Give it to me straight, is anything higher than 1080p a meme?

Give it to me straight, is anything higher than 1080p a meme?

Attached: thinking pepe.jpg (494x482, 24K)

No. I use a 10,000K monitor, the display is more realistic than human eyes can produce.

played at 4k from 2012- some date 3600x1920 eyefinity 3x setup in portrait it was ok.

but since then ive downgraded to CRT 1024x768 which is effectively 1k and I'm fine with it.

honestly cant see myself going high res again thou I might get a 2k (1080p) monitor in 5 years or some thing if they have them running at stupidly high refresh rates like 500hz or some thing. if they also have decently priced 4k 500hz I might consider it but I imagine the higher refresh rates will come to the lower res monitors first... thou I'm not sure of the science behind it.

basically could care less about resolution atm and am more interested in response time and refresh rate and if I can get good numbers for them then resolution is just a bonus.

like what's the point of lots of pixels if they lag or screen tear or are choppy when you could play at a lower res that's smoother faster and looks more real?

Yes

The hardware is there but the rest of it is a mess. A lot of movies are still being mastered at DCI 2k leaving 4k being more "4k" with the upscaling being noticeable. Streaming bitrates are so low that higher resolutions don't mean anything in terms of video quality.

Attached: 1423891098749.gif (216x200, 40K)

Depends on your screen size and use case.

1920x1080 is the new comfy.

No, but it's a case of diminishing returns. Is 4k screen 4 times better than 1080p because there are 4 times as many pixels ? Well no it isn't, but it is definitely better, I've been using 4k screen for gaming for the past 2 years and it hurts quite a lot to go back to 1080p now. There's also the money argument, running 4k screen requires roughly 3x more processing power to achieve same framerate as 1080p, that bumps the cost of your pc considerably for a moderate increase in visuals, but in my case it was still worth it.

on a phone: yes, unless you plan on using VR with it
on a monitor: no
on a tv: until 4k content becomes the regular, yes

No, but anything higher than 2560x1600 is because it requires DPI scaling and DPI scaling is shit

I like my 1440p monitor but honestly, I would also be completely fine with a 1080p at least for the next few years.
On a big 70"+ TV 4K makes a bit more sense but there is still very little actual 4K content so those aren't really worth it either for the time being.

What's it like having shitty eyesight?

1440p is the highest res you can get away natively, you need scaling past that and unless you're using Linux or MacOS it's gonna look like trash.

I use 2 x 1440p monitors at work and they're great for productivity, I notice the missing real estate when I get home to dual 1080's.

Yes.

For vidya, movies, porn - no
For everything else, pretty much

No.
Though it depends on the size.
I'd try that anything less than 200 PPI is absolute garbage.

For example, my 1440p 13" laptop display is awesome.
My 1440p 27" desktop display is horrendous with tired pixels and terrible looking fonts.

And I use no scaling.

For now - yes. Wait for several years.

Absolutely yes.

Depends on the screen size.

I have a 32" 1440p screen and it is amazing, 1080 would be too small desu

1440p is not a meme, I can tell the difference. 100Hz with a 21:9 ultrawide 1440p monitor is the best experience ever.
I don't own any 4k native content and don't even have any 4k devices outside my TV, so I can't comment there.

When you say "meme", I feel you're asking, is its practical application obfuscated by its hype. And the answer I think is a definite no. It has clear intrinsic value regardless of the hype.

I think the only dumb part is when you're using scaling on a monitor to reduce real estate to the same as a 1080p monitor. I realize that you're forfeiting needing more, but it seems so retarded to me. For browsing you're then just paying for bigger everything.

Attached: 69ecbf8ed88ee9d3d19fb82f5edbf831.jpg (1836x1527, 265K)

ultrawide master race

Then how can you tell the difference?

I think this is fair. After a certain point the height has great diminishing returns. Though I've seen setups with monitors mounted a meter above the center one, so some people will be on that bullshit about posture etc.

for TV's? absolutely. for desktop monitors? 1440p is probably better, but beyond that the returns are so diminishing you probably can't readily tell.

