Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › Do you think 4K will be the end of pixel density?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you think 4K will be the end of pixel density? - Page 2

post #11 of 48
I sit about 8FT away from my 120" screen, give me all the pixel density I can get biggrin.gif
Server/Gaming Rig
(22 items)
 
  
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
Intel E5-2670 intel E5-2670 Asus Z9PE-D8 WS Visiontek R9 390 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
8x4GB DDR3 1333 ECC Registered Toshiba 5TB X300 Seagate 4TB HGST 4TB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Sandisk 240GB Sandisk 480GB Samsung 830 128GB Toshiba 6TB X300 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Toshiba 5TB X300 Toshiba 5TB X300 WH16NS40 Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell S1715H Dell u2311h blackwidow ultimate Kingwin Lazer platinum 1000w 
CaseMouse
Corsair 800D Deathadder Chroma 
  hide details  
Reply
Server/Gaming Rig
(22 items)
 
  
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
Intel E5-2670 intel E5-2670 Asus Z9PE-D8 WS Visiontek R9 390 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
8x4GB DDR3 1333 ECC Registered Toshiba 5TB X300 Seagate 4TB HGST 4TB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Sandisk 240GB Sandisk 480GB Samsung 830 128GB Toshiba 6TB X300 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Toshiba 5TB X300 Toshiba 5TB X300 WH16NS40 Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell S1715H Dell u2311h blackwidow ultimate Kingwin Lazer platinum 1000w 
CaseMouse
Corsair 800D Deathadder Chroma 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jellis142 View Post

Unfortunately... no. There will always be people who will want higher density, even if they can't see it. What will be important is higher densities with larger panels. 4k on a mobile phone will be nearly perfect, no additional advancements on the resolution side will be needed. But 4k on a 40-60" could definitely gain more pixels.

My 2c at least.

Exactly my thinking. Couldn't have said it any better myself thumb.gif
Project Arch
(16 items)
 
BigByte
(8 items)
 
Macbook Pro
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5960x @ 4.8ghz Asus X99-E WS 2 x Nvidia Quadro K6000 Corsair Dominator Platinum 64gb 2666 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
2 x Samsung 850 Pro 512gb {RAID 0} Swiftech H320 w/ Noctua NF-F12 iPPC Arch Linux w/ OpenBox 2 x LG 31MU97 Cinema 4K 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Vortex KBC Poker II PBT EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 G2 Corsair Obsidian 450D Zowie FK1 
Mouse PadAudioAudioOther
Steelseries QCK+ Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro 80Ω Audioengine D1 Intel X540-T2 NIC 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Avoton C2750 Octa-Core ASRock C2750D4I Samsung 64gb ECC 1600mhz 8 x Samsung 850 Pro 1TB 
OSPowerCaseOther
FreeNAS SilverStone ST45SF-G 450w SilverStone DS380 Intel X540-T2 NIC 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-4960HQ Intel Iris 5200 Pro NVIDIA GT 750M 2gb 16gb (2x8gb) 1600mhz 
Hard DriveMonitorMouseMouse Pad
1tb PCIe SSD 15.4" {2880x1800} IPS SteelSeries Sensei [RAW] SteelSeries QcK Mini 
  hide details  
Reply
Project Arch
(16 items)
 
BigByte
(8 items)
 
Macbook Pro
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5960x @ 4.8ghz Asus X99-E WS 2 x Nvidia Quadro K6000 Corsair Dominator Platinum 64gb 2666 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
2 x Samsung 850 Pro 512gb {RAID 0} Swiftech H320 w/ Noctua NF-F12 iPPC Arch Linux w/ OpenBox 2 x LG 31MU97 Cinema 4K 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Vortex KBC Poker II PBT EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 G2 Corsair Obsidian 450D Zowie FK1 
Mouse PadAudioAudioOther
Steelseries QCK+ Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro 80Ω Audioengine D1 Intel X540-T2 NIC 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Avoton C2750 Octa-Core ASRock C2750D4I Samsung 64gb ECC 1600mhz 8 x Samsung 850 Pro 1TB 
OSPowerCaseOther
FreeNAS SilverStone ST45SF-G 450w SilverStone DS380 Intel X540-T2 NIC 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-4960HQ Intel Iris 5200 Pro NVIDIA GT 750M 2gb 16gb (2x8gb) 1600mhz 
Hard DriveMonitorMouseMouse Pad
1tb PCIe SSD 15.4" {2880x1800} IPS SteelSeries Sensei [RAW] SteelSeries QcK Mini 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow11377 View Post

At the very least, upgrading to "4K" 2160p will result in better average digital media playback if your library consists of mixed 720/1080 content.

