4K Isn't Really 4K
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 เม.ย. 2022
- Try FreshBooks free, for 30 days, no credit card required at www.freshbooks.com/techquickie
The term "4K" is very often tossed around in a way that makes it misleading...
Leave a reply with your requests for future episodes, or tweet them here: / jmart604
► GET MERCH: lttstore.com
► AFFILIATES, SPONSORS & REFERRALS: lmg.gg/tqsponsors
► PODCAST GEAR: lmg.gg/podcastgear
► SUPPORT US ON FLOATPLANE: www.floatplane.com/
FOLLOW US ELSEWHERE
---------------------------------------------------
Twitter: / linustech
Facebook: / linustech
Instagram: / linustech
TikTok: / linustech
Twitch: / linustech - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![ทททททททท #27 [หลุยส์ เค โตมายังไง ณ สระบุรี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CaKoYw_Xmtg/mqdefault.jpg)
The biggest scandal that wasn't mentioned: "4k" streaming video on Netflix and TH-cam 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.
1080p is a quarter of the pixels. Otherwise yes, totally agree.
it depends on the movie as well tbf
By a rule of thumb.. that makes sense, streaming services have to take to consideration how much bitrate they wanna use in order to reach everyone with a moderate internet conection, that limitation doesnt exist in the Blu-ray disk. they dont need to be as efficent.. as suppose to streaming services.
That's why it's better to rent out blu Ray movies from local guy before they fall bankrupt..
@@undefinednull5749 i tried to follow your advice but blockbuster closed q decade ago. Sad times :-)
Still better than calling 1440p "2K"
2.5k I guess
No 1080p is basically 1k in relation to uhd 2160p...
I just watched a video that said that. Today, this very day many people still believe it.
Math is hard.
2048x1080 is 2K.
@@i3l4ckskillzz79 nope, 1920 is half of 3840
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!
seems like you know what you are talking about ...
You know the stuff
Username checks out.
Laughs in 8k
I like how you're a 4k channel saying this haha
This is definitely true though, high bit rate 1080p content looks so good that most people mistake it for 4k
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.
A 3090 TI powering a CRT display. Even if that screen supported 1080i, we are way past overkill.
Mmmno, in a smartphone for example, the video wouldn't look more pixelated but more fuzzy, so it doesn't convey the point about resolution at all.
@@Afonso.Soares monitors as a rule (once they were dedicated, not rebadged tv's, IE basically VGA, perhaps even CGA) weren't interlaced. 1080i was only really used as a broadcast standard, not actually used by the displays themselves outside a few outliers.
Well it would be useless to us to see the difference for ourselves since the bitrate of TH-cam sucks.
@@zyeborm it’s a standard designed for CRT displays, they just didn’t have the time to support it because it came the same time LCD showed up. Only broadcasters had access to CRTs with full 1080i support, because they have to work with it.
I've been backstabbed, played and quite possibly, bamboozled.
Insert Joey Tribbiani GIF right here.
no. just hoodwinked..
4:42 ya'll got me. Hats off to you, Mr. Editor.
Yeah, I was even watching it on fullscreen and was like "tf is going on"
Good job Taran
Got me too.
Me too
Same.
it was a bit too big on my 1080p display, it almost got me.
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.
You are a fine sir. I also refer to my stuff as 1080p, 1440p and 2160p, but find it difficult to specify 16:10 aspect ratio without ambiguity. Do you call it 1600p 16:10? Or 1440p but taller?
@@harrytsang1501 I do the same. 2160p and I call ‘full hd’ 1080p and 720p TVs were also marketed as ‘hd ready’ so I called them 720p as that’s what they are.
Same I always call ''4k'' TVs as 2160p instead of 4k... 4k is a BIG misnomer!
You are not alone. I use the name 4K for simplicity, but at the same time we still talk about 1080 and 1440 displays, so it makes 4k sound like something totally different. I blame the TV industry, it sounds so much better when you replace your old 1080p TV with a 4K, so I guess that's why they went in that direction.
My cousin bought what he claimed to be a 4K monitor, but after some inspection I could let him know that he was indeed closer to 3K than 4K.
Yeah me too. The only reason I use the term "4k" is in bitter resentment of the fact that a blatant and intentionally misrepresented marketing ploy caught on.
