Skip to main content

31 replies

Honored Contributor
August 10, 2018
He was wrong on a couple points. However most of it was on point. 
Inspiring
August 10, 2018
Seemed like common knowledge, so I skipped through most of it, but luckily I caught the bit were he commented on how ones ability to perceive high framerates was depending on ones arousal level, which was followed by a Quagmire *GIGGETY* sound que..  made me laugh :lol:
Up and Coming
August 10, 2018
Couldn't be bothered to sit through all this but this but i assume this is about movies? There is a really noticeable difference using 4k for applications & games unless you are sitting 6ft away from your monitor or have a really small monitor. 

Honored Contributor
August 10, 2018

Wildt said:

ones ability to perceive high framerates was depending on ones arousal level


That may explain after living with someone for long enough, you start to perceive them like an old Ray Harryhausen stop-motion monster.
13700K, RTX 4070 Ti, Asus ROG Strix Z790-A Gaming, Corsair H150i Capellix, 64GB Corsair Vengence DDR5, Corsair 5000D Airflow, 4TB Samsung 870 , 2TB Samsung 990 Pro x 2, DK2, CV1, Rift-S, Quest, 2, 3, Pro, Windows 11 Pro 24H2 (10.0.26100)
Inspiring
August 10, 2018

Would you F me.
Id F me!
WAAAGH!
Inspiring
August 10, 2018
Interesting video, and the science and math appeared correct, but his conclusion is wrong. If you play a game in 4K, especially on a large screen, there is an obvious increase in quality. I see the video is about 1 year old, but there is a lot of 4K content. Pretty much any PC game from the last 10 years can be played in UHD, and there are a growing catalog of 4K Blu-Rays. Granted, not all of those discs are great, mainly because they may have been mastered at 2K or had the digital effects done at 2K, but even old movies on film can be remastered and can look good. But look at some 4K demo content (which can be much higher quality than full movies) and it looks absolutely amazing and clearly much better than 1080p. I do understand what he's trying to say, at least in terms of diminishing returns compared to the cost or power needed to drive 4K, but to say you can't see a different is hogwash.
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X | MSI X370 Titanium | G.Skill 16GB DDR4 3200 | EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 | Corsair Hydro H110i Gigabyte RX Vega 64 x2 | Samsung 960 Evo M.2 500GB | Seagate FireCuda SSHD 2TB | Phanteks ENTHOO EVOLV
nalex66
Honored Contributor
August 10, 2018
He also misses a critical point about resolution. Yes, a 4K screen may have more pixels than we have cones in our eyes, but what matters is the detail level where we happen to be looking. He starts to talk about the fact that our cones are not uniformly spread out but rather are concentrated in the centre, but he fails to follow through to the conclusion that this makes the detail level of 4K matter--so we can see high detail where we're focusing our attention.
DK2, CV1, Go, Quest, Quest 2, Quest 3. Try my game: Cyclops Island Demo
Honored Contributor
August 10, 2018
General rule of thumb.

If display is <50 inches then 4K is an absolute WASTE.  If it's >50 inches then it will be great.
Up and Coming
August 10, 2018

Digikid1 said:

General rule of thumb.

If display is <50 inches then 4K is an absolute WASTE.  If it's >50 inches then it will be great.


This is not accurate either. 
Honored Contributor
August 10, 2018

nrosko said:


Digikid1 said:

General rule of thumb.

If display is <50 inches then 4K is an absolute WASTE.  If it's >50 inches then it will be great.


This is not accurate either. 

It is to my eyes.  LOL!!!!!

Plus this is the general rule of thumb for Best Buys and other stores that sell tvs around Ontario.  Is it true?  Hell if I know but I can see what they are getting it from.