Display resolution comparison.

[NJM1112]

[to the mods: Please move this to the right spot if you think it belongs in a different spot. "Hardware" Doesn't quite seem like the right spot] EDIT: i did not see "displays" Thank you.

 

http://i.imgur.com/ql5wOQK.png

 

So it's almost 3am here and this is what i was up to. This should give you guys that don't understand display resolutions an idea of how BIG 4K really is. It's an incredibly large image to process and output.

 

I myself and running 1440p on my desktop (Woohoo!) and 800p on my laptop >_>

 

I know it's not officialy called "1600p" "1200p" and "800p" but give me a break... I'm up way too late to care at this point

[Langdon]

Still amazes me how far display resolutions have come. I can't wait for 4K to become the standard, GPUs will really have to advance then.

[M-ursu]

4k is huge!

[beebskadoo]

Saw a Sony 4K tv at Best Buy....was amazed entirely!

[Jeroen1322]

Wow, i really want a 4K monitor

[NJM1112]

I got to use a 21:9 29'in 2560x1080 dell monitor at microcenter on friday. It was REALLY cool. Just like my 1440p monitor but shorter. Perfect for people who don't like looking up/down as much and for those with desks that can't accomidate a tall screen.

 

I'll have to add that on the list tomorrow.

[Excon]

Now we just need 16:10 4k!

[IvanSnipedYu]

I wish there were smaller monitors for 1440p or 4k. I can't fit 27" on my desk. I need like a 21" =/

[Damonster5000]

A 4k tv has better picture quality/resolution than most digital cinema projectors as they are typically at 2k. At the cinema I work at only 4 of the 13 projectors are 4k capable but movies are usually never that high. The only movie that was 4k that we had shown was After Earth and Ted for some reason.

[Xaring]

I wish there were smaller monitors for 1440p or 4k. I can't fit 27" on my desk. I need like a 21" =/

 

Same dont wanna sacrifice having dual monitors...

[swifty7]

saw samsung new 65" 4k tv today at Best Buy and was blown away.  I also saw LG's OLED curved 55" tv and it was disappointing...now! the reason could have been with the demo shown.  I don't know what's wrong with LG by showing a Demo with tons of compression artifacts and banding/posterization.  The tv itself looked beautiful and the contrast was flawless but compared to the new 4k samsung tv was shameful.  Samsung truly is the king of TV's right now followed closely by Sharp Quattron.  I can't wait to see Samsung OLED tv.

[BigD1970]

Take any quality resolution and multiply how many pixels in one given area xs 4...4k...wayyyy too much money for now but awesome for movies.

[grayperview]

id settle for 1440p monitors being available without having the import them from korea right now... Graphics cards aren't quite there yet for running games at 4k @60fps, so there is no hurry.

[NJM1112]

Take any quality resolution and multiply how many pixels in one given area xs 4...4k...wayyyy too much money for now but awesome for movies.

nope.

 

2K or "cinima 2K" is 2024x1080 /or/ about 2K across.

 

4K or "cinima 4K" is actually 4096x2160 /or/ about 4K across

 

the only reason we have a 3840x2160 "4K" is because 16:9 is a fairly nice ratio

[Kilerbomb]

I'm really hyped for 4K monitors to become a standard.

[heineygoat]

I knew that 4k was 4x 1080p but seeing like that is a real eye opener. Great comparison OP, thanks!

[GoodBytes]

Actually, 4K is and is not 4 times 1080p

 

4K was not standardized., The only reason why 4x 1080p is being pushed on TV, is much like 1080p, costs less, increase profit.

 

4K can be:

 - 3840 × 2160

 - 4096 × 2160

 - 4096 × 1714

 - 3996 × 2160

 - 3656 × 2664

 - 4096 × 3112

 - 4096 × 3072 (What Vimeo and YouTube uses as '4K')

 

So, when movies in 4K will come out, and filmed in 4K.. it will be fun to see "4K but cropped", version, or the non cropped version but the image is stretched or scaled in some fashion. What a mess that will be.

 

Here is the list of every camera/TV/monitor manufacture and what they consider 4K:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution#List_of_4K_monitors.2C_TVs_and_projectors

 

Honestly, I am not buying 4K until this fight is settled and a standard is set. But My guess is that 3840 × 2160 will win, because Sony will make sure HDMI doesn't support anything above that, and push all it's movies to be it's definition of 4K, and much like the flawed HDMI connector, win, with extreme advertisement everywhere, and support of it's partners (which do this to get HDMI for really cheap or free, and not pay the absurd high fees for a the standard.)

[NJM1112]

Actually, 4K is and is not 4 times 1080p

 

4K was not standardized., The only reason why 4x 1080p is being pushed on TV, is much like 1080p, costs less, increase profit.

 

4K can be:

 - 3840 × 2160

 - 4096 × 2160

 - 4096 × 1714

 - 3996 × 2160

 - 3656 × 2664

 - 4096 × 3112

 - 4096 × 3072 (What Vimeo and YouTube uses as '4K')

 

So, when movies in 4K will come out, and filmed in 4K.. it will be fun to see "4K but cropped", version, or the non cropped version but the image is stretched or scaled in some fashion. What a mess that will be.

 

Here is the list of every camera/TV/monitor manufacture and what they consider 4K:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution#List_of_4K_monitors.2C_TVs_and_projectors

 

Honestly, I am not buying 4K until this fight is settled and a standard is set. But My guess is that 3840 × 2160 will win, because Sony will make sure HDMI doesn't support anything above that, and push all it's movies to be it's definition of 4K, and much like the flawed HDMI connector, win, with extreme advertisement everywhere, and support of it's partners (which do this to get HDMI for really cheap or free, and not pay the absurd high fees for a the standard.)

4K would be 4 * 1000 (k) or 4,000 the name refers to the horizontal resolution being around 4000. I think the only reason we call "3840x2160" 4K is because it's a nice even 16:9. Most displays have been 16:9 and to introduce "4096x3072 wouldn't be right. cinima 4K is 4096x2160 and it's aspect ration is 256x135. Not that nice of a number.

 

are you saying that movies are not cropped right now?

 

You shouldn't buy a 1080p monitor either because that's too close to 2K being that both  are 1080pixels high someone might get confused

 

I would argue 4K is a standardized or atleast in the works right now. because it cleanly follows the 16:9 pattern. google 4K and you get 16:9 results. you don't get these weird number you listed. HD(720p) >FHD(1080p) >UHD(4K+) all 16:9.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_okcNVZqqI > select "original" > right click "stats for nerds" > 3840x2160. not 4096x3072. But then again it's what the uploader set it to. If he'she recorded in in 4096x3072 that's what will appear.

 

not buying a 4K on the basis that there isn't a pure "standard" is stupid. We have a standard that everyone is talking about and that's 3820x2160. This thread is the only mention of a dispute as to "what is 4K really?" i've seen

[Glenwing]

We should just go back to 16:10... get some 4096x2560 panels

[GoodBytes]

16:10 used to be the standard

But Sony super aggressive advertisement for the limitation of 16:9 aspect ratio (mostly due to HDMI limitation), is what pushed 16:9.. as it was smaller in size, it also meant lower price, so that's that people bought. It just happened, that 16:9 was a format sometimes, but rarely used in movies. Now it becomes popular, as Sony pushed 16:9 movie filming. Also Sony got partners for HDMI, in exchange to cheap or free HDMI licensing fee. So that helped pushed things.

[NJM1112]

We should just go back to 16:10... get some 4096x2560 panels

Lol, I personally prefer 16:10 especially for multiple monitor setups. My laptop is 1280x800.

I would love a 4096x2560! I don't think anyone makes that kind of screen though lol.

[WinkieDink]

i just ordered my new laptop and it is a 4k screen (basically) 3820 x 1800, I am super excited to use it

Samsung ATIV Book 9 Plus

[GoodBytes]

QHD+ is not 4K, but close (needs more height)!

 

While really awesome, What does concern me is that MacBook Pro with it's Retina Display, 15inch, struggled when set on Intel GPU, like visible, you had to switch to the dedicated graphics.

Now here, we have Haswell, and the Intel GPU is faster.. so it not me an issue, but if the Intel graphic solution is under max speed all the time to be able to draw everything smoothly, I think you battery life will get a nice hit, and you wont' get those 11h of goodness.

 

Well, let us know (I am very curious)

[Glenwing]

QHD+ is not 4K, but close (needs more height)!

 

While really awesome, What does concern me is that MacBook Pro with it's Retina Display, 15inch, struggled when set on Intel GPU, like visible, you had to switch to the dedicated graphics.

Now here, we have Haswell, and the Intel GPU is faster.. so it not me an issue, but if the Intel graphic solution is under max speed all the time to be able to draw everything smoothly, I think you battery life will get a nice hit, and you wont' get those 11h of goodness.

 

Well, let us know (I am very curious)

 

Do you think it will have an effect even if just every day usage, like documents or browsing?  More pixels isn't much more intense on the GPU I thought, unless you are doing 3D games and stuff like that.

[NJM1112]

Do you think it will have an effect even if just every day usage, like documents or browsing?  More pixels isn't much more intense on the GPU I thought, unless you are doing 3D games and stuff like that.

EXACTLY!