1080 -> 2160 turns each pixel into 4
720 -> 2160 turns each pixel into 9

720 -> 1080 isn't so simple.
1280x720 to 1920x1080 is exactly 2.25x the pixels, so each pixel becomes 2 and 1/4 of a pixel, but pixels are either whole or none.. so it results in some pixels being changed and others not, while doing all sorts of inaccurate crap inbetween.

From Left to Right
Native - Scaled 2.25x - Scaled 2.25x with Interpolation - And finally 2x in each direction.
15h0Qju.pngLYisJUc.pngU2W5QtD.pngwIT5Zx2.png

Scaling by anything but a whole number destroys quality.
Due to this alone, I think a 2160p monitor would be a huge upgrade for anyone who has 720p and 1080p content. Even a better upgrade than an 8bit panel over a 6bit one, and better than an IPS over TN. Though all three combined would obviously be ideal.

I fundamentally disagree with the reasoning in this post. Integer multiples don't make that big of a difference in practice. Generally on almost all video and image content you're not going to want to do point (nearest neighbor) upscaling where 1080 -> 2160 blows up each pixel into 4 of them. Most video players definitely aren't doing that, anyhow. Even a linear interpolation is not that good.

Using blocky text is not particularly the most indicative of actual image and video content, though it does demonstrate some stuff. And even then, nearest neighbor often isn't good.

Anyway, it depends on the type of image and how the interpolation (meant in a loose way) is done. Anyway, I end this post with links to pretty images:
http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/filter/nicolas/
http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1663611&postcount=21592
http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1665438&postcount=22306
post #14 of 48
Pixel density? probably not, I think we have at least another major iteration to go through on phones and monitors. TVs probably have another 2 or 3.

Productivity improvements from increased pixel density? Probably.

Many people already think 32"+ 4K panels are too big to add to productivity, especially if used in a multi-monitor environment because of the head movement required to see the entire workspace.

I refuse to get a 4K panel just to run it with a scaled UI. That knocks out everything below 32" with my vision and distance from the display. Maybe pixel doubling on 4K is fine for people on 1080p currently, but I'll need a 5120x2880 native display before I scale the UI.
Main Rig 2015
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 5820K @ 4.7GHz Asus X99-E WS 3.1 GTX Titan X @ 1463/3900 1.25v 4 x 8GB G.Skill DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
400GB Intel 750 Series NVMe 5TB WD Black LG 14x BDXL Writer NZXT Kraken X60 280mm 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 8.1 64 Arch Linux Dell 3008WFP Dell 2407WFP 
KeyboardCaseMouseMouse Pad
Logitech G15 Phanteks Enthoo Primo Razer Mamba 2012 Razer Destructor 
AudioAudio
Sennheiser HD598 Black Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
Main Rig 2015
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 5820K @ 4.7GHz Asus X99-E WS 3.1 GTX Titan X @ 1463/3900 1.25v 4 x 8GB G.Skill DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
400GB Intel 750 Series NVMe 5TB WD Black LG 14x BDXL Writer NZXT Kraken X60 280mm 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 8.1 64 Arch Linux Dell 3008WFP Dell 2407WFP 
KeyboardCaseMouseMouse Pad
Logitech G15 Phanteks Enthoo Primo Razer Mamba 2012 Razer Destructor 
AudioAudio
Sennheiser HD598 Black Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

I fundamentally disagree with the reasoning in this post. Integer multiples don't make that big of a difference in practice. Generally on almost all video and image content you're not going to want to do point (nearest neighbor) upscaling where 1080 -> 2160 blows up each pixel into 4 of them. Most video players definitely aren't doing that, anyhow. Even a linear interpolation is not that good.

Using blocky text is not particularly the most indicative of actual image and video content, though it does demonstrate some stuff. And even then, nearest neighbor often isn't good.

