Admit it, you've been a victim of the 4K (and soon of the 8K) meme, am i right user?

What about nature documentaries?

based copeposter

>ignoring the entire Viewing Distance axis for a shitpost

Poor form, OP. No (you) for you.

The OPs chart is conceptually correct but has the numbers wrong, we have a higher resolving power than it is suggesting. So i was about to call OP a faggot, then i saw your reply which is somehow even more retarded, good job user.

>45 FEET
who the fuck watches their monitor from that distance? why isn't this scale on a sane distance like 1-10feet or something? The fuck is this shit?!

>anything other than 640x480

Attached: look at that fucking no brain nigger monkey.png (990x682, 308K)

This. Text is retina sharp too.

I can see this making a difference to a TV, but I'm sitting somewhere between 1-2ft away from my 13.5" 2560x1600 laptop screen and it feels - fuck if that isn't even on the fucking graph. Multiplying both numbers by 2 should work and it puts me just on the edge of that red line and that's about right, but man.

I can't see any difference between FHD and 4K on my 49 inches TV, if I could go back I'd get a FHD TV. However, I see pixels on my desktop PC's monitor, so 4K might make sense on screens that you typically use closer to your eyes.

I have a 27in screen and sit 2.5feet away. Seems like I'd benefit from 4k.

Attached: 1548639033828.png (500x500, 236K)

4K is worthless, need 5K to get more widespread

thats what (((they))) want you to believe

They backpeddled, we aint getting 5K any more. Its going to be a longer wait and straight to 8K. (I know, i wanted 2x scaling and increased real estate too..)

Just barely, really you should be about 1.7-2 feet, not 2.5 feet. Beyond 3 feet and it is indistinguishable from 1440p

I have a 65 inch 4K tv I sit 6 feet away from. It’s great.

>when you get a 4 k monitor by surprise and the text is ultra sharp even at 32 inches
>when it's sharp at all distances

Attached: 40AF44E6-AF9E-47CD-A214-957A000F6306.jpg (680x383, 17K)

The chart you posted clearly shows the benefits of a 4k monitor at a close distance.

>720p on 27"
nope.
I have a 27" with 1440p, it's perfect.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 31K)

>720p for movies
I think you have vision problems...

Attached: 04_new_concept.jpg (740x555, 64K)

update your chart OP

Attached: 8k.png (1280x720, 65K)

1080@144 > 4k@60

Not for text.

>27" at ~1 meter
Kinda checks out. I bought a 1440p one, but in the next purchase I'm saving money and going 1080 instead. It's too far for that resolution, and I had to scale it up to 1080 sizes to be readable.

this I don't play games.

you do realize how retarded that is right? you can clearly tell the difference at 3 feet, who the fuck sits 2 feet in front of a monitor? chart in OP was made by the same faggots who think the human eye cant see past 45fps

>retina sharp
Fuck off with your marketing buzzwords, iToddler.

Best monitors for reading/coding?

No, youre not right. At regular sitting distance from a 1080p or 1440p monitor i can aee the pixel grid and font aliasing is noticable. At.the same distance from a 4k monitor font aliasing is unnoticeable, it looks incredibly crisp. I cant see the pixel grid either, and colour gradients on vector graphics and images look much, much better, far more natural. 4k isnt a meme, thats something poorfags tell themselves to feel better about not owning a 4k monitor.

No you can't, mathematically it'll look like 1440p at 3 feet.

That's 1 foot not 1 meter

>mathematically
are you retarded? do you really not understand what PPI is? and do you really not think a normal person could tell the difference in PPI on a monitor from almost any distance? I sure as hell can
its like those retards that think theres no difference between 720p and 1440p on a phone screen when there is a clear PPI difference that is very tangible when looking at anything on the screen

I sit 2 meters away from my 55” 4K tv and it looks amazing

This, anyone who thinks you cant tell the difference between such drastic increases in ppi is fucking retarded. The difference in clarity for text rendering and colour gradients is not fucking debatable.

I have a 27" monitor with 1440p.
I sit at about 60 to 100 cm away from it.
4k youtube videos or 4k movies are crystal clear.

Attached: whatever.jpg (3840x1600, 705K)

The whole fucking point of monitor resolutions past 1080p is to have a higher DPI so shit looks better at the same size you retard.

Um no, sweetie. Enjoy your pixel mush.

Attached: Bildschirmfoto 2019-03-28 um 14.25.17.png (610x558, 123K)

Nope, i only own CRT monitors from before 2005.

