4K: progress or scam?

[Bm4n]

I can definitely see the difference between 720 and 1080, and my TV is 37" away from me at a distance of about 3 meters (in fact, I'm starting to download series in 1080...). I'm not sure if I could notice the change to 4k at the same size, but on a 50" TV it would be very interesting, just like on a 27" monitor, for example. On a mobile phone, a resolution of 300ppp is more than enough and it's not normal to try to exceed it, and on a tablet, depending on the size, I don't change the retina screens.

Talking about 4k in general... we need to be specific because it will depend on what and for what. What I don't understand is comparing 3D with 4k, it doesn't make sense.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[cobito]

@Bm4n:

What I don't understand is comparing 3D to 4k, it makes no sense.

The comparison was that the quality in 4k was so good, that 4k in 2D was preferable to 1080p in 3D.

[Bm4n]

@cobito:

The comparison was that the quality in 4k was so good, that 4k in 2D was preferable to 1080p in 3D.

Ah yes, but well when they come out they will have 3D too XD. I like 3D in the cinema and if the movie requires it, I don't especially like it but there are people who go crazy for it. Now you can hardly test anything in 4k and I imagine what they show is specially prepared to impress, so I wouldn't trust it.

Pd. Of those opinions I'm referring to, the mind is very suggestible. One would have to do a "blind tasting" of the same sequence and with several people, not everyone has the same visual acuity or focuses on it.

Pd2. Also with some 3D you lose half the resolution, you use one half of the lines for one eye and the other half for the other so in that case without a doubt the difference will be much greater. You will see a 4k in 3D at 1080, so for that it is also interesting, and without a doubt better 4k 2D.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[whoololon]

Bloody hell what a state the world is in.
And to think about all the films we must have watched on VHS without complaining, and now, if you can't see the freckles on a background extra, the resolution is crap.
I don't know, maybe it's just that on my TV I can't tell the difference beyond a certain resolution.
;D

[Yorus]

I also think it's a bit excessive, at least for "normal" size screens (42" or less). I haven't tried a Bluray yet, although I have some 1080p content, so with this I'll be a step behind (the Spectrum doesn't count, that's a big step) and everything will be cheaper for me.

[Nemo]

I currently only watch movies in 1080p (praise be to private trackers) and if I notice the difference. We all know that, in addition to resolution, screen quality also matters and there are 40 "… and 40 ".
I don't understand the comparison of 4k with 3D, it's like comparing that a car has an engine and air conditioning :facepalm:.
I have never seen a future for domestic 3d, but for 4k. I believe that in just under two years it will be a basic feature in 46 " screens and projectors. Even more so when it already comes with its H. 265 encoding and transmission standard that optimizes file sizes better than its predecessor H. 264.

[Bm4n]

I think they will end up releasing TVs that are not so big (40") 4k for the purpose of watching 3D at 1080. Even with that resolution, they would serve well as a monitor.

And the same will happen for PCs, monitors larger than 24" will all become 4k. In laptops, Apple is already introducing the retina, it doesn't reach 4k because it's not necessary for 13-15", but they look luxurious when you bring the view a little closer. And in terms of graphics, it's true that it seems like a lot, but with those resolutions you don't need AA filters and right now there are already many people who play by overdriving the resolution of their TFT or use several monitors so it won't be something traumatic either. It was really the natural thing, I expected it to happen years ago, but with 1080 it seems like they stagnated and it's used as much for an 18" as for a 27", it didn't make sense.

Of all of them, what surprises me the most is... VHS, no BR, you guys are troglodytes

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[cobito]

@Nemo:

I don't understand the comparison of 4k with 3D, it's like comparing that a car has an engine and air conditioning :facepalm:

@cobito:

The comparison was that the quality in 4k was so good, that 4k in 2D was preferable to 1080p in 3D.

In your analogy, it would be like preferring a car with air conditioning to one with power windows.

[Nemo]

Indeed. They are not exclusive technologies, which is why I didn't understand the comparison. Both technologies can coexist on the same TV.

Tapatalk for ZX Spectrum

[cobito]

@Nemo:

Indeed. They are not exclusive technologies, that's why I didn't understand the comparison. Both technologies can coexist on the same TV.

Tapatalk for ZX Spectrum

jeje well yes, but the sentence was saying that 4k in 2d is better than 1080p 3d.

And from there you can extrapolate that if 4k 2d is preferable to 1080p 3d, 4k 3d is even more so.

Anyway, I bet that at first they will be exclusive technologies at least for home appliances and the next generation of TVs (after 4k) will consist of "seeing 3d like you've never seen it before", that is, in 4k.

[Nemo]

That's for sure. Why earn money selling 3d 4k, when you can earn double by selling first only the 4k and then both? Tapatalk for ZX Spectrum