kirby007 said:
Netyaroze said:
kirby007 said:
Netyaroze said:
Acevil said:
Netyaroze said:
Acevil said:
Xenostar said:
there are measuring it in horizontal now rather than vertical, and it is proper 4k on a projector it is slightly under on TV units. But it is 4x the amount of pixels, so i think its fine to call it 4k |
But isn't it 4x the amount that is offered by 2k. So really it is just clever marketing nothing else.
|
4k has 4 times more pixel than 1080p and 1080p has about 2.2 times more pixel than 720p and 720p has roughly 3 times more pixel than 480p.
2k is 1080p aka 1980 (2k) x 1080
4k is 2160p aka 3840 (4k) x 2160
Where do you see the clever marketing ? It was like this before 1080p became a marketing term.
|
Well the way I see it marketed is that 4K can be misleading to consumers that learned the vertical way. Cinema people I believe called it 4K for years. I called it UHD.
|
A consumer that has no clue and hears 4k instead of 1080p thinks instantly 4 times better. because 4000 is 4 times more than 1000. And thats actually what he gets 4 times more pixel so he is not being mislead.
|
so you dont agree that in these times putting down 4k creates the expectation of 4000p?
|
People who get confused by this change have no idea whats going on anyway. 4320p is an absurdly high resolution there are no standards out there to support this yet no cables no screens no movies. 4k is 4 times the pixel thats what the general customer needs to know, 4320p is 16 times the pixel of 1080p people who think 4k stands for 4320p only expect 4320p to be 4 times more than 1080p which is what they actually get, nobody expects a 16 times resolution increase. Or did you think 4k is 16 times more pixel than 1080p ?
|
for the pricing, i honestly expected that
|
Thats because you have not realize that a jump from 1080p to 4320p would be bigger than all jumps in the past decades combined. Which is an expectation you can only have if you lack the perspective of the development in the past (probably because you are young). Thinking 4k TVs are alot more expensive compared to 1080p tvs when they were new (inflation adjusted ofc) is another misjudgment on your part. Ofcourse the technology became more complex the screens became bigger there is not much of a price mark up. I think 1080p was 10k Dollar back in 2004-2005 you can get bigger 4k TVs now for way less than that.
Most people do not think 4k is 16 times more pixel than 1080p actually you are the first one I have heard of to think that. Most people just need to know 4k= better picture. There is no misleading going on. You mislead yourself, if you think a 16times resolution jump is realistic.
Do you honestly think the masses realize that 4320p would be 16 times more pixel than 1080p ? People usually do not think about stuff like that.
