And all that 4K is often "upscaled 4K", lol. And audience mostly is unaware. The thing is that 1080p itself is powerful enough if you use very high bitrates and 10-bit colors. Just because 4K use higher bitrates than 1080p in most streaming sites, people find a difference in quality even if the source had a 2K digital intermediate!

Still better than calling 1440p "2K"

The biggest scandal that wasn't mentioned: "4k" streaming video on Netflix and KZfaq has a bitrate so low, you may find the PQ superior on a 1080p blu-ray with half the pixels and a much higher bitrate.

This is a good idea for a LTT video. Play the same video or game on every resolution of display. From 480i to 8k. See where the real value and difference is. A nice trip down memory lane.

4:42 ya'll got me. Hats off to you, Mr. Editor.

2:27 Wow, thanks Riley! Ever since 4K came out, I've grumpily insisted on calling it 2160p to be consistent, at least with monitors.

Information like PPI is actually not that hard to find. Sites like GSMarena have mentioned it for almost all the phones. Not sure about TVs and monitors tho but I think it is often mentioned in their detailed specs too, but not on those marketing slides

I've been backstabbed, played and quite possibly, bamboozled.

4:42 this scared the crap out of me, I thought I was being hacked

CRTs did have a horizontal resolution, it relates to how fast they could strobe the electron gun as each horizontal line was scanned onto the phosphors. The cool thing was whilst CRTs have a maximum resolution, any resolution below that is also a “native” resolution with no scaling needed, it just scans fewer lines onto the screen with wider pixels.

I cannot stand it when monitor companies refer to 2560x1440 resolution as "2K". Absolutely terrible.

I always assumed "4K" was referring to it being "4x" the resolution of a "1K"(1080p) display. I think i remember hearing it on LTT years ago. Either way, 4k seems stupid, and we should have been calling 4K by the name 2160p all along.

It is so nice when in the middle of the night someone tries to change your resolution... thank you for that, I had enough sleep for this week no need for more.

I remember the first time I noticed that manufacturers switched from measuring the short side to the long side (for example 1080p vs 4k) and then fell down the rabbit hole of all the stupid ways they measure display quality. God I wish ppi was the standard

This is the most informative TQ video I have watched so far. So much information in less than 5 minutes that is also very easy to understand. Great job!

I'd say it actually makes more sense to measure resolution rather than PPI. The bigger the screen is the further away we sit, usually. So the number that really matters, Pixels Per Degree (of visual angle, basically the resolution as it enters your eyeballs), still depends mostly on the resolution as we usually measure it, the total number of pixels.

The only coherent naming scheme for resolutions is the number of H and V pixels such as 1920*1080

I was already mad about the fact that "2K" has been used to refer to 2560 pixels wide, but now you just made me mad about 4K as well. Thanks.

They played us like a damn fiddle!!!

From day 1 it was a marketing scam, since they always counted lines (480, 576, 720, 1080) and instead of counting the 2160 lines, they decided to switch and call it 4K. Years later, when I asked a Samsung exec about it, he said they called it 4K because it was 4 times the resolution. That's before you go into color spaces, bandwidth, compression, etc. Resolution is just one factor (just like megapixels in cameras was just one thing and became marketing BS)

I always figured 4K was called 4K because (I also always thought) it was exactly 4x 1920x1080 full HD display (twice the horizontal and twice the vertical pixels) Which I also always thought was deliberate to help make 1080P content scale well and look native on a 4K display.

Originally, the wider 2.35 and 2.39 aspect ratio movies had more detail than the "flat" 1.85:1 ones. It was the 1.85 ratio that croipped the top and bottom off the 1.37 ratio image on the film to achieve widescreen, wasting about 37.5 percent of the image area on the film. The 2.35 and 2.39 ratios were originally shot with an anamorphic lens that squeezed the image horizontally by a half, using all the film image area, wasting none of it. In the theatre, this image was unsqueezed giving the extra wide 2.35 or 2.39 image. That image had a good bit more vertical resolution than the 1.85 flat movies but the same horizontal resolution. When the Super35 method came along for 35mm film, they used the soundtrack area for image as well and got a somewhat wider resolution but cropped out a 2.39 shape out of the 4 by 3 image area, significantly wasting a lot of vertical resolution on the film. This was printed on theatrical film prints "scope style" squeezed. It seems the digital equivalent of scope is more like the old style for lat movies - just crop the top and bottom. I wonder if any digital movies are shot anamorphic to get more resolution. Anyway, the 2.39 ratio came about from 2.35 in 1970 to help keep lab splices out of the image area to give slightly more wiggle room between film frames. Relevant ANSI standards: ANSI/SMPTE 195-1993, ANSI/SMPTE 59-1991. They slightly reduced the aperture dimensions over the years. ANSI/SMPTE 201M-1996 (for Super35)

This will prove a very useful video for my GCSE and A-Level students (UK qualifications at 16 and 18 respectively), as students often get confused between "Dimensions" and "Resolution". Computer Science defines dimensions as the pixel size of the image (Horiz x Vertical) and resolution as "perceived quality", ie pixels/inch or pixels/mm. So, guessing this will need to be embedded into a PPT with captions :) There are lots of examples of colloquial use of language that has to be decoded from real-life to exam/classroom-precision.

And I used to believe that 4K meant 4 times 1080p 🙂

It’s always made me smile that resolution used to be the vertical (625 lines, 720p, 1080p) and then suddenly it was all about the horizontal number (2k, 4K etc). What a swizz. Technically you could have a really small screen vertically but massive width and (let’s say for fun) be 70k but only have 400p high so be a potato as far as image detail is concerned but sound *amazing* in the paperwork.

I was so sure that the p stood for pixels, I’ve been lied to my whole life

4:47 an issue i encountered, for the short time i was stuck using a 16:10 Display and not knowing how to shorten its resolution (1440X900) Which just made me wonder why 16:9 became the standard in the first place.

Very interesting insights which I did not know before. Thank you.

Techquickie counting in binary: 4K Isn't Really 4K

Yep and people always argue with me when I try to share this info with them. Samething with most drone "4k" cameras.

Thankyou for still using a 16x9 ratio for your video resolution. It's soo much easier to watch a properly shaped video like this one on Techquicky than the main LTT channel's videos with the hard to look at ratio with letterboxes. I'd honestly prefer to watch something in 4x3 than whatever the ratio is that the main channel is using. And in my opinion, 4x3 is kind of under rated. It's great for productivity, and videos don't feel like they had their tops chopped off. 16x9 has been a happy medium that works great, but I'd say that 4x3 is the other great aspect ratio for digital displays. I wonder if you have a video on the various screen aspect ratios and why some are more popular than others. I have a feeling the (in my opinion) harsh aspect ration on the main LTT channel is popular on YT now because it fits in peoples pockets more easily then a 16x9 or a 4x3 aspect ratio. But I could be wrong on that, I still have a flip phone after all.

4:02 the game Is called Journey to Silius on Nes

I'd be interested to know the ppi and average view distance of a cinema experience. I get the sense that it's quite less than an average 4K at home experience.

that p stands for progressive and not pixel is what really blew my minds

Like the information and love that it's not a youtube short.

Thank you! I'm glad someone has finally made a decent video on this so can just refer to it next time instead of having to argue or try and explain it to people.

yeah, I have in my room 2x FHD displays(1080p), one 13" and one 50"... the difference is how far you have to be for it to look sharp.

4k caught in 4k!?

0:02 I know that very long time and I often complain about how the TV and monitor, and many other product's marketing, miss leading the consumer.

And it also seems like PPI is a hold over from when inches were still used (and still are). I wonder when displays will start being measured in standard units.

PPI and Refresh Rate is the best way to know dud screens when you see one

0:19 Actually, yes. Nothing's stopping you from feeding a 3840x480i super resolution picture into your regular old CRT ;)

You got me with that resolution change in the video haha

As a mobile/web/game dev there's another form that's called dpi. We use dpi formulas to calculate vertical and horizontal pixels from display to display and often have to make several layouts of the same page/ui for extreme differences in dpi depending on how compatible with older devices

Next, talk about how contrast ratios are essentially meaningless outside of the tightly controlled and unique ecosystems of the individual manufacturer. As a former display manufacturer, all the absurd contrast ratio claims since the beginning of the FPD wars would drive me bananas.

I've always called 16:9 2160p as UHD and 4K really starts at DCI 4K.

If 4K is [3840] x 2160 then Full HD [1920] x 1080 is 2K Normally, "4K" should be 2K, since Full HD is "1080p"... they reffer from the vertical resolution... on 4K they dont reffer "4K" as vertical, but horizontal...

This only briefly touched on it, but most of the cameras used to record movies (and tv, and streaming content) actually don't record exactly 3840x2160 anyway. 2880 and 4448 are both common widths used by variations of the Arri Alexa cameras, which are generally the preferred choice at the moment for high end cinematography. Scaling up from 2880 to 3840 is a small enough factor that you will never, ever see the difference on your TV. Even on a 4k bluray, you're limited by a certain amount of bandwidth, which means the video is compressed down to fit. You never see as much detail as the original camera files. So by upscaling a lower resolution, but much higher bandwidth file to a higher resolution, lower bandwidth file, you're effectively still showing as much visual detail as if it had been shot natively at the higher resolution and then compressed down.

I'd like a standardized ppd measurement, pixels per degree (of viewing angle), at the intended distance between the eyes and the display. This is basically the only way to have an apples to apples comparison, even when you're comparing different kinds of devices.

Having grown up as a PC gamer, I miss the good old days when people just used the full resolution instead of this 4K nonsense.

Sony's 21:9 screens are incredible in portrait mode on social media, especially on places like twitter where you can fit a lot on the screen while scrolling. It's pretty rare but every now and then you come across a ~21:9 video and it looks amazing.. just be sure to move your thumbs out of the way as it's really edge to edge. for those curious, a couple examples of the extra wide videos Saltatio Mortis - My mother told me Killswitch Engage - The Signal Fire My previous phone also had a 4K screen (3840x2160) screen, amazing phone.. I still use it as a little tablet around the house - but despite it's incredible resolution, a bit higher than my current phone it wasn't able to display as much on screen (eg Twitter) largely due to the 16:9.. quite amazing how bumping it up to 21:9 does so much! - I wonder where the trend will go for screens in the mobile space? - though that said, I still intend to keep my current phone for at least another 3 years!

PPI and dot pitch were specs you would see advertised for the original CRT displayers. I guess everything comes back around some time.

The next techquicky: "linus isn't really linus"

I shit my pants when the mouse starts to go and trys to change the resolution.. 🤣

Would be rad to see y’all do a video about thermal optics and/or night vision

The content doesn't change in quality. It's just at what aspect ratio you're watching at the end of the day. Also keeping the size of the screen in mind hence the pixel per inch blurb in the end.

I have an old pocket camera from 2009 that takes pictures in 4k but since it was before 4k was really a standard its 4000 x 3000 pixels... Such a weird resolution... Basically exactly 12 megapixels.

You need a 10 bit panel A 4K player And Lucy in 4K on disc. That’s the closest you’ll ever get.

Oh😌, you’re so good at what you do, I loved every bit of this video, you talk so fast and it’s cute 🥰

Was that Journey to Silius on that CRT.... love that game!

We all love you Riley ❤ Always make my day!!

4:26 "to save bandwidth" isn't really correct, it would have taken slightly less bandwidth to broadcast a progressive 30fps signal than an interlaced one. A correct explanation would be "to prevent apparent flicker". Interlacing was used to prevent apparent flicker that would be caused by progressively presenting an image at 30hz on a CRT because the display would go completely black between frames. This problem could have been solved by broadcasting at a higher refresh rate instead, but that would obviously take more bandwidth. Film projectors faced a similar issue where the shutter that hides the advancement of the film 24 times per second would cause a very noticeable flicker, they got around this by shuttering the image more often than actually necessary which resulted in a higher flicker rate that wasn't as noticeable.

Can Techquickie do a piece about why youtube advertises UHD when you purchase a movie but it's only available at 480p or lower?

I have a cheap Samsung Smart tv, model TU700043. I use my PC as a media PC with this TV in my small apartment, and I have the resolution set to 4096X2160. When I play games, they fill the whole screen when I set the resolution to the 4096 option. When I watch things on the PC using the Netflix app or a browser, it has bars on the left and right, so is presumably 3840. The native Netflix app installed on the TV itself changes based on content. Movies typically fill the whole screen, while TV shows take on the 3840 aspect and have bars on the sides.

That's the prank: (3840x2160) / (1920x1080) = 4 times bigger, but... 1920x2 = 3840 horizontal resolution, just 2 times bigger 1080x2 = 2160 vertical resolution, just 2 times bigger 1024x4 = 4096 = The Real 4K Resolution (horizontal) 1024x2 = 2048 = The Real 4K Resolution (vertical) @ 2:1 screen panel

My 4K LG C1 is 4096 x 2160. You can see the difference between 3840 and 4096. Then all those "4K Blu-Rays" aren't 4K, they're usually 1440p then upscaled to 4K (The actual camera that filmed the movie wasn't 4K).. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE it still looks much better than 1080p BluRays.

Digital Over-The-Air ATSC TV broadcasts still (sometimes) use Interlacing to reduce bandwidth and allow for multiple sub-channels while maintaining 1080 vertical lines of resolution. A lot of sports are broadcast in 1080i, which is usually just fine for things like American Football where resolution matters a lot more than refresh rate. ATSC is based around the mpeg2 compression format (the same crappy compression found in DVDs) so a lot more bandwidth is needed for HD formats than what might be required with h264 or h265 -- hence the need for interlacing.

That squig of the Progressive Lady made me LOL.

Between USB and HD classes and subclasses I am convinced we shouldn't be allowed to make up terms to market devices. People should just have to learn what the differences are.

Also 4K 16:9 does exist and is used on the 4K iMacs :) Edit: I forgot 4K UHD is also 16:9, lol. The 4K iMacs use a slightly higher resolution than 4K UHD.

What grind my gears is when I watch movies on my PC with my one small monitor and get those black cinematic bars I always think "oh ok It can be streched out" and put down on my 32:9 5120x1440 monitor. but most of the time it just becomes this tiny window with black bars everywhere.

Thanks for the explanation of vertical naming for resolution, I was wondering about that. It seems like though 4k is normally named 4k, not 2160p, at least from what I remember hearing. So, why do most people not use the same naming convention with 4k screens?

I always thought 4k was called that because 1080p was roughly 1000 pixels top to bottom, therefore called 1k, and then 2k has roughly double the total pixels on the display, and 4k the quadruple amount of pixels of a 1080p display

Thank you so much for finally pointing this out. Everyone seems to be doing this mistake, even tech youtubers, even you made this mistake. Every time someone refers to a UHD display as 4k it hurts me.

Dang. I need to pay more attention to the small details Thanks for making such an informative video! I didn't even realize cinemascope had that kinda resolution. I low-key feel cheated Lol! Also, what's the name of the background song? I have a friend who would LOVE to jam out to that!

As for formats. In the old days 2:35:1 were a thing. then it changed to 2:40:1, then it changed to 2:39:1.

I *HATE* it when people call ''4k''... 4k... Just call it UHD or atleast 2160p!

Although PPI could indicate quality, they are nothing without viewing distance, as a 218 PPI monitor can be overkill while a 218 PPI phone are mediocre by today’s standards.

04:27 it was not to save bandwith, but to reduce flickering 😉

Also chroma subsampling can change the "resolution". Depending on the content, Full HD with 4:4:4 will look the exact same as UHD with 4:2:0 subsampling scheme.

I already think "ordinary" 16:9 is narrow (in vertical direction), let alone ultra wide and cinema aspect ratios. That's why I have a 16:10 monitor as a main

5:19 - you should probably use an accurate image showing PPI... It quadruples the number of pixels in the pictures, but not the text. I'm pretty sure PPI is defined in a square, not a single line?

Reminds me of Full-screen vs Wide-screen VHS and DVDs.

PPI is just an updated terminology of the very old term from scanners and printers of DPI, or "dots per inch."

Riley is just the best. Thanks for existing, Riley.

Like people saying 2K, without knowing that it's still 1080p, and not 1440p, while 4K is still 2160p Stop saying 2K pls, its a completely different resolution 😂

"My TV is 4ker than yours, damn right, 4ker than yours, I could teach you but I'd have to charge" 🤣🤣🤣🤣

I just love the new animation when you click like on a video... just for that, I'm liking every video since

the most accurate way to describe the amount of pixels is literally the old but reliable MegaPixels from cameras.

delete the imperial measurement system

I wonder if lmg times similar videos to release at the same time, like the ltt projector video and this 4k tech quickie

That "quatilty change" effect got me ngl :)

well, then I could have a 500 PPI 16:9 screen but it doesn't tell anything about it since it could be a 1 inch display as well as an 85 inch. Would be useful to know the vertical resolution and the aspect ratio (for example 2160p 16:9), and then together with the diagonal dimension you could tell PPIs

The most logical solution to me is calling 4K, 2K etc... The 16:9 resolutions we already call like that but in general therms you should call resolutions like 1080p 4:3 for example, or 1710p 21:9

The term 4k is a useless marketing term that could be anything. Its like USB naming, wanna break a useful and functional standard naming layout to be something stupid just because they wanna be "special" for no good/logical reason.

Wouldn't mind seeing some clasic TV shows remastered from 4:3 PanScan in their original 16:9 full frame format, like Hercules or Lois and Clark etc.

The thing that annoys me is when people call 1440p "2k"

Getting so much wrong. Yes, there is a real standard. 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂

4:40 was so trippy for me watching fullscreen on a PC

Good old print is 300 DPI or PPI, which most monitors still haven't caught up to , also after about 350 PPI the human eye cannot discern differences in resolution, so it doesn't make sense to go higher.