Perhaps; I remember watching Netflix at both 1080p and 4k and noticing a pretty substantial difference. To be fair, a 1080p blu-ray still looks better than most 4k content that I've streamed.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Debut Apple TV With 4K HDR Support at September Event
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I said, the counter points have been discussed for 18 pages. If you can't differentiate between a 2 dimensional screen resolutions and pixels after everything that has been said, then we have a fundamental disagreement on the difference. Namely, that you don't think there is one. In every one of your replies you use them as if they are the same thing. Including the question you posed. Tell me the actual 2 dimensional resolution of this 1 megapixel camera and I'll tell you what double the resolution will look like.
I know we have a fundamental disagreement on the difference - trying to find out why that is when I find the same definition in a 1997 computer guide as I do the latest Microsoft hardware certification text and both run counter to the one you've laid out. The counterpoints from what I've seen are just the same repeats of personal opinion, and often conflicting with each other, rather than addressing fundamental things like the actual definition (by most academic sources I could find) referring to total pixel count, being able to represent resolution in multiple ways (not just AxB), or the logical conflict between doubling "resolution" quoted as xy vs megapixels vs dpi).
I went into this with an assumption that you made me question, so I dug around. If I'm totally wrong, then I'm in some great company. ♂️
That's a pretty small TV by todays standards and what was the model? 42" isn't very desirable for me anyway. Just based on size I wouldn't even consider buying it.
This is probably a regional thing.
If you are in the US or Canada, then keep in mind that the homes are much, much bigger there than the UK. Australia has the largest average home size, closely under them is the US, and then followed by Canada.
On average, you could fit most of the living space of a UK home into just the living room of a home from the US.
While a 42" TV would be considered too small for Australian, US, and Canadian homes, it would probably be a decent size in the UK, and a larger TV such as a 65" one would be overkill.
Image resolution:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution
"Image resolution can be measured in various ways. Resolution quantifies how close lines can be to each other and still be visibly resolved. Resolution units can be tied to physical sizes (e.g. lines per mm, lines per inch),"
And related to pixel resolution
"
Resolution is the capability of the sensor to observe or measure the smallest object clearly with distinct boundaries. There is a difference between the resolution and a pixel. A pixel is actually a unit of the digital image. Resolution depends upon the size of the pixel. Usually, with any given lens setting, the smaller the size of the pixel, the higher the resolution will be and the clearer the object in the image will be. Images having smaller pixel sizes might consist of more pixels. The number of pixels correlates to the amount of information within the image.
The term resolution is often used for a pixel count in digital imaging, even though British, American, Japanese, and international standards specify that it should not be so used, at least in the digital camera field.[1][2]
An image of N pixels height by M pixels wide can have any resolution less than N lines per picture height, or N TV lines. But when the pixel counts are referred to as resolution, the convention is to describe the pixel resolution with the set of two positive integer numbers, where the first number is the number of pixel columns (width) and the second is the number of pixel rows (height), for example as 7680 by 6876. Another popular convention is to cite resolution as the total number of pixels in the image, typically given as number of megapixels, which can be calculated by multiplying pixel columns by pixel rows and dividing by one million. Other conventions include describing pixels per length unit or pixels per area unit, such as pixels per inch or per square inch. None of these pixel resolutions are true resolutions, but they are widely referred to as such; they serve as upper bounds on image resolution."
If you take the above it is generally accepted that while some people interchange resolution with pixel count, it is not a true resolution and people are using the term incorrectly.
Think of a magnifying glass at 2x, you would say I can see twice as much detail, not I can see four times as much detail, even though there is 4 times the information shown (if said magnifying glass were square)
To me its like confusing energy with power, yes they are related but not the same.
On the Wikipedia for display resolution, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
It doesn't state resolutions as pixel counts, always as two numbers or a single number in 1 direction.
Last edited:
Thanks, Dilbert99! Great stuff! I still can't wrap my mind around this concept though about not seeing 4 times much detail even with 4 times the information, but I'll revisit it tomorrow when I'm more awake ^_^
"In addition to 4K support, which will only be available on a 4K television."
Really? I have to buy a 4K TV to get 4K? Forget it then.
Really? I have to buy a 4K TV to get 4K? Forget it then.
I have a 43" 4K/UHD TV so the main benefit for me is compatibility if I have a 4K video file. I plan to upgrade to the iPhone 8 which is rumored to get 60fps 4K. I haven't taken too many 4K 30fps videos with my 6s (4 or 5), but probably will take more 4K videos when that 60fps option becomes available. A really minor benefit is being able to go really, really close and still be able to see a really sharp picture. The HDR seems to be a benefit as well now that I think of it, especially with a couple of PS4 games (regular PS4, not Pro model). Of course a 4K screen 20" bigger would be better which I may get someday.
I was just in Best Buy a few weeks ago and saw a 65" 4K UHD LG on sale for $460. I think it was last year's model but for under $500 ... who cares? In 2008, I paid $600 for a 32" 720p Samsung.
true. my only point was it is not nearly as hard or expensive to get a 4k TV as it once was. i even stated myself, that while it is a 4k TV its not the best quality 4k TV.
But is it STILL a step above the standard 1080p HDTV? oh yes. i bought an extra cheap 4k TV to keep in my Reptile Room of my house. its still easily notably better quality then the 1080P LED TV Ive had in there for the past 4 years, and i paid less now for it then i did of the original TV 5 years ago. i paid maybe 450$ out the door, and its a 42"(which is perfect for basic viewing while i go through my daily tasks in a decent sized room)
Now yes if you want a True High end 4k TV, you won't get it for 450$ BUT its not the same price tag it was even 5 years ago. the TV's that used to cost 3-5k flat out the box, are now going for 1,200-1,800.
unless you are going for a massive 75"+ TV you really shouldnt be paying all that much. and honestly if you need a screen bigger then 75" then it would be more economical to look into a high end projector/home theatre set up then an actual TV.
[doublepost=1503875885][/doublepost]
well. to be honest, sit far enough away and ANY higher resolution si pointless. i mean from far enough away even 1080P is pointless. sit a good 50 feet back and I'm sure that 480P will look almost as good, or equally as good, as your 720p and 1080P right? so why even get basic 1080P then? why not just stick with a 80" 480P and sit that much farther away? you could probably get a huge plasma TV for SUPER cheap now.
oh yea, because thats not the point right?
Yeah, it would be really interesting to compare a 1080p blu-ray with a native 4K video (do they have 4K blu-ray I don't even know) and see if people could then tell a difference in a blind test with HDR disabled and contrast normalized from over 8ft away.
They do have 4k blu-ray and it's unreal; light years better than streamed 4k. My brother has Planet Earth 2 on 4k blu-ray and it looks like you're looking through a window
UHD has 4 times the number of pixels but only twice the resolution. Resolution, in both digital and film, is defined as the number of distinctly visible lines that can be resolved. By doubling the number of pixels in the X and Y dimension, you end up with 4X the total number of pixels, but 2x the resolution.
I hope this one has a super fast processor and GPU, the current GPU quality in real racing sucks for large screens. Same is the case with other games. I hope they actually put a SOC with really powerful GPU. As good Alternative to PS is needed. My PS4 is cheap but games are damn expensive.
Things are more complicated than a single value. They care about image quality while caring about other characteristics of the medium. Some competing issues for the consumer are image quality, convenience, cost of ownership, availability, maintenance, storage. Physical disc formats fall short of online distribution in every way except image quality and that isn't because you can't stream higher bit rates, but because of ISP imposed limitations. With HEVC even higher image quality will become even less of an issue.
Last edited:
True, getting a proper 4K HDR TV isn't nearly as expensive as it used to be. I'm hearing great things about the new TCL P series - 55 Inch 4K UHD TV with FALD (72 Zones), Wide Color and Dolby Vision for $600 is an amazing deal. Makes me wish I was able to wait and didn't get my Oled (which I love) and Vizio M and P tvs are also great full featured TVs for under $1,200 (65 inch)
If you work your way through these agonizing 19 pages of debate, there are multiple definitions for "resolution" subject to the technology (different types of sensors, different types of displays...) and industry (consumer products, scientific products, computer repair...). His definition in question is regularly taught in academia, used unashamedly by marketers, and appears in a number of dictionaries; it's definitely mainstream, even if it's not as proper.
[doublepost=1503937535][/doublepost]
Interesting twist - looking at the standards the Wikipedia article points to, the joint commission (which pretty much all the digital camera makers are part of) says that what we often refer to as resolution (say 1920x1080) is the total pixel count (or in their words, "the number of pixels comprising one frame") and should not be referred to as "resolution". Instead, it should be called the "Number of Total Pixels" when referencing the image sensor and "Number of Effective Pixels" for which pixels actually end up in the frame.
They further add these should receive additional notation to better communicate if it's a Line Sequential System, Color Difference System, et al.
Their notation examples:
"Number of Recorded Pixels: 1280x960 (RGB 4:4:4)"
"Number of Effective Pixels: 10M (Maximum 12M)"
"Number of Effective Pixels: 1000 pixels x 1500 steps"
Last edited:
And let me guess you live in the US? Even on sale I'm paying at least double that in Canada. My original post was people outside the US still have to pair a fair bit for more for a good HDR 4k TV, which to me is at least 60" with upper end specs, making it less desirable to upgrade for non Americans. Especially OLED which is probably what most people should be aiming for if they really want to make the most of HDR and 4k. Basically just saying American usually get much better pricing on TV's and it makes more sense for them to make the upgrade while others, like us Canadians, for the difference picture, are probably better off riding out there current 1080p sets for a while longer.
I guess I need to buy 4k HDR TV before I get too excited about this.Does 4k HDR even make a big difference compared to 1080p?
4K in itself looks amazing (Eastwood's "Unforgiven" in UHD is so crystal-clear it looks like it was shot last year) but what makes even more difference is the High Dynamic Range (HDR). On a nice OLED TV, the colors just explode, even in standard HD. Watch something in UHD+HDR like Amazon's "Man in the High Castle" and you'll be completely transfixed.
I love my OLED 4K TV. Well worth the price if you can afford it. Prices have been coming down too!