Slashdot Mirror
Dell Demos 5K Display
An anonymous reader writes: Even though 4k displays are just making their way into consumer affordability, manufacturers are already pushing beyond. Dell has previewed a computer monitor it calls a "5k" display. The resolution is 5120x2880, stuffing 14,745,600 pixels on a 27" screen. For comparison, that's more than seven times the amount of pixels in a 1920x1080 display. Pixel density is 218 PPI, roughly the same as a 15" Retina MacBook Pro. ExtremeTech suggests, "As far as we're aware, no one is actually making 5120×2880 panels, especially not at 27 inches diagonal – so what we're probably looking at is two 2560x2880 panels squished together as a 'tiled display.'" Unfortunately, it's pricy, expected to cost around $2,500. But hopefully it will help drive 4k display prices even further toward mainstream availability.
when will we finally get hihger than 1920*1080 resolution monitors at a decent price ????
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
This. When the pixels become microscopic, there's no reason to pay a penny more. Instead, let's focus on improving 3D technology so that it's more than a gimmick.
Because that ought to be enough for anybody! :D
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
Sincerely, Guy who watched 0% of content in HD 5 years ago, and watches 95% of content in HD now.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Implying that desktop computing is no longer mainstream and that nobody gave a crap about the iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Pros all getting high-DPI screens.
/. beta is broken.
There, fixed that for you.
I reject your reality
To be fair Blu-ray actually looks better and they're useful for more than TV and games. Triple layer BRD can store 100GB.
How about they focus on getting 4k working decently first. Saturates DisplayPort and cuts in and out in major graphics cards, and screen tearing with dual HDMI. I'm sure Dual DisplayPort at 5k will fix it all....
I have a 35" 4K TV that I use as a display for my main computer. I now wish I had spent the extra money to get a 50".
On the 35" the text is too small to read comfortably for any length of time, I don't see how reading on a 27" is going to work unless you increase your font size which reduces the benefits of the higher resolution.
For viewing pictures/diagrams you will get a sharper display, and for some people the AA fonts will be seen as another plus but I think a larger display is needed to get the full value of the resolution.
PS. If it counts, I am 57. I don't need glasses but I know I can't see details like I did in my twenties.
ECP
on newegg.... thats getting downright "4k is here"
Yeah blu ray is here. It's the only reason I still use my launch day PS3 (Aside from getting the occasional Katamari Damacy fix - Yeah I've got a rare PS3 with full hardware ps2 compatablity)
Actually game consoles seem to be the best Blu ray players in my experience. Blu ray players all employ a non-trivial bit of computing power.
Most blu ray players are crap because they employ badly designed embedded operating systems. Laggy. Slow menus. Barely usable "apps". Rarely updated. By the time you price up to a Blu ray player that's not complete garbage,you're paying more than you would for a game console. And still getting an inferior experience.
I was thinking about getting a Asus PB287Q 28" 4K 60Hz as it has good reviews but was unsure as to whether I can stick with icons and stuff being small. I love the idea of the additional pixels as I always seem to not have enough but I here some programs aren't a good match as they don't scale well.
Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?
wot no sig
4k Blu-Ray drives and movies are scheduled for next year.
They'll be using H.265 compression and some new DRM.
I'll end up with one, but only if/when my current blu-ray player dies.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This may not be practical, but I'm still glad to see companies driving bigger displays with higher resolutions. It wasn't that long ago that our cell phones had better resolutions than our 55" TVs. I can't wait to see where technology takes us next!
Hate to break it to you, but blu-ray took off.
Sincerely,
Guy who watched 0% of content in HD 5 years ago, and watches 95% of content in HD now.
Seriously? Yes, I ask because I read a report a while ago which claims Convenience won between HDDVD and Blue Ray.
Convenience in this case being Netflix and its ilk.
Granted, it's not true HD like that of BluRay but convenience wins when you confront joe public.
HD content, for video, is a lot of data for minimal increased information. Increasing pixel density provides no additional information if added pixels are below the threshold of perception.
Given the option, I'll watch HD over SD, but I can follow all the action on SD.
Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
I was actually kidding/trolling anyway. I haven't inserted a disc into a device to watch or listen to something in many many years.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I was thinking about getting a Asus PB287Q 28" 4K 60Hz as it has good reviews but was unsure as to whether I can stick with icons and stuff being small. I love the idea of the additional pixels as I always seem to not have enough but I here some programs aren't a good match as they don't scale well.
Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?
This guy thinks so: http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-i...
The Seiki is only 30Hz @ 4k resolution, but at 39" and $339 (compared to the Asus 28", 60Hz at $600), I (hoping, because one is being delivered next week) think its a better deal.
*slow clap* because anecdotal evidence
I hate to break it to you (actually no, I enjoy it) but Blu-Ray is a dead format, Sony won the physical media war just in time for digital media to enter the scene
http://www.zdnet.com/whatever-...
Want an eye opener? Ok!
Blu-Ray sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee...
Biggest seller? Frozen with 7 million units
DVD sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee...
Biggest seller? Transformers with 16 million units, oh and there are more big numbers in that list adding up to an overwhelming difference in per unit sales
Maybe it's just a slow month you say? Here are the numbers for 2013:
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom...
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom...
Same story. DVD is still consistently moving more units, much to my surprise, I honestly thought it would be closer.
All this format war / pissing match conversation is pointless anyway because the day of the disc is done and digital sales will continue to increase.
http://bgr.com/2014/01/08/digi...
Turns out a stream from Netflix is good enough for most people, packaged media is dead meat
Personally speaking, I prefer the BluRay copy of "Breaking Bad" then a not quite always HD stream... then again I have a record collection, so what does that say about me
Kids who grew up listening to 128kbps also claim to prefer it. Better is still better. I'll watch SD content if I want to see people where I can't quite discern their full expression because I can't see their pupils in distant shots, or a general lack of all detail.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Some people use displays for something other than voiewing Hollywood crap or playing silly shootemup games.
The pure resolution would make multi display setups redundant pure and simple.
A couple of these would do me fine for showing all the running all the VM's that go to makeup a complex chemical plant simulation.
There is more to life than Videos and Gaming you know.
I saw a "Good Guys" circular from the late 1980s yesterday and they had a Motorola "car phone" for sale in there for $1200. IIRC, it must have been a bag phone because I remember they said it was portable from car-car in the ad.
That's like $2500 in today's purchasing power-- can you imagine $2500 these days for an analog-only mobile phone? And what do you suppose calls were back then, 50 cents or more per minute, closer $1/minute in contemporary purchasing power?
About the only thing good about those bag phones was they had more transmit power.
I was actually kidding/trolling anyway. I haven't inserted a disc into a device to watch or listen to something in many many years.
You were actually joking but look, you got 5: Informative.
Speaks volumes about how gullible the moderating crowd is (no pun intended)
Mine goes to 11.
Proverbs 21:19
"Fuck it. Boys, we're going to 6K!"
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of displays in this country. The Dell 4K was the display to own. Then the other guy came out with a 4K display. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Dell 4K Turbo. That's a 4K display and an Ethernet port. For connectivity. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to WiFi. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling 4K displays and Ethernet. Connectivity or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to 5K.
With apologies to The Onion
Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?
i would LOVE that. I am now using 2 * 1920*1080, and i would gladly trade them in for a 4K. I would love to be able to see more code, multiple windows side by side, and more vertical space would eliminate a lot of scrolling
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Do you have eagle eyes or sit close to the screen? (Yes, and no, in my case.)
Can you see the scan lines and pixels of a normal, good-quality display from a distance greater than the diagonal size of the monitor itself? (I do.)
Have you ever set shell windows to 6 or 8 point fonts so they don't clutter up your screen(s), yet still find them legible? (Also yes for me.)
Are you looking to reduce the WALL OF DISPLAY effect without losing precious real estate? (I have three monitors totaling 6.5 MPix, and wouldn't mind at all if I could reduce that to two [I'd still want a video display for watching across the room] or just one [if the scaling works well enough to do said video]).
If you sound anything like me, then yeah, you probably want this. If you're one of the types that runs a display at something other than its native resolution ALL THE TIME, because everything is too tiny for you, then you almost certainly do NOT want this.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
I saw my first 4K display, 32", the other day, running native 4K content off it's internal hard drive.
The difference between it and the same 4K display beside it, up converting off a Blu-ray player was stark, and the difference between even the up converted 4K Blu-ray images and the 1080p displays running off the same Blu-ray source was absolutely obvious and clear.
I wanted to play with the settings on 4K Blu-ray display and the 1080p displays to see if they had been deliberately crippled to make the 4K native look better, but this particular store had everything locked down.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
A lot of folks at work are switching to these and they seem happy.
I'm going for a stand-up desk first. I'll look into the 4k monitor early next year and see how things are then.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
30Hz is a deal breaker for me. 60Hz or nothing. 30Hz is ok for watching movies apparently but I don't think I could cope with mouse lag.
39" would be nice though and removes the issue of everything being small.
wot no sig
Yeah, but the threshold of perception is a bit better than HD.
Blu-Ray didn't take off in the sense that it's not driving massive video sales. Imagine that consumers get tired of buying videos that are obsolete in 4 years.
Anyone know the effective resolution and screen size of the Oculus Rift?
Can we envision one day the elimination of external monitors in favor of lightweight and inexpensive versions of Oculus Rift with a form factor closer to that of Google Glass?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
They responded "Well, you know those 4k displays? Well, this display goes up one more!"
> Personally speaking, I prefer the BluRay copy of "Breaking Bad" then a not quite always HD stream... then again I have a record collection, so what does that say about me
Even a DVD copy of Breaking Bad will probably be better than streaming it. Streaming quality can go to crap pretty quickly. Plus you have to "download" a stream any time you watch one. This is wasteful, consumes your data cap, and again exposes you to the problem of quality degredation.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
"What part of this don't you understand? If two blades is good, and three blades is better, obviously five blades would make us the best fucking razor that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the razor game by clinging to the two-blade industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, five blades is the biggest chance of all."
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
All good points. I do like stuff small so it would probably be ok for me and I absolutely insist that displays are run at native resolution. It would be nice to see a 4K in operation though before I purchase. More research needed.
wot no sig
Uh.. hate to break it to you but no... Blu-ray does not have the success that it was supposed to have. In fact, the thing that has taken off is sub-par supposedly HD streaming content... which often times looks worse than DVD. Sony paid a whole lot of bribery money and arguably lost (again). http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... Hopefully that shows that Blu-ray is hardly a "win"... in fact, it's sort of pathetic... especially if consider the saturation of DVD content and (illegal) the accessibility of such content vs. HD and Blu-ray. That is to say, DVD is doing quite well when arguably it shouldn't be doing well at all. Does it show DVD decline? Yes. Does it show Blu-ray rise? Yes... but doesn't look pretty for Blu-ray. Sony tried to buy their way technology wise this time (after the betamax debacle)... how well is Sony doing nowadays? I find that interesting...
A "retina display" might be nice on a laptop or anywhere where need such resolutions (medical applications perhaps?)
I rather get a 60" display, or two even, with that resolution, than a 27" one ... sorry, as a software developer that makes no sense at all.
E.g. if I'm a dispatcher for a set of power plants I loved to have big screens with lots of information. Or as an air traffic controller or weather researcher/service.
Mediocre screen sizes with high resolution are pointless ... you can only make the fonts and icons "so small".
Sure, before you start nitpicking: everything that is purely based on image resolution, everything with image manipulation benefits, but the human limit is reached soon.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes, it's pricey -- $2500 gets a workable used car off the local Craigslist. However, it's crazy cheap, if you use the time machine in your brain to think about what the equivalent display would have cost (if it existed) one, five, or 20 years ago ...
In fact, $2500 is just about what Silicon Graphics' 1600SW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGI_1600SW) cost when it came out. And that was in 1998 dollars :) (According to this online calculator http://www.usinflationcalculat..., flawed as it is to compare tech items over time by clumsy measures of inflation, that would make it more than $3600 worth of monitor, then.) That is, $3654 *now* has about the purchasing power that $2500 did *then* ...
It is a good example of how that kind of "value of dollar" calculation is a poor measure for technology under rapid developement, though: the backwards calculation is nothing like equivalent. That is, a 17" LCD panel (ignoring things like that today you'd probably want HDMI or other modern input) with 1600x1200 resolution would *not* cost the "dollar equivalent of $2500," which works out to be about $1710 1998 dollars. More like ... what, $100-150? Seems fair; random Amazon hit does even better: http://www.amazon.com/Asus-VE2...
