4 ms·

I may be a nitpicker, but for me 4k is 4096x2160, or am I wrong? This screen is UHD, or 2160p but not 4k.

by Kayou 12y ago

cs02rm0 12y ago
You're not wrong, but I think the argument has been lost with the marketers long ago.
unhammer 12y ago
Double disappointment (it also looks fairly ugly, as do all monitors I've seen apart from Apple's ones, which don't work with non-Apple computers :-/)
byuu 12y ago
For me, it's 7822x4096. Or even 7112x4000 if you must. This really should be called 2160p, but you know, marketing. Also really loving my 976GiB "terabyte" hard drive, and my "ten meg" 1.25MiB/s broadband.
- josephlord 12y ago
  The thing is the consumer displays are just reaching the resolutions that the cinema world has been working with for years and they always referred to the horizontal pixel count. CRTs of course never had meaningful horizontal pixel counts but had very meaningful line numbers so that was what was used in the TV industry. The broadband situation is sort of similar and has always historically been measured in bits. With hard drives I don't know if there is a reason they can't put 1000GiB on their "terabyte" hard drives which might be reasonable.
  - byuu 12y ago
    Interesting info on the cinema resolutions, wasn't aware of that, thanks. As for hard drives, it's unfortunately not even 1000GiB. It's 1,000,000,000,000 bytes; or 931.32GiB. Of course usually it's actually a bit higher based on the design, and they 'round down'. My OS is reporting my WD Reds as 976GiB, so I'm 'only' missing around 48GiB. And on that note, I understand the whole 'humans like base 10', but computers like base 2. And now half of my apps use base-10, half use base-2. And I pretty much have to use base-2 for all older stuff, like ROM sizes from old game cartridges. And I doubt people actually cared about 1000-vs-1024 when they said their file was "three megs", but now instead of consistency we have a mess.
- polshaw 12y ago
  ____P is a broadcast specification, and was never meant to become a display measurement. It intentionally only defined the vertical resolution as this was the only specific resolution requirement; for example 1440x1080 is a valid 1080P broadcast resolution (it would still be displayed in 16:9 however). Moreover specifying Progressive is utterly redundant in modern displays (and thankfully is becoming universally redundant). ____P is no less of a marketing label than 4K, just a different one. Any monitor should be defined by its resolution; however this is clunky as hell- as demonstrated by the sheer mass of people keen to inappropriately use the ____P nomenclature. UHD seems a valid shorthand of this resolution; and to be fair it tends to get used; although often alongside 4K.
  - byuu 12y ago
    I would be quite happy with the demise of interlaced display modes as well. But I'm not so hopeful that we won't see a "4Ki" resolution for cable/satellite UHD channels in the future. All of the channels I get are 1080i still.
zokier 12y ago
It is quite widely accepted that 3840x2160 is "4K", eg. quoting wikipedia: > The SMPTE first released Standard 2036 for UHDTV in 2007. UHDTV was defined as having two levels called UHDTV1 (3840×2160 or 4K UHDTV) and UHDTV2 (7680x4320 or 8K UHDTV). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_UHDTV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_UHDTV and > The television industry has adopted ultra high definition television (UHDTV) as its 4K standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

I may be a nitpicker, but for me 4k is 4096x2160, or am I wrong? This screen is UHD, or 2160p but not 4k.

by Kayou 12y ago

I may be a nitpicker, but for me 4k is 4096x2160, or am I wrong? This screen is UHD, or 2160p but not 4k.

cs02rm0 12y ago

You're not wrong, but I think the argument has been lost with the marketers long ago.

unhammer 12y ago

Double disappointment (it also looks fairly ugly, as do all monitors I've seen apart from Apple's ones, which don't work with non-Apple computers :-/)

byuu 12y ago

For me, it's 7822x4096. Or even 7112x4000 if you must. This really should be called 2160p, but you know, marketing. Also really loving my 976GiB "terabyte" hard drive, and my "ten meg" 1.25MiB/s broadband.

josephlord 12y ago
The thing is the consumer displays are just reaching the resolutions that the cinema world has been working with for years and they always referred to the horizontal pixel count. CRTs of course never had meaningful horizontal pixel counts but had very meaningful line numbers so that was what was used in the TV industry. The broadband situation is sort of similar and has always historically been measured in bits. With hard drives I don't know if there is a reason they can't put 1000GiB on their "terabyte" hard drives which might be reasonable.
- byuu 12y ago
  Interesting info on the cinema resolutions, wasn't aware of that, thanks. As for hard drives, it's unfortunately not even 1000GiB. It's 1,000,000,000,000 bytes; or 931.32GiB. Of course usually it's actually a bit higher based on the design, and they 'round down'. My OS is reporting my WD Reds as 976GiB, so I'm 'only' missing around 48GiB. And on that note, I understand the whole 'humans like base 10', but computers like base 2. And now half of my apps use base-10, half use base-2. And I pretty much have to use base-2 for all older stuff, like ROM sizes from old game cartridges. And I doubt people actually cared about 1000-vs-1024 when they said their file was "three megs", but now instead of consistency we have a mess.
polshaw 12y ago
____P is a broadcast specification, and was never meant to become a display measurement. It intentionally only defined the vertical resolution as this was the only specific resolution requirement; for example 1440x1080 is a valid 1080P broadcast resolution (it would still be displayed in 16:9 however). Moreover specifying Progressive is utterly redundant in modern displays (and thankfully is becoming universally redundant). ____P is no less of a marketing label than 4K, just a different one. Any monitor should be defined by its resolution; however this is clunky as hell- as demonstrated by the sheer mass of people keen to inappropriately use the ____P nomenclature. UHD seems a valid shorthand of this resolution; and to be fair it tends to get used; although often alongside 4K.
- byuu 12y ago
  I would be quite happy with the demise of interlaced display modes as well. But I'm not so hopeful that we won't see a "4Ki" resolution for cable/satellite UHD channels in the future. All of the channels I get are 1080i still.

zokier 12y ago

It is quite widely accepted that 3840x2160 is "4K", eg. quoting wikipedia: > The SMPTE first released Standard 2036 for UHDTV in 2007. UHDTV was defined as having two levels called UHDTV1 (3840×2160 or 4K UHDTV) and UHDTV2 (7680x4320 or 8K UHDTV). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_UHDTV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_UHDTV and > The television industry has adopted ultra high definition television (UHDTV) as its 4K standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution