Why the fuck do these resolutions exist, with the exception of 1080p and MAYBE 4k if it's on a 40 inch screen?
Because you're a fucking retard.
>>54747360
Great argument
You're retarded.
Contrary to popular belief, being a retarded luddite won't score you any /g/ points.
>>54747420
What's retarded is making monitors with resolutions no one can fucking use. 8k would require you to have like a 100 inch screen minimum to even be useful as a computer monitor. It's fucking retarded.
>>54747369
Not an argument
>>54747369
Great shitpost
>>54747449
Good thing it's a UHD television standard, then.
>>54747449
1080p hits indistinguishability at 5" with 15" distance. That's only 20" for 8K at the same distance. You're a fucking tool.
>>54747449
You're the one that's tarded mate. Higher PPI is always better. The problem comes at running content at that resolution, which takes a lot of CPU / GPU and even more internet if for some reason you're streaming it.
>>54747756
You're a fucking retard.
>>54748875
Nice facts you got there.
At least I gave numbers.
You realize at 100" you'd be getting around 70DPI, right? Shrink it down to 20, you get 350, reasonable for a desktop screen at a distance of 10-20".
>>54747255
>4k if it's on a 40 inch screen
4k at 22-24" allows you to render everything "as though" it's 1080p, but with sufficiently sharp text that you would never notice pixels.
we've been explaining this since 2012. some people on /g/ must have learning disabilities
>>54747782
(not him; i wouldn't want to be mistaken for a retard)
you're right, although i think there's a very clear effect of diminishing returns. 1080p at 24" is nowhere near plateauing, but there *is* a point where increasing the pixel density helps less and less.
>>54749237
When is affordable 4k monitors with 120hz coming?
Because cinema production
You can easily stabilize and crop a 6 or 8k footage to 4k
>>54749276
Probably not for a while. We *just* managed to standardize DP 1.4, which (along with DP 1.3) supports 4k@120Hz, but that's very much approaching the upper limit. It's going to remain somewhat of a luxury item for a while. I would think at least until DP 1.5 makes 4k@144Hz trivial (assuming here; DP 1.5 hasn't even been mentioned so far, we're just cooling off from getting 1.4 approved).
That being said, if you do work on your computer it's worth splurging and getting a high density monitor, at least for whatever monitor you mostly use to read. If you play games, sure, get a lower resolution monitor for that, but your eyes will thank you for getting a "high density display"
>>54749285
>6 or 8k footage
how many people on /g/ do you think are working with RED bodies?
>>54749276
There are no GPUs that can handle 4K@120 unless you only play WoW and TF2.
And fuck, we don't even have 4K@60 display output in like 80% of computers sold.
As far as I can tell it has something to do with your crippling retardation. The only solution is to stop posting right away.
>>54749419
>>54749394
Kill me
>>54749419
>There are no GPUs that can handle 4K@120 unless you only play WoW and TF2.
i was about to say "we're not necessarily talking about gaming" but i guess if he wants 120Hz there are few non-gaming use cases.
>all these idiots defending marketing fads
/g/ is dead.
>>54749068
>350dpi for a monitor
>reasonable
are you fucking retard?