Not to say that "anything in the now is cheap if the equivalent would have cost more at some point in the past when you were facing a different set of constraints" ... things are complicated. But calling this pricey is only true in relation to *other* things that have meanwhile hugely improved. For instance, it might not seem worth the price of 5 of these: http://www.amazon.com/PB278Q-2... ... unless 5K makes sense because it helps you resolve details on an X-ray or some other special purpose.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I got this display -- Asus PB287Q -- for work. It's been absolutely delightful.
That said, I found that at the distance I'm sitting -- about 24" from the display -- The full 4K resolution was way too high and made me have to upscale things pretty regularly. I downgraded to the second-highest resolution (~3200 instead of ~3800 on the horizontal) and it's delightfully usable, and gives me SO MUCH more real estate than the previous monitor (27" Apple Cinema Display -- the standard for my workplace).
One word of warning: On a MacBook Pro Retina, I found that powering via HDMI got me the resolution, but only 30Hz (which for programming I don't care about in the last); my MBPR was a circa-2012 model. when I upgraded to a 2014 model I found that going directly via the DP port (via a mini-DP-to-fullsize-DP cable) let me get 60Hz. Which, still, I don't care about all that much :)
The mouse lag is annoying at first but it's not so bad if you get a high dpi mouse and spend a few weeks getting used to the new setup. I wouldn't play games on it, but it's been awesome for code/productivity at the office.
I've had one [the seiki 39"] for about 9 months now. It's due with our baby in two weeks, because we had such a honeymoon when I first got it.
Did the display say Bose in it anywhere? That's the first clue when checking out an in-store display.
Depends on which platform you are developing on and what the resolution is. There are basically two setups that work great at the moment:
1) 40" 4K monitor. Works well for all platforms, huge workspace area (40"!). However the PPI is only in the same range as tradional monitors (near 96 PPI).
2) 24" 4K monitor. This gives you a "retina" monitor where the UI scale has to be exactly 200%. This setup gives you absolutely stunning fonts and desktop image (if you pick a 4K one). Unfortunately only OS X has propper support for this. If you try to use the monitor with Windows 7, virtually all applications seem to roll a dice when it comes to font sizes. This includes Microsoft's own flagship products like Office 365. Quite pathetic actually given they all declare thenselves DPI-aware to the OS. The problems go as deep as the DWM window decorations - doesn't anyone at Microsoft have a 4K monitor? :)
Besides this both OS X and Windows 7 seem to have trouble with DisplayPort. On my Windows machine (DP 1.2) the OS makes that "you just plugged in a device" sound every time I turn my monitor on or off, and on my old Mac Mini (DP 1.1) OS X occationally moves all the windows because it thinks for a split second the resolution is lower than what it really is.
"Up-Converting" is just a marketing term for scaling and scaling is a techy phrase for stretching. Of course 4K should look better. You can't magically add (real) information that isn't there to begin with.
Right. There is also text.
Windows 8, for all its flaws, does a pretty good job of dealing with the "small icon/text" issue. What OS would you be using?
I'm thinking Black Friday / Cyber Monday might be a good time to get a 4K monitor.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I've used a 50" seiki as a monitor for about a year and a half, it is actually too big, I have to slightly turn my head too much so I just don't actively use about 2 inches on the one side. I'm not fond of the glossy screen. Otherwise I have no complaints, although the PPI isn't any better than 4x 1920x1080 at least I don't have bezels any more.
I've done a little gaming on it and it worked ok, a little bit of lag but not unplayable for just casual FPS stuff. Keep in mind the 30Hz is over the HDMI, the screen itself is always 120Hz.
I got the 39" for another computer last month(I paid $339 + free shipping and have a $50 rebate coming for a total of $279), Size is about right..everything else is pretty much the same.
They work great for having a bunch of reasonable sized rdp sessions(big enough for couple console sessions, a debugger, ice, etc.) up on different systems while doing development.
OS teams are "working on the problem" to make your fonts readable on ultra-mega-high pixel density displays - with varying success. Back in Windows 95, you could already boost up the base font size, but it wasn't 100% implemented. They're getting better, but still not up to 100%, I think.
Even back in the 1990s, I knew people who would run their displays at lower than native resolution just to get readable font size.
Now, about your 50" display aspirations - I had a dual 30" setup on my desktop for awhile, and it gave me tennis neck, had to turn my head to switch from reading one side to reading the other side... effectively, I wasn't hindered at all when one of the 30" displays went away, it's actually just as quick / easy to pop windows over each other as it is to locate them in a panoramic view - in my experience. Now, if this is a multi-operator setup, then each display can be setup to work with one person, and that can be very powerful....
The original argument though was that the additional information in a real 4K stream would not be apparent...
It is. No upscaling is not going to magically add detail, but if you have a real 4k source you'll be able to see it even on kind of small monitors.
The real question is, where are you going to get 4k sources from...
For desktop use though 4K seems really nice.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"The real question is, where are you going to get 4k sources from..."
I'd like it for my home video. I've been taking 1080p @ 60 fps for 3 years and it's definitely worth the extra required space. The extra framerate makes it much more realistic. I noticed when shopping for a new video camera there are quite a few that shoot 4K.
If it counts, I am 57. I don't need glasses but I know I can't see details like I did in my twenties.
If you are 57, then you certainly need glasses. Reading glasses.
... a display that actually has the number of kilopixels in width that is advertised.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
(Actually, the winner is bittorrent...)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
itll be a long ass time till theyre microscopic.
for a graphics whore (gaming), 8k isn't enough.
ppi is what matters; large screens require huge resolutions for desirable ppi (and don't buy into that "720p/1080p/XXXXp is good enough"; if you enjoy sitting close to a monitor / screen, hate aliasing, and have good eyes... you should judge screens for yourself)
^ This, thank you...
I see comment after comment from people who are talking out of their back ends, or perhaps their eyes suck...
We saw the exact same comments about 720p vs. 1080p almost 10 years ago, that you couldn't tell the difference.
Stupid is as stupid does I suppose...
True 4k is amazing, it blows 1080p out of the water. I've seen a similar display as you did, but this was on a 70" 1080p next to a 70" 4k display, from about 8 feet away, in a store.
Wow, once you've seen the difference, it is smack dab obvious how much of an improvement 4k really is. You don't have to look at the signs, just watch the video playing.
Now the issue is content... Since we've all now replaced much of our VHS and DVD content for 1080p Blu-Ray, I think few fewer people are going to be willing to do that again.
