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

4K Gaming truly is beautiful

#131Spartan_VicePosted 6/12/2014 9:46:45 AM
KillerTruffle 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


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."


"I know a whole lot of people" isn't the household average. Don't accuse me of ad hominem for my argument if you're going to use anecdotal evidence constantly to support yours.
---
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
#132TheNazzaroPosted 6/12/2014 9:47:14 AM
KillerTruffle posted...
haeloo posted...
The human eye can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k.


Maybe for people who can't tell the difference between an inch and a meter... Your statement as you worded it tho is incorrect.


*woosh*
---
http://www.etsy.com/shop/TheNazzaro
#133HappyHippo04Posted 6/12/2014 9:57:07 AM
It took literally 3 posts for this topic to shift from 4k admiration to salty. That's almost a record.
---
PC | Wii U | 3DSXL | Vita
FC: 4639-9367-1408
#134g7g7g7g7Posted 6/12/2014 9:57:23 AM
That chart is nonsense.
---
"You know what's most annoying about hearing neighbors having sex?,
When it's too quiet*" - Umbongo
#135LOLIAmAnAltPosted 6/12/2014 10:04:06 AM
Well, duh.
---
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
#136HappyHippo04Posted 6/12/2014 10:07:22 AM
Spartan_Vice posted...
KillerTruffle posted...
Spartan_Vice posted...
4K isn't higher quality, it's just bigger quality. If you want to talk higher quality, we'll talk about OLED or something worthwhile to visual quality.


4K is higher quality if it results in increased pixel density...


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.


Your information is so wrong, hue
---
PC | Wii U | 3DSXL | Vita
FC: 4639-9367-1408
#137Spartan_VicePosted 6/12/2014 10:10:14 AM
HappyHippo04 posted...
Spartan_Vice posted...
KillerTruffle posted...
Spartan_Vice posted...
4K isn't higher quality, it's just bigger quality. If you want to talk higher quality, we'll talk about OLED or something worthwhile to visual quality.


4K is higher quality if it results in increased pixel density...


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.


Your information is so wrong, hue


Solid counter-point. I definitely concede my entire argument now.
---
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
#138SteamsterPosted 6/12/2014 10:15:35 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#139OreoBoy206Posted 6/12/2014 10:18:22 AM(edited)
"To see all of the image detail on a 4K UHD TV with 20/20 Vision you would need to watch from half of the above distances. So the larger the TV and the closer the viewing distance the better the case for 4K UHD based on 20/20 visual acuity alone, TVs 80 inches and above are best for 4K UHD, while 40 inches and below dont make sense (unless its a computer monitor because they are generally viewed at 2.5 feet or less). But there are a number of other advantages for moving up to 4K UHD that we will discuss in the TV section below."

http://www.displaymate.com/Display_Technology_2014.htm
Source^^^

Hmmm, I wonder why he's excluding PC monitors.. Doesn't that go against that viewing distance chart that someone posted? Also there happens to be more advantages to 4k resolutions than just pixel density and the amount of detail it brings....

However, Silver was at pains to point out that this doesn't mean there are no benefits to 4K TVs. On the contrary, he believes 4K TVs have a role to play in improving all aspects of TV picture quality, not just the amount of detail.

"Were constantly compromised by losing three-quarters of the colour information that comes to our television," Silver explained. "Even with Blu-ray were only getting one in every four pixels of colour information."

"Well finally go beyond that one day with Ultra High Definition and get all the colour information."


http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/isf-contrast-still-the-most-important-aspect-for-picture-quality
Source^^^
#140WyzeGyePosted 6/12/2014 10:23:22 AM
this thread is so fapping dumb.

half of you guys should just close your account, leave this site, and crack open a book... or maybe never touch a keyboard again. Either one works for me.
---
http://puu.sh/8IK8Q/8e25ebacb7.jpg
Wolves don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep.