Looks like you were wrong all along, Jow Forums

Looks like you were wrong all along, Jow Forums.

youtu.be/VxNBiAV4UnM

How does it feel for you to have been so wrong?

Attached: 1507297411263.png (240x240, 44K)

Other urls found in this thread:

blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

does he even get to 4k?. Been watching 40 minutes now and he's still on betamax and vhs.

His point is that the eyes lack cones necessary to perceive that such high pixel densities.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that humans can see "8K" although obviously eyes aren't digital. Also your eyes twitch rapidly to see multiple images which your brain then reconstructs as a higher detail image.

hmmm. Well, is the pixel density there or no?. I'd have to begin a discussion on this with that.

Is he at least going to say that the pixel density is there and our eyes can't digest it? or the density isn't there and that's why we can't see it?.

I'd have to also question a vision specialist on this because I want to use an anecdote that relates to this. My wife sometimes when we're out asks me if I can read a sign that's far away and I can easily. She can't. So I'm not sure if maybe he's saying this because HE just can't see shit like some other people or if he really knows that that even the best vision can't see that good.

I see a difference on my 1440P monitor. I see a difference on my 4K TV when the source is true 4K (I sit about 10 feet away). The problem is the sources usually. Try watching Big Buck Bunny in 4K vs 1080P at 60 FPS. Sure our eyesight can be shit but if you focus on something you notice the details. The larger the display the more obvious it is of course. His 1080 video looks like shit on my monitor.

>Jow Forums shills 4k
>eyes can't even perceive 4k
Jow Forums is a joke

which is a retarded argument to make.


People notice 'retina' displays on iphones


The video is about 7 years too late as this kind of argument was already made back in 2010
blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/


This dude is being obtuse on purpose, just look at the picture.
the bluray UHD format was already finalized and had players for sale before this video game out.

>The first Ultra HD 4K Blu-ray Discs were officially released from four studios on March 1, 2016

Attached: what a tool.jpg (1967x1134, 166K)

I haven't even bothered to watch his video but I'll share the following: For computer desktop (ab)use there's a hell of a lot of difference between 1080p and 4k. I'm currently using 3x4k IPS on my main desktop and 1440p IPS on the living-room desktop. Being used to this 1080p just looks absolutely horrible. Size does matter, though, 1080p isn't that bad on my 15.5" laptop. But it's horrible at something like 27". Televisions are usually a lot larger, like 40-50" these days. 1080p must look like absolute garbage on those. Don't really know, I don't watch television and I don't have one.

What if its like 4k at 60 inches?

Attached: 1532934666995.png (819x716, 563K)

The problem is nearly always the source and the bitrate used. 1080P on Freeview in the UK for instance looks like shit. Soft and mushy looking. Meanwhile a 1080P rip of The Expanse on my 55" 4K OLED look awesome because it is digital from beginning to end and has a decent bitrate per episode.

Eyes can't see over 360p at 15fps with 4bits for each colour channel.

I remember when we had this topic in biology, I calculated the number of color cells and it was about 8M pixels. The actual number can vary.

Is there anyone with more actual knowledge on that? I don't know how these cells are called in English, but there are two types (one for black/white dark vision, one for full color).

>you dont see in 4k
Correct you see in reality and not pixels, 4k is still far far away from it.
I guarantee you the 12k x 6k powerwall I have at work blows the absolute fuck out of anything below it when youve got the content.

Whats more important is focus. Your eyes are constantly refocusing on objects based on distance so theyre going to see absolutely fucking shit detail ("""low res""") really close but will have fantastical clarity on landscapes and hillsides, compared to an 8k image which is permanently in focus no matter what. This is why macro shots always look so fucking amazing but even 32k captures of a hillside look like shit.

cones and rods man, get this shit straight.

>I calculated the number of color cells and it was about 8M pixels.