As much as I like it, I won't spend all that money yet again.
So... If they REALLY want 4k to take off, they need to offer a reasonable upgrade option, perhaps $2 per movie, to get the 4k version.
If I could take my stack of Blu-Ray discs into Walmart or Best Buy and trade them all in for $2 each for 4K versions, I'd probably go buy a 4K TV this Christmas.
$5 each? Meh, that is pushing it, maybe make it $5 each, but $2-3 each if you do 50 or 100 or more or something.
As far as digital copies, such as my now extensive library with Vudu and Amazon, those need upgrade options as well, also for a low price.
Take care of the customer and we'll throw money at you. Try to charge stupid high prices and we'll just not bother.
I expect using a larger font, or actually a larger system DPI setting, is exactly what he wants to do. There's a huge difference between a 12 pt sentence at 92 DPI and at 300 DPI, one of the reasons I still prefer to print out articles when I'll be reading them intensively. It's the high DPI in addition to the lack of backlight that makes e-paper displays so great.
I'm only 31 and I can't see details like I used to either, so anything that makes text sharper is good. I'd be interested in a 300 DPI 27", but that's roughly 7050x3960.
Or he was just right.
If you aren't watching youtube videos on your phone, you are watching HD.
At least if you are under 30.
This screen is just right for a retina iMac (2x in vertical and horizontal). 5k sounds like a lot of pix, but it's still just 206px/in. This brings large screens into quality parity with phone and tablet screens.
For gaming whores what's the ideal ppi? Just curious.
+1 Informative
I was quite sure from personal experience that disc type media would sooner or later die, but didn't know that blu-ray was performing so bad!
I like my pron in sd so it doesn't get too gross.
You mean the same BBY that showed the gold plated monster hdmi look so much better than the display next to it?
They crippled it on purpose and what you saw was a downgraded or scaled image to make you blow $$$$. I could be wrong but don't trust Bestbuy
http://saveie6.com/
The original argument though was that the additional information in a real 4K stream would not be apparent...
It is.
It depends on how far away you are from the display.
For example, the average person needs to be less than 4 feet away from a 32" tv in order to see any benefit from 4k resolution over 1080p resolution
Pron?
> If HD streaming gives worse-looking content than DVD, then that would indicate to me that BluRay *is* the winner.
In the same way that CDs are winning versus mp3s and streaming.
Winning!
Problem is, there is no ideal ppi, there's an ideal ppr (pixels per radian) which varies with screen-to-eye distance. so 1080p is ok across the room, but not right in your face. GP is lying, a monitor would have to be pretty huge for 8k to not be ok...
lol sounds like you're watching the wrong porn! If you want no physical flaws like real people in the real world, might I suggest Hentai? Or whatever the animated version of that is called?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Assuming you're on Windows, there's a setting for DPI that's been there since 95. On Windows 8, this is even semi-automated and they just give you a smaller/larger slider. (You can also go back to the manual DPI setting but you lose out on multi-DPI support) Ubuntu gives you a DPI slider for each monitor (support for it is slightly crap tho). OSX is programmed to assume anything >4K is a "Retina display" and renders everything at 2x scale, even if the app doesn't support it (it gets upscaled if the app doesn't specify it's tested for 2x scale). It then lets you scale the 2x desktop up or down a bit.
I assume you bought the Seiki, right?
Do you like your 4k because everything gets sharper or because you get more screen real estate? 90% sure apple will release a retina iMac with this, in which case the screen proportions and font sizes but everything would be 2x sharper.
> PS. If it counts, I am 57. I don't need glasses but I know I can't see details like I did in my twenties.
Go get some reading glasses. They are like 3 bucks at every single drugstore in the country. You will be blown away at how $3 can totally change your life.
It is the people who don't need glasses for anything else who end up needing reading glasses the most because people who are near-sighted naturally counteract presbyopia. Start with low magnification, like 1.15-1.2 glasses, test them in the store on the fine print of something else they are selling in the same aisle.
Reading glasses will give you back the near-field vision of your youth. You will be pissed off that you had not tried them sooner.
Instead of reducing your resolution, why not kick up your DPI setting? Shit will render bigger without upscaler blur.
For example, the average person needs to be less than 4 feet away from a 32" tv in order to see any benefit from 4k resolution over 1080p resolution
32" is pretty small for modern displays, which is why most people can easily discern 4k differences at a couch distance.
When you are talking about computer monitors of course, you are way closer than 4 feet, so you can discern 4K difference in quality even on a 27" display...
I really think though the whole circle of confusion thing is not truly taking into account nuances we can detect unconsciously. It's not as hard a science as the calculations make it look.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sounds more like it sucks to have perfect vision like you. I'm thinking of all the money I'm saving since 480p looks perfectly fine to me once I get much more than a couple of screen diagonals away.
Because linux freetards don't understand that. Have you seen a distribution that can do something like desktop composition on Windows and DPI scale applications that aren't DPI-aware? Do linux freetards give a shit?
He also reduces font size to make text smaller. DPI scaling goes down, too.
"and some new DRM"
Why are they still bothering? It never stopped piracy, and only serves to punish people who buy the stuff (no possibility to rip for iPhone, tablet,etc)
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Problem is, there isn't any GOOD standard def content anymore. Your choices are either heavily compressed 480p/576p with visible artifacts, or a jump to 720p. Even if you go legal and rent DVDs, most DVDs nowadays are heavily compressed too, and most studios don't remove film noise anymore (which looks terrible in heavily compressed SD). Gone are the days of excellent DVD releases such as Blade III (two dual layers DVDs - yay!)
Sorry, until Windows fixes it's DPI scaling, there's not much point in having retina-like desktop displays.
"Why are they still bothering?" This time it's gonna be different and we are going to lock the content for good. The company that sold us the "DRM solution" promised it! They also promised nobody can run PowerDVD or WinDVD inside a debugger and figure out the DRM system because the decryption code is protected by magic fairies.
The reason 4K content might not get pirated too much is because of the sheer size of it. Even the heavily compressed release will have to be around 16GB! (1080p releases are usually around 8GB, 4 times that equals 32GB, halve that because H.265 alledgely achieves same quality in half the size... 16GB)
I have a 14 megapixel camera; a 14 megapixel display would complement it nicely.
Lack of real information does not mean something can't look better. See the many different interpolation algorithms. Nearest-neighbour is only suitable for horizontal and vertical lines where absolute positioning isn't important.
