4K gaslighting megathread - Chads only

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Destacado
Kosher Dill dijo:
I believe the problem with Disney specifically is that their HD remasters are just terrible. It's not the technology's fault.
Presiona para expandir...
Every Disney animated movie after the Little Mermaid was done digitally with a source format of 2k ( 2048 x 1080, basically just 1080p), that's why they all look like shit. The ones before were done on film so they have pretty much an infinite resolution so the 4k remasters look incredible.
 
ToroidalBoat dijo:
I still recall the first time using 1024 x 768. It looked tiny and blurry to me.
Presiona para expandir...
Should've clarified I meant everything on the screen looking tiny and blurry. It was on a CRT monitor.

Dysnomia dijo:
everything looked smaller
Presiona para expandir...
Did you mean stuff like text and icons?

Also when it comes to vidya console, I still use the red-white-yellow connection.
 
ZMOT dijo:
unless you're a tech-tuber comparing zoomed in sections of the screen every minute for clickbait, you won't even notice in practice.
Presiona para expandir...
I... I was just seeing this thread on the front page and for some reason, after reading the maximally triggered OP, I fell for the b8.
Esp. after reading a few of opinions like the above.

So here it goes:
I def. enjoy the 32" real estate of a small TV or Large Monitor for PC usage and I DO think 1080p on anything larger than 21" looks pixelated
- why yes, I am nearsighted - pfprel.
32" with 4k is THE perfect DPI for sitting between 50 to 80 cm from the screen. Buuut only when setting windows to force "200%" scaling.
Basically, 4k, 32" with everything the size it would have on 1080p - That's the perfect setup. If you aren't blind as a mole, you def. see pixels with less DPI.

Yes, there are some old, fucked up looking apps with scaling... well, actually nothing comes to mind, everything I need scales well and correctly.
I do remember that this was broken for decades, tho. Not sure when Microsoft fixed it, XP didn't do it correctly.
 
pixels-per-inch is where it's really at. If you aren't just looking at pixel art and use bitmap fonts (which is a perfectly valid strategy, I always use bitmap fonts when I can as they are always sharp when scaled correctly), you want at least 200+ PPI for your eyeballs not to bleed. As much as I dislike them, Apple has understood this a long time ago. Vector fonts are barely acceptable at 150 PPI and look like complete shit below it. Subpixel rendering and other cleartyple-like technologies only get you so far and can't pull spare pixels for rasterizing out of their ass. I have no idea how people can stand the ~100 PPI (at best) blurry garbage your average monitor outputs, which also just seem to get bigger and bigger. PPI is a product of the size of the monitor and it's resolution. These two variables by themselves mean nothing. A 4k monitor can be blurry shit if it's just large enough.

Funnily enough, if you are a retro gaming affectionado, you really want these small, very high-resolution screens that have 230+ PPI and more. Every retrogamer knows what a shitshow scaling of the various resolutions systems used to put out to CRTs is. If you have enough pixels packed densely together, it matters less and less. A 260+ PPI screen can show you every non-native resolution sharply as the pixels are packed together so densely that there's enough room for interpolation in a non-blurry way, if done in a clever way. Such a screen with the right scaling algorithms is just as resolution agnostic (within reason) as CRTs were. These densely packed panels are also the truly (for the manufacturer) expensive ones and are also basically always high quality.
 
Cats dijo:
People who weren't alive to see the art being displayed visually within the environment it was made for will never understand just how "at home" some things looked there and how much better that so called "low quality" actually was. Being as such a display is extremely hard to faithfully emulate and recreate with things like artificial filters etc., they likely never will. Playing something like Sega Genesis on a natural old tech CRT is an infinitely better experience than playing it on a modern display, but it's somehow so much more than that. It is a difficult thing to describe, but it's there.
Presiona para expandir...
That's where 4k and higher come in, you can totally have those Gaussian blur and scan-line artifacts to spice up your NTSC/PAL content but they only look natural if your display IS really high DPI. I've seen and played around with several shadertoy/reshade effects which looked very a u t h e n t i c .
Honestly, the effect you speak of, is mostly just Gaussian blur or, phrased less nerdy, the good ol' vaseline-on-lens look.
Soggy Floppa dijo:
Every Disney animated movie after the Little Mermaid was done digitally with a source format of 2k ( 2048 x 1080, basically just 1080p), that's why they all look like shit. The ones before were done on film so they have pretty much an infinite resolution so the 4k remasters look incredible.
Presiona para expandir...
Yes, and they did purposefully go for that plastic-y, dead, carnival ride airbrush look. It just looks that way and it's supposed to.
Having it high res "remastered" just makes the bland, texture-less S P A C E stand out more than it did on your bedside 15" TV/VHS combo.
The less you actually see, the more your brain fills in.
Combine that with nostalgia and the vivid imagination of kids in general and you get disappointed millennial didney fans.
Compared to The Jungle Book, 101 Dalmatians or my fave: Sleeping Beauty, 90s Disney just looks like shit, always did.
We just didn't care because we had yet to become the jaded noooticers we are now.
 
George Lucas dijo:
Lmao I made this thread as a joke.
Presiona para expandir...
pretending to be retarded, on the farms no less...

Dang dirty Pidgeons! dijo:
So here it goes:
I def. enjoy the 32" real estate of a small TV or Large Monitor for PC usage and I DO think 1080p on anything larger than 21" looks pixelated
- why yes, I am nearsighted - pfprel.
32" with 4k is THE perfect DPI for sitting between 50 to 80 cm from the screen. Buuut only when setting windows to force "200%" scaling.
Basically, 4k, 32" with everything the size it would have on 1080p - That's the perfect setup. If you aren't blind as a mole, you def. see pixels with less DPI.
Presiona para expandir...
blind doesn't matter, normalfags don't know or care. they might when they see a direct comparison in the store right next to each other, but after a week at home they won't anymore, and certainly less with netflix "4k" etc.
this was also regarding various upscaling techniques which fondle the imagine clarity one way or another. 4k vidya is nice and all but there is no hardware that can drive it properly without any hacks, even less so with MUH RAYTRACING.

you can have the best, most optimal setup for maximum graphical fidelity, but it means squat in any unreal game raping your eyes with TAA and motion blur, or nvidia in general with DLSS. or any modern smart TV in general.
 
The pro-tip for 4k is get a roughly 43" 4k monitor and set it to native resolution.

Not too big to view from a desk sitting position, the text isn't too small for normal eyes, and you get a shitload of real estate.

Problems with framerate in games? Just run the game in a 1440p window.
 
I got a larger screen with a 4k resolution because I wanted a larger workspace. I don't care if I play a game upscaled from 1080p, I don't notice, but I notice if I scale productivity apps down on a 1080p monitor because text gets unreadable. I just want a bigger (virtual) desk!
 
ZMOT dijo:
you can have the best, most optimal setup for maximum graphical fidelity, but it means squat in any unreal game raping your eyes with TAA and motion blur, or nvidia in general with DLSS. or any modern smart TV in general.
Presiona para expandir...
I ackshually like that.
sure, most gaymes are probably still 'raping your eyes' with too much of it but I dig a slight, natural blur over uncanny sharpness. That might, again, be somewhat related to being near sighted and I am beginning to suspect, that people going for moar sharpness but somehow aren't bothered by the pixel screen effect, are probably more on the farsighted end... They want their games to look sharp but actually can't focus the screen that well, much less see the pixel grid without effort. I have a friend who really uses "sports" mode on his TV and has his computer monitor's sharpness all cranked up... I think he's like that.

The problem which leads to these discussions is that people disregard their own biomechanical, optical equipment's filter effects. For me NTSC to 1080p was a jump to more information per frame (more detail) but HDTV still looks jagged to me on anything over 32" while SDTV never did. But, of course, you couldn't make out much of anything to begin with.
With 4k, I can't make out more detail than with 1080p at the same size and at the same sitting distance.
It just looks much smoother than 1080p, which I really like.
With 4k things have the smoothness of SDTV but the detail of HDTV.

TL;DR:
Short sighted people:
  • don't mind when the picture is smoothed to hell and back because they're kinda used to that look irl.
  • noootice the 'screen effect', moire and what not more easily
...so they love high dpi screens and running their shit with smudgy upscaling and filtering.
 
Última edición:
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo