What's the bigger meme, 4K or VR?
>>335642036
4K will actually catch on one day.
gonna stay 1080p for another year, fuck this gay earth of weak gpu's and overpriced screens.
fuck vr as well.
>>335642036
I have a 65" and I sit at a distance where my foot can touch the tv if I wanted to. I'd say about 4'. So I guess I need a 4k. Thanks for informing me what a great purchase this will be.
>>335642803
Have fun being legally blind in 2 years faggot
>>335642036
4K is guaranteed to catch on eventually as it becomes more affordable and technology continues to improve. It has uses in gaming and plain viewing and regular PC monitors. VR is more specialised, so is more likely to just die off again, although granted at this point it might actually have enough traction to stay marketable now.
>>335642974
I'm pretty sure going outside in the sun playing sports is worse for your eyes. The sunlight actually forces me to squint and strain my eyes at times. TVs are just light like anything else. It's no harm to you. Also, VR has you put a screen about 2 inches from your face. I'll be perfectly fine.
/v/ - everything is a meme until my console can do it.
>>335642036
4K is advantageous the same way 60fps is advantageous -- you don't actually need it to have good visual quality, it's just that the bigger the "margin," so to speak, the less noticeable things like compression artifacts or inconsistent frametime are.
>>335642036
4K, simply because of the BS marketing going on with it
>720p, 1280x720
>1080p, 1920x1080
>4k, 3840×2160
So basically they've now chosen to use the "width" to denote the resolution, instead of the "height", meaning people will assume 4K is 4x the resolution of 1080p, when it is actually 2x only.
VR will always at least be able to fill the simulator/training suite niche perfectly, 4K is neat but is being pushed by cunts.
>>335642036
How could anyone call 4K a meme? It's a higher resolution that offers vastly better picture quality compared to 1080p.
Pretty straight forward concept.
>>335642036
Vr by a mile
>>335642036
4k, because it's not 2k height as opposed to 480, 720 and 1080
>>335643717
It's actually 4 times as big though.
Twice as wide, and twice as tall.
>>335643765
placebo depending on screen size and distance from screen.
its not hard to understand that, anon.
>>335643717
4K is four times the resolution of 1080p though. Resolution is the amount of pixels covered in an area of the surface. You're thinking of the perimeter.
1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400 pixels
8,294,400/2,073,600 = 4
>>335643717
4k is 4x the resolution you dumb shit
the numbers are right there in your fucking post, how about you actually check them
I'm probably going to need a beefy as fuck computer to run vidya at both 4K and 60 FPS.
Suppose VR also renders shit on two screens, though. Do the current models support 1080p?
>>335645130
Oculus and Vive run two 1080x1200 screens per eye, or 2160x1200. Slightly above 1920x1080.
I have a UHD monitor and I can notice a difference. Not a tv, but a monitor.
Also, UHD is 3840x2160. 4K is technically a different resolution (4096x2160). Hence the 4K.
>>335646184
Is 4K supposed to be a reference to 4 kilobytes? 4096 is the number of bytes in 4kb.
40" 4k (~115ppi) makes so much more sense than a multi-monitor setup its basically guaranteed to catch on once the price comes down a bit more.