Effectively looking at HD content on low resolution display, or looking at any content on a display where pixels are visible is like using nearest-neighbour interpolation. There are far better looking algorithms for smoothing the content when you have a high resolution display.
All of this is likely irrelevant in the living room but I am running under the assumption that the GP saw the display at his local retailer where they force you to walk down an isle and sit about 1m away from the TV. In this case (I have experienced it myself), up-scaled / stretched 1080p content looks far better on a 4k display than the same content on on a 1080p display of the same size next to it.
I see comment after comment from people who are talking out of their back ends, or perhaps their eyes suck... (...) True 4k is amazing, it blows 1080p out of the water. I've seen a similar display as you did, but this was on a 70" 1080p next to a 70" 4k display, from about 8 feet away, in a store.
With all due respect, if you're seeing a huge difference then I very much suspect it'd due to the actual devices, settings and algorithms rather than the resolution. I have an 3840x2160 UHD monitor and I've taken very high resolution photos (18MP) with lots of fine patterns that makes changes in detail easy to spot and scaled it to 3840x2160 as well as 1920x1080 then made a dumb pixel doubling upscale to 3840x2160 to simulate a 1080p display and a high quality upscale to simulate an upscaling UHD display and stored all three as PNGs. That should eliminate pretty much every other source of differences since it's the same screen, same mode, same settings.
When I flip back and forth between them, sitting at a natural distance to a 28" monitor clearly there's some change in detail but it was actually a bit underwhelming compared to what I was expecting. And with a monitor you sit really, really close compared to a TV, if I doubled the distance to a 56" TV the viewing angle would be the same but that would be way, way closer than I actually sit and at couch-equivalent distances I can't tell the difference at all. I guess if I had a 100"+ TV or projector screen then 4K would make sense, so for cinemas and home cinemas I'm sure it's great but your average living room just won't benefit.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Dumb question - why wouldn't I just buy a $1000 4K tv and have 4 monitors worth of space to code on?
http://www.ncix.com/detail/samsung-un40hu7000-40in-4k-60hz-32-94622-1540.htm
I am getting older and maybe my eyesight isn't the best but my 1920 x 1200 monitor will have about the same size pixels as the tv I linked and I have zero complaints with the dual setup I have now ...
Add ~30% more space and no bezels for the win.
Mind you I can't buy a video card that can drive HDMI 2.0 but I can wait a few months ... by then maybe 120Hz version is less expensive and this one is $100 cheaper or better.
Maybe a year or two ago, but my $50 Samsung bluray player with built in wifi and Netflix and all works great.
It stops some people. Not everybody wants or bothers to torrent movies, and TPB only reliably carries Big/Popular/New movies, they don't really keep a deep library or long tail -- you can find just about any title in existence but the seeders off the main drag are a flaky breed. BluRay DRM seems to be working pretty well if you're trying to make sure people pay for a copy of Cat Ballou or Brigadoon, particularly if the alternative of Hulu or Netflix is a click away.
Also, if they didn't use DRM, then you could rip a DVD without violating the non-cricumvention provisions of the DMCA, and the rights-holders would rather have that against a pirate than not, it gives them more legal options.
As always, the people who buy stuff aren't the targets as much as the aggregator entities like TPB and MegaUpload, who make millions selling ads and subscriptions on "free" downloads.
That's really all DRM is good for on DVDs and Blu-rays. It works better when it's one part of an entire media framework or system -- like Apple/iOS, where it's a mobile device with a locked-down app environment the user can't really get into casually; or the Digital Cinema distribution system, where media is protected with DRM and transported over secure channels, and all the equipment is kept behind locked doors with limited access, and the projection equipment itself is electronically interlocked to keep people from tapping it.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
My 28 inch 4K display has 158 x 161 DPI which is identical to the 1080P 14 inch display in a Thinkpad T440s ultrabook. It's like having four of those Thinkpad displays glued together seamlessly in a 2x2 array.
Looking at a PDF rendered at 100% page size (a letter page is covered by a letter sheet of paper) looks pretty much like a print out. You don't need a full 300 or 600 DPI since the screen has full color range instead of dithering of laser toner or ink dots.
Most Linux desktop environments are DPI independent for fonts and toolkit controls, but it can be a bit hard to change as such things are often tied to your system theme. Of course, that doesn't help with scaling things like images. For many years now you could get desktop scaling using Compiz, but that requires hardware with good OpenGL support so few distributions use it. The current standard for things like 4K monitors is HiDPI (which Apple is calling Retina for marketing reasons).
The only Linux distribution I know with good support for HiDPI is Linux Mint Cinnamon. It even selects it automatically if it detects that your monitor exceeds a certain number of pixels per inch. The setting is in Settings -> General -> Desktop Scaling. I find that with HiDPI and a some tweaks to the default fonts, only web browsers don't display how I want them to (I prefer a 110% zoom for my web browser). Fortunately, changing the default zoom in Chrome works very well, it can even scale Flash content properly.
Other desktop environments that use Gnome libraries like Unity and Gnome Shell should have HiDPI working soon (if they don't already). It looks like KDE has HiDPI support, but they still have some issues to resolve. I'd expect the new KDE 5 desktop to work well.
SJ says the iphone has retina ppr with 326ppi at 12 in from face. I don't know what that scales to on a monitor, but sine most peoples eyesight degrades even at arm length, it's probably not that much higher.
I've got 2 x 2560x1440 screens and it's more than enough real estate for anything. I can't see the point of effectively having 4 of them on one screen of the same size. Even modern graphics cards struggle to do decent 3D on what I have, so what on earth is going to work on such a high res display? The only advantage I can see in 3D is less need for AA which might save some cycles...
Plus Windows scaling is so rubbish, and there is still so many non-dpi aware apps out there that many people still (need to) use, that this is a solution waiting for a problem.
I'm a perfectionist but I'm trying to cut back.
There's a discernible difference between say a BluRay 25+Mb stream vs. a 10Mb encode, let alone a crappy Netflix 3Mb 1080p stream. And that's not even getting into audio (640Kb AC3 / 1.5Mb DTS / 1.5Mb DTS-HD vs. streaming)
I never said anything about Best Buy, now did I? I haven't bought anything there in many, many years...
It is quite possible, that I do in fact know what I'm talking about, heaven forbid...
Perfectly find may be good enough for you.
That is ok, nothing wrong with that.
Just don't confuse what YOU find to be perfectly fine with actual improvements.
