VOGONS

Common searches


8k

Topic actions

Reply 20 of 58, by cyclone3d

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I have a 15" laptop that has a 4k display because that was the only option available when I ordered it like 7 years ago.... Horrid resolution for a 15" screen.

TV is still 1080p and my gaming monitor is a 27" curved 1440p 144Hz monitor with really good color reproduction. I like high frame rates. 30fps is jerky and I can see the separate frames if I want to.

When I go to the movie theatre, I have to make myself not pay attention to the low framerate or else it bothers me because I can see each separate frame.

Yamaha YMF modified setupds and drivers
Yamaha XG resource repository - updated November 27, 2018
Yamaha YMF7x4 Guide
AW744L II - YMF744 - AOpen Cobra Sound Card - Install SB-Link Header

Reply 21 of 58, by Roman555

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
robertmo wrote on 2021-06-19, 08:12:

anyone got 8k display? It looks they got pretty cheap and pushing away traditional ones

IMO, they are awfully expensive. And the main question is what content to watch. 4k TV is enough for most spectators now.

[ MS6168/PII-350/YMF754/98SE ]
[ 775i65G/E5500/9800Pro/Vortex2/ME ]

Reply 23 of 58, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
The Serpent Rider wrote on 2021-06-20, 02:23:

If it's not over 9k - what's the point?

Good one! 😁👍
https://giphy.com/gifs/MvedbKot538WY
🤣

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 24 of 58, by WDStudios

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-06-19, 08:31:

I'm getting tired of this push for ever higher resolutions. What's the benefit of 8k vs. 4K at a normal viewing distance in terms of gaming? What do you actually get from that resolution other than significantly lower frame rates?

Nothing. To be able to distinguish the individual pixels on a 4k display, or even read fine text, you'd have to get close enough that the monitor occupies nearly your entire field of view. Most people aren't comfortable with that so 4k is more than enough.

More importantly, though, 4k and 8k are both widescreen formats, and widescreen is the spawn of Satan. We should instead be demanding 2048 x 1536 (or higher) displays!

Last edited by WDStudios on 2021-06-22, 00:43. Edited 1 time in total.

Since people like posting system specs:

LGA 2011
Core i7 Sandy Bridge @ 3.6 ghz
4 GB of RAM in quad-channel
Geforce GTX 780
1600 x 1200 monitor
Dual-booting WinXP Integral Edition and Win7 Pro 64-bit
-----
XP compatibility is the hill that I will die on.

Reply 25 of 58, by ZellSF

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-21, 20:55:
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-06-19, 08:31:

I'm getting tired of this push for ever higher resolutions. What's the benefit of 8k vs. 4K at a normal viewing distance in terms of gaming? What do you actually get from that resolution other than significantly lower frame rates?

Nothing.

Read page 1. I already explained the advantages.

WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-21, 20:55:

To be able to distinguish the individual pixels on a 2k display, or even read fine text, you'd have to get close enough that the monitor occupies nearly your entire field of view. Most people aren't comfortable with that so 2k is more than enough.

Most people aren't using their monitors for reading very small text or spotting individual pixels.

Roman555 wrote on 2021-06-19, 19:27:
robertmo wrote on 2021-06-19, 08:12:

anyone got 8k display? It looks they got pretty cheap and pushing away traditional ones

IMO, they are awfully expensive. And the main question is what content to watch. 4k TV is enough for most spectators now.

Don't watch. Play PC games.

Reply 26 of 58, by WDStudios

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
ZellSF wrote on 2021-06-21, 22:08:

Read page 1. I already explained the advantages.

I did read it. The examples you gave were so obscure as to be negligible. CRT shaders? Really? How many CRTs even used aperture grilles? How many CRT shaders emulate CRT types other than aperture grilles? How many people even know what a CRT shader is?

Since people like posting system specs:

LGA 2011
Core i7 Sandy Bridge @ 3.6 ghz
4 GB of RAM in quad-channel
Geforce GTX 780
1600 x 1200 monitor
Dual-booting WinXP Integral Edition and Win7 Pro 64-bit
-----
XP compatibility is the hill that I will die on.

Reply 27 of 58, by ZellSF

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

You do realize it was an example to prove a point, right? If you can resolve those extra pixels where dumb "I can't spot the individual pixels" logic says you shouldn't, then you can resolve those extra pixels for other content too.

Reply 28 of 58, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-21, 20:55:

More importantly, though, 4k and 8k are both widescreen formats, and widescreen is the spawn of Satan. We should instead be demanding 2048 x 1536 (or higher) displays!

That's why I liked the 16:10 ratio. It's wider than 4:3/5:4 but not too wide.

Because, a bit of widescreen isn't too bad, since we have two eyes,
side by side
and the traditional 4:3 CRT format isn't ideal either thus.

By the way, what about 21:9, or worse, 31:9? 😁

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 29 of 58, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

For a PC monitor 1080p suits me fine so far at 24". Maybe if I go 27-28" I may consider 1440p but even 4K seems ridiculous.

Yet, now with AMD FSR gaming on these panels wouldn't totally suck.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 30 of 58, by WDStudios

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Jo22 wrote on 2021-06-22, 18:54:
WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-21, 20:55:

More importantly, though, 4k and 8k are both widescreen formats, and widescreen is the spawn of Satan. We should instead be demanding 2048 x 1536 (or higher) displays!

That's why I liked the 16:10 ratio. It's wider than 4:3/5:4 but not too wide.

Anything wider than 4:3 is too wide. Anything taller than 4:3 is too tall. 5:4 is just as much the spawn of Satan as any widescreen format.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-06-22, 18:54:

Because, a bit of widescreen isn't too bad, since we have two eyes,
side by side
and the traditional 4:3 CRT format isn't ideal either thus.

Wrong because:

1) You don't want the monitor to occupy your entire field of view; ergo, the aspect ratio of your field of view is irrelevant.

2) The aspect ratio of your FOV depends on how far away a surface is from your eyes. If something is only a few centimeters away from your face, then your FOV will be extremely wide. If you're looking at some mountains that are miles away, then the distance between your eyes is too small to matter. It would be like a 1.0000000001:1 aspect ratio.

3) Compatibility with pre-existing content is by far the most important - nay, the ONLY important - consideration. When Thomas Edison invented movie cameras and projectors, he chose a 4:3 aspect ratio, and this remained standard for all movies for decades. When TV was invented, its inventors chose to make it 4:3 as well, so that movies could be shown on it with no distortion or black bars. Then movie theaters and studios, perceiving the ability to watch movies on TV as a threat to their profit margins, went nuts and made up a bunch of different widescreen formats for the specific purpose of making their movies incompatible with televisions, just to encourage people to pay to watch movies in theaters rather than on TV (that's the real reason why widescreen formats exist, not any of this "you have two eyes so muh field of view" crap). Nonetheless, many directors chose to make their movies in fullscreen or "open matte" and crop the top and bottom of the image for theaters. Known examples include most of Wolfgang Petersen's films (Neverending Story, Air Force One) and the 1990 live-action Ninja Turtles movie. Then when computer monitors ("glass teletypes") were invented, their inventors wisely chose the aspect ratio used by 99% of everything that has ever been put on film, and any programs that displayed more than just text were written with this aspect ratio in mind. Even if they involved weird nonstandard SARs and PARs, the combination was almost always designed to yield a 4:3 DAR. Then some chucklefucks decided "you know what would be really fun? Making a bunch of monitors and televisions that can't correctly display 99% of everything ever made for theaters, television, or computers, and making that the new standard". And now nothing works correctly with anything else and there's no way to un-fuck the situation.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-06-22, 18:54:

By the way, what about 21:9, or worse, 31:9? 😁

When Satan saw those, he realized that nine circles of Hell were not sufficient, and began work on excavating the tenth and eleventh circles just for the creators of those two aspect ratios.

Since people like posting system specs:

LGA 2011
Core i7 Sandy Bridge @ 3.6 ghz
4 GB of RAM in quad-channel
Geforce GTX 780
1600 x 1200 monitor
Dual-booting WinXP Integral Edition and Win7 Pro 64-bit
-----
XP compatibility is the hill that I will die on.

Reply 31 of 58, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Lol, that's beyond awesome! 😁👍

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 33 of 58, by zyzzle

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-22, 20:36:

3) Compatibility with pre-existing content is by far the most important - nay, the ONLY important - consideration. When Thomas Edison invented movie cameras and projectors, he chose a 4:3 aspect ratio, and this remained standard for all movies for decades. When TV was invented, its inventors chose to make it 4:3 as well, so that movies could be shown on it with no distortion or black bars. Then movie theaters and studios, perceiving the ability to watch movies on TV as a threat to their profit margins, went nuts and made up a bunch of different widescreen formats for the specific purpose of making their movies incompatible with televisions, just to encourage people to pay to watch movies in theaters rather than on TV (that's the real reason why widescreen formats exist, not any of this "you have two eyes so muh field of view" crap). Nonetheless, many directors chose to make their movies in fullscreen or "open matte" and crop the top and bottom of the image for theaters. Known examples include most of Wolfgang Petersen's films (Neverending Story, Air Force One) and the 1990 live-action Ninja Turtles movie. Then when computer monitors ("glass teletypes") were invented, their inventors wisely chose the aspect ratio used by 99% of everything that has ever been put on film, and any programs that displayed more than just text were written with this aspect ratio in mind. Even if they involved weird nonstandard SARs and PARs, the combination was almost always designed to yield a 4:3 DAR. Then some chucklefucks decided "you know what would be really fun? Making a bunch of monitors and televisions that can't correctly display 99% of everything ever made for theaters, television, or computers, and making that the new standard". And now nothing works correctly with anything else and there's no way to un-fuck the situation.

Why the hell can't anyone release a 4:3 AR modern LCD / LED screen with native 1920x1440 or 2048x1536 resolution is beyond me. The bullshit 16:9 / 16:10 ratios which have been forced upon us since 1080p because a "cooked-in" format due to HDTV standards of 20 years ago is sad, confusing, and a travesty for those of us who want to properly display all that "99%" of older content properly. You can't buy *any* 4:3 AR monitor, TV, or screen anymore. They're all extinct. I also never understood why there isn't any money for vendors to still have at least *one* of their many current-gen screens in a native 4:3 AR. There must still be the demand; there is no current supply. except old sets made, the most current of which is already about 15 years old, and these won't last forever, and don't use the best LED technology and have lag, refresh rate problems, etc.

Reply 35 of 58, by WDStudios

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
robertmo wrote on 2021-06-23, 13:06:
zyzzle wrote on 2021-06-24, 06:11:

You can't buy *any* 4:3 AR monitor, TV, or screen anymore. They're all extinct. I also never understood why there isn't any money for vendors to still have at least *one* of their many current-gen screens in a native 4:3 AR. There must still be the demand; there is no current supply. except old sets made, the most current of which is already about 15 years old, and these won't last forever, and don't use the best LED technology and have lag, refresh rate problems, etc.

Hey guys... I have good news.

https://www.eizo.com/products/flexscan/s2133/

Thanks to Robertmo for pointing me toward the Eizo website so i could poke around and accidentally discover this!

Now here's the bad news: Most places that carry it charge $900-$1000 for it.

Since people like posting system specs:

LGA 2011
Core i7 Sandy Bridge @ 3.6 ghz
4 GB of RAM in quad-channel
Geforce GTX 780
1600 x 1200 monitor
Dual-booting WinXP Integral Edition and Win7 Pro 64-bit
-----
XP compatibility is the hill that I will die on.

Reply 36 of 58, by rmay635703

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-24, 08:55:
Hey guys... I have good news. […]
Show full quote

Hey guys... I have good news.

https://www.eizo.com/products/flexscan/s2133/

Thanks to Robertmo for pointing me toward the Eizo website so i could poke around and accidentally discover this!

Now here's the bad news: Most places that carry it charge $900-$1000 for it.

Must be considered a novelty now days, I guess I will hold onto my pair of antique dell lcds with similar specs

Next I purchased (via corporate) a business PC in 2010+ that came with a 4:3 screen, don’t remember the exact specs but places like HP & Dell still offered 4:3 as a special order after that point

What I find strange is that newer 4:3 rarely exceed 1600x1280 but in olden times there were 2 common resolutions above that.

Reply 37 of 58, by gaffa2002

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Unless it is for very specific cases, 8K is not worth it for the consumer market, in my opinion, even 4k is overkill in most situations.
We are getting to a point where the advantages of having larger resolutions are getting less and less noticeable while processing power to fully use them increases exponentially. The difference between 4k and 8k is not worth the 4x increase in processing power required for rendering it, or the increased bandwidth if we are talking about pre-rendered media.

LO-RES, HI-FUN

My DOS/ Win98 PC specs

EP-7KXA Motherboard
Athlon Thunderbird 750mhz
256Mb PC100 RAM
Geforce 4 MX440 64MB AGP (128 bit)
Sound Blaster AWE 64 CT4500 (ISA)
32GB HDD

Reply 38 of 58, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
gaffa2002 wrote on 2021-06-24, 13:57:

Unless it is for very specific cases, 8K is not worth it for the consumer market, in my opinion, even 4k is overkill in most situations.
We are getting to a point where the advantages of having larger resolutions are getting less and less noticeable while processing power to fully use them increases exponentially. The difference between 4k and 8k is not worth the 4x increase in processing power required for rendering it, or the increased bandwidth if we are talking about pre-rendered media.

This is becoming almost irrelevant now that we have AMD's FSR.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 39 of 58, by gaffa2002

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
appiah4 wrote on 2021-06-24, 14:09:
gaffa2002 wrote on 2021-06-24, 13:57:

Unless it is for very specific cases, 8K is not worth it for the consumer market, in my opinion, even 4k is overkill in most situations.
We are getting to a point where the advantages of having larger resolutions are getting less and less noticeable while processing power to fully use them increases exponentially. The difference between 4k and 8k is not worth the 4x increase in processing power required for rendering it, or the increased bandwidth if we are talking about pre-rendered media.

This is becoming almost irrelevant now that we have AMD's FSR.

This is just an upscaler, isn't it? A very advanced one perhaps, but still an upscaler. The actual picture data still is in lower resolution, with the same amount of details.
That would make the jump from 4k to 8k even less noticeable than having an actual 8k picture.

Such technology kind of proves my point, actually. Its so costly to run games in native 4K for the average consumer that companies are focusing in ways to "fake" it.
And if this is happening for 4k already, imagine 8k.

LO-RES, HI-FUN

My DOS/ Win98 PC specs

EP-7KXA Motherboard
Athlon Thunderbird 750mhz
256Mb PC100 RAM
Geforce 4 MX440 64MB AGP (128 bit)
Sound Blaster AWE 64 CT4500 (ISA)
32GB HDD