I don't know the resolution on any screen I use.

its okay to be blind user

Nigger 1 meter is almost 3 and a half feet, it's way too far for you to notice any difference from 1080 to 1440. If it was half that distance though you would have a point.

>i'll get more replies if i exaggerate or straight up lie in the OP
worst part about Jow Forums

What do you think OPs chart is showing?

Increased pixel density is meaningless beyond a certain distance, apple famously refers to this as "retina".

At 27" 4k beyond 3 feet will look identical to a 27" 1440p panel unless you have EXCEPTIONAL eye sight, but assuming 20/20 vision, they'll look the same.

At distances closer than 3 feet, the 4k looks better due to the increased pixel density.

Just like how a standard resolution movie on a massive 60 foot wide screen still looks decent when viewed from 50 feet back.

It's all about resolution, display size, and seated distance. Pretending 4k 27" looks better beyond 3 feet tells me you don't understand the chart in the OP at all.

I stick with a 1080p 21" monitor, I can pay less for Vidya, and it feels more than enough.

lmao imagine actually believing this
have you ever used a higher resolution monitor?
because if you had, you would know that what you're saying is completely retarded

Why does this chart go so high in scale? It makes it unreadable down at sensible sizes and tells you useless shit about 160" TVs from 50 feet away.

Gonna go ahead and assume your hawk vision can tell each and every grain of sand at 100ft away. After all, you're saying pixel density is recognizable at any distance.

Poorfag cope.

I have a 43" 4k 60hz and a 27" 1440p 144hz

Best of both worlds

Why should I settle on 4k 60hz at 27" and GUI scale everything? That seems like the real cope here.

Who the fuck watches movies on so tiny a screen? I suppose you sit at a desk too to watch a movie

Because it's using the THX viewing distance formula for theaters probably.

55 inch 4k here

realistically high contrast is where we see the most benefit from higher resolutions, and general pc use has alot of high contrast aspects

for videos and movies? this chart is right, but for text and reading, its a bit different.

No, he's saying it's recognizable at 3ft retard, don't strawman.

He's not wrong using the viewing distance formulas that are out there.
Though it's closer to 3.5 feet, not 3 feet.

Attached: Screenshot_20190328-110941_Samsung Internet.jpg (1080x2650, 740K)

I bought an OLED TV. I've been watching 4K/HDR content for half a year.

OLED>HDR>4K

The lesser meme is OLED. Even HD/SDR content looks amazing, games too. Infinite contrast is the future.

HDR: Netflix thinks that HDR>4K, they produce more HDR content than 4K. Better pixels > more pixels. Dark scenes are great in HDR because the details doesn't get lost with crushed blacks (Without compromising realistic exposition ex. High iso)

4K can be irrelevant for most of a film if you're watching an action film because of the motion blur. There's even a bigger issue with 8K, because if you want to enjoy the full resolution the camera needs to move a lot slower, like just a few cm per second.

this thread isn't meant to spur actual discussion it's just a fucking bait thread
stop replying

What, no rude reply showing your further ignorance?

The higher the better imo

This

With 4K the novelty wore off fast, OLED on the other hand is beyond and above anything else out there, feels like you've discovered a new visual dimension.

Ultrawide Meme, best Meme

Attached: file.png (303x84, 2K)

Compression counts, bruh. I have a 32" TV I use as a monitor from 8 feet away, so I keep the resolution at 720p. Yet I can easily tell the difference between 720p and 1080p source video. For an example, 720p in source video, straight, high contrast lines lines are blurry in comparison to 1080p.

Can somebody tell me
If I get 1440p monitor but 24 inch screen, but run the game resolution at 1080p, would the quality be worse, same or better than
24ich, 1080p monitor running 1080p in game?

Alright but remake that chart with proper units so people from smarter countries can understand it.

I have a 1080p projector on a 110" Screen
It looks fucking great at about 11-12 feet
Highly recommend it.

Depends on the scaler, generally it'll look okay. Unless you're doing frame to frame comparisons though, you'll probably not notice

Nah I still only got 1080p. Then again took a bit of time for me to even get that.

>inches
>feet

Closed immediately.

Distance in meters? Fuck yes! But where do you live if your screen measured in something beside inches? It's sad but size in inches literally coded in display/tv model name.

Screen size in inches is fine although unnecessary. Feet are appalling for a country that calls itself civilized.

What's more appalling is the education system that allowed you through without the ability to convert units mentally from metric to imperial and back again

Oh, come on. You can come up yourself with the hundreds of arguments I could use against that.

I'm sure you could, but you didn't

Because your point is that appalling.

>consolefag thread

I watch my 4k 27 inch monitor when I play games just fine