My Father got off the bandwagon with cassette tapes. Doesn't make CDs bad, just means that cassettes were "perfectly fine" for him.
A CD is still better than a cassette tape.
With all due respect
Yea, that rarely means that... :)
But taking it at face value, you should have shown that same image on a 1080 screen of similar size, that would have been more useful.
I have a very nice Sony 70" 3D 1080p TV at home, I also have 2 other smaller 1080p TVs. My main work computer has 3 Dell 30" 1600p monitors on it and as soon as the 32" 4K screens come down in price, I'll have three of those.
The difference is night and day, if you can't see it, fair enough, not everyone can.
But there is a difference, and to me, it is obvious. Just looking at my current monitors, which are half way between 1080p and 4k shows a large difference in quality. 1080p has 2 million pixels, my current screens have 4 million, 4k has 8 million.
4k can't get here fast enough IMHO...
It's just a 4K screen with a parity K.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
> 32" is pretty small for modern displays
32" is what the original poster specified.
> which is why most people can easily discern 4k differences at a couch distance.
Define "couch distance" - as the chart I linked to indicated, a 60" display at 8 feet is only good for 1080p. 8 feet is pretty damn close for "couch distance" given that it is only about 6 feet from the front of the couch.
>>> "The original argument though was that the additional information in a real 4K stream would not be apparent.."
> When you are talking about computer monitors of course, you are way closer than 4 feet,
"Streams" are for primarily for TV viewing.
It is kind of sad you got +2 informative for saying nothing while the post you replied to linked to hard numbers useful for objective analysis got no moderation.
I have a 39" Seiki 4K monitor (TV) that I mostly love. It's not the best color rendition, but it's hard to beat sheer screen real estate for dev work. My biggest complaint is that at that size, 4K is a similar resolution to existing 30" monitors @ 2560x1600.
I'd love a 5K / 6K display in this size and thought it was probably a few years out. 8K would be nice, but I doubt that will be practical in a 35"-40" size for quite a while longer. I don't need 300+ dpi, but a solid 220 or so would be great.
Define "couch distance" - as the chart I linked to indicated, a 60" display at 8 feet is only good for 1080p.
That's what I was talking about the Circle of Confusion being not very accurate in terms of real results.
If you go into a real store, from 6' you can easily tell the difference between a 1080 and 4k display with equal content. I go to CES every year and have spent a lot of time looking at different displays that was showing the same content.
"Streams" are for primarily for TV viewing.
Oh, you want to go full pedant? What do you think TS stands for in the MPEG-2 spec (used by every standard DVD ever) - Transfer Stream, that's what. How does "Streams are for TV" make any sense at all? All video is data streams, at least that's how people who understand digital video think of video.
Sorry I got modded up for knowing reality (and digital video) where you sit down at 0 for knowing only theory...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> If you go into a real store, from 6' you can easily tell the difference between a 1080 and 4k display with equal content.
> I go to CES every year and have spent a lot of time looking at different displays that was showing the same content.
Ok, so your personal anecdote trumps decades of human vision research. Got it!
> Oh, you want to go full pedant?
We started out talking about TVs which display video streams and then you decide to talk about computer monitors which have a completely different use - primarily text - which requires people to sit close. Your random pop-off into transport streams isn't pedantic it is a self-serving red herring.
> Transfer Stream,
So much for being a pedant, it is transport stream and I didn't even need to look that up since I've been working with OTA transport streams for well over a decade myself. I don't go to CES because that's for low-knowledge salesdroids not engineers.
> Sorry I got modded up for knowing my private version of reality
FTFY
So at what resolution can I turn anti-aliasing off?
Or how long do I have to point a laser to my eye, so that I don't turn blind but get a built in "anti-aliasing" ?
Blu-Ray is here but those of us working in retail know it's not selling. Of the stores I manage, the DVD's always outsell the Blu-Ray while we end up putting many Blu-Rays in the bargain bin due to them not selling at all. But please don't listen to me, the data is available for anyone to see.
On the 35" the text is too small to read comfortably for any length of time
Text size has no relation to the display size. Text size is generally specified in "points", where one point is approximately 1/72 inch. If you find the text too small to read, the obvious solution is to increase the size. Display size affects how much text you can display given a certain text size. E.g., you might get 40 lines of 10 point text on a 24" monitor, and 45 lines of 10 point text on a 32" monitor.
I don't see how reading on a 27" is going to work unless you increase your font size which reduces the benefits of the higher resolution.
Why wouldn't reading on a 27" work? A long time ago, I had a 15" CRT and was able to read text on it without any problems. And even further back, there were 9" screens, and even smaller ones. You just couldn't get as much text on them (e.g., 40 columns across).
The benefit of higher resolution is that text is sharper, since you can use more pixels to draw the characters while keeping the same point size. E.g., instead of using 8x12 pixels to draw a character, you can use 16x24, which looks a lot better. It's even more noticeable if you work with Chinese/Japanese/Korean text, where the characters are much more detailed than the Roman alphabet. Some characters (such as this one) turn into an indistinct mess if you have to squeeze it into a 12x12 pixel cell, but if you have 24x24 to work with, it looks a lot better.
In any case, this Dell monitor sounds interesting... I was considering their previous 4K 24" monitor, but the way it faked being two half-screens (to work around HDMI limitations?) seemed annoying and glitch-prone, and I heard that the next generation of monitors wouldn't have to do that. I currently have a 24" monitor, and am looking for something the same size, but I suppose 27" isn't too much bigger.
Which is why we need gigabit internet.
Yay google (and EPB who actually have more customers than google).
not truly taking into account nuances we can detect unconsciously.
Hey look boys, we got ourselves a videophile!
Bet he uses monster cable in order to accurately preserve them thar nuances!
But there is a difference, and to me, it is obvious. Just looking at my current monitors, which are half way between 1080p and 4k shows a large difference in quality.
FYI your monitors inherently have higher resolution than video.
All monitors run at 4:4:4 (usually RGB but it could be YCbCr) while essentially all video is encoded at 4:2:0. The 4:2:0 encoding mostly works for video because it is very rare for there to be imagery with 1 pixel features - but if you were to encode text at 4:2:0 instead of 4:4:4 it would be blurry with halos and otherwise look like crap.
