Welp, no 6K in the X-T4 it is.

Started 5 days ago | Discussions thread
Clive99 Contributing Member • Posts: 793
Re: Welp, no 6K in the X-T4 it is.

jjz2 wrote:

Miguel-C wrote:

jjz2 wrote:

Clive99 wrote:

What are you going to watch 6K or 8K on? I suppose it appeals to a very different market segment than me..I've never even used 4K on my XT3 (don't have a 4K screen in the house). I think video features are wasted on many of us stills photographers.

6 and 8k tvs will be around soon. 4k tvs are dirt cheap right now...You could buy like 5 55" 4k smart tvs for the price of your XT3 walking into Best Buy.

Many people use 5k monitors or retina screens for awhile now, too. Retina 5k Imac came out in 2014 and is kind of standard now.

I can't look at 1080p without it hurting my eyes at this point if I'm using them next to each other.

also for editing, 6-8k will look much better downsampled.

I pay extra for Ultra HD 4k on Netflix, yes it's that much better.

I wouldnt say its mainstream, 4k monitors are still niche and mostly used by designers and creators. I dont know a single person with a 4k monitor. Many Netflix users use lower resolutions, same thing for youtube.

There are tons of people consuming 4k content, but i wouldnt assume its the norm.

Then we have the added costs of computer upgrades, if you are a mac user very likely you need to upgrade your laptop entirely. Extra hard drives, extra cards, extra everything.

Eh... you can get 4k monitors and tvs for 300 bucks and under all day long. I think LOTS of people are upgrading, and most people I know in my field uses them or has a HD/Retina display at this point on their laptop if not.

I'm sure it might not be over the tipping point as the norm but among my friends people have at least had 4k tvs for awhile now, even if the content itself is lagging.

In the US these are VERY cheap if you want them.

iPhones, which people upgrade on the regular have been shooting in 4k for like 5 years now.

I don't care much about video myself and rarely use it...however, to trivialize the difference to me is funny, for viewing content or even editing photos. It is WAY better to edit on a 4k/retina screen than 1080p, i could NEVER go back. And I'd recommend if you aren't editing on something higher than 1080p (preferably 200+ ppi) for that to be your first investment...forget more lenses or a newer camera... who cares if you can't really see what you're editing.

Side note... I think a lot of arguments of what is "sharp or what is soft" on this board could stem from viewing equipment.

As I stated, I would not use a cheap $300 4K monitor for editing. Resolution is not the only quality of a monitor. I would pick a wide gamut calibrated 2.5K (2460x1440) IPS display over a cheap 4K for photo editing. Good 4K monitors ARE expensive.

 Clive99's gear list:Clive99's gear list
Nikon 1 J5 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T3 Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 +17 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow