55" 1080p TV and I will not by anything smaller than this, regardless of how small the room is. For 4K they should start there TVs at 70" and the top end should be 100". I think 85" would be the perfect midroom 4K TV size IMO
>>54109564
>Getting a 4K TV smaller than 80" is fucking retarded. The point of 4K is to increase screen size and for the resolution to be not pixelated.
instead of making the TV bigger, you can also simply get closer to it.
>"Fuck me deeper!"
>I-I swear my dick is big, just get closer to it
>>54109564
>35mm cameras
It's mostly digital now, film is expensive and a rarity.
>>54109564
The film industry uses its own version of 4K.
Generally speaking when people say 4K they are talking about the consumer space resolution and not the film industry (DCI 4K) resolution.
This is also why there has been a shift in the consumer space to stop calling it 4K ( its not 4,000 pixels in any direction) and just called it UHD / Ultra HD
I honestly don't scale 200%, ive got a 27 inch display and only scale to 150%
Things still look fine without any burriness and there is a little bit more desktop space, but i really dont think most end consumers will be wowed by more desktop space
>>54109635
really don't understand this logic.
a 55" 4k tv is a good upgrade over a 55" 1080p in a small room.
>>54109701
Is there even any good 4k content at this point?
I'm on a 4k PC monitor and don't even really try to look, since it feels like everything is over-compressed 720p/1080p content anyway.
>>54109701
Hardly, pixelation isn't obvious at that size regardless of the room.
typing this from a small room on a 55" TV
>>54109600
That's a pretty mediocre DPI anon
1920x1200 @ 15.4" is the borderline of acceptability for me
>>54109701
there are lots of factors to consider.
if where OP sits it already looks pixelated and then they decide to get a 100 inch screen at 4k, it will look just as pixellated as before.
Proportionally they are increasing the pixel size just as fast as they are increasing the resolution, so in the end it will keep the PPI the same.
So sure, they got a larger screen size but they didn't increase the sharpness/clarity of anything.
I've been using a 50 inch 1080p Plasma for the past five years or so.
How are the colour levels of modern tvs? Or what company seems to provide the best colour levels?
>>54109729
netflix released all of their new shows in 4k and a lot of movies came out.
http://realorfake4k.com/
>>54109264
Are you one of those people who think 1080p and 768p are good resolutions and "all you'll ever need"?
>>54109729
its coming out slowly.
Only recently has bluray caught up to 4K and you can find a few actual 4K encodes of movies out there.
TV content is getting there too,
There are a few youtube chans that do 4K too
Slow but surely 4k is taking over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkrQ9QuKprE
>>54109795
I found the netflix stuff was too compressed for my liking, it felt more like some 1080p upscaled than 4K
>>54109564
Isn't 5k for people who edit 4k videos? So that they can have the entire 4k movie on screen with space to spare for the GUI controls.
>>54109294
Kek
>>54109835
>the netflix stuff was too compressed for my liking, it felt more like some 1080p upscaled than 4K
I agree. Even that YouTube video is way too compressed for my liking, especially given the low motion content.
4k video content should be damn close to 4k images in sharpness IMO, or else, what's the point?
Well 5k over 1080p seems pretty given. I can tell my 27 inch 1080p monitor could have better resolution, and I wouldn't mind having it bigger either. It does seem that we're reaching the end though. Beyond 4k or perhaps 8k it seems you'd only have very specific applications. At this point if you're close enough to see the individual pixels you're not going to see the whole screen. In some cases this may be useful though, such as design, certain kinds of schematics analysis, virtual reality etc. Certain video games too I guess.
>>54109682
4k iMac is 4096x2304
>>54110096
because macs are stupid and refuse to conform to any known standards.
its bigger than UHD, smaller than DCI 4K.
Why does apple do this kind of shit ?
its going to just slightly stretch out any future 4k (3840x2160p) content displayed on it , like why ??
>>54109547
>editing 4K on a mac
You know they're currently packing 4yo hardware into those right? And they're still selling it at a price premium when compared to current gen components.
Anyone who buys a mac, right now, with the intention of editing professionally, is a fucking moron.
>>54110128
4096x2304 is "retina" 2048x1152.
You know, that resolution that was killed off because of 1080p shitter displays.
>>54109264
>tfw no 4096x2560 120Hz strobed OLED monitor
Hurry up already.
question for /g/:
at which point will resolutions allow it to look lifelike, as if I were looking out of a window from an inch or feet away?
>>54110177
Dunno, but it'll take more than resolution. You'll need a good panel coating, good contrast, high brightness, accurate color, motion that doesn't blur to shit, etc.
>>54109264
it's realer than real life.
>>54110162
> strobed OLED
> display now turns yellow in 3 months instead of 2 years, thanks to substantially elevated peak brightness
good job, genius
>>54110223
My fictional display doesn't degrade quick enough for that to be an issue.
>>54110203
one of the things I idealized to invent was a 'paper'/flexible screen that I could look into and see beyond the surface. or simply have a pixel density so big you could squint an inch away to see more
cool isn't it
I must've been inspired by the cat pingent in MiB
>>54109264
5K geez niggers calm down need a decent stream of 4k content first and much better internet speeds
>>54109264
Is "K" the new "G"? Do we add it to the list of normie memewords, right next to megapixels?
>>54110422
Yes. I currently have 32GBGK of RAM.
>>54109547
Editing 4k on a mac
top kek that shit would hang so badly