I still watch most of my content in 480p, which is fine even on a 52" 1080P LCD right up until you get to stuff with fine detail and diagrams, like a car show. Then you really start to want at least 720p, and often want to run it right up to 1080p. 1080p content compressed down to 480p and then blown back up to 1080p looks like crap when there's a bunch of fine detail.
The average TV show or movie actually benefits from being at a lower resolution, because if you can actually see the fine detail, you'll be unimpressed by the lack of attention to it. There's those high-budget sci-fi exceptions, but for the most part, I've seen the difference and I am underwhelmed.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Makes sense. Blu-Ray discs cost the consumer about 50% more and the players are about twice the price. Most people don't even have a Blu-Ray player, and even those that do may balk at paying more for a movie that they'll only see a few times, or that only their children will watch.
Many people don't buy a new TV until the old one breaks. It's going to be another 10 years before the CRTs are for all practical purposes gone, and they can't even accept the output from common Blu-Ray players. I expect high resolution to continue gaining ground, and that might mean that Blu-Ray (or an even higher capacity format) eventually dominates physical media.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
1. It's not about 2k v 4k, it's about compression rates. Have you seen uncompressed 2k video?
2. Most material was mastered at 2k. When they sell you 4k, it's just going to be scaled from 2k and recompressed.
What I want first is uncompressed 2k, but they want to sell you new tvs.
Dear Ignoramus, Blu-ray is a disc format. Disc formats don't give a shit about what resolution the data stored on them is. There is no such thing as a "4k Blu-ray drive". Please tell the salesman to go away.
That's why Demonoid will always be far superior to TPB. Need something obscure? Demonoid either already has it, or somebody will post it for you five minutes after you ask for it in the forum.
Yeah, well, some of us aren't blind and/or deaf, and 24" of 3840x2160 at 2 feet is about right for PPI. 42" of 1920x1080 at 12 feet makes me wonder why my screen is full of sand.
There is never any situation where a lower resolution looks better than a higher resolution, given all other variables being the same. It's just never, ever, ever, ever, ever the case. Ever. I don't know how you can say what you just said. It's about as odd as "I enjoy being burned by fires". I honestly think you must have poor vision, or extreme cognitive bias. You're "ruined" as someone who can objectively compare 2 things. You even imply that by saying your'e "unimpressed" when you actually see something better.
Would you make the argument that lower resolution cameras are better? Lower bitrate audio? That getting lasik will make life seem unimpressive? That vinyl is better than digital?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
It's strange that the majority of people who don't actually give a shit about fidelity get to determine the "winner", and not the ones who actually compare things. But hey, that's tyranny of the majority for ya.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
32" is pretty small for modern displays, which is why most people can easily discern 4k differences at a couch distance.
No, they really can't, unless you're talking about truly massive televisions or "couch distance" being too close to put a coffee table between the couch and the TV.
When you are talking about computer monitors of course, you are way closer than 4 feet, so you can discern 4K difference in quality even on a 27" display...
You shouldn't be "way closer" than 4 feet from a 27" display. If your eyeball is less than about 3 feet, you're too close. 4K vs 1080p at 27", yes, you can tell apart. 1440p vs 4K? starts to get fuzzy and content-dependent.
I can only assume it's some form of nostalgic conditioning where you've decided something less accurate somehow looks better
Because you are apparently the only guy who's never watched porn, you wouldn't understand. But you can see shitty stitching and fake-ass plastic lacquers in HD that are concealed in SD by the simple lack of detail. So like I said, normal TV (or again, porn) often looks better at lower resolutions, because you can't see how cheap-ass it actually is. Of course, if you have no appreciation for anything finer than crap, you might not be able to tell the difference. In that case, I salute you with one finger.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sounds like a good place for an impartial test.
Actually, most material is mastered at 4k, which is about the limit of 35mm film, the gold standard for a very long time.
When the studios switched to Blu-Ray, they largely scanned their older 35mm films in at 4k to give them a super master to work from.
When 4k comes along to consumers, they only need to master new copies from those scans.
Some digital content was shot at 2k, but they quickly went to 4k for future proofing.
Ahh, I suspect you are confusing video encoding with the technology of LCDs.
My 70" TV has about 6 million LCD elements, 2 million each of red, green, and blue.
My Dell 30" Monitors have about 12 million LCD elements, 4 million each of red, green, and blue.
Video can be encoded many ways, but the LCD technology is largely the same between the above two screens.
A lot of folks at work are switching to these and they seem happy.
I'm going for a stand-up desk first. I'll look into the 4k monitor early next year and see how things are then.
I'm getting an adjustable stand/sit desk next week too. :) Going corporate does have some perks.
Definitely if you can wait, do wait. The Seiki tvs will get people to stop overpaying for "monitors", and drop prices all around.
Because Macs absolutely suck donkey balls at scaling things up if you change the DPI settings. Even Windows is worlds ahead of Apple here. That's why Apple had to go "retina" with all their screens, as they had no choice but exactly double the vertical and horizontal resolution of their existing screens so they could scale up legacy applications by a factor of 2. Anything else they couldn't get to work.
As to me having never watched porn, does keeping your position on the subject actually require you to make up facts about others?
Stitching? Lacquers? No idea what you're talking about. Watched plenty of 1080p porn. Are you into plastic-surgery freaks or something? I actually now believe you to be making up facts about me *and* porn to try to legitimize your position.
But I understand. It's like arguing with a vinyl enthusiast -- They have a bunch of subjective, "religious", un-falsifiable claims to support their position, while people who support modern standards like FLAC or even CD have scientific, objective, falsifiable claims to support their position.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
also, 480p on a 52" 1080p is total fucking shit. If you want everything to be fuzzy, as if you have vision problems, it's great. I have 20/20 vision. Life never looks as shitty as 480p. DVD/480 on a big (>50") tv is basically the same density as VHS on a small ( Also, a 1080 web-dl looks noticeably better than a 1080 capture. I can tell in the first 2-3 seconds if it's been re-encoded (capture) or is straight-copy (web-dl).
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I have no idea why you brought porn into this
That much is clear.
Stitching? Lacquers? No idea what you're talking about. Watched plenty of 1080p porn. Are you into plastic-surgery freaks or something?
We're talking about two different things, and you're conflating them. You see stitching and shitty sets on TV in 1080p because the high resolution reveals the lack of detail work. You see skin blemishes on porn models for the same reason.