Not surprising given the ignorance of the average consumer, but no matter how you slice it, "4k" is not directly comparable to ANY of the preceding resolution specs used on the box. It was very clearly intended to suggest to the idiot consumer that this was an incredible leap forward in display technology. To be fair, yes, they literally doubled the number of horizontal lines of resolution from 1080 to 2160, and that is a MASSIVE increase in the number of megapixels in the display, as well as the PPI count. But the term "4k" is dubious at best, and outright disingenuous at worst.
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
PPI and resolution doesn't matter much when the video compression algorithm is set to be very lossy, and especially when it's low bandwidth like TH-cam. Even a 24inch screen will make TH-cam 1080 look like 720 or even worse at times. Twitch delivers much less lossy video, but that's probably why people often complain Twitch doesn't work well for them.
@@Mr.Morden Right, I did a comparison from the Jellyfish video. Uploaded the 4K source to TH-cam, grabbed the 1080p stream and compared that to the resized source. TH-cam's "1080p" looked worse than the original video resized to 576p. TH-cam would actually need to use 3-4x more bitrate than it uses now in order to provide decent quality.
@@pcrolandhu that's crazy 576p.... 20 years ago we were playing games at 640x480
But again, this information doesn't really matter on phone displays or low end monitors when all the buyers gonna do is browse social media or watch 480p videos. That's why confusing customers with this irrelevant number is NOT a priority, Considering folks who do care about the quality, already have a high end monitor/TV lying for serious business
@@Mr.Morden Twitch maxes out at 6 mbps usually at 60 fps. I don't see how that would be any less lossy than youtube.
4:42 this scared the crap out of me, I thought I was being hacked
Lmao Same 😂
Good thing I’m on mobile!
Glad I wasn't the only one xD
I cannot stand it when monitor companies refer to 2560x1440 resolution as "2K". Absolutely terrible.
Agreed.
Isn't 2560x1440 "QHD"?
@@arihantbhattacharjee
Yes
Whenever I see "2K", I'm thinking "Is it 2048 x 1080?"
You could call it 2.5k .
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.
It would be accurate to say that -Carts- CRTs don't have a _fixed_ resolution.
@Zaydan Naufal Sure, but the spot size and focus is a limit, not to mention the other physical restraints (phospor and mask pitch).
They were called "Television lines" or "TVLs". That means how many times the electron gun can strobe between highest and lowest values in a width equal to screen height. VHS has 240, LaserDisc has 425, and DVD-Video is equivalent to 540 (all System M. NTSC refers to color encoding).
CRT computer monitors had a horizontal resolution - but classic CRT TVs did not, since TV signal formats like NTSC and PAL were created as analog, so the signal was projected line by line but the signal in each individual line was continuous and not quantized into pixels. The electron gun moved to the next line simply based on timing standards. And the 480i/480p/etc naming convention discussed in this video was created in the TV industry back when they were analog.
And I used to believe that 4K meant 4 times 1080p 🙂
That's what I learned as well, even from LTT.
UHD is twice 1080 in both directions.
@@toquita3D Ok, so I am not the only one who thought that. I distinctly remember someone from LTT saying that.
Welp, it literally is
(3840x2160) / (1920x1080) = 4
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 4 times the pixels but its actually sort of coincidental that 4K and 4 times pixel both are 4
That's not really the case though, or 8K should rather be called 16K instead since it's 16 times the amount of resolution of an 1080p monitor.
2160p is a mouthful though, we really should have called 1080p 2K (because the horizontal resolution is 1920, close to 2000)
@@j_t_eklund your both talking about different things. 1080p is 2k pixels or 1k wide.
VR is even worse with naming. They call it 8k when you have a 4k screen for each eye.
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
The only coherent naming scheme for resolutions is the number of H and V pixels such as 1920*1080
And updates per second. Like: 1920x1080@60.
@@PerMejdal What the refresh rate is doesn't impact the resolution of the screen.
