Why isn't 1440p Video editing a thing

[Supreme Calamitas]

Everywhere I look I see: 1080p Video editing 4k 60fps / 4k 30fps, 8k, HVAC, h265, h264 etc... But I never hear anything about 1440p video editing. Linus has made me believe that 1440p (as screen resolution) is the perfect balance for quality and performance, not as low as 1080p but also not as taxing as 4k. And the strangest thing of all... 8K? Seriously? Were going to talk about 8K and 32K video editing before we talk about 1440p. The universal rule is that everything that is more attainable (in this case 1440p) is always going to be popular and used more often than something that is less attainable (in this case 4k) and for that reason alone I'm convinced there is something wrong with 1440p video

[AbydosOne]

2 minutes ago, Marko1600 said:

But I never hear anything about 1440p video editing.

If I had to guess, it's because 1440p never became part of the TV market, which went straight from 1080p to 4K. 1440p just doesn't exist in the public consciousness the same way the others do as buzzwords.

[emosun]

you can export video at any resolution...... you can make a video 1 pixel by 1440 if you want. Theres nothing preventing anyone from editing a 1440 video currently.

[RageTester]

Editing and shooting are different things. As said above you can edit whatever, but I don't know anyone who bought a camera that records at 1440p...

[IPD]

1440p streaming isn't a "thing", at least not a mainstream one.  4k is also hardly "unobtainable" as virtually every consumer TV is 4k now.  And yes, bring on 8k.  I need the PPI.

 

If you really want a solid argument, explain why 16:10 died off for video editing. 

[Tan3l6]

4k uhd is exactly 4 times the pixels of 1080p.

[GuiltySpark_]

So this is pretty simple. You're confusing widely accepted resolutions for consumer media and the PC display market space, they cannot be compared. 

 

If you compare common TV resolutions to the common media resolutions used in TV and film, you'll see the similarity. 

 

And what does Linus have to do with this? 

[porina]

1440p video editing is a thing. Pretty much the same thing as any other video editing.

 

Discussion of source, output and eventual display platform are kinda secondary to that.

[Imbadatnames]

3 hours ago, IPD said:

1440p streaming isn't a "thing", at least not a mainstream one.  4k is also hardly "unobtainable" as virtually every consumer TV is 4k now.  And yes, bring on 8k.  I need the PPI.

 

If you really want a solid argument, explain why 16:10 died off for video editing. 

How big a TV you getting dude? 4K is essentially pointless below 50” as is 

[dilpickle]

1440p does not exist in the video production world. Just like 1024x768 or 1920x1200 these are PC only resolutions.

[IPD]

6 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

How big a TV you getting dude? 4K is essentially pointless below 50” as is 

Wrong.  50" 2160p is 88 PPI.  I have been able to see PPI increases up to at least 180 ppi.  But that's just half the math.

 

PPI / viewing distance.  That's the magic formula.  I'm using a 40" 2160p.  But you will see many on here who will say that above ~32", you start to see the PPI decrease on 2160p; which is fair, as 32" would still only be a ppi of 137.

 

P.S.

I sit about 30" from my display.  If/when I am able to upgrade to 8k, I am confident I will see an immediate improvement.

[Imbadatnames]

7 hours ago, IPD said:

Wrong.  50" 2160p is 88 PPI.  I have been able to see PPI increases up to at least 180 ppi.  But that's just half the math.

 

PPI / viewing distance.  That's the magic formula.  I'm using a 40" 2160p.  But you will see many on here who will say that above ~32", you start to see the PPI decrease on 2160p; which is fair, as 32" would still only be a ppi of 137.

 

P.S.

I sit about 30" from my display.  If/when I am able to upgrade to 8k, I am confident I will see an immediate improvement.

At 50” you need to be sat less than about 1.5m away to see pixels. Unless your room is tiny you’ll be over that distance away. Other than that panel quality matters a lot for colour reproduction, even backlighting (or OLED) for uniformity etc 

[valentinardem]

Hi, If you go to your local theater to watch a movie, even now, you be surpised to know that the picture is at 2K. It's very rare to find a 4k equipped theater. And even if the projector is 4k the movie is shot at lower res. All you 4k BR is in fact 2k resolution. And lots of the post processing is done at 2k, 4k will be too expensive. So in the movie theater industry 2K is the rule.

[mariushm]

Marketing ... they optimize the descriptions for keywords ... I guess too few people search for "1440p video editing"  but they do search for "1080p video editing" or "4K video editing"  and the text in that pictures squeezes both there.

 

1080p video editing is probably more searched by less knowledgeable people who may not check the product if they don't see 1080p thrown in their faces.... while most likely whoever wants 1440p probably is smart enough to figure out that if the software supports 4K then it also supports 1440p.

[IPD]

9 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

At 50” you need to be sat less than about 1.5m away to see pixels. Unless your room is tiny you’ll be over that distance away. Other than that panel quality matters a lot for colour reproduction, even backlighting (or OLED) for uniformity etc 

Without the perversion of throwing metric into a calculations for a display measured in inches; yes.  That would be about 1:1--diagonal vs viewing distance.  Considering I'm already at 30" using a 40", that puts me about .75:1--well within the ability to "see pixels" by your own judgment.

[Imbadatnames]

36 minutes ago, IPD said:

Without the perversion of throwing metric into a calculations for a display measured in inches; yes.  That would be about 1:1--diagonal vs viewing distance.  Considering I'm already at 30" using a 40", that puts me about .75:1--well within the ability to "see pixels" by your own judgment.

It is literally impossible to distinguish individual pixels over 1m on a 50” screen at 4K resolution. That’s a hard limit on the angular resolution of the human eye which is around 0.02-0.03 degrees depending on how close the person is to perfect vision.  
 

Also 50” is 1.27m it’s not even close to being the same. Also distances for 40” and 30” are 0.79m and 0.58m respectively. 

[IPD]

Still don't know why we're tossing metric into a discussion in inches.  You're just obfuscating.  Maybe when you convince the world to only list panel sizes in metric--then you can do that.

 

Again, I don't know what the perfect distance to see pixels is--that varies from user to user.  All I suggest is taking PPI / viewing distance in inches.  When you know what that ideal coefficient is for you, yourself--then you will find that displays/resolutions/viewing distances that generate that same (or close to same) coefficient.

 

I feel like I'm repeating myself here (probably because I've explained this method in multiple other threads).  I can see the difference between 1080p and at least 1440p on a 15.6" screen.  That's where I'm usually about 12-18" away.  Even at 18", that comes to a coefficient of 10.4.  Even 8k (5120x4320) on a 40" screen--viewed from 30"--still gives a coefficient of 5.57; far more granular.

 

50", 2160p @ 39" (or 1m, since you insist on metric) is a coefficient of 2.25; even more granular.  "Hard limit on human eyes" means nothing, as increases in resolution result in aesthetic improvements such as a reduction in aliasing, etc.  By that logic, there would be no need to have monitors with input lag and refresh rate below the fastest human response time of about 10ms.  But the market keeps shifting in that direction---which is a pretty clear indication that either there's a lot of FUD, or that "raw limits of the human" aren't telling the entire story.

[Imbadatnames]

4 hours ago, IPD said:

Still don't know why we're tossing metric into a discussion in inches.  You're just obfuscating.  Maybe when you convince the world to only list panel sizes in metric--then you can do that.

 

Again, I don't know what the perfect distance to see pixels is--that varies from user to user.  All I suggest is taking PPI / viewing distance in inches.  When you know what that ideal coefficient is for you, yourself--then you will find that displays/resolutions/viewing distances that generate that same (or close to same) coefficient.

 

I feel like I'm repeating myself here (probably because I've explained this method in multiple other threads).  I can see the difference between 1080p and at least 1440p on a 15.6" screen.  That's where I'm usually about 12-18" away.  Even at 18", that comes to a coefficient of 10.4.  Even 8k (5120x4320) on a 40" screen--viewed from 30"--still gives a coefficient of 5.57; far more granular.

 

50", 2160p @ 39" (or 1m, since you insist on metric) is a coefficient of 2.25; even more granular.  "Hard limit on human eyes" means nothing, as increases in resolution result in aesthetic improvements such as a reduction in aliasing, etc.  By that logic, there would be no need to have monitors with input lag and refresh rate below the fastest human response time of about 10ms.  But the market keeps shifting in that direction---which is a pretty clear indication that either there's a lot of FUD, or that "raw limits of the human" aren't telling the entire story.

You can’t use metric and imperial interchangeably? It’s not a hard conversion. 
 

You know funny thing the reason you can tell the difference at 15.6” at around 12-18” away is that the distance where you stop being able to tell is 18”. 
 

Stop talking about coefficients dude it’s literally a hard limit on angular resolution of your eyeballs. If the size of a pixel is smaller than the arc of a sector with an angle of 0.02 degrees then you can’t see it. Basically your eyes see in 0.02 degree increments. Anything finer than that you can’t see 

[IPD]

On 2/18/2022 at 6:14 PM, Imbadatnames said:

You can’t use metric and imperial interchangeably? It’s not a hard conversion. 
 

You know funny thing the reason you can tell the difference at 15.6” at around 12-18” away is that the distance where you stop being able to tell is 18”. 
 

Stop talking about coefficients dude it’s literally a hard limit on angular resolution of your eyeballs. If the size of a pixel is smaller than the arc of a sector with an angle of 0.02 degrees then you can’t see it. Basically your eyes see in 0.02 degree increments. Anything finer than that you can’t see 

I can convert to metric; there's just no point when you are already talking about a display measured diagonally in inches--and a viewing distance ratio based around inches.

 

IDGAF about "angular resolution of your eyeballs".  Every user has a difference personal preference for viewing distance for a given panel size.  That's why I suggest calculating a coefficient.

 

Luddites screaming about "Angular resolution" are why we were stuck for 10 years with nothing but 1080p offerings--because of "science".

[Imbadatnames]

On 2/20/2022 at 6:58 PM, IPD said:

I can convert to metric; there's just no point when you are already talking about a display measured diagonally in inches--and a viewing distance ratio based around inches.

Called a hybrid system dude, not hard. 

On 2/20/2022 at 6:58 PM, IPD said:

 

IDGAF about "angular resolution of your eyeballs".  Every user has a difference personal preference for viewing distance for a given panel size.  That's why I suggest calculating a coefficient.

Which is why you’re wrong. 

On 2/20/2022 at 6:58 PM, IPD said:

 

Luddites screaming about "Angular resolution" are why we were stuck for 10 years with nothing but 1080p offerings--because of "science".

Smaller TVs up to about 40” and most phones that aren’t giant are fine with 1080p. 4K adds nothing to them. Monitors are different because of the math you’re talking around 24” for 1080p to be a bit lacking because you’re at about 1m to start seeing pixels 

[IPD]

5 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Called a hybrid system dude, not hard. 

Which is why you’re wrong. 

Smaller TVs up to about 40” and most phones that aren’t giant are fine with 1080p. 4K adds nothing to them. Monitors are different because of the math you’re talking around 24” for 1080p to be a bit lacking because you’re at about 1m to start seeing pixels 

wtf is "hybrid system"?  Sure I use Metric and Imperial on a regular basis.  Doesn't mean that I try and force using both simultaneously.  That's how engineering disasters happen.

 

I'm not wrong; stop being a luddite who can't grasp the simple concept that his old-wive's-tales of "angular resolution" do not accurately depict the ability of the human eyeball to detect and appreciate reduced granularity in resolution.  All you've said here is that I'm wrong, and not once have provided a use-case, real-world, or scientific paper proving how that's so.  I get that you personally may be blind as a bat and don't really care about resolution.  Common sense dictates that you don't take yourself as the paragon of adequacy for the average user.

 

I'll give you phones.  But that's about the limit.  The problem with a hard and fast rule saying "so and so size display only needs to be 1080p" is that different content implies different viewing distances.  Cinema viewing is usually on the distance end of that, and office work is usually on the close end of it.  Phones are the sole exception, only because the pixel density remains high enough @1080p that it doesn't matter either way. 

 

P.S.

Did you simply fail spectacularly at trying to show me up in the Nuclear thread, and came here to pick fights?

[Imbadatnames]

2 hours ago, IPD said:

wtf is "hybrid system"?  Sure I use Metric and Imperial on a regular basis.  Doesn't mean that I try and force using both simultaneously.  That's how engineering disasters happen.

I still don’t get your issue. Have you never used a spanner in your life? 

2 hours ago, IPD said:

 

I'm not wrong; stop being a luddite who can't grasp the simple concept that his old-wive's-tales of "angular resolution" do not accurately depict the ability of the human eyeball to detect and appreciate reduced granularity in resolution.  All you've said here is that I'm wrong, and not once have provided a use-case, real-world, or scientific paper proving how that's so.  I get that you personally may be blind as a bat and don't really care about resolution.  Common sense dictates that you don't take yourself as the paragon of adequacy for the average user.

You are quite comfortably wrong my friend. It’s not opinion is a biological fact. The perfect human eye can only see in 0.02 degree increments. The distance between you and the object is the the radius and the arc at 0.02 degrees is the distance at which you can distinguish detail. Anything smaller than that arc you cannot see. 

2 hours ago, IPD said:

 

I'll give you phones.  But that's about the limit.  The problem with a hard and fast rule saying "so and so size display only needs to be 1080p" is that different content implies different viewing distances.  Cinema viewing is usually on the distance end of that, and office work is usually on the close end of it.  Phones are the sole exception, only because the pixel density remains high enough @1080p that it doesn't matter either way. 

 

P.S.

Did you simply fail spectacularly at trying to show me up in the Nuclear thread, and came here to pick fights?

I was in a nuclear thread where people didn’t know what they were talking about. Would appear you belong in the biology and maths lists too. 

[motomat86]

9 hours ago, IPD said:

random text 

im not really sure what that bloke is trying to convince of, but  "4k being pointless under 50in" is bonkers.  I have a 1440p 32" and a 4k 32" panel side by side for my office, and there is a big difference in the 4k for me.  but what do we know, 4k is pointless below 50in and the human eye can only see 24fps

[IPD]

23 hours ago, motomat86 said:

im not really sure what that bloke is trying to convince of, but  "4k being pointless under 50in" is bonkers.  I have a 1440p 32" and a 4k 32" panel side by side for my office, and there is a big difference in the 4k for me.  but what do we know, 4k is pointless below 50in and the human eye can only see 24fps

Practical experience matters little to those who insist that the books are the authoritative source.  Ironically, this is what caused a catastrophic amount of bloodshed in WWI; practical experience running counter to "book-smarts" was not adhered to by leadership.

[Imbadatnames]

On 2/22/2022 at 10:07 PM, motomat86 said:

im not really sure what that bloke is trying to convince of, but  "4k being pointless under 50in" is bonkers.  I have a 1440p 32" and a 4k 32" panel side by side for my office, and there is a big difference in the 4k for me.  but what do we know, 4k is pointless below 50in and the human eye can only see 24fps

How far are you away from it.

 

Again the angular resolution of the human eye is 0.02 degrees or 1 arcmin Anything smaller you cannot physically see. 20/20 vision is literally being able to see 1 Arcmin