Is anyone else unimpressed by 1080 v 4k?
>>108641494have you tried a 4k display? you can lean in towards your monitor and you will not see any pixels assuming you are using a regular monitor size instead of a 40 inch TV
Most of the increased fidelity appears to be used on film grain in my experience.
>>108641494I still think NTSC is good enough for movies.
>>108641494Downsampling from 4K is rather interesting.
>>108641494>comparing 4k and 1080p>posts image that is 470x206kek
>>108641558lol I didn't even expand the image, that's hilarious though.
>>108641494>11kb highly compressed jpeg>resolution psyopah yes hello friendly internet spy, Im sorry that sneaking screen captures out of my network via stuxnet tunneling gets risky for you with my triple 4k monitor setup, but its called freedom and youre an evil nazi
>>108641494It's pretty good on a big OLED TV, though even then HDR is the real upgrade. I imagine a lot of people here think HDR is a meme because they've only experienced it on their "HDR gaming LCD."
you don't understand the point of 4k, it's very much beneficialyou're getting 4x the surface area at the optimal viewing distance, that's the point
>>108641494The human eye can't see beyond 1080p @ 30 FPS. I don't know retards and larpers keep pretending they can.
You need working eyes to see the difference.
>>108641759Its actually much lower than that. big TV pushed the 1080p scam in the 2000s. The human eye is measured at only 739x200 and studies were done and anything above 4fps the reaction times were the same. so anything more than that is physically impossible to see.
>>108641794Based true and real
>>108641531I noticed that a lot on low-bitrate 4K videos and re-encodes but not so much on remux or original 4K at high bitrate.
>>108641494My literal boomer motherAnyone who isn’t blind can appreciate the difference, especially for reading text
>>108641494
only geriatrics, dysgenic subhumans and retards on 1080p monitors are unimpressed by 4K
>>108641494On a screen with decent ppi (at least 140) it's great.Overall the image has more density, which makes fonts look smooth and images avoid that pixelated aspect that you see on a lot of HD displays.So it depends on the size and quality of the screen.I'd say colour accuracy is the most important thing in a display. Resolution and PPI density come maybe 5th.
>>108641494I have a 4k 42" OLED and it's pure awesome.
>>108642476no you don't
>>108642481But I do...
>>108641494skill issue
>>108642486Is that really what you chose to do instead of starting a family? good god
I'm at that age where I don't see the the difference. I'll stick with 1080p.
>>108642592why would you want to start a family?
OP is just a troll imageIf you use them side by side you can't unsee the difference
>>108642613On the contrary grandpa, 4k will be much better for your eyesbut it's ok, you can be old and dumb and do things that are bad your own self-interest because your ego overpowers your critical thinking
>>108642621because it provides emotional spiritual and existential fulfillment in life that nothing else can even come close to, especially not eternally chasing after materialistic crutches like shiny new toyssadly some people just won't make the right sacrifices for themselves and will instead always opt for immediate gratification and reap their withered harvest
>>108642637firstly>spiritualloland gee I wonder why as standards of living go up that birth rates go downmaybe having kids isn't all its cut out to be and is just a low hanging fruit for those who can't find happiness in other ways
>>108642672>I wonder why as standards of living go up that birth rates go downThat's not the only factor, althoughbeit. Whule it is true that prosperity means you're better off alone, and this isn't even limited to modern civilizations- Augustus couldn't get Roman bachelors to marry-There is also the economic factor and the cultural factor.In the past, there was no dating. You'd marry whoever your father or master told you to marry once you could support yourself. Society would ensure you would stay together no matter what, and trying to go against this would make you a complete social outcast. Your wife would work with you as your assistant, and you both would take care of your kids together. Eventually, the industrial revolution changed this, so that the husband went out to work for a wage while the wife took care of the house and kids. Then, at some point, wages became too low for a single common job to support a family, so now both parents need to work unless one is much wealthier than the usual. (This can be partly blamed on allowing women to work, doubling the workforce and thus slowly halving wages) Similarly, you no longer have marriage chosen for you and forced upon you whether you like it or not, you have to go out and find someone to marry. And all this along with the abundant pleasures of the modern age, and it's no wonder that birthrates are non-existent compared to the past, where making a family was really not a sacrifice or hard at all, it was basically something that was automated for everybody, it just happened with little input on your part besides performing well at your vocation so fathers would be willing to marry their daughters to you.Anyways, the reason the current state of things is bad is because with a lack of children, comes a lack of workers to maintain the economy which eventually leads to an unpleasant end of the prosperous conditions that we currently enjoy. No religious bullshit, just a logical hedonistic look at the facts.
>>108642742tl;dr
>>108642742>Anyways, the reason the current state of things is bad is because with a lack of children, comes a lack of workers to maintain the economy which eventually leads to an unpleasant end of the prosperous conditions that we currently enjoy.Not my problem, I'll be dead.
>>108642963tl;dr: Stopped reading at 'althoughbeit'
>>108641494Yes it only became impressive after OLED
