Also, a 4K passive 3D TV can make a true 3D 1080P display. Passive 3D uses light weight inexpensive glasses and handle higher frame rates and process smoothing better than active shutter (the other major 3D TV system.) I think it give a far superior picture to active shutter.
Here is a really cruel prank they played with a 4K TV:
I have a passive 3D screen and during movies and the like the drop to 540 by 1920 resolution really isn't noticeable unless you sit too close. Each eye is getting a different 540 image so it merges them to feel like 1080p.
However in games with bad aliasing, the drop in vertical resolution really sucks! The two resolutions just don't combine as well in your brain.
Also in the video it's strange that none of the people noticed the lack of parallax when looking out the window...
I have a passive 3D screen and during movies and the like the drop to 540 by 1920 resolution really isn't noticeable unless you sit too close. Each eye is getting a different 540 image so it merges them to feel like 1080p.
However in games with bad aliasing, the drop in vertical resolution really sucks! The two resolutions just don't combine as well in your brain.
Also in the video it's strange that none of the people noticed the lack of parallax when looking out the window...
Oh, thanks for the tip about aliasing. Have you play Halo CE: Anniversary in 3D?
As far as the video. I'm not sure it's not just actors. They all were so dramatic - plus it seems so horribly cruel. Also, 3D becomes less visible the further you are away from things.
Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned.
I have a passive 3D screen and during movies and the like the drop to 540 by 1920 resolution really isn't noticeable unless you sit too close. Each eye is getting a different 540 image so it merges them to feel like 1080p.
However in games with bad aliasing, the drop in vertical resolution really sucks! The two resolutions just don't combine as well in your brain.
Also in the video it's strange that none of the people noticed the lack of parallax when looking out the window...
Oh, thanks for the tip about aliasing. Have you play Halo CE: Anniversary in 3D?
As far as the video. I'm not sure it's not just actors. They all were so dramatic - plus it seems so horribly cruel. Also, 3D becomes less visible the further you are away from things.
Sadly I haven't. I own the game but my 360 is a launch unit with no HDMI :(
ArnoldRimmer said: Aaaah, there's just no better way to demonstrate the qualities of 4K resolution screens than by showing 768p resolution photos of them.
Indeed. Even with 8MP pictures it's still only playing 1080p content on it.
It's not even a 4K TV, it's 84” ULTRA HD (3840x2160) or Quad Full HD, 4K is a collection of movie formats ranging from 4096 x 1714 to 4096 x 3112 Nor does it have HDMI 2.0 to actually display 4K at 60 fps.
Love that disclaimer for the TV *No “ultra high definition” or “4K” video content is currently available. No broadcast or other standard currently exists for “4K” or “ultra high definition” television and the 84LM9800 may not be compatible with such standards if and when developed.
i really hate the term 4k....why did they have to switch the formatted numbers.
Unless a legit reason exists, and someone can educate me.
As JoeTheBro pointed out, 4K is an actual format term and it refers to the Ultra High Definition Television (UHDT) standard. Usually it is 3840 pixels × 2160 lines so each image is 8.3 megapixels. It has been the best in digital cinema, the RED Digital Cameras and what the film James Cameron's Avatar was rendered. It can be summed up as 4 times the information as 1080P.
Like 720P and 1080p means something - the number of virtual scan lines. But since some movies are wider than others - you might get a film that is formatted to 1080P, but you will miss some from the top and bottom because the film is wider than the 16:9 ratio. So you might watch a 1080P movie, but it's really just a 1920 by 920 with black bars at the top and bottom.
Some would stay that the vertical changes are a little deceptive, so for the newer formats they are switching to a horizontal resolution measure. It switch when we go from 1080p to 2K, but 2K is such a tiny differance the industry is going to skip it and go to 4K. Now the vertical will still change - as some films are shot more square and others in a longer rectangle.
Here is a size comparison of the differences:
4K is four times the resolution of 1080P - it is twice as tall and twice as wide. I personally have a beautiful 52" 1080P TV (132 cm), but I do often see the pixels. I could have as large as 104" TV (264cm) at 4K before I saw the same size pixels at the same distance. So an 80" TV would look so beautiful. I don't think you would see a huge difference on a TV smaller than on in the mid 30"s.
Also, a 4K passive 3D TV can make a true 3D 1080P display. Passive 3D uses light weight inexpensive glasses and handle higher frame rates and process smoothing better than active shutter (the other major 3D TV system.) I think it give a far superior picture to active shutter.
The next format after that will be 8K but at 33.2 megapixels a frame, it will be a bit before that is easily streamable - or has a disk format that could play it. Plus we need a new video cable standard before TV's can support it.
Do we really NEED 4K? No, but I think any TV over 40" really should be 4K. And I'm spoiled now, so I don't like looking at TV's smaller than 40". (Good golly, that makes me sound like a size queen.)
Here is a really cruel prank they played with a 4K TV:
I think you indirectly answered my question. I was more wondering why it wasn't called 2160p, but still wondering if it is attempt at marketing..