@@GahloWake No, but the useful stats for 'how good is this screen?' are basically Horizontal pixels, vertical pixels, refresh rate, usable display width, and usable display height (no, the diagonal in inches is Not a useful substitute for this). Though you can replace Either the pixel numbers OR the usable display numbers (but not both, because you need the other to make this useful) into pixels per area (that's Square inch (or ideally cm), not Linier inch (which is useless)... you could also replace either horizontal, or vertical (but not both!) number with an aspect ratio.... for, if I'm doing my maths right, a total of ... at least 4 numbers, I think? ... And then you have all the other numbers and features that go into determining how much any of that actually matters to your use case.
@@laurencefraser Cool, but irrelevant to the OP.
@@laurencefraser If you deem refresh rate as useful, there's a whole suite of other specs that are "useful" as well. In the scope of this video and the OP, only resolution matters, even if refresh rate is relevant to how good a display is too
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.
At least the reality is better for that one.
Wait isn't 2K just 1080p with a wider aspect ratio? 2048*1080
@@Sh-ws5jd Well it isn't strictly defined, so it is whatever you want it to be.
I'm specifically referring to how advertising of 1440p monitors keep putting 2K in their titles, and I consider that wrong.
@@Sh-ws5jd
It is.
Yep. 1440p is more like 2.5K, 1080p should be 2K since 1920 is nearly 2000 like 3840 is nearly 4000.
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)
Thats so stupid from that exec. 4 times the resolution of what. How did he assume it to be 1080. What about comparison with QHD. Plus thats also coincidental that it is 4 times. If it was intentional, should have been called 4X.
i think they made the switch because 4K is a lot easier to remember than 2160p, even though it would be more accurate and we wouldn't have this mess in the first place
I remember around 2012 when 3840×2160 wasn't UHD 4K yet but actually QFHD (Quad Full High Definition). Those were the days.
@@AdityaGupta-om8ez 4X the resolution of 1080, which it is, but it was dumb and I did say "should've called it 4X then".
@@xflyinglizardxCalling it "2K" would've been easy to remember AND accurate. It's clear there's more to the "4K" branding than just being memorable.
I was so sure that the p stood for pixels, I’ve been lied to my whole life
Unfortunately yes, the p never stood for pixels. It's always been progressive scan, to distinguish it from interlaced scan.
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 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.
Exactly what I thought!
Not only that, some advanced upscaling algorithms only support upscaling in powers of 2, such as nnedi3_rpow2 (Neural Network DeInterlacer - Resize POWer of 2). 720p can become 1440p, 2880p and beyond, while 1080p can go to 2160p, 4320p and beyond.
I also thaught 2k had twice the amount of puxels. Which turns out to be almost true, a 16:9 1080p screen is around 2 000 000 pixels while a 1440p screen is around 3 700 000 pixels.
@@vanjagrigoriev1442
2K has 2 211 840 pixels, only 6.7% more than 1080p (2 073 600).
@@Crlarl 2k is most often used by consumers to describe 1440p, even though a lot of resolutions could be said to be 2k
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.
I wonder if anyone still uses 1024 x 768 true color
800x600 ftw !!!
Nostalgia blind
It's only because 16:9 is such an ingrained default that only saying one measurement, either vertical or horizontal, was all that was necessary. Full resolution is only needed when comparing different aspect ratios which is just not needed for the vast majority of consumers tv and monitor consumers. The full resolution is ALWAYS available and easy to see if it's something other than 16:9.
Yeah, it's not like there were VGA, XGA, SXGA, and etc. back then, lol
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.
Yes but resolution is mostly irrelevant now. What's more important in the streaming world is bitrate and, to a lesser degree, codec quality.
@@travis1240 Those are not display specifications and they mean next to nothing to the average consumer.
PPI is a comparison tool. the bigger a screen is at the same resolution, the lower the PPI. a sweet spot for PPI at all sizes could probably be found, but it will always be more useful to compare PPIs for the same type of product, such as comparing between different phones, rather than a phone to a laptop to a TV.
@@jonathanodude6660 Yeah. Since these terms exist primarily for consumers to differentiate between like products, it only makes sense to use PPI over "resolution"
@@travis1240 Completely untrue. Going to an extreme here to make a point... what you're saying is you'd rather watch a 480p video with a super high bitrate over a 1080p video with a lower bitrate. No matter how high the bitrate is, it's never going to match the gains in resolution. Take a PC game. If you can't tell the difference between 4K and 1080p, you're blind. No increase in bitrate is going to make up for that.
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.
This is because 1080p can be 4:3, 16:10, 16:9, 21:9, or 32:9 depending on how wide the monitor is. So in the end naming by either way has its downsides.
This is actually because the horizontal terms (540i, 720p, 1080p) originate in the TV industry while the horizontal terms (2K 2048×1080, 4K 4096×2160k) originate in the cinema industry. When the TV industry came out with HD in the 2000s, the cinema industry tried to one up them with going straight to 4K. When TVs finally became able to display UHD signals, the term 4K had become widely known and TV manufacturers just started misappropriating it (even though they didn't really match the proper resolution for 4K).
@@justjanne-de Your first use of "horizontal" should be "vertical".
that p stands for progressive and not pixel is what really blew my minds
Same here, I said pixel as he was about to talk only to be disgraced lmao
They played us like a damn fiddle!!!
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)
Nowadays, films shot in anamorphic are shot that way for the aesthetics, since they come with numerous imperfections, like lens flare, breathing, focuses, etc. Also, it’s pricier because of the additional lens required at either the recording and the reproduction, and can be be quite problematic for CGI producers.
They do look awesome, though, ngl.
I thought when they did Super35 in scope, it went down to 3 perf instead of 4. Saving stock and allowing the use of smaller non-anamorphic lenses. For instance being able to get a camera rig in a cockpit for Top Gun.
@@NIronwolf I think that was up to the DP and director. Coat, aesthetics, etc.
Many digital cinema cameras are capable of anamorphic. Some of them use more of the sensor to give more resolution to the footage. They’re really neat because they’ll even have desqueeze built into the screen and viewfinder so they can record true anamorphic footage in squeezed format while the director sees it stretched.
@@NIronwolf you can do both. Like you said, it’s just easier doing 3-perf than doing anamorphic.
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!
Yet it is still bullshit
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.
Uhh, whatever. Horizontal resolution and vertical resolution are real terms. If you just say "resolution," it's assumed you're talking about the pixel count. I don't know how you work perceived quality into this whole thing.
Yep. We're victims of exam specifications - and especially in Computer Science the terminology is always a "certain view" from a small group of individuals who run those exams! Totally agree - I guess "resolution" originally comes from "to resolve" - so the perceived quality image at 2m away of a phone at 1080p will appear better than a 55" TV at 1080p from the same distance. The pixels are smaller. Essentially, if you're comparing displays or images of similar physical size, it doesn't matter!
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.
If I tell someone my tv has 10zillion to 1 contrast ratio it makes me sound smart and savvy. ;)
Even though it matters so little on my OLED lol
Don't the testing methods used by decent sources (like Rtings.com) take that into consideration?
@@flameshana9 yes, just don't fall for the manufacturer's claims or the VESA measurements, both are deceitful and in no way resemble actual contrast
I've always called 16:9 2160p as UHD and 4K really starts at DCI 4K.
Same here. Also, 720p as HD, 1080p as FHD and 2K.
but then newbies came along calling 1440p "2K" instead of QHD so... all this mess started.
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.
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.
Yeah, I have a 55" 4k as my main screen, and then to the left of that I have my old 43" 1080p angled towards me which is further away. From where I sit they seem to have a similar picture clarity. However, the contrast and brightness of the displays are extremely distinct as the 1080p was a 3DTV so it doesn't get as bright and has poor contrast to begin with.
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.
"shorten its resolution?"
Anyway, 16x10 started for office to have two, 8x10 sheets next to each other. 16x9 was deemed a good balance for media content in general. Too wide and you had massive black bars for left/right with some content. Too tall and it wasn't very cinematic for movies. The OFFICE part didn't matter anyway since you'd usually have taskbars etc so most people wanted an ideal balance and since VIDEO is usually shown without anything else on the screen that's where they came down.
3:2 is good for laptops, especially when the screen is small at 14 inches. The 14 inch 3:2 I use is the same height as 16 inch 16:9. It sucks for media though.
I have a 4:3 (1024x768) and a 16:10 display (1680x1050). But I moved to my 1920x1080 tv. Works fine with the worst graphics driver
INTEL HD GRAPHICS.
But for some reason, it only maxes out to 1366x768 even if I tried to edit it with CRU but I discovered it actually maxes out to 1600x1200 while I was in safe mode
Note: All the monitors max out to the correct resolution. Including one of the broken TVS (1920x1080)
@@photonboy999 No, 16:9 was deemed a good value for VIDEO. It then because CHEAP to standerdize on 1080P for computer monitors, even though it's really too thin.
Is 16:10 isn't standard huh? Talk about tablets 😂
Yep and people always argue with me when I try to share this info with them. Samething with most drone "4k" cameras.
Math is hard. Apparently.
People don't want to be told they have technically less pixels than they thought. That awakens their inner fanboy and they _will_ defend their purchase decision.
Techquickie counting in binary: 4K Isn't Really 4K
Can Techquickie do a piece about why youtube advertises UHD when you purchase a movie but it's only available at 480p or lower?
Seems like it could be a browser issue (doesn't support webm video) or possibly even a monitor/TV issue. Old displays do not have support for HDCP, which MAY cause issues like this, though that's a long shot.
@@MisakaMikotoDesu A 1 yo macbook pro, or a 2-3 yo viewsonic 3440x1440 curved ultrawide through a 2070 gc? I don't think are the issues. Have you actually been able to view movies from the official TH-cam movies account in anything higher than 480p? You might be able test it out right now with a free movie?
thanks tho
PPI and Refresh Rate is the best way to know dud screens when you see one
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 shit my pants when the mouse starts to go and trys to change the resolution.. 🤣
Yeah lmao I thought I got a virus somehow xd
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.
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.
0:19 Actually, yes. Nothing's stopping you from feeding a 3840x480i super resolution picture into your regular old CRT ;)
Does vertical resolution improve the picture in the same way as horizontal?
3840x240p looks better
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.
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
I guess you are a native android developer.
4k caught in 4k!?
The next techquicky: "linus isn't really linus"
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.
He gets so much wrong in this video. 🤦♂
Remember when "HD ready" was branding on a crappy 720p TV?
720p or 768p?
720p is HD and looks fantastic on displays smaller than 32"
@@namesurname4666
720P looks fantastic on my 50" Samsung QN90C and that's because there is something more important than resolution. The TV manufacturers want you to believe that 4K is better than 1080P and 8k is better than 4K, when the truth is that while resolution is important there is something else that is the most important when it comes to life like images. Yes, that would be CONTRAST RATIO!
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
You need a 10 bit panel
A 4K player
And Lucy in 4K on disc. That’s the closest you’ll ever get.
To what?
Even then, IIRC they planned the camera too fast in a few shots, making for stutter on OLEDs, unless you enable motion interpolation...
4:02 the game Is called Journey to Silius on Nes
Very interesting insights which I did not know before. Thank you.
I *HATE* it when people call ''4k''... 4k... Just call it UHD or atleast 2160p!
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.
Not so weird if you remember that most CRTs, tube TVs and early LCD monitors had a 4:3 aspect ratio.
@@MonsterSound no the 4:3 was normal but exactly 4000x3000?
Technically, that does count as "4K".
@@selohcin you ARE right
@@selohcin Of course it does...? 4K just means 4000 pixels horizontally, 4000x3000 matches exactly that. It's not 4K UHD or 4K DCI, but it's definitely 4K
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.
A massive reason why "4k" became the big buzzword early on is because it sounds so much bigger than Full HD 1080p. 4k means 4000, and that is roughly four times larger than 1080, which sounds like an insane improvement in pixel density. Because they go from marketing the smaller axis to the larger axis, the gap sounds so much bigger than it actually is.
To be fair, not trying to downplay the image quality of 4k/UHD. I'm a massive fan of 4k myself and HD/QHD material doesn't cut it for me anymore if there is a better option. The difference is still staggering, just not as staggering as the marketing made it to be.
3840x2160 = 8 294 400 pixels / 1920×1080p = 2 073 600pixels. If the screen is the same size, there's four times the pixel density
@@DaM.1 Did you reply to the wrong comment?
@@XDLugia Reading back, yes, must have
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
They stopped using the vertical resolution (2nd number) and switched to the horizontal (first number) after 1080p for TV's so they could market a bigger 'jump' in resolution. 4k is NOT 4x 1080p it's 2x. 1920×1080 vs 3840 × 2160.
@@Plasmacore_V I was speaking of total pixels. It is 4x, and 2k is 2x this way
@@Plasmacore_V 4k is not 4x on any one axis, but it IS 4x the area. So I can see how people mistakenly think that's why it's referred to as 4k... though really it should've then been called 4X if that was the reason.
the most accurate way to describe the amount of pixels is literally the old but reliable MegaPixels from cameras.
Yes! That's exactly what I just was about to comment! It should be done as mandatory by law or smth lol.. Additional terms such as 4k may be, but only as supplemental terms.
Aspect ratio, megapixels and PPI. Shape, quantity, density.
@@SidOfBee yeah. Also stop using diagonal for size. You can have same diagonal for different areas. It's deliberately used as standard to fool customers.
@@undefinednull5749 It's almost as if every metric used to market an HDTV/monitor is a misleading one. Somehow they got it right when marketing phone screens, mostly.
Only if you can assume the aspect ratio is always 16:9, which is not the case. Just the amount of pixels doesn't tell the whole story
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?
What throws me off is how we went from referring to the standard resolutions by the vertical size (720p, 1080p, etc.) to switching over to the horizontal “4K” label.
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.
It saves bandwidth over a 60p signal, which is why he said that. It was a compromise. So glad those days are over.
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.
100% agree, marketeers make it way harder than it is!
Yeah that aint gonna happen
@@iz723 Please point at where I said this would happen or shut up
I just recently got caught up on the various 3.x USB types and I'm still not over it. Why the hell couldn't they leave 3.0 as 3.0 instead of re-labelling it as 3.1 gen 1 and then later re-labelling it AGAIN as 3.2 gen 1?! The number after the "." would already basically explain what gen it was!
It's like marketing people are corrupting all technological progress and we just end up sidetracking, and only after years we realize "Hey, this isn't what we need"
Like the information and love that it's not a youtube short.
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.
That would just be dumb
You pick the size of the device or monitor and the resolution as well as other stuff
It would be smarter to just find and use an online calculator to figure out the distanced needed to hit X DPI based on the resolution of the screen and the dimensions of it
Factoring in viewing distance is problematic because it's not an intrinsic spec of the display, and almost entirely dependent on the environment the display is used in. In some cases this is really useful, such as with VR where the viewing distance is going to be similar across devices, but in other cases where the specified viewing distance might be impossible to achieve in the space, or a partner doesn't want a large enough TV for the space, etc. the measurement becomes useless. In general, PPI is a more useful measurement since it's entirely intrinsic to the display.
@@Blustride not only that but i have multiple of the same monitor and my viewing distance jumps around depending on what one i look at
It also doubles if i am sitting back to watch something or playing with a controller
So its just a waste of time and the user can easily find a calculator online by themselves
@@Blustride viewing distance is usually not a requirement, but rather a recommendation, as in a minimum value before seeing the pixel as oppose to the picture. It’s less of a problem for TV’s where, as you said, have various sizes and viewing distances, since there are resolution standards to simplify a person’s needs.
PC and mobile, on the other hand, have countless resolution values and sizes, but are usually used at a fixed, or rather predictable viewing distance, so PPI usually don’t vary very far from the OS’ standard.
@@Afonso.Soares Viewing distance does vary drastically between users. I sit at an arm's length and know quite a few people who keep their eyes at least twice as close from the screen.
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...
All of this is just marketing tricks. sad
Yeah I find the 4K denomination quite misleading. 2160p is 2160p, choosing the bigger number for marketing reasons just makes it confusing
Oh no, don't drag 2K into this now, we managed to skip this on the consumer side. This exists already in the film and camera industry
I always considered 4k to be 4x the pixels as 1080p and thats why it's 4, because it's twice the pixels in each direction resulting in 4x total
Isn't 2K already used for 1440p as it is 720p*2?
And 4K just means 4 times the total pixels of 1080p?
But as the video shows, all those naming schemes are not that great.
"My TV is 4ker than yours, damn right, 4ker than yours, I could teach you but I'd have to charge" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
You got me with that resolution change in the video haha
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.
Yup, many variations of it are made
16:9 is by far the most common aspect ratio. 4:3 screens however are very rare, for good reason.
@@artratengo3685 I forgot that 4K UHD is also 16:9, lol
Technically there is a 16:9 4K that's actually considered 4K. That's 4096 x 2304
New iMacs use 4480x2520.
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.
Rec 2020 calls it UHD. Rec2020 defines the screen resolutions for 8kUHDand 4kUHD for 16x9 screens. So UHD is, on a technicality , a correct term when referring to 3840x2160 or 7680x4320
@@EthanMerbaum I didn't say that UHD means 4k. What I meant was if someone refers to a UHD monitor (so 3840×2160) as 4k then that hurts me.
@@EthanMerbaum What I have found out years ago was UHD stands for 3840x2160 and UHD-2 is 7680x4320
I know what you mean, it have the urge to correct people to call it 2160p because calling it 4k makes no sense!
It's not that bad though, at least 3840 is remotely close to 4000. Unlike 2K (2000) and 2560, when people call QHD 2K, THAT hurts
PPI and dot pitch were specs you would see advertised for the original CRT displayers. I guess everything comes back around some time.
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.
The thing that annoys me is when people call 1440p "2k"
It is technically right
@@hesh9646 Naw 1920x1080 is 2K and 2540x1440 is 2.5K
@@hesh9646 ,
No, it's not.
People started calling it that, including monitor manufacturers and it caught on. The term "2K" was used long before "1440p" got used INCORRECTLY:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution
But seriously, give some thoughts to your comments next time. Did the LOGIC of "2K" for 2560x1440 make sense to you?
@@photonboy999 oh noh, my bad
@@photonboy999 I mean if 99% of people refer to 2k as 1440p then it kinda becomes correct.
Gay used to mean "happy" - no one uses this word like this anymore
Man used to mean human - now everyone gets offended by this word.
So yes, 2k is 1440p now. You don't like it? Well, get used to it. Nobody is gonna understand that you actually mean Full HD.
We all love you Riley ❤
Always make my day!!
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.
What about when a vertical video is used? And it's being forced into a landscape one?
I have vertical video.
That's because most streaming services follow the 16:9 standard, so when you watch a 21:9 movie, it's streaming in 16:9 with black bars embedded in the video
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.
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 😂
Riley is just the best. Thanks for existing, Riley.
I wonder if lmg times similar videos to release at the same time, like the ltt projector video and this 4k tech quickie
4K has a standard, it was ignored for tv marketing
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
Isn't 16:10 even narrower though?
@@benuscore8780 Yes, it is. He's trying (unsuccessfully) to express that he feels that standard 16:9 monitor aspect ratios are vertically squished and do not give the viewer enough vertical field of view.
@@selohcin so... Exactly what I said? Why unsuccessful, you provided no argument whatsoever
@@WouterVerbruggen Go to the dictionary and look up the word "narrow".
@@selohcin you must be American. Assuming everyone is a native speaker, shouting they are wrong without arguments and then thinking they'll figure it out on their own. Maybe, just maybe, I'm not a native speaker and the word in my language is equivalent for use in both directions? Anyhow, I've added a small clarification to the original comments. Which you could have suggested in the first place instead of attacking immediately.
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.
~200ppi should be the minimum standard for non-gaming monitors in 2022. It's ridiculous that it isn't. I still can't go and buy a 5k 27" screen that isn't LG's 5k display.
@@MisakaMikotoDesu all I can give you is the ITU-R BT.1845-1 recommendation that “the ‘optimal viewing distance’, the ‘optimal horizontal viewing angle’ and the ‘closest comfortable viewing distance’ should be used as guidelines on metrics applicable to digital image systems”.
They use 1 arc-min as the typical minimum angular resolution of the human vision, and show viewing distance as X*H, been H the height of the image.
That way, by their examples, we should be at least 3.2*H away from a 1080p display, and 1.6x away from 4K. Considering 24 inches as a typical viewing distance for PC users, 1080p displays should be no bigger than 15.3” and for 4K, 30.6”. Also, you can choose your own viewing distance and select a monitor that works better in that seating position.
Now, for the lack of a 5k display, it’s easier for manufacturers to follow standard resolution options rather than creating a new panel for every monitor size, and this still limits how far you can sit from the screen.
I've seen a video from Engadget: "Why your avengers UHD Blurays aren't actually 4k" that said many post production (Editing, CGI, color) still operate at lower resolutions then rescaled back up to 2k. The video was 2 years old.
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.
Not necessarily but the colour resolution will be the same.
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.
My B9 is also that resolution. I found out due to having a weird problem with cutscenes in GTA V (They displayed borders) Had to use a windows utility to disable my TV's 4096 x 2160 resolution to display the cutscenes correctly.
Also your lg is not 4096x2160. If that where true it wouldn't be a 16:9 aspect ratio TV and it would look funny size wise compared to other tvs.
@@TheWondering no its 3840x2160 you are mistaken.
@@randybobandy9828 Incorrect. The display information is 4096 x 2160. This resolution can be selectable on my PC as well as the usual 3840 x 2160. The information given is 4096 x 2160 but then tries to scale it down to fit a 16:9 aspect ratio. That is why I explained i had problems during cutscenes of GTA V. Removing this information provides a normal 16:9 aspect ratio.....
@@randybobandy9828 Well in Windows it's outputting 4096x2160.
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?
In which case it's somewhat misnamed, because an Inch is a linier measurement. It would have to be per Square inch to measure an area (such as a square)
Reminds me of Full-screen vs Wide-screen VHS and DVDs.
Progressive Scan doesn't display the picture 'ALL AT ONCE', it just draws the 'entire' image in a single process, starting at the top left and finishing at the bottom right. Compared to Interlaced, Progressive just draws everything in 'one sweep', rather than drawing half the image and then going back and drawing the 'interlaced' half of the image before your brain has 'forgotten' the first half of the image ;)
So it's not like there's just an sudden flash of light, like if someone just quickly shone a light through a piece of film...
True, but as a simplification it's easier to explain.
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
delete the imperial measurement system
But PPI isn't helpful, without knowing the physical size of the display. A 100ppi display that is 1 inch square is vastly different from a 100ppi display that is 40 inches square
Can you sue companies for false advertising at this point?
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
1080p is always 16:9 and no one calls it 2K?
@@jonathanodude6660 Because they call 2K 1440p 16:9
What you're saying is only necessary in a world where the default for TV/Monitor isn't 16:9. The people who want a nonstandard size already know they want a non standard size and can't just go by "default" terms.
@@tankivulture148 And they're wrong for it.
@@tankivulture148 Which wouldn't make sense in either pixel count or horizontal resolution. If we go by pixel count relative to 16:9 2160p 4K it would be 1.77K, while defining it by the horizontal resolution would make it closer to 2.5K. Companies should start calling it 2.5K in marketing just to make their product seem better than everyone else advertising it as 2K and then that could be the new more accurate marketing term for 1440p.
I'm fine with 4k being used for resolutions less than 2160 vertical so long as the horizontal rounds to 4000, but a camera that's 2880x2160? That's WAY off..... not cool DashCam.
SO its 1080 x 1920 2k?
Is 1080 x 2560 then 3k?
This rounding up shit is stupid.
When you multiple 4 x 1000 you get 4XXX. 3 insignificant figures. They are insignificant. So they shouldn't be something you round for. This is like 6th grade math.
Would be rad to see y’all do a video about thermal optics and/or night vision
They have already done that, here it is
th-cam.com/video/7-ylClZTWd0/w-d-xo.html
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.
The True 4K and 2K is
2K = 2048x1080
4K = 4096x2160
8K = 8192x4320
That what should people talk about it and be popular
The hero we deserve!
@@0x8badbeef Because it's an advertisers and search-engine engineers' function to cater to the dumbest of people and to get as many hits as possible.
@@0x8badbeef Call it QHD.. 2K is a DCI standard meaning the term "2K" has been taken for a long time. It's a film standard for 1080p.
@@0x8badbeefWith this clip they tried to make it easy to understand for people but somehow managed to fail miserably.
@@YlkevanSpankeren Thank you so much!
4K means that the height of the video is up to 2160 pixels or the width is up to 4069 pixels. Only 1 of these pixel numbers have to be matched to be called 4K.
I am fine with 1080p for movies. I even prefere the 16/10 aspect ratio over 16/9. It could be that 16/10 is closer to the "golden ratio".
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!
PPI is just an updated terminology of the very old term from scanners and printers of DPI, or "dots per inch."