How does 1080p look on a 4k display?

[futurefields]

Does it look obviously scaled compared to a native 1080p display?

 

[OCGuy]

Have you ever gone to a high end steak or seafood place and ordered chicken strips?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I don't think anyone who posts here has a 4k display.

 

[OCGuy]

I don't think anyone who posts here has a 4k display.

But over at [H]Zone, I read that everyone will be on 4k by Xmas.

 

[BrightCandle]

Given the same screen size as a 1080p screen it should look pretty similar. But there isn't a normal monitor sized 4k monitor out yet, so right now it would look like a TV does, except your sat right next to it and would see the pixels.

 

[hawtdawg]

it should scale perfectly as it's just double the resolution.

 

[Ferzerp]

With a sane scaler, almost exactly the same. Each pixel would map to 4 output pixels and no need for anything but an accurate image.

 

[toyota]

it should scale perfectly as it's just double the resolution.

you mean half the resolution and that its nonsesne. I am just baffled when people say stuff like that. so I guess 960x540 should look fine on a 1920x1080? of course not as it looks like blurry crap and way worse than 1900x900 or 1280x720. the lower you drop the resolution below native the worse it will look.

 

[AdamK47]

Mr. toyota, I believe he ment that 3840x2160 is double 1920x1080 so it should scale perfectly. I'm just baffled when people don't get simple stuff like that.

 

[bystander36]

you mean half the resolution and that its nonsesne. I am just baffled when people say stuff like that. so I guess 960x540 should look fine on a 1920x1080? of course not as it looks like blurry crap and way worse than 1900x900 or 1280x720. the lower you drop the resolution below native the worse it will look.

There are two ways this can be done. I'm not really sure of which would be used:

1) 1080p simply makes a cluster of 4 pixels equivalent to 1 pixel in 1080p, in which case it'll look exactly like 1080p looks on a 1080p monitor. 0 difference, other than possibly the size of the monitor itself. Remember that 4k has exactly twice the pixels in both directions, so there is no odd stretching needed.

2) It attempts to smooth things out as it stretches out, in which case it may look like 1080p with some AA applied.

 

[amenx]

I think the 3840x2160 res of 4k was no coincidence. It was chosen precisely because it was a doubling of the HD standard, to make HD programs look decent on it. Most of TV viewing over next few years will still be 1920x1080 even when 4k becomes more mainstream.

 

[hawtdawg]

you mean half the resolution and that its nonsesne. I am just baffled when people say stuff like that. so I guess 960x540 should look fine on a 1920x1080? of course not as it looks like blurry crap and way worse than 1900x900 or 1280x720. the lower you drop the resolution below native the worse it will look.

did you get dropped on your head as a baby?

Warning issued for personal attack.
-- stahlhart

 

[moonbogg]

I'd imagine you would have some really well defined jaggies.

 

[bystander36]

I'd imagine you would have some really well defined jaggies.

Just as defined as any 1080p monitor.

 

[toyota]

did you get dropped on your head as a baby?

I have ran many monitors at exactly half their res and they look like crap. there is nothing magical about it being exactly half the resolution and anyone here can see that by trying it themselves. all it takes is one good eye to see that the the lower you go below native resolution, the worse it looks.

 

[blastingcap]

It all depends on viewing distance and pixel density

 

[Techhog]

I have ran many monitors at exactly half their res and they look like crap. there is nothing magical about it being exactly half the resolution and anyone here can see that by trying it themselves. all it takes is one good eye to see that the the lower you go below native resolution, the worse it looks.

Without knowing monitor sizes, this is a pretty useless post.

 

[toyota]

Without knowing monitor sizes, this is a pretty useless post.

monitor size does not have anything to do with what I just said. again instead of arguing, lower your res to exactly half and look for yourself. if you cant see how crappy that is then you have no business even talking about image quality.

 

[bystander36]

I have ran many monitors at exactly half their res and they look like crap. there is nothing magical about it being exactly half the resolution and anyone here can see that by trying it themselves. all it takes is one good eye to see that the the lower you go below native resolution, the worse it looks.

Keep in mind, 4k to 1080p is exactly 1/4 the area, and each 1080p pixel would be perfectly represented by a cluster of 4 pixels. Most other resolutions down scaling does not fit like that.

 

[amenx]

Without knowing monitor sizes, this is a pretty useless post.

Yep. Toyota, half res of anything of todays resolutions (non-4k) would indeed look like crap. WTF were you looking at?? 990x600? 1280x800?

 

[Fayd]

Have you ever gone to a high end steak or seafood place and ordered chicken strips?

yes.

Warning issued for thread crapping.
-- stahlhart

 

[Techhog]

monitor size does not have anything to do with what I just said.

Yes, it does. If you're scaling 960x540 on a 27-inch 1080p monitor, it's going to look like crap because a 27-inch 960x540 monitor would look like crap. However, due to perfect scaling, it would look better than it would look if you scaled 960x540 on a 1440p 27-inch monitor. In the former example, it would look pixelated, while in the latter it would look more blurry.

 

[toyota]

Yes, it does. If you're scaling 960x540 on a 27-inch 1080p monitor, it's going to look like crap because a 27-inch 960x540 monitor would look like crap. However, due to perfect scaling, it would look better than it would look if you scaled 960x540 on a 1440p 27-inch monitor. In the former example, it would look pixelated, while in the latter it would look more blurry.

it has NOTHING to do with what i am saying. you are not following. I am saying there is nothing magical at 1/2 or 1/4 resolution. the lower you go the worse it looks. the size of the monitor is irrelevant in the context of what i am saying.

 

[Techhog]

it has NOTHING to do with what i am saying. you are not following. I am saying there is nothing magical at 1/2 or 1/4 resolution. the lower you go the worse it looks. the size of the monitor is irrelevant in the context of what i am saying.

You're not paying attention to what any of us are saying at all...

 

[ShintaiDK]

I think the 3840x2160 res of 4k was no coincidence. It was chosen precisely because it was a doubling of the HD standard, to make HD programs look decent on it. Most of TV viewing over next few years will still be 1920x1080 even when 4k becomes more mainstream.

I think it will be more than a few years. TV companies and signal systems just got upgraded for a huge lump the last few years. I dont think they want to spend that kind of money again so soon. Also most systems in place dont have the bandwidth free yet to handle 4K streams. And most, if not all, 4K TVs today only get sold with DVB-T2/DVