KnowingBetter more videos please

+Ricardo Garcia More coming this weekend, apologies for the delay!

I would say Bram Stoker's Dracula was my first Blu Ray viewing, it looked far superior to any DVD version and I thought the DVD looked good. This 4K Blu Ray thing is a cash grab and nobody that I have talked too about it gives a flying fuck about 4K UHD, they are the next CEDs or Betas. They won't sell very well and will die out, that's what I predict......not enough interest in them so far. If they do get embraced I'll be very surprised.

What did you think of the picture quality when you first saw it?

My first memorable bluray has gotta be Dark Souls on the PS3.

2100 pixels are almost non existent

You guys are still using pixels?

@@archungus Wait until they come out with GrapheneTVs or for short GTVs.

Aww man, I'm just from 2077.

LOL

Me too. Feels bad man.

its there

Tested it it was barely visible

360p NO dot, i even checked with a 60 x magnifier!! Went to 1080p, the dots there!!

it was there you just didnt see it

This is the same reason pro cameras often shoot in 15 megapixel or higher (some as high as 50 megapixel). Besides allowing you to produce huge wall-size posters that stand up to detailed close examination, it gives you tons of room to crop in post, and to do edits like object removal more cleanly.

@@chiaracoetzee The benefits in the editing room are nice but the biggest benefit comes when printing on 70mm film, which can have a horizontal resolution equivalent of up to 12k (estimated; depending on pulldown direction, perforations per frame, stock quality, etc)

@@chiaracoetzee same reason pro audio is 30+ bit at up to 196kHz, even though you cant hear better than the standard 16bit 48k used for distribution. It gives us headrooom for processing and avoiding aliasing

Makes sense. The more detail you provide for yourself in the raw materials, the more nuanced editing you can achieve.

Absolutely QHD/2k/1440p is the perfect resolution. Shame Sony haven’t added it to the ps5.

1440 suck honestly, as its own standalone resolution its great, it just doesnt scale well at all with 1080, thats the nice thing about 4k. It scales perfectly with 1080p and similar resolutions.

@@killingtimeitself yessir

My old Galaxy phone was 1440, and it was amazing device to use.

@@SynthiaVan and thats at the size of a phone screen, where pixels per inch are substantially higher than normal.

The best life advice justin bieber has ever given me

Lol

never use the word never

no joke, i would like to hear some of those stories and "predictions" you made.

@@SpahGaming ?

Yes, it’s crazy

Yeah, 5-10 years lol

@@brenthawkings4761 for real, some phones have 4k screens now (sony xperia 1 mark ii)

@@Mundaayn why though? Okay I highly disagree with this one lol 4K on a screen as small as your phone.

@@MK-bi1hj true, i just wanted to show the tech advancements, but personally I think even QHD is overkill for a phone

8k is useless

​@@javiersaenz1040new resolutions are always useless until one day they're not

Also, Nvidia would like a word

16k is already a thing lmao

@@clownemoji2153 yeah, but there's pretty much no good way to play it.

canon eos r5: allow me to overheat myself

@@MK-bi1hj a 3090 could upscale to 16k pretty effectively, and if you've got 16k tv money, you've got 2x 3090 money too!

Exactly. It is arguing apples and oranges.

exactly, now 4k on a phone or laptop that's just stupid

@@Ik0As 1440p looks amazing on my phone, so I think 4K would look amazing on a laptop.

Now pixel density actually matters

You want a 24" monitor? Yeah 4k is not necessary. But on a 55" TV? Then it makes a difference.

Shut

@@tomlxyzshut

yeah, the information is 16ms old rather than 33ms old when its displayed. Theres a lot wrong with this vid. He mentions the fovea and its concentrated resolution and never deals with the fact the fovea moves across every point of the screen so avg resolution is meaningless. Every part of the screen has to be as detailed as the fovea.

Ya I always see in 240hz

Factual

lies! has it been that long?

damn, Bill Nye got held back

it's sad really .... so many people gonna call that movie a classic... when really it (and the whole series ) was just visual garbage that borrowed form every thing with nothing really original in it.

Denver Starkey it’s a classic

@@saucyx4 and there in lays the problem with the younger generation. calling that movie (the matrix) a classic is just shameful. the concept is ripped right form terminator , and the action sequences are ripped right from the stills of anime. the character development is really non exsistant for any character outside of neo himself. and his development is a little thin and litterally happens entirely in the first movie. looks i'm not saying it's a bad movie. It was an enjoyable movie. but it lacked originality and depth. it just doesn't deserve to be veiwed in the same vein as movies like E.T. or terminator or jaws.

It’s fascinating how differently perception works for different people! I hate the Soap Opera Effect, I can stand projectors with colour wheels, and I can’t bear looking at backlit LCD screens without protective glasses for the blue light!

Not coke, but they typically have an adderall or some other amphetamine with them to pop if they need to on a long mission Also the Nazi armed forces, not known for doing things lightly, were rather liberal users of methamphetamine

@@brynclarke1746 woosh

Want a random fun fact about a Vietnam War Jet Fighter?

@@Tigershark_3082 yes

@@ianthompson2802 The Fairchild Republic F-105 Thunderchief, despite it's fairly not good-looking combat record (more than 300 of the 800 built were destroyed in crashes), they managed to pull a combined total of 27.5 kills against enemy Mig-17s. 3 were from the use of AIM-9 Sidewinders, and 24.5 were from the use of its internal M61 Vulcan 20mm rotary cannon (the .5 came from a shared mig kill between both an F-105, and fellow F-4E Phantom II).

@Gaming time lol, he was joking.

@Gaming time wtf are you talking about

@Gaming time Go back to Arabic KZfaq then.

@Gaming time Arabic KZfaq? Oh, you mean Goatshit. Jk

Drake Kocjik is that fucking you

well 8k already existed when he released the video, i think what he actually meant that 8k is stupid.

I somehow doubt that’ll be what 2020 is remembered for...

more massive adoption without the forced gotta buy it now of manufacturers will never happen. Why did nobody actually pay attention to the video.

8k is probably only gonna be in theaters.

You need a 100 inch tv to notice 8k. 16k you need a stadium jumbotron.

* barely.

Maybe if you don't look at 4k commonly. There is a noticeable difference.

* barely. Text? Sure. Basically, applications when you're sitting right in front of the monitor. I am sitting in front of a 4K monitor as I type. Have to turn my head to see the other side of it. It's more like having two 1080P screens side by side with no gap.

It would get more important the bigger screens get. There is a reason 480p looks clear on a small monitor. There will probably be a point where 1080p on big monitors will start to look unclear. Think about the future.

Only on a big screen. And that's only because the 1080p won't look as good at such a big size.

You tell e'm mate

It's funny, I wrote this guy off after this terrible video all those years ago but then he started doing history content and it was actually good.

And our smartphones now have an option to film in 8k resolution... Our dashcam footage at 1080 vs 4k would like to have a say in this matter.

@@ryno4ever433who are you again?

4k is not the norm outside of gaming.

Lol same.

Was it as stupid as you imagined it would be? This guys a dumbass.

I was looking at your comment but it was 1080 60 megahertz 5K and which I could not be read due to the resolution in pixels that are deviated from the 6000 BTUs that I'm used to

Genious

Sosa Kun , why do so many people make this comment on KZfaq ? Is it a special club you are in ? Anyways the more you click on suggestions the worse it will get .

The benefit from 4k is panel size and viewing distance. The increased pixel density (a function of resolution and display size) allows you to not see (if displaying proper 4k content) the pixels from a closer distance. 1080p works fine at certain distances proportional to the display size of the tv/monitor, if you are closer to it, or have a larger display, an increase in resolution is beneficial (example, I have a 32 inch 1440p monitor, I can see the individual pixels within about 1 foot of the monitor and further than that I cannot, my monitor is typically at least 2.5-4 feet away and at that distance, a 1080p monitor should also suffice). Also, there is cognitive bias present there and to really tell if you can see a difference, you would have to do a blind test on a mostly unfamiliar setup. One thing he didn't get right was that 4k would become better as TVs got made much larger than before, just missing on how the trend of the marketing was going at the time.

No they can't, at normal viewing distances and if all else is equal.

After a certain point, it's diminishing returns.

Its awesome how you just pass all the explanation to make a shity coment

@@omitorrent7492 , I did watch the video. I was just commenting on one thing he said. Calm tf down.

@@omitorrent7492 are they supposed to make a sentence for every single thing he said

Ignoring Omni Torrent... ...Ideally you don't want to see the _dead_ pixels. Mild pixelisation is usually tolerable, but having visible dead pixels can really ruin the enjoyment of a screen.

little face missing a zero

Adrian 0144p

Nah 072i

@@seamusmckeon9109 1i

Ima 360p guy 480p is too good

You don't need a smartphone because a flip phone can call and text and you already own a tablet so why not use that for everything else?

@@rileyesmay Tablet doesn't fit in Pocket

@@ahang6904 iPod touch then

@@nate2604 you cant do hard gaming on Ipod touch

@@nate2604 that's just a fucking old iphone with no sim so u can't really even call with it

VR is an even bigger fad than 4k monitors. I don't even know anyone who actually games in VR. And I'm saying that as someone who used to develop VR games. The company that I used to work for was one of the early adopters; we received Oculus Rift prototypes before VR gaming was a thing. It was cool but I immediately realized how much of a fad this was. People these days play games where you can prove your expertise and skills. Games that tend to be extremely competitive are the ones that are the most interesting to watch and play. Shooters and MOBA's are very good examples of this phenomenon. VR gaming is basically a "prosthetics" simulator. You play in a virtual environment and the only way to interact with it is by means of prosthetic limbs. It's awkward at best. Sorry for rambling, I just had to get that off my chest. Have a nice day.

Simulation will switch to VR once the quality is there.

AntonioKowatsch yes its years decades away from a feasable good experience right now its a noveltg and amazing for porn

you seem to forget that gaming is a hobby as well as a sport, old people will tell you of when they thought rock and roll was just a fad....

AntonioKowatsch VRChat has like 3 million downloads

@unrepeatable raddish Which is all relative to the size of your home, buddy.

Displaying 4k on a 480i CRT can cause some major headaches.

@unrepeatable raddish8k currently is pointless unless you have one of those really really huge TV's (so not talking 55" here)... but if those TV's get the norm then 8K will be great.

The decent enough difference is mainly on 4K-specific marketing made super color videos. Once it becomes part of home with regular input devices (streaming, BRay, etc.) it becomes a very expensive object side-by-side with a good-old 1080p. The big differences I can sense is contrast and light, typical for a new TV device. They do get brighter, sharper and with higher contrast. But that is not 4K specific. Regular consumer should not spend the savings.

@unrepeatable raddish and viewing distance

cries in poor

only a third of currently bought tvs are 4k, you lads are daft

Non 4k TVs aren't being produced anymore or shown in most of the big competitors stores anymore. At least not in my area

@@recoveryemail1046 they put 4k tvs on sale all the time now to entice folks into switching. i bought my 4k samsung back in 2018 for only 420 bucks. at the time it was the highest rated 4k tv in it's class for image quality (49"). smart TV too with tons of features built in , even upscales images to be 4k (albeit upscales on dvd quality stuff doesn't look good ). blue rays and 1080p content upscales beautifully on this tv.

4K is the way now and there is a visible quality difference. I shoot in 4K, 422, 10-Bit, 400Mbps, ALL-iNTRA on my GH5s, and use to shoot 1080p 100Mbps 8-bit on my GH2 camera. The difference is vast especially in colour depth. HD is still very good but I shoot in 4K and 4K is really picking up. 8K is here also but here I must say I don't see the difference with a normal size TV. I would consider 8K for video cropping when editing projects.

yep just found this video in my recommended and its downright silly inaccurate at times.

@@XiahouJoe His predictions were inaccurate(because he underestimated the power of advertising and the gullibility of the average consumer), but what else do you think was inaccurate? P.S. it should be noted that a lot of the information here can also be found in several Vsauce vids as well.

@@InsomniacPostman I should note that you tube keeps deleting my comments citing links showing hes wrong and people can see the difference of 4k vs HD example though search term "Can people see the difference between 4k and HD" first article

@@XiahouJoe I've had a 4K monitor for the last 7 years and, other than a reduction in motion blur, not a single 4K video or game has looked any different from a 2k one. Not to mention that most "4K" films are actually 2K upscaled to 4K so all you're getting is a lot of unnecessary pixel doubling.

@@InsomniacPostman that's great your anecdotal means jack and squat to study comparisons.

Why TVs have it turned on by default is one of the great mysteries of our time. Turning it off seems to be the first thing everyone does when they get it home.

you're a moron

@@recoveryemail1046 lmao sure

Recovery Email it’s called a joke..

@@recoveryemail1046 you're a moron

@Morris Stokes sanitizers and wipes usually have alcohol or a similar chemical that kills chemically whether its a virus or bacteria, the way bleach would. so they also work for covid. different from stuff like antibiotics that target stuff only bacteria cells have

Lol, that's awesome. I upgraded my gaming equipment to record 4k for the same reason. Not because I think that 4k is better, but because sometimes I can make a better video for my youtube channel if I can crop the screen and not lose any quality. It lets me functionally zoom in to get angles that would otherwise be impossible.

Yeah and i always look for lesser quality so i dont get sick, even had to find a used tv to watch stuff idk what ill do when regular hd isn’t available anywhere. Trying to play games on a xbox one x is terrible unless I plug it in an old standard hd tv, i keep it set to 720 and do great, dont feel like i miss anything and thats with or without my glasses. 4k is just too “ fake looking”

rotoscoping on lowres and low shutter footage is an absolute bitch to work with. like we can add that "motion blur" from a matched shutter speed, Its just so much nicer to work with footage that was shot on a high like 1/144 shutter, MMMMMM clear crispness. I can dirty it up for the people who like that "wave you hand in front of your face blur" thing they're obsessives with

This.

Same thing with framerate. But the argument that the people watching this probably aren't the average consumer definintely does have merit in my opinion. When you start looking at people in their fourties (average age where I live. not sure about USA) their vision is often just not as good as someone in their twenties or even younger.

Unless you sit close you won't see the difference. Some 4k TV's have higher picture quality but that's not because of the resulution.

For me, its something i dont notice nearly as much until i go back. Like, i have a 1440 144hz monitor for my pc, and i can *not* go back to 1080/720 30fps on my ps4. I imagine if i upgraded to a 4k monitor, i would notice the difference, but not as much as i would notice going back to the old monoitor.

Sarcasm I agree. Though I also agree that the jump from DVD to Blu Ray was waaay more impressive than the jump from 1080P to 4k. We are beginning to see the law of diminishing returns coming into effect with resolution.

Yeah. Not really though. It's a thing in the same way motion control was when the Wii was out. Everyone seems to have it, but it's use is sparse in general.

@@MicroTechForms bruh

@@bruh-rt7sr Yeah, for now. It's projected to be a $12 billion portion of the gaming segment. That's PCs and consoles combined. And I can't tell you how many of these things I've seen collecting dust. We have 3 PC gamers in our house, only one of us has purchased a headset and none of us used it outside of it's novelty period. There's also a massive portion of that market who won't continue to buy in because of the various issues it has for a not insignificant percentage of people. This isn't going to be the way games are played in the future. This is going to be a way to play games, just like it is now.

And 90% of his audience watches it on a shitty 6 inch smartphone

@@Axyo0 exactly!

@@Axyo0 yeah, but hey, a lot of phones are now in 2k and have exceptional quality, as well as HDR support and high DPI

@@Axyo0 I feel attacked 😂😂😂

@@Axyo0 I watch his videos in 1440p usually. They look much better than almost everyone else's youtube videos

Probably THE single most intelligent rebuke to this jerk's video!!!

+

I guess he's never tried a VR headset where 1080p looks like utter crap because your eyes are so close to the screens.

this is my favorite comment. So true.

I think the overarching point is simple. At some point you're going to have more detail than your eye(s) can see no matter how close you stick your face to the screen.

most 4 million + youtubers film in 8k ;) cinema is often filmed with dual 8k arris or red cams.

What?

this video is about consumers, not producers.

"Filming in 4k" -> Producers.

Filming in 4k also increases temporal resolution in general, so a much cleaner image is the result. This is also true for gaming.

I have dual 4K 144 Hz monitors which is kind of best of both worlds, but those might not have existed a year ago - they're still quite pricy now. My girlfriend still prefers 1440p 240 Hz.

165hz moniter is pointless, though. Anything above 144hz you wouldn't notice a difference. I understand why you got a 165hz moniter it's actually easier to get than a 120hz to 144hz monitors because they are raising the standard. However I feel bad for people who brought a 240hz+ than downgrading to a 144hz because they know there is no difference alot of youtubers done that.

@@TheAazah yeah unless you are a professional tournament gamer and need every frame and millisecond for quick response times, its not worth spending all that extra money for 240hz. I personally don’t notice a difference from 144-165hz and there is only a handful of games i play that max out the monitor. The biggest thing I did notice was the crispness of going from 1080p to 1440p. The LG monitor I got just so happened to be 165hz but i dont think i will actively look for anything more than 144hz in the future. I think we are a few years too soon before 4k 144hz is common for the average gamer

@@TheAazah This is untrue. The limit for human perception is closer to 1000Hz, although that is usually for flashes of light, and not necessarily framerate. I can notice a difference all the way to 360Hz so far (there are no panels above 360Hz that are available right now), though the main benefit is reduction of motion blur. It's less "seeing more detail/information" and more moving objects reach the point of zero motion blur, and it's all up to you after that. I'd recommend watching OptimumTech's video on the XL2566K to see what I mean. For tracking heavy, fast movement games, it's a pretty stark difference. *Addendum: I mean panels that can properly handle high refresh. Only the XL2566K and PG27AQN (both of which I own) can handle 360Hz correctly, all of the first-gen panels cannot. There is a massive difference in "fast" 240Hz and "fast" 360Hz panels vs. their first-gen counterparts to be wary of.

144p. Get on my level.

@@joelharber2100 and I thought my Internet was slow!

Me2😂😂😂😂😂

Joel HARBER I’m watching in Minecraft. Beat that!

Joel HARBER my video won’t even load. Step your game up. I have no idea why we’re even talking about this btw...

actually lord of the rings was filmed using 8 k digitial cameras but the 8 k footate was deleted when they down scaled to just 4 K for archiving the raw footage , these guys woudl FILL hard disks per day with shooting footage , YES 8 K back in 2003 it was a thing

And how was that CGi? Did they bother to render it in 4K and re-edit the whole thing?

@@fisherdotogg The CGi scenes are about 720p in quality, way softer than the rest of the film.

And here I am watching Star Wars Episode 4 with an incredibly good 4K rescan quality, I'm amazed and this guy on youtube is just jealous of 4K tv owner and advocate his theme very well but come on, get an oled 4K tv and see if you can't see the difference brah

Wait what the heck is 35 mm and how does it have a maximum detail of 8k?

he should take it down. it's actually just so wrong about almost everything

@@gravyboat1629 I really hope he doesn't, it's the gift that keeps on giving.

@@jwtingle nah but there’s morons viewing this and actually taking it as fact.

This is one of the best answers in the comment thread.

@@antanaskiselis7919 I have to agree. @lampros Liontos well put! He has some merit in the video, in areas, but its a broad subject matter with a number of applications. What makes me sad is the number of people who nuh-uh and personally attack people for their statements. Considering the majority probably have no knowledge on the subject and are great examples of a Dunning-Kruger. We need to take a note from Lampros and educate and discuss rather than assault. It solves nothing and betters no one.

Another point is being an artist. 4K is amazing for artists, as we can better produce larger scale and more detailed works. And higher definitions allows for larger monitors, (Frankly, buying a 4K TV as a computer monitor has no real downsides, and is more functional) since it allows for more references on screen, more tools, and other useful things an artist would either have to sacrifice image space for, or constantly have to dig out any time they needed it

Also speaking as a person who did some pro gaming as a teenager (Try not to judge me too much) We all turn off motion blur because of the chance it could obscure an important detail. In games like Rainbow Six, seeing the muzzle of a gun around a corner from 15 meters away can be the difference between winning and losing that round. If you have any blurring effects such as depth of field or motion blur, it will decrease the odds you notice.

Phenian Oliver smart kid, agree with you about the motion blur that obscures details and can effect gameplay because it makes it harder to spot something noticeable, great comments and don’t worry only morons stuck in the ‘olden days’ judge gamers even though it’s more wildly accepted now by adults

Or how increasingly higher resolutions in video games increase the rendering resolution and shows more detail in game and let's you see farther, but keep in mind, this video was a year ago.

@@marvinmallette6795 his main point is that u can’t see 4K, which isn’t true (just as most his videos)

Or you just have normal eyesight

Don't be a twat unless you kow what you're talking about. Craig G is 100% correct.

...at what pixel size and distance, though? The difference on a nineteen-inch display at ten feet would probably be indiscernible. The difference on a nineteen-foot display at ten inches probably would be.

Keith, anyone sitting ten foot from a 19" display is either conducting obscure research or a weird experiment. More likely explanation, they're stupid. Anyone viewing images on 19 foot display from 10 inches - see above. More likely explanation, they're very stupid.

I can tell the difference

I had a teacher who drove 4.5 hours in a blizzard to see a one night only showing of Lawrence of Arabia in full 70mm. His take was that even though you can get access to that now easily, it was worth it to see it before his eyesight went bad 😂😂😂

It’s worth mentioning the image size of 70mm movie film is roughly the same as 35mm stills film, because of the direction change. That’s also where 4:3 came from, as stills were 3:2 but if you split them in two and rotate them you get 4:3. And also that film grain was larger when 70mm motion pictures were more popular, a more recent 35mm motion picture has about as much resolution as a 70mm film from the heyday of 70mm. Of course all 35mm film from before that is much grainier, and indeed tops out between 4 and 8k instead of 16k.

With a couple of hundred thousands subscribers and millions of views, he’s probably laughing at you idiots who think you’re the smart ones...

@@walterg74 Why's that? You think you can go full time just on that? LOL

@@walterg74 you know, being famous doesn't allways mean that you are right

@@walterg74 Walt If your perspective is that people must be correct based on subs and views, you most likely won't live into old age when you trust that life hack video that tells you to plastic wrap your food before you cook it... Do yourself a favor and think for yourself. This guy might have a credible channel but this video is absolute bull.

Toxic ^^

to take the picture of a jupiter you have to be outside the city to be away from all that light pollution is it not?

Phone camera manufacturer lying is not a t need thing

Would be interesting to see a screen with eye tracking used to bring into full focus only where you are looking and save bandwidth with the rest of the screen.

Certain VR headsets are implementing this to have higher detail and lower processing requirements.

A family with three kinds, and guess, guests for the weekend...

Adam Savage I think some games are doing that to boost performance, but I haven't heard of TVs doing that. Again, TVs don't know where you are looking, and even in cases where a TV show or game is intentionally doing some blurring, the TV itself is still gonna have the same resolution everywhere. That said - you are likely correct as far as games go. If a game can blur part of the image where they don't expect (or don't want) players to look, they can reduce a bunch of detail in the blurred areas, which would improve the performance of the game.

Adam Savage Well yeah what you describe with the textures is part of what's done as well. There's actually a lot of tricks behind the scenes of any game. As far as variable frame rate, there's FreeSync (AMD), G-Sync (nVidia), and HDMI 2.1 (hopefully everybody, but adoption is slow).

Its a marketing gimmick, so no it truly will never happen just like 4k. Even if it did we as human beings wouldn't be able to detect it again just like 4k.

@@Openreality you really believe this moron in the video? there is so many dislike for a reason, you dont need to believe everything you see on the internet you stupid moron if you see a 1080p and a 4k display side by side you will be so surprised, and if you put a 4k and 8k screen side by side you will still be able to see the difference.

@@Openreality of course it will we will need it for vr. They are already making vr with 4k screen because otherwise you see pixels. They would even need more as 2x 8k screens would not even be enough.

Digio Yep the screen door effect

@@callmeosa9084 Just because you and so many others are butthurt doesn't make it less true...

Yeah 35mm holds the close to the same amount of data as 4K. That was true even when this video was made.

Yea and analogue films from the 1950s etc. were in extremely high resolution. Video reformats from the 90s - even early 2000s - generally couldn’t even do them remotely fair justice. That’s only changed very recently.

pretty much everything in this vid is wrong watch some other videos if u wanna know more about 4k

king Dione why would you get a 4k monitor. Dont you know that operating systems and vdeo games’s retina can’t see ina resolution that high? And if you play the game in a high resolution, the game itself would get dizzy!

@@AbdallahTeach what the hell are you saying

@@shanithan9573 Woosh

@@volen6031 welp. Im a dumbass

Johannes Snutt I remember reading a tech article stating they can make 8 and 16k now, but it's pointless due to cost, and nothing to watch on them anyway

I think you have to factor in DV/HDR, how close you are sitting to your set, and whether or not the source is true 4K to make a claim of "huge difference". Not to mention the quality of the set itself.

The term "4k" is ridiculous, it makes people think it's 4x the scanlines of 1080p when in reality they started counting *columns* instead of *rows.* But that said there is an obvious, noticable increase in quality when watching 2160p over 1080. This guy just doesn't care about quality. It's no surprise his video is poorly lit and looks bad.

I have a 75" 4k tv and at the distance of 10 or so feet I sit at I can still see a difference but a bit closer up and it's freaking night and day. It also must also depend on ones own eyes.

Im the same way as Hells Cat. Family just got a 70" Samsung 4K/HDR. For the size room we have, and that size of a TV, it makes 1080p look like shit! However the bigger difference maker on that TV for what I use if for which is my Xbox One X, is HDR. All that said, I would still rather keep my Xbox One X hooked up to my 22" 1080p Monitor, and pray that the game devs allowed me to use that extra processing power to run a game at 1080p 60fps. I can also see a big difference in games running on my Xbox One X compared to my One S, both connected to my 1080p Monitor due to the way that games were made with dynamic resolutions, and are now all downscaled from 4K instead of upscaled from 900p.

Yeah this video didnt age as well as he would have hoped.

@SysPowerTools I guess he should have Known Better.

14:55 He literally says 4k will happen, but not because it makes sense.

4K is just doubled up 1080p. So you can still watch 1080p and the pixel count works 100% without sharpness loss 😉

He didn't say you couldn't buy one dipshit. Only that you would be wasting your money.

@Thebrightestbrick88 you wanna a cookie?

@Thebrightestbrick88 Uhh.... Yes you can. Ever heard of downloadmoreram.com?

The brightest brick guy deleted his comment lol i can’t see it

Yea so funny man, are u 8 yrs old?

lol

Me watching this in a second screen while I play fishing on my Quest 2

hahaha

you can even watch this video on a vr headset

As a simracer, VR definitely is a thing.

No you can't. Not if all else is equal.

@@dizzywow L

@@dizzywow Basically everyone can. The difference between 1080p and 4K is huge unless you're 15 feet or more away or the screen is really small. I'm using 1440p on my TV because it's a good middle ground, and it makes it possible to use 120hz, which is a game changer while gaming, and since it's a multiple of 24, 30 and 60 (the most common framerates). But your eyes can see much more than 4K. It's just that at some point (probably 8K to be honest), it's to small of a difference to matter unless you need to be too close to the screen to be confortable.

No. We don't. It has it's merits in giving off an optical illusion to making us FEEL like were REALLY seeing an increase in quality, but our eyes & brain have it's limits. It's called perceptive fantasia. I've even refuted this non-sense with link for a peer review study that explains how such things work between our eyes & a screen when it comes to resolution & FPS/Hz. I think anyone with any sense can concur that the ONLY thing that is going to TRUELY give you the most BADASS of all BADASS quality... is actually paying the price for the part upgrades inside of your RIG, not the monitor. The monitor helps, but it's really your computer/console superiority that is doing all of the real work. If I asked you to sacrifice either your 4k screen for a 1080, or your 1080 ti or even 2080 ti for a 720, then which one are you going to ultimately favor when it comes to performance & quality? ?....... Like, I would like to think that anyone with any SENSE would say fuck 4K Lmao! !.. You can actually play HIGH ass quality games WITHOUT 4K. People are giving to most of the credit to the wrong shit, when they should really be giving the credit to the people who are responsible for making their evolutionized parts. Even the TYPE of screen is more important than the size or pixel count of the screen. Like, having a cheap low-quality built screen type with 4k wouldn't really do anyone much justice would it? ?... I've got to say. For a generation that likes tech so much, they sure as fuck don't argue over the right points... This 4K altercation has gotten REALLY old a LONG ass time ago. These people are driving me INSANE with this vacuous absurdity.

@@dentongaemz8359 Well, there is good reason to not play fps's in 4k. It's hard to hit 60fps in 4k, unless like me, you actually have a 2080ti and a 4k monitor. 1080ti gets like 30-40fps. 4k is great for story games with great visuals. Not so great for competitive gaming, you could play in 1440p at 144fps.

We dont, but we think we do. So it doesn't even matter because our brain says it is better. And we are a brains. So in the end, we basically see 4k even if we dont really see it.

williamdlc praise be. I'm an editor, and I thought the same shit you did while watching this.

Good points for video production. But not so useful for the average person watching TV at home from 10 feet away. And H.265 does require quite a bit of processing power that the average person does not likely have on tap. Moreover, streaming 4k requires a wide pipeline over the old cable modem to boot, not the 1 to 3 MB/s that most people can afford.

Optical media isn't dead, it has WAY better A/V quality than streaming. Lossless 7.1 audio, HDR, and high bitrates. Hell, a UHD Blu-Ray can be 100GB! Can you stream that? No. Internet speeds and data caps are why Blu-Ray will live on.

Kyle, for the record, my very affordable (about £1 per day) connection has a solid 200 Megabits/second speed, and it's not the fastest around here. (Others have 'up to' 400 Mb/s.) I have no data cap whatsoever, apart from a Fair Use policy which will temporarily halve download speeds of the top 5% of users, during peak periods, after an hour. That 200 Mb/s means that I can download 25 Megabytes per second, or 1 GB every 40 seconds from a good source. (A Debian Linux DVD takes about 3 minutes to download from the Netherlands.) So 100GB could be downloaded in 67 minutes or so; less than the time it takes to view most movies. And this is England. Some countries have higher affordable internet connection speeds. Surely the U/S has better, and lower-cost, internet connections than the majority of countries?

you are aware this video was taken in 2017 and 1 year a lot has happened

Do you mean the 30 fps meme?

that meme is only 30 fps, scrubs can’t imagine over 35 fps let alone 60+

144hz

@thicc Spider most older games are capped. Almost ALL modern PC games are unlocked.

@lɐɯɹou ɐ Spider Most console games are capped.

yea.... the funny thing where I used to work we were actually showcasing our prototype 20k displays and that was almost 3 years ago (20k displays for showpieces in large malls/venues) it was kind of just showing it to our customers what we were capable of.... fun part was playing half life 2 on it... the bad part >> getting yelled at by some higher ups because we were playing a video game on it... reason for it was due to not having access to the needed 20k footage to put the demo up... we were the guys who worked on site and tested all the racks before they got shipped out... we were told to get it set up due to a drop in by some regular big customers and they wanted to impress... after a few hours and not hearing back from the people that were sent to onsite locations we took it into our own hands to do the half life 2 lost coast demo (we set it up in house to showcase the ability with our software and expertise that you could run essentially any graphics on the fly with sound matching what is happening on screen in realtime... we did that for 4k-8k screens and upscaled it to 20k) it was odd that we impressed the customers after giving our explanation of the demo and all the applications they could use our system for... but get in trouble with upper management because we didn't use the regular demos (our demo was done by our own area for the tours that regularly walked into our area that were for customers... it was fun because the people visiting at our area were normally the technician guys that would be working our product at their venues and geek out and what they could potentially do) also.. sad to say true 8k.... you are looking at minimum 30k worth of equipment just to actually deliver without any issues in realtime even now... with the next wave of tech in the next 2 years it may be down to 10k unless prices go up for parts (retail those 30k parts would be worth in the 100+k retail range due to the needed proprietary software and expertise as well as the law for economies of scale....) granted... it is possible to make cheaper 8k but it would be at some costs of performance... buffering... possible sound desynching and what not... well theoretically i guess an epyc chip might be able to pull it off at around 10k cost now.... hmmm

8K requires ridiculous inputs and no interface will scale properly with it. I saw some Dell 8k monitor demos, you'd need a microscope to find the start button.

Chino Gambino Basically nothing is ready for 8k *yet

You forgot to add one thing to this - Viewing distance. The closer to the screen you are, the better a higher resolution is. Its like everything looks good on my 50" 1080P TV if Im laying in bed playing a game. If I move up and sit on the edge of my bed, I can see the blurring or pixelated look of games. When I'm using my PC monitor (21:9 1440P) I dont get that same effect.

@@chinogambino9375 I'm sure there will be future updates allowing you to scale the windows interface to fit your display.

You're lying to yourself, because you want to believe it too much.

@@Openreality no, there are plenty of videos debunking this guy, he does not know what he is talking about. You can see 4k.

You can definitely see a better blend of colors due to more pixels. Also look at a face on a 1080p television and look at that same face on a "4K" television with 4K content. You can see much more detail, filling in the face, on a 4K television (again with 4K content). The difference is blatantly clear.

5:45

@@Openreality You're blind if you can't see the difference between 1080p and 4k. Can you not see the difference between 30hz, 60hz or 120hz also?