LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Plus a similar model that's a Solidworks, Adobe and Autodesk certified 3K workstation.
Read more.Plus a similar model that's a Solidworks, Adobe and Autodesk certified 3K workstation.
No. Stop that right now. Abusing '4K' (a digital cinema standard) to mean 'UHD' (a consumer video standard) is bad enough*. Inventing a new name for 2880 x 1620 is just too far.3k
* Your '4K' TV is not 4K. Your consumer equipment will not handle 4K files (with the exception of high-end PCs), as they are monstrous bitrates and use 4:4:4 colour encoding, among other things.
Dangit, the first gaming laptop with a resolution above 1920x1080 and it's MSI who launch it :/ Personally don't like the styling, looks like a toy imo, everything else except the weight I love.
I remember when having a 40inch 1920x1080 TV was so "crisp and clear and sharp". Now you hear people saying that 1920x1080 on any screen larger than 7 inches looks "horrendous".
I just fear the day when they make the dot pitch so high that I find myself leaning towards the screen just to see what the hell is written on it.
Doesn't matter how high the DPI is, provided that the text is appropriately scaled. That's the real question.Originally Posted by moeburn
Not just the text, the UI elements too. Looking at the picture with the words "THE PROFESSIONALS CHOICE", look at that program they're running. If I didn't know what each button did, on my regular computer I could just look at the icons to see what they do. On that screenshot, it looks like I'd have to lean in to my screen just to see what the icons actually are.
This, in my experience windows isn't actually that bad at scaling text, its UI elements (which aren't really MS widgets in a lot of cases I'd guess) that are the problem.
+1
So much this.
I don't have a particularly high-end PC, but my computer can still play 1080p HEVC/H.265 encoded videos without any problems in the latest version of MPC-HC. The bitrate is usually under 8Mbps too.
That's peanuts to 4K. You're looking at encoding at 12 bits per colour component (with no colour subsampling), with bitrates hovering around 200Mbit/s for 2D 4K. You want 3D 4K at HFR (48fps)? Enjoy playing back your files at 500+ Mbit/s. And that's using DCI's wavelet encoding (essentially JPEG2000), so you can't take advantage of hardware decoders in consumer equipment.
You will do UHD just fine on even a modest recent PC, but 4K requires specialised equipment or a PC with large drive arrays and beefy CPUs (you probably aren't going to get away with a single CPU for realtime playback).
That's all well and good, but how are you getting the uncompressed stream onto the pc in the first place? No one is going to be selling uncompressed 4k media any time soon. And consumer grade hardware that you'll be able to tell a difference on? Probably never. Whilst I sympathise with the sentiment, 4k is already widely established as essentially the same as the hd ready logo, ie a resolution and nothing else.
but we don't need this. WTF is the point? i've never sat at my 1080p monitor and thought, you know what I think I'm missing some pixels.... IT'S FINE HOW IT IS, and filesizes are small, and my 3 yr old low-end tech can handle it all JUST FINE. There comes a point at which I have to say, couldn't care less. 4k is well beyond that point for me.
As herulach mentioned above, no one is going to play uncompressed 4k videos on their home PCs whether it's Ultra HD 4k or DCI 4k.
Consumer 4k movies are going to be compressed with either H.264 or HEVC and they will play back fine on most PCs.
The overall bit rate of the video above is 125 Mbps.
Last edited by aceuk; 07-12-2013 at 04:32 PM.
It's called progress!
http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/e...er-second.aspx
I've watched football in 4K at John Lewis and that was seriously impressive. The extra detail made a phenomenal difference.
Sorry I can't tell, is that sarcasm?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
