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.

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.

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

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
🤣

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!

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.

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?

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.

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? 😁

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.

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.

Lol, that's beyond awesome! 😁👍

https://www.eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/

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.

I upgraded from 768p to 1080p 2 years back, and changed my 540p FAT TV to an Mi 4K tv

robertmo wrote on 2021-06-23, 13:06:

https://www.eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.