• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anyone tried 2160p videos yet?

J

jtvang125

Diamond Member
I downloaded a 10 sec clip of ducks taking off from a pond that's in 2160p (3840 x 2160). That 10 second clip was 500mb in size but my midrange computer (2.5ghz C2D) couldn't even play it smoothly. It was a slide show all the way through.

Since there isn't any 2160p HDTVs available the highest I could try it on was my Dell 2405 24" monitor @ 1900x1200. Honestly I couldn't really tell a difference with something in 1080p and that clip. I don't know, maybe because I'm not viewing it in its full resolution or it's just too short at 10 seconds to really see any difference.
 
So, let me get this straight: you downloaded a 2160p video and tried to view it on your ~1080p monitor? There's no difference because, duh, it's getting downscaled to 1080p. That's like viewing 1080p source material on your 720p projector and concluding that 1080p adds no additional value compared to 720p. _You can't view pixels your display device isn't putting out._

Try this same test on a 30" LCD running at 2560x1600, and you might get a slightly different result, I'm thinking.
 
Currently if you want to watch a 2160p video or its professional equivalent 4K (4096x3112 for full aperture) you need to goto a digital IMAX theater. The width of 4k is almost always exactly or near 4096, with the height in pixels based on the aspect ratio (2160 would be 1.89:1 Aspect). Goto a digital IMAX theater and sit in the front row and tell me if you think the resolution helps over a 1080p movie.
 
Even if your 24 inch monitor had a resolution of 2160p, you still wouldn't see any difference. Put that on a 30 foot screen, and it will make 1080p look like VHS.

Basically what YOyo and krotchy said.
 
Originally posted by: JAG87
Even if your 24 inch monitor had a resolution of 2160p, you still wouldn't see any difference. Put that on a 30 foot screen, and it will make 1080p look like VHS.

Basically what YOyo and krotchy said.
Click to expand...

This isn't quite correct. On a 24inch monitor, you could definitely see a difference as long as the screen was close enough. Still for desktop use, 2560x1600 on a 30" is a good step size up from 1920x1200 on a 24" and the added resolution is definitely noticeable and quite handy. To keep the jump similar to a 24" to 30" you would need about a 37.5" monitor running 2160P, and it would definitely be noticeable from a computer chair on a desk in front of you.
 
With computer displays, things can really get crazy.

Typical higher resolution computer displays would have a pixel density of around 10,000 / sq. inch

24" 1920x1200 = 8,900 pixels / sq. inch
30" 2560x1600 = 10,126 pixels / sq. inch
20" 1600x1200 = 9,989 pixels / sq. inch

You can get much higher than that and still be usable since the viewing distances are so small
You can get a 15.4" laptop with a 1920x1200 screen... anybody know of one with a higher pixel density?
15.4" 1920x1200 = 20,233 pixels / sq. inch

A 2160p display would have to be about 41 inches to be in the same ballpark as typical monitors
41" 3456x2160 = 9,880 pixels / sq. inch


You'd have about the equivalent of two 30" 1600p monitors next to each other vertically. When you get to sizes this large though, you'd need to sit to close to gain the full benefit that you'd get neck / eye strain trying to watch video on it.

(pixel density figures from http://www.tvcalculator.com/ )
 
Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
You can get a 15.4" laptop with a 1920x1200 screen... anybody know of one with a higher pixel density?
15.4" 1920x1200 = 20,233 pixels / sq. inch
Click to expand...

How about the Sony P Series?
8" 1600x768 = 49,110 pixels / sq. inch

(according to my own calculations because tvcalculator doesn't have this aspect ratio listed)
 
Lol at this thread....

Yes 2160p would matter if you had a 2160p display and were close enough to it. My guess is you would need to stay under a 2:1 (view distance:diagonal screen size) to be able to tell with perfect vision. I based that off the general agreement that a 50 inch tv you need to be <10 ft away to be able to tell a difference between 720p and 1080p. Since 2160p is double the resolution (where 720p is 2/3 the pixels of 1080p roughly), you would have to keep closer to a 1.5:1 or 1.75:1 ratio at least.

So OP, if you get a 2160p display (which would be required to see benefit over 1080P) you would have to sit 4 ft away or so to tell a difference on a 30 inch screen. That's not getting into pixel density, or any of the other possible issues.

PS: before anybody jumps on my math and ratios, I did that while I'm sitting in class and with no research. It's just my estimation based on the 720p/1080p difference.
 
Originally posted by: kalrith
Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
You can get a 15.4" laptop with a 1920x1200 screen... anybody know of one with a higher pixel density?
15.4" 1920x1200 = 20,233 pixels / sq. inch
Click to expand...

How about the Sony P Series?
8" 1600x768 = 49,110 pixels / sq. inch

(according to my own calculations because tvcalculator doesn't have this aspect ratio listed)
Click to expand...

oh my
 
2160p ??? We all just sold the farm to go 1080p.
I think it would be less costly to actually visit the place(s)
in person (airfare+hotel) than upgrade - again?
Anyway... I'm waiting for 3-D layered screens.
You know, 3-D without the glasses.
Naturally you will need to replace all your dvd and bluray collection,
as well as your tv.
 
Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Originally posted by: kalrith
Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
You can get a 15.4" laptop with a 1920x1200 screen... anybody know of one with a higher pixel density?
15.4" 1920x1200 = 20,233 pixels / sq. inch
Click to expand...

How about the Sony P Series?
8" 1600x768 = 49,110 pixels / sq. inch

(according to my own calculations because tvcalculator doesn't have this aspect ratio listed)
Click to expand...

oh my
Click to expand...

There's also that 22" IBM LCD that's a bit higher than 2160p in resolution. Supposedly the pixels on it are too small to see with the human eye, so I can only imagine how tiny those on the Vaio P are.
 
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
So OP, if you get a 2160p display (which would be required to see benefit over 1080P) you would have to sit 4 ft away or so to tell a difference on a 30 inch screen. That's not getting into pixel density, or any of the other possible issues.

PS: before anybody jumps on my math and ratios, I did that while I'm sitting in class and with no research. It's just my estimation based on the 720p/1080p difference.
Click to expand...

According to yoyo's chart above, you have to sit about 2.5 feet from a 30" screen to notice any benefit over 1440p. I would surmise that you'd probably have to sit 1.5 feet from a 30" screen or 2.5 feet from a 40" screen to notice the full benefit of 2160p.

I could see the resolution for computer monitors; however, since it seems that most people don't sit close enough to notice the full benefit of 1080p, they won't notice any benefit of 2160p over 1080p. But if you let marketing departments get their hands on it, then everyone in America will think that they need to replace their lowly 1080p TV with 2160p.

Edit: DisgruntledVirus, I wasn't jumping on your math and ratios. I was just lightly stepping on them in a respectful manner 😛.
 
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Originally posted by: kalrith
Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
You can get a 15.4" laptop with a 1920x1200 screen... anybody know of one with a higher pixel density?
15.4" 1920x1200 = 20,233 pixels / sq. inch
Click to expand...

How about the Sony P Series?
8" 1600x768 = 49,110 pixels / sq. inch

(according to my own calculations because tvcalculator doesn't have this aspect ratio listed)
Click to expand...

oh my
Click to expand...

There's also that 22" IBM LCD that's a bit higher than 2160p in resolution. Supposedly the pixels on it are too small to see with the human eye, so I can only imagine how tiny those on the Vaio P are.
Click to expand...

The IBM T221. Yeah it's pretty insane. 3840×2400, but unfortunately it's very hard to get a decent refresh out of them. They still command a pretty hefty price, are a bitch to configure, and make default Windows XP icons and text look microscopic, but if you need that kind of resolution, there's not a lot of choice.
 
Originally posted by: kalrith
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
So OP, if you get a 2160p display (which would be required to see benefit over 1080P) you would have to sit 4 ft away or so to tell a difference on a 30 inch screen. That's not getting into pixel density, or any of the other possible issues.

PS: before anybody jumps on my math and ratios, I did that while I'm sitting in class and with no research. It's just my estimation based on the 720p/1080p difference.
Click to expand...

According to yoyo's chart above, you have to sit about 2.5 feet from a 30" screen to notice any benefit over 1440p. I would surmise that you'd probably have to sit 1.5 feet from a 30" screen or 2.5 feet from a 40" screen to notice the full benefit of 2160p.

I could see the resolution for computer monitors; however, since it seems that most people don't sit close enough to notice the full benefit of 1080p, they won't notice any benefit of 2160p over 1080p. But if you let marketing departments get their hands on it, then everyone in America will think that they need to replace their lowly 1080p TV with 2160p.

Edit: DisgruntledVirus, I wasn't jumping on your math and ratios. I was just lightly stepping on them in a respectful manner 😛.
Click to expand...

Yeah I would agree my math is off. I just posted it in a quick logical though.

My numbers are based off a linear relationship between distance and screen size to view a certain resolution. That is not the case, and it is a function (log function maybe). So I would agree with you, but I just wasn't really caring enough to put time/energy/effort into finding out numbers and all that at the time.

Irregardless there's no real reason for a resolution like that on pc monitors sub 30 inches (which is most of the market) 😛
 
I got a new $699 SE39UY04 Seiki UHD (= 2160 pixels high x 3840 pixels wide) 39" TV from Amazon and use it as a monitor on my Dell PC running Fedora 19 Linux. Works great. 2160p looks much better than 1080p looking at the monitor from 22" away. I needed to buy a new video card, new computer power supply and download anti-aliased fonts for best results. Video is great, like most high definition TVs it has crummy sound though.

Works great out of the box on Windows 8 also after I got the new video card and power supply.

This monitor does 30 frames/second but that works fine for me---I don't play games on the computer.

Disclosure: I'm not connected with Seiki in any way except as a very satisfied customer.
 
Last edited:
Oyeve said:
Well, i'm still impressed with 720p/1080i....Don't need anything higher atm.
Click to expand...

Too bad for you - your vision is just 20/20 - no HD, your ears are weak - can't hear 32bit Flac files....

Some people's vision and hearing is developing along with development of technology - didn't get yet a nano-chip in your body while getting a flu-shot @ CVS?
 
YOyoYOhowsDAjello said:
2160p isn't on this list, but you can see that it's all about viewing distance and screen size.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
Click to expand...

While we're necro'ing, how the hell is 2160 NOT on that list?

Here' the pic in the link: {couldn't get his to display, but I have the same image on my pic depot}

resolutionchart.png
 
Last edited:
^Basically, the only thing 2060 or 4K is going to do is allow us to have larger TV's at the same distance.

So now instead of roughly 75-ish inches being the max size for 1080p at 10' viewing distance, with 2160p you can go over 140".

But if you're watching a 60" at 10' now, getting a 4k 60" set and viewing it at the same distance isn't going to look any better.
 
I've played some RED footage (4k) on an eizo 4k monitor I had at my previous office. We had fast workstations there so it played smoothly. It was pretty amazing. Everyone that saw it thought there was no need for 3d if you could get video that lifelike. That was a 31inch monitor, so the pixel density was huge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top