| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 111051 | 2010-07-12 00:14:00 | Whats bigger than 1080p? 4K video of course! | xyz823 (13649) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1117997 | 2010-07-12 00:14:00 | 4K video comes to YouTube Link (youtube-global.blogspot.com) Apparently 4K video is best suited to someone using a screen measuring more than 25ft across!!! :eek::eek: Do we actually NEED this on youtube??? ...there are a few limitations that you should be aware of. First off, video cameras that shoot in 4K aren’t cheap, and projectors that show videos in 4K are typically the size of a small refrigerator. |
xyz823 (13649) | ||
| 1117998 | 2010-07-12 00:27:00 | Nope, but it's nice to know it's there :). Does anyone have a screen that is 25ft across? Edit: 4x the size of 1080p? Thats HUGE :eek: |
davidmmac (4619) | ||
| 1117999 | 2010-07-12 00:37:00 | Yeah heard about that a few days back. Let's be honest, we probably don't *need* it, but with the WebM Project coming about, it could be a real cool way to show off some awesome compression :D | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1118000 | 2010-07-12 01:19:00 | Not that it matters, with Big Time gone.... | Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1118001 | 2010-07-12 02:23:00 | I'm still waiting for DownloadHelper to be updated. They're taking their time... |
ubergeek85 (131) | ||
| 1118002 | 2010-07-12 02:31:00 | Nope, but it's nice to know it's there :). Does anyone have a screen that is 25ft across? Edit: 4x the size of 1080p? Thats HUGE :eek: Brilliant, that's the highest resolution used in actual cinemas. So here's the plan. I'm thinking four 1080p projectors, aligned perfectly, would about do the job. Probably cheaper than a 4K projector! You'd need a pretty grunty computer though. And it would be pointless. The way I see it, for home cinema, 1080p is HEAPS of resolution and we should just focus on that. |
george12 (7) | ||
| 1118003 | 2010-07-12 02:36:00 | Hmm... massive waste of money IMO. They would be far better putting it toward longer video times, better audio compression and proper 1080p, not the half arsed thing they have at the moment. Putting the cart before the horse I reckon. That is a epically large resolution though. And it's not 4x, it's just over 6x the size...where did 4x come from? Another thing.. 4096 x 3072 is a 4:3 resolution is it not? What's with that? |
wratterus (105) | ||
| 1118004 | 2010-07-12 02:42:00 | 4K is actually 4096x2160, which is about 8MP. 1080p is 1920x1080, which is around 2MP, thus 4K is around 4 times the resolution of 1080p. The confusion came from the article which incorrectly mentioned 4096p (which would be something x 4096 and is vastly larger than 4K), and also incorrectly referred to a resolution of 4096x3072, which is unlikely to ever be used as it's not widescreen. Reply to edit: Yeah I believe that is just a mistake. Either that, or they support that resolution - but it's not the official 4K resolution as I understand it, and I doubt anyone would produce content in that resolution anyway. |
george12 (7) | ||
| 1118005 | 2010-07-12 02:47:00 | That makes sense, cheers. So it should really be called 2160p...? (Going along with 1920*1080 progressive = 1080p, 1280*720 progressive = 720p etc etc etc... |
wratterus (105) | ||
| 1118006 | 2010-07-12 04:38:00 | That would make sense. I imagine one day when TVs come out with that kind of resolution that's what they'll call it. They just seem to have the different 'K' naming convention in cinema use, which is the only current use for 4K I would think. | george12 (7) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||