stusser
1904
Then either you have very good eyes or you sit pretty close to the TV. I did caveat with most people.
FWIW, I can highly recommend OLEDs for those that like contrast (true blacks) and aren’t put off by the price.
Both are true! My eyesight tests better than 20/20 (adjusted, with my glasses) and my couch sits about 7 feet from the TV.
Or they have a huge display - TV size certainly matters here.
stusser
1907
I have a 60" TV myself and I totally can’t tell the difference on moving content, but my corrected vision is 20/20 and my couch is 11 feet from the TV.
7 feet from a 65", you must have to turn your head to watch someone walk from the left to the right of the screen!
But then, you can’t get HDR on a Blu-ray disc unless it’s 4k. In most 4k BR reviews they will say that a lot of the improvement comes from the HDR implementation, as opposed to the higher resolution, but there is a real difference in resolution quality (though admittedly nothing like DVD > BR.
Another thing to keep in mind is that on a large 4k screen, 1080 will look worse than it does on a 1080 screen, and so 4k will be an improvement over that if nothing else due to it being the native resolution, especially outside of movies.
And for what it’s worth, Internet speeds out this way are not even remotely close to being capable of streaming video that can compete even with standard Blu-ray, let alone UHD.
Sadly, OLED is very expensive and as far as I could tell when last inquiring not available in a PC monitor oriented form. (Obviously at this point one can technically just hook a TV to one’s computer but being designed for the purpose still helps a lot, I find.)
HDR is definitely the technology that has most improved my gaming experience, but there are very few games that properly support it on Windows - probably less than 10, last I checked, and most of them Ubisoft icon checklistemups. 4K is next in line and waaaay more supported.
(And forget about HDR video. Netflix technically offers it but only using Win 10’s broken as fuck HDR mode and this results in an experience that involves a lot of crashing, freezing, etc.)
stusser
1910
My internet is fast enough, but yeah, most people couldn’t handle that quality level. 1080p quality on a 4k screen depends on how its scalar works. Some TVs handle it better than others. It should be a straight integer.
HDR is a huge improvement. Sadly it isn’t supported well in Windows, so you need to game on a console to take advantage.
magnet
1911
That’s roughly the same field of view as sitting 2 feet away from a 17" monitor. Which actually seems pretty comfortable, you certainly don’t need to turn your head when watching a movie.
I think this is partly generational. I’ve noticed that children who grew up around tablets/monitors tend to sit much closer to the TV. Seven feet from a 65" monitor is normal for them.
This is only true for games with pixel graphics.
stusser
1913
1080p pixel-doubles to 4k, gaming has nothing to do with it. Most 4k TVs scale rather than pixel-doubling nearest-neighbor, but some do support it.
Do the pixels not quadruple going from 1080p to 4K?
No, because its not 4 times the pixels. It’s literally twice 1920x1080 - 3840x2160
Marketing tricked you. 1080p is vertical resolution, 4k is horizontal one.
Imagine you have a color gradient running diagonally across the image. You would not want to just “double the pixels” for that. You would want to interpolate them. Taking the image in the image scaling article on wikipedia, you can see the difference:
If you were looking at a pixel game, the image on the left would be better and more accurate to the source. If you were just scaling up a picture of a dude, the right would be better.
I’m not just talking out of my ass here, image processing/computer vision was my graduate research topic.
magnet
1918
3840 x 2160 = 8294400 pixels.
1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels.
It is four times the pixels, and therefore four times the bandwidth. Both the horizontal and vertical resolution is doubled.
If you actually doubled a pixel, you would end up with a weird aspect ratio like 1920 x 2160.
Plasma TVs could do a good job with inky blacks but they’re an obsolete technology. I’ll be sad when my Panasonic Plasma dies (it’s over 6 years old already).
It is 4 times the pixels, it is x2 in each direction, so each pixel is now 4 pixels.
before, 2x2:
[ ][ ]
[ ][ ]
after, 4x4:
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
4 pixels becomes 16.
1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels becomes 3840 x 2160 = 8294400 pixels
Edit: beaten to it. :D
Yet you describe what is called pixel doubling.
Yeah it’s a confusing term. It refers to doubling the pixel in each direction.
[w][x]
[y][z]
[w][w][x][x]
[w][w][x][x]
[y][y][z][z]
[y][y][z][z]
Regardless of pixel count, I can assure you that a game like, say, Witcher 3, integer scaled from 1080 to 2160 does not look remotely as good as if it were displayed on a native 1080 screen. I know this, because I’ve done it.
