This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

4K Gaming truly is beautiful

#121EasylePosted 6/12/2014 9:20:44 AM
haeloo posted...
The human eye can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k.


Please be trolling.
#122Xtreme-VoidPosted 6/12/2014 9:36:41 AM(edited)
GoIrish80 posted...
I don't doubt that 4k looks outstanding, but I'm definitely loving my new 34" 3440x1440 ultra wide monitor and another thing I like about it is that it's a high resolution I can already run at a high fps. I imagine I will get a "4k" monitor eventually, but it won't be until there is a resolution equal to it on a 21:9 monitor such as this one. (sorry for the flash)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/33279g0hfwaxwyk/1.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ob6bj5avwd25e0/2.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4yiifmd10kdre9i/3.jpg


check my skyrim, yours looks strange like a ghost town and missing a lot of things in there market.

http://s10.postimg.org/c7wdbpqt5/abc.jpg

and here from the long view the real one

http://s28.postimg.org/3sngugju5/skyrimm.jpg

---
PC Gaming Rigs, PS3, PS VITA, PSP, 3DS
i7 4770K | MSI GTX 780 Ti | 12 GB RAM | Sony Bravia 40HX750 | Altec Lansing MX6021
#123GoIrish80Posted 6/12/2014 9:36:34 AM
There are numerous people in the screenshot I have there....it's not like there are always 20 people on the screen.

Your screenshot is of a completely different landscape, and you might be using some mod that I'm not.
#124El_KazPosted 6/12/2014 9:37:41 AM
Spartan_Vice posted...
Your information is incredibly wrong. I even have a nice chart for my argument.

http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/27/resolution_chart.jpg


According to that chart, with a viewing distance of ~2-3 feet, the "full benefit of 4k" is visible on a ~25 inches monitor.

How does that support your argument that 4k is not noticeable on anything below 72 inches?
---
Wait... what?
#125Spartan_VicePosted 6/12/2014 9:37:57 AM
Xtreme-Void posted...
GoIrish80 posted...
I don't doubt that 4k looks outstanding, but I'm definitely loving my new 34" 3440x1440 ultra wide monitor and another thing I like about it is that it's a high resolution I can already run at a high fps. I imagine I will get a "4k" monitor eventually, but it won't be until there is a resolution equal to it on a 21:9 monitor such as this one. (sorry for the flash)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/33279g0hfwaxwyk/1.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ob6bj5avwd25e0/2.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4yiifmd10kdre9i/3.jpg


check my skyrim, yours looks strange like a ghost town and missing a lot of things in there market.

http://s10.postimg.org/c7wdbpqt5/abc.jpg

and here from the long view the real one

http://s28.postimg.org/3sngugju5/skyrimm.jpg


I really need to know what mountain texture those are. I can't find a decent set, and I'm not a fan of the one's my ENB creator recommended.
---
Original GTA:O Awesome Creator, 4930K @ 4.7 GHz | 3x GTX 780 Ti SC | 64 GB Dominator Platinum 2133MHz | Rampage III Black Ed.
http://i.imgur.com/Pzq4j.gif
#126Xtreme-VoidPosted 6/12/2014 9:38:27 AM
GoIrish80 posted...
There are numerous people in the screenshot I have there....it's not like there are always 20 people on the screen.

Your screenshot is of a completely different landscape, and you might be using some mod that I'm not.


I can show you a real there market, but I using NSFW mods, so thats a no.
---
PC Gaming Rigs, PS3, PS VITA, PSP, 3DS
i7 4770K | MSI GTX 780 Ti | 12 GB RAM | Sony Bravia 40HX750 | Altec Lansing MX6021
#127Xtreme-VoidPosted 6/12/2014 9:41:00 AM
Spartan_Vice posted...
Xtreme-Void posted...
GoIrish80 posted...
I don't doubt that 4k looks outstanding, but I'm definitely loving my new 34" 3440x1440 ultra wide monitor and another thing I like about it is that it's a high resolution I can already run at a high fps. I imagine I will get a "4k" monitor eventually, but it won't be until there is a resolution equal to it on a 21:9 monitor such as this one. (sorry for the flash)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/33279g0hfwaxwyk/1.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ob6bj5avwd25e0/2.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4yiifmd10kdre9i/3.jpg


check my skyrim, yours looks strange like a ghost town and missing a lot of things in there market.

http://s10.postimg.org/c7wdbpqt5/abc.jpg

and here from the long view the real one

http://s28.postimg.org/3sngugju5/skyrimm.jpg


I really need to know what mountain texture those are. I can't find a decent set, and I'm not a fan of the one's my ENB creator recommended.


I use HD textures mods on Nexus, and some ENBs not every ENB's, forgot which though.
---
PC Gaming Rigs, PS3, PS VITA, PSP, 3DS
i7 4770K | MSI GTX 780 Ti | 12 GB RAM | Sony Bravia 40HX750 | Altec Lansing MX6021
#128Spartan_VicePosted 6/12/2014 9:43:34 AM
El_Kaz posted...
Spartan_Vice posted...
Your information is incredibly wrong. I even have a nice chart for my argument.

http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/27/resolution_chart.jpg


According to that chart, with a viewing distance of ~2-3 feet, the "full benefit of 4k" is visible on a ~25 inches monitor.

How does that support your argument that 4k is not noticeable on anything below 72 inches?


Because, as you can see, you'd have to be sitting 3 ft. away from your TV to get full benefit of a 60" 4k TV. "normal" distance in the average household is 10 ft., and if I'm generous with you and give you 5 ft., you need a monitor at least 75" to get full benefit.
---
Original GTA:O Awesome Creator, 4930K @ 4.7 GHz | 3x GTX 780 Ti SC | 64 GB Dominator Platinum 2133MHz | Rampage III Black Ed.
http://i.imgur.com/Pzq4j.gif
#129KillerTrufflePosted 6/12/2014 9:44:39 AM
Spartan_Vice posted...
Your information is incredibly wrong. I even have a nice chart for my argument.

http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/27/resolution_chart.jpg


OK... let's say I accept your random chart as accurate (it might be close, and it's honestly not *all* that far off from my own numbers)... how do you claim this refutes my point that 4K effectiveness is directly related to distance? The larger the screen, the larger the pixels, and the farther away you have to be to no longer see individual pixels. My numbers may have been a tad off, but honestly not by much. A 27" 4K screen would be useful - and resolvable - at normal computing distance. You might have to sit 5' from a 60" TV for 4K to not be wasted, but I know a whole lot of people who will flop down on a bean bag easily that distance from their TV, so that still fits well within what I said. Is there some point on that chart that actually goes against what I've been saying and supports your stupid claim? Because I don't see anything on that chart that supports

"Which only starts becoming apparent on 72-inch monitors, and only really makes a difference at around 84 inch monitors. So if you own a 4K UHDTV that's less than 72 inches, it's virtually pointless."

---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#130walnut100Posted 6/12/2014 9:45:16 AM
haeloo posted...
The human eye can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k.


Reminds me of the people on the console boards posting "720p actually looks better than 1080p to the human eye"
---
We Americans will never take over the world. We're far too lazy.
We'll outsource the task to India, and then take the credit for it. ~ Waffleman