But I understand. It's like arguing with a vinyl enthusiast
No, it really isn't. And like I said, anyone who watches porn should be familiar with this phenomenon. So either you don't actually watch porn, or you're full of shit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I watch plenty of porn. The fact that your way of defending your position is declaring some sort of weird false dichotomy really indicates that you position can't stand on your own.
Seeing people for what they are. That's your argument. Your argument is that you want women to be blurry because you don't want to see their flaws. You want your reality censored. That is not the same as lower resolution being better. That *is* the same with my initial assessment that you are defective.
Maybe if you learn to appreciate women, you can learn to appreciate 1080p. What a sad fucking image of females and femininity you must have if you can't even look at them in lifelike quality. I'd suggest exploring your sexual spectrum more; maybe you don't actually like women, and that's why you don't like seeing them in detail. Or maybe you have some kind of prudish mental defect with sex. Catholic?
I love the "anyone who watches porn should be familiar". Fucking hilarious shit. I wonder how the porn industry bothered to cause blu-ray to win the blu-ray vs hd-dvd race, if anyone who watches it knows it looks worse? You'd think their blu-ray and hd sales would have plummeted to zero, since according to you, 100% of people who watch porn think like you.
Hilarious, man. And yes, it's exactly like the vinyl enthusiasts.
I guess you must really hate the movies, too, since movie theatre resolution is much closer to 1080p (by virtue of being "infinite" resolution analog prints) than 408p, dvd, or vhs quality. Lol.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Your argument is that you want women to be blurry because you don't want to see their flaws.
If I wanted real women, I wouldn't be watching porn.
Maybe if you learn to appreciate women, you can learn to appreciate 1080p.
Maybe if you learn to appreciate the fact that porn has a script, you'll understand how pathetically hypocritical you are.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
FWIW, at work I use 24" 4k monitors with 200% font scaling on Windows 7, and pretty much every application works fine. The only thing which doesn't scale is the command prompt window. Note that I am talking about the old font size selector in Control Panel which has been there for years and years - the first thing to do is to turn off all of that Aero crap.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I'm a Brit living in Sweden. Both countries seem to be making major inroads with fibre rollout. I've ordered 500mbit synchronous fibre that is currently being rolled out in my village. Cost is 299kr per month, cheaper than my current 8mbit ADSL at 349kr per month. My parents already have 60mbit/10mbit via fibre in northern UK.
In a few years, downloading Blu-ray content uncompressed won't take as long as 4gb DVDs used to several years ago, for many people, assuming usenet/nzb.
let's focus on improving 3D technology
You can't. 3D doesn't work and it never will
I haven't inserted a disc into a device to watch or listen to something in many many years.
Your loss. Streaming "HD" is barely SD in quality.
H.265 alledgely achieves same quality in half the size.
Not even close. Not yet. Probably never.
There is no such thing as a "4k Blu-ray drive".
That is not entirely true. Yes, Blu-Ray is a disk format, and as such it doesn't care about resolution, however, it must be able to deliver a 4K data stream through a HDMI 2.0 interface at bit rates significantly higher than for HD. The format must also be able to store a 4K movie on the disk, which means the drive probably has to be able to support BD-XL3 or XL4. This means that the player (drive) must be able to support BD-XL, it must support HDMI 2.0 and it must support 6x speeds. I doubt most Blu-Ray players of today supports this.
You mean the same BBY that showed the gold plated monster hdmi look so much better than the display next to it?
Not being able to tell the difference between good SD and good HD requires you have bad eye sight and are watching a 40" screen from 10 feet away.
Not being able to tell the difference between perfect HD and decent 4K on a 70" screen from 8 feet away means you are blind. Entirely blind. The difference is huge, and not only because of the higher resolution. 4K video also has a significantly improved color gamut which means it looks even more spectacular.
The main problem is that most people are 6 feet or more from their TV. To properly experience 4K, that would require a screen in the 90" area.
UHD monitor and I've taken very high resolution photos (18MP)
That is in fact not a valid test. When you view your images you see them at a significantly better color gamut than what your TV has. You also view them at a significantly better color gamut (even bigger) than what video has. 4K is not only about resolution, it is also about a much wider color gamut, which will also add significantly to the quality of your video (but you won't see a difference between pictures).
Try it your self, shoot some high quality HD video on your camcorder. Edit and color it on your computer (with no professional monitor to pre-view). If you can make it look as good on your TV as it looked on your computer screen you are a genius. A one of a kind. TVs and computer monitors are not the same. By a long shot.
I don't think he is all that confused, that's why he wrote: "while essentially all video is encoded at 4:2:0 - my emphasis. He was commenting on someone looking at images and not being able to see the difference between the resolutions on his monitor. His images are not 4:2:0 encoded, and given the different color gamut between 4K and 1080p, his comment is valid though not entirely technically correct. :-)
Sony paid a whole lot of bribery money
That isn't actually true. Microsoft was the ones who did the bribery and they did pay a lot of money to turn HD-DVD into a winner, they lost even more.
I never said I streamed, but if making up facts about the person you are talking too constitutes a discussion, please continue and tell me more things I'm doing. Maybe my mom wears combat boots?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Sigh.
Of course there's a visible difference. 720p is better because non-interlaced 60fps.
The other Anonymous Coward is referring to the fact that current consumer video formats convert RGB values into separate brightness and color values, and only encode one color value for every 2x2 grid of pixels for which they encode brightness information. There's no effect on grayscale images or black & white text, and most natural images will be imperceptibly different. But (for example) a highly saturated red object on a black or blue background will have a obviously fuzzy boundary on SD sources and can still be detected on HD sources (once you know what to look for).
Both MPEG-2 and H.264 can record full color information; it made sense to subsample the color on DVDs both to save space and because most device connections at the time (composite and S-Video) had lower color bandwidth anyway. But Blu-Ray discs have space to spare and they still subsample the color, so I don't really have my hopes up that a future 4k format will be any different (despite the fact that the color gamut is larger).
(I'm not actually sure what the other AC's point is, other than possibly if you want to see widespread 4k display adoption it might be better to encourage use of them as computer monitors where the benefits of displaying full-resolution RGB data will be obvious.)
It depends what you do. For text-based workflow (Emacs, web browsing, possibly an IDE) 30Hz is fine. I've even gone as low as 12Hz refresh (on an early model IBM T221 connected to a laptop with only a single DVI output) and it was usable. Tip: if you do end up with 30Hz, Nvidia cards let you turn off vsync. This seems to speed up refresh a bit, making the mouse pointer smoother.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com