I don't understand why anyone would use 8K since it seems pointless unless you have a screen that is over 100 inches.
Edit: Even a screen over 100 inches doesn't make sense to use 8K because you have to sit a certain distance back to use a screen that big and you can't see the pixels when you sit that far back, even at 4K. I sit about 10 feet away from my TV. From that distance I would need a 155 inch 4K TV to see the pixels with 20/20 vision and it would probably not be comfortable to site that close to a 155 inch TV.
Edit 2: I haven't done exact calculations because movie theaters are different sizes, but I don't think you could see the difference between 4K and 8K in a movie theater unless you sat in the first few rows and I would never sit that close because it's a horrible experience.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't even care about 4K. Give me 27" 1440p 144hz OLED and I'll be happy :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think 4k certainly has its perks. Antialiasing is basically a non-issue. The setup you mentioned sounds great too though!
Comment has been collapsed.
With a large enough monitor, I would want 4K, but I like 27" and I think 4K is too much for 27". I think I would need to switch to 4K at 32". What we really need are monitors sold at PPI rather than set resolutions. 1440p is not enough for a 30" monitor, but 4K is too much. Instead of having a few standard resolutions, we should have a different resolution for every size monitor. Instead of having too much or too little pixel density at almost every monitor size with only one sweet spot for each resolution, we should find the sweet spot for pixel density and have every monitor use that PPI.
Comment has been collapsed.
That makes sense to me. I have a 32in 4k monitor. It can be a bit bulky for up close PC gaming but sometimes I scoot back for controller gaming so IAM okay with the size
Comment has been collapsed.
Movies in theaters can go MUCH higher then 8K resolution (A 70mm film is between 12-18K for example). I think you're heavily underestimating the human eye.
I don't think most people care that much about pushing resolution so high anymore, but it may be important for future technologies (like holographic screens such as looking glass). Though with the upcoming MicroLED tech (which lets you seamlessly connect multiple screens to create bigger ones) people may be able to get screens at pretty much any resolution they want.
Either way, for now I think high refresh rates, adaptive syncn (gsync/freesync), deep black levels (really hate backlight bleed), quality HDR implementations, image scaling hardware in TVs (all 4K/8K TVs should support integer scaling in my opinion), and image filter technologies (reshade, crt filters, etc.), are all more important for gaming.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't know there were theaters that still show movies on film. From a quick search, 75% of all theaters were digital in 2013 and by 2017 it was up to 98%. Almost all movies are now filmed in digital. Also, just because film has enough detail to produce an image of 12K doesn't mean that the human eye can see all those details.
If you sit in the middle of the theater, which is usually where the best seats are for the screen size, you are already too far from the screen to see pixels at 4K, so there would be no difference going up to 8K. The only place you might be able to distinguish a difference would be in the first few rows, but I don't know why anyone would want to site that close.
I agree that resolution isn't a big issue anymore and people aren't focusing on it as much, but I think it is because with 4K we have reached a point of diminishing returns and there is almost no advantage for going higher. This is because as the screen gets larger, you must sit farther away to view it comfortably and 4K has more pixels than we can see at that comfortable distance.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty much yes. Another thing to consider is that pictures are rarely in full focus, with exception of wide-angle panoramas. Due to how optics work, you can very rarely achieve truly infinite sharp focus across the whole screen.
Moreover, filmmakers use focus (along with light and color) to guide our attention across the screen, to tell a story. Deep focus is a very specific look, and doesn't fit all narratives.
As for the movie theaters, overwhelming majority of them are mastered in 2k (2048x858 or similar). Some are mastered in 4k, mostly for IMAX theaters, but there's tons of movies that simply get UPSCALED from 2k to 4k and get shown on huge IMAX screens, and literally nobody notices =)
Comment has been collapsed.
I decided to see a movie in theaters last year for the first time in over 10 years. I did a little research on theater sizes and found the largest IMAX theater I could. It was a big theater, but I could tell it was not a high resolution. They were probably using what they call 2K or 4K even though it is actually just a wider 1080p.
From what I read online, 2K is only 2048x1080. That's only slightly wider than 1920x1080. Then a lot of IMAX theaters use two of those projectors, but instead of getting double the pixel count, they overlap them to get the same resolution with double the brightness and then call it 4K. I would consider that false advertising since 4K refers to resolution, not brightness.
I think a lot of movie theaters have probably moved to true 4K by now, but I haven't been able to find numbers with a quick search.
With how cheap big screen TVs now are, I prefer to stay home to watch movies. I find it much more enjoyable than going to a theater.
Comment has been collapsed.
For true 16x9 ratio 2k movie resolution is 2048x1152, but most movies are using wider formats like 2.39 or more, so there's even less vertical resolution then (like 2048x858).
I'd say about half of IMAX movies do run (and were mastered) in 4k, others are simply 2k, or 2k upscaled to 4k. Both last options look blurrier than true 4k.
Companies choose to master in 2k because there's still not that much demand for true 4k, and because the cost of post-producton increases almost exponentially with frame size. So it's much cheaper to do the effects at 2k, then upscale to 4k and sharpen a bit, than to produce true 4k image.
US is the leader of 4k cinema projectors, but the content on them is still mostly 2k, that's the point ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally I finished the game with the collectibles in ~17 hours. The fully 90 minutes stands just for the speedrun, and also you can replay the same save file with cheats and I think you can hit less than 90 minutes for that if you really want.
But mostly it has been finished around 15-20 hours of gameplay.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a 4k video, so you can't see the difference on 8k device.
Comment has been collapsed.
Doubt you could see the diff on a 4k monitor either. Does anyone even have 8k monitors? Also... I guess you could see the textures look really really sharp but come on... give me 4k and a better frame rate.
Comment has been collapsed.
7 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by SlavenHarkin
5 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by iubjaved
352 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by ChrisKutcher
3,111 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by meruleron
16 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by Comiclove
2,038 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by LordDarkness
551 Comments - Last post 13 hours ago by Warriot
711 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Kouseyz
2,399 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by NathalieW
144 Comments - Last post 39 minutes ago by Wintermute75
646 Comments - Last post 45 minutes ago by alexfirehouse
202 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by Wintermute75
445 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by mijamal7
2,372 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Zipsy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IpA889pMS4 (8k video).
https://www.pcgamer.com/doom-eternal-speedruns/
Videos of it are in the article.
Comment has been collapsed.