If you're using a phone, yes

4k is great if you read a lot like programing

yes.
t.1024*1280 and 2560*1440 owner
effectively identical apart from size

Yes. You should keep your monitor 50cm away from your eyes (unless you want to be blind). At this distance people barely can distinguish 720 to 1080.

No, but I don't see much point right now. In some years 4K will be the new standard but I'm perfectly comfy with 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 on my monitors.

redpill me on ultrawide

I have two 1440p monitors and I wouldn't want to go back to 1080p.

>50cm away from your eyes (unless you want to be blin
Elaborate how this works with LCD.

I am not a medicine expert. I just repeat what my eye doctor told me.

Can you ask them, please?
Perhaps they still refer to CRT.

Man, i think you can learn all you need in 30 min looking for actual research data (no clickbait health blogs).
ieeexplore.ieee.org
Link above you can find the "DOI" of the desired article.
sci-hub.tw
And this link you can actually download it (thanks the russians)

I think 4k is the resolution we'll settle at. The pixels are small enough for a TV, computer monitor and a phone. Anything higher than that will probably not be interesting enough so that resolution could spread everywhere, creating a standard in popularity wise.

Thanks

I have a 25" 1440p, and a 43" 4k.

I can't see myself going back to 1080p.

Learn how to read a "scientific publication" was one of the most important thing that i learn during my entire graduation. When you learn how to "fake data" to make your point valid, you can tell if a article is bull shit or valid.

You don't even have a 4k monitor, fuck off.

>yfw the 4k has higher pixel density

2k =! 1080p

2K ~ 1080p to within 10%

I use 3 screens daily

>24 inch 240hz 1080p TN panel
>24 inch 1440p 75hz IPS panel
>14 inch 768p laptop garbage

And let me tell you, pixel density alone is meaningless. I thought I'd use my 1440p screen for media when I bought the 240hz one, but I basically don't really bother and it's permanently relegated for second screen duties. The colors and viewing angles on the TN panel are more than good enough.

The laptop screen though? It literally makes me eyes bleed. The viewing angles are so bad when I use it in bed I often have trouble finding a position where none of the screen will be distorted.

Don't buy displays online without seeing them first, and don't decide AGAINST buying them, I almost bought a 144hz IPS monitor instead of the 240hz and I'd 100% regret that.

high res screens are memeiest of memes. 480x854 on my phone and 1024x768 on the desktop are top tier comfy

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-10-20-32-45.png (480x854, 58K)

Why do people here often use 'comfy' when talking about resolutions? What makes a resolution comfy?

kimochi iie

I wouldn't by any display with

>Used to play 4k in 2012
>Now using a 1024*768 CRT
I don't buy it

*buy

until aliasing is removed by pixel density being high enough at monitor sizes we can always go bigger

no

ok ill give it to you straight
it is a ratio of physical size of screen to resolution, called ppi. 1080p is different on a 70" tv vs your phone, retard.

>nfw 4k 43" that effectively replaces 4 21.5 inchers
No, it's not a TV.

Attached: 1456708698994.png (1070x868, 27K)

>my 1080p monitor has a small scratch on it
>kinda want to replace, but 4k will be the norm in a few years
>4k is still too expensive and unsupported right now


fug

It doesn't...

103 PPI for the 43" 4k
117 PPI for the 25" 1440p

Depends if you mean DCI 2k, or consumer 2k

Consumer 2k is generally 2560 x 1440p

DCI 2k is 2048 × 1080p

A lizard person

Exactly this.

4 times 1920x1080 = 8294400 pixels

3840 x 2160 = 8294400 pixels

umm...

oh sorry i misunderstood your argument..

actually the it's stupid to say that 4k is 4 times stupid because it has a 4 in 4k.

but what's good is the ppi which will decrease jagginess with all content.

I have dual 1440p and it's bretty gewd

this a bot?

Attached: _20180511_134942.jpg (432x724, 77K)