Anyway, it depends on the type of image and how the interpolation (meant in a loose way) is done. Anyway, I end this post with links to pretty images:
http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/filter/nicolas/
http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1663611&postcount=21592
http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1665438&postcount=22306

I agree that for some content interpolation can result in a nicer looking picture.
However.. I cannot agree with the bold.

Scaling by anything but an integer does lead to degraded quality. Interpolation can help make it appear decent, but scaling by an integer without interpolation leads to the most accurate display of the original content.

If the content has small details, scaling without interpolation is usually best.
Movies generally don't have fine detail, especially those streamed online with low bitrates, so softening edges of things doesn't really do harm and can remove the blocky appearance of scaling without interpolation. But that's pretty much equal to just blurring the image slightly. If your content doesn't do well blurred, stay away from anything but nearest neighbor. Cubic/Linear are all bad for detail preservation.
i7 Sandy
(8 items)
 
Skylake Pentium
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600K ASRock Z75 Pro3 GTX 970 16GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
250GB Samsung 850 Evo WinXP Pro / Win7 Pro 1080p 60Hz Thermaltake Smart M850W 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G4400 ASRock H110M-HDV GTX 550 Ti 8GB (2x4) 
Hard DriveOSPowerOther
250GB SSD Windows 7 500W 300Mbps WLAN 
  hide details  
Reply
i7 Sandy
(8 items)
 
Skylake Pentium
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600K ASRock Z75 Pro3 GTX 970 16GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
250GB Samsung 850 Evo WinXP Pro / Win7 Pro 1080p 60Hz Thermaltake Smart M850W 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G4400 ASRock H110M-HDV GTX 550 Ti 8GB (2x4) 
Hard DriveOSPowerOther
250GB SSD Windows 7 500W 300Mbps WLAN 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasty View Post

Yes, the lower the contrast, the less it shimmers.

To go back to your initial question. The answer is not IF but WHEN.

Personally I have no interest in acquiring a 4k computer monitor at this time. What discourages me is the low refresh rate of 60Hz and the nonexistence of computer hardware capable of running that resolution at decent frame rates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOrxBXj0Njo

So you're telling me that there is no hardware capable of running 4K at decent framerates? Ever hear of spending $2,000 on graphics cards that will be obsolete in 2 years? I mean yeah, if you take into account the fact that these video cards cost actual money money then no, there is no way for normal human beings to play in 4K. But you need to think outside the box. There are literally hundreds of credit card companies that will give you lines of credit (albeit with high interest rates and huge penalties). Just combine the credit limit of a couple of them and I am sure you can scrape together $2,000 out of that to get 2 of these. Just skip a mortgage payment or 2. What are they going to do? Throw you out of the house? Well if they do then you will at least be able to max out Metro Last Light at 4K.

No but for real, you make a good point. I bet 10 years ago when the first flat screen monitors were generally available to the masses, you wouldn't see a problem maybe getting one of those would you? But looking at these monitors, they are not that much of a step up from the current monitors. You just made a good point for the diminishing returns idea I brought up.
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 48
No, but 8k more than likely will. After that point I think display tech will change so drastically that the idea of pixels and resolution are completely different.

For the guy claiming there is no hardware that can play at 4k... yeah you are totally wrong buddy. A single 290x can play almost any game at 4k with no AA or FXAA high settings at 4k 60 FPS. Slap another one on there and you can bump up AA to the needed 2x to make pixels indiscernible at that res and some settings up to ultra. Sure you may not be able to run system crushing games like Crysis 3 and Metro:LL at a constant 60 FPS, but most other games you can.
Edited by MapRef41N93W - 4/2/14 at 8:48pm
 
NAS4Free Server
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-950 3.8GHz EVGA X58 SLI LE EVGA GTX 970  16GB G.Skill Trident X 2400MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Sandisk II Ultra Plus 960GB SSD Seagate Barracuda 2TB Some Supermicro HSF that is an NH-D12 knockoff Windows 7 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Crossover 44K 40" 3840x2160 Das Mechanical  Silverstone 500 Watt 80+ Gold Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
MouseAudio
Razer Deathadder 2013 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD A4-5000 Kabini ASRock QC5000-ITX  Integrated 4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
2TB Seagate Constellation Nas x2 RAID 1 Samsung 840 Pro 256GB 2TB Toshiba  NAS4Free 
PowerCase
Silverstone Strider 500 Watt 80+ Gold Fractal Design Node 804 
  hide details  
Reply
 
NAS4Free Server
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-950 3.8GHz EVGA X58 SLI LE EVGA GTX 970  16GB G.Skill Trident X 2400MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Sandisk II Ultra Plus 960GB SSD Seagate Barracuda 2TB Some Supermicro HSF that is an NH-D12 knockoff Windows 7 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Crossover 44K 40" 3840x2160 Das Mechanical  Silverstone 500 Watt 80+ Gold Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
MouseAudio
Razer Deathadder 2013 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD A4-5000 Kabini ASRock QC5000-ITX  Integrated 4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
2TB Seagate Constellation Nas x2 RAID 1 Samsung 840 Pro 256GB 2TB Toshiba  NAS4Free 
PowerCase
Silverstone Strider 500 Watt 80+ Gold Fractal Design Node 804 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapRef41N93W View Post

No, but 8k more than likely will. After that point I think display tech will change so drastically that the idea of pixels and resolution are completely different.

For the guy claiming there is no hardware that can play at 4k... yeah you are totally wrong buddy. A single 290x can play almost any game at 4k with no AA or FXAA high settings at 4k 60 FPS. Slap another one on there and you can bump up AA to the needed 2x to make pixels indiscernible at that res and some settings up to ultra. Sure you may not be able to run system crushing games like Crysis 3 and Metro:LL at a constant 60 FPS, but most other games you can.

8K wouldn't be the successor to 4K. It would be 16K

And if flagship cards, by themselves, can barely play 4K at a smooth 60FPS then no 4K still isn't playable.
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow11377 View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

I fundamentally disagree with the reasoning in this post. Integer multiples don't make that big of a difference in practice. Generally on almost all video and image content you're not going to want to do point (nearest neighbor) upscaling where 1080 -> 2160 blows up each pixel into 4 of them. Most video players definitely aren't doing that, anyhow. Even a linear interpolation is not that good.

Using blocky text is not particularly the most indicative of actual image and video content, though it does demonstrate some stuff. And even then, nearest neighbor often isn't good.

Anyway, it depends on the type of image and how the interpolation (meant in a loose way) is done. Anyway, I end this post with links to pretty images:
http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/filter/nicolas/
http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1663611&postcount=21592
http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1665438&postcount=22306

I agree that for some content interpolation can result in a nicer looking picture.
However.. I cannot agree with the bold.

Scaling by anything but an integer does lead to degraded quality. Interpolation can help make it appear decent, but scaling by an integer without interpolation leads to the most accurate display of the original content.

If the content has small details, scaling without interpolation is usually best.
Movies generally don't have fine detail, especially those streamed online with low bitrates, so softening edges of things doesn't really do harm and can remove the blocky appearance of scaling without interpolation. But that's pretty much equal to just blurring the image slightly. If your content doesn't do well blurred, stay away from anything but nearest neighbor. Cubic/Linear are all bad for detail preservation.

Okay, if you insist on nearest neighbor, then integer multiples are much more important.

I think discussing "most accurate" really needs a context for how the original sampled image was generated or captured in the first place. So it depends on the material and what you consider the details to be. Interpolation isn't the same as blurring. I mean, mathematically you could argue an infinite-tail sinc interpolation is most accurate, but that rarely looks good in practice.

If you interpret each pixel to be a block or area of information (I can't generally imagine most things shot with a camera to be this way), then you want to preserve its structure I guess, and nearest neighbor could make sense. But if the resolution is high enough for the details and it's a sample value along something continuous, it's clearly intended to be interpolated.

There's much sharper out there than linear and cubic, anyhow (and different coefficients for cubic).

I guess the "in practice" part depends a lot on the image / video, but what kind of content would you really watch with nearest neighbor upscaling? Which video players actually do this by default?
post #20 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by GridIroN View Post

4K is hard to look at for the general consumer because it's RIDICULOUSLY sharp and tiny, and the panels themselves are ludicrously expensive.

Not really valid arguments....

What's the resolution of the real-world? Greater than 4K...... A pixel density greater that human eye acuity does make things appear too sharp. If things are too tiny, just scale the image up....

Panels are really not that expensive considering and prices will drop.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Monitors and Displays
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › Do you think 4K will be the end of pixel density?