• Natanael
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    And my TV is still a cheap full HD (2K) screen from 2011, so I’ve got no reason to buy media in higher quality

        • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Okay, but, 4k has literally 4 times the number of pixels that 1080P does, 3840 horizontal(“4k”?) versus 1920(“2k”?), and 2160 versus 1080 vertical. We are not so far from breaking the “1000pixels” interpretation completely; “13k” would be 12,480 pixels wide.

          Seems to me that marketers are trying to conflate “k” and Megapixels, but if we started using Megapixels for Displays, the side-by-side numbers would look truely pathetic(versus what “seems common/attainable”, not what’s “percievable”.

            • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I mean, I agree its already broken, but proponents of this “it’s x thousand pixels wide!” non-sense will point out that at least it rounds up to that number, so I opted to point of the vaule at whict that excuse, too, breaks down. 4k has 4 times(2x2) the pixels as 1080P, and 8k has, well shit, 16 times(4x4) the pixels as 1080P. Someone shit the bed with this non-sense.

              Apparently the “official” standard defines nothing beyond 8k. Go figure.