How did you even do this , because a simple wiki search says
>The human retina has approximately 6 million cones and 120 million rods

I think we just have to face reality that DVD quality is plenty good for a romantic comedy and Blu-ray quality is plenty good for star wars. Anything more than that is a waste for a 2D medium like television. Higher resolution is only needed for VR.

The eyes can't even see that many pixels. This whole pixel density obsession is getting ridiculous. Stop. Just stop.

t. eyelet

He probably didnt he just read a blog post that made the claim.
Theres no correlation because biology isnt digital. How many bits are there in a vocal recording? However many you say isnt true because there will ALWAYS be another granular level you could convert to. Computers cannot do continous functions and biology is continuous. There is no real equivalent, just an upper useful bound (which sure as shit aint "8M pixels")

Why do 4k phones look better than say 1080p? Surely on a smalll screen like that you shouldnt see a difference. Am I super human?

>Anything more than that is a waste for a 2D medium like television

Since display sizes keep increasing, higher PPI is absolutely not a waste.

>DVD quality is plenty good for a romantic comedy and Blu-ray quality is plenty good for star wars.
get your eyes checked

Smaller pixels = smoother curves, your brain is really good at noticing shitty curves

Go back to 1972

VR is a 2d medium. Everything on a screen is 2d.

Just. Stop.

Poke your eyes out if you dont like looking at shit.

whether or not something is 'retina' depends on 3 things.

The size of the display, the resolution and how far away your eyes are from it.


I'm going to take a guess that the phone so close to your face means that while the pixels are small, they are still not small enough for your eye not to distinguish.
Hold a older phone (with an older display) further away from your face and suddenly it looks as good as some 4K phone display (at a closer distance to your face)

>Computers cannot do continous functions and biology is continuous.
Absolutely not true when it comes to audio

Besides, even if were true, the reproduction doesn't need to be perfect. it only needs to be able to fool our biological eyes and nothing else.

Digital audio is still digital and there will always be a half step in frequency lost as a result.
Its tiny but technically correct.

Also eyes are much much harder to trick than ears because our eyes are perpetually refocusing, and flat walls of pixels cant accommodate that. The easiest solution is more pixels with higher res content, and even that is still shit. A 4k panel is immediately better than a 1080p but an 8k setup more than a 4k, and (the biggest ive seen so far) a 12k x 6k just absolutely fucking fantastic against even that.
Then the game changes completely when you have VR because now a 2k screen for a single eye looks like shit.

Let me give you an example. Harry Potter is the kind of movie series wasted on Blu-ray. Almost all of the scenes are close up people shots and the few that aren't use old poor CGI that isn't helped with higher resolution.

I have a 1080p and 4k phone held side by side ~1-1.5 ft away and its very noticeable. I have a 1080p and 4k laptop both 15.6" screens side by side same distance ~2.5-3 ft and its very noticeable. These are my normal distances and 4k looks much better.

That's like saying 1080p is a waste because the original ghost busters has lots of film grain

VR will always hurt your eyes until they come up with a way to allow you to focus on things in the background (create distance). Focusing on a static focal length is partially what causes eye strain. It's why so many who use computers a lot wear glasses.

you realize that harry potter was filmed on physical film right ?

> Harry Potter is the kind of movie series wasted on Blu-ray. Almost all of the scenes are close up people shots and the few that aren't use old poor CGI that isn't helped with higher resolution.

The CGI looking bad is just time passing.
Native 4K movies with CGI done in 4K will look just as bad 20 years on as well.

Even practical stuff looks bad in time, chroma keyed stuff looks clearly off, or an obvious projection screen in the background.

>you dont see in 4k
What did we tell you?

4k is good for bigger tvs though right?
always figured it was stupid on a monitor though

its all relative to how close you sit.


>always figured it was stupid on a monitor though

jesus no, its night and day man.

We can see pretty much any length to q much greater extent than our maximum fps

well he's obviously wrong since the eyes don't lack the lack the necessary cones to perceive nicer and easier to read text that such high pixel densities produce

plus 4K atm is just 2X and some people even buy 1X but phone are 3-5X or more since ever

>eyelet

see