4K?

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
Radek Matyas
Radek Matyas Regular Member • Posts: 294
Re: 4K?

John Sheehy wrote:

Radek Matyas wrote:

Senior citizens with cataracts ought not to be the yardstick used to assess whether differences between 1080p and 4k are appreciable.

The video is complete and utter garbage, pandering to lowest common denominators short on sense and science.

I didn't watch the video, but that's how most of these "4K is hype" ones are.

The difference between 2K and 4K is huge, and 8K will be appreciable, still.

This is not just about eye optics; it is also about brain spatial information processing. Moderately blurred aliasing is still aliasing.

Most critics of higher resolution of monitors (and sensors, as well) know or notice nothing about sampling and resampling artifacts, and their idea of the point of no return for resolution is where they fail to see a greater number of very acute thingies on the screen, which occurs at a resolution far below that at which "thingies" are rendered with realistic edges with their real world shapes all in the correct weighted locations, moving without stuttering edges in video.

Now, I agree entirely with all of the above. There's just no way to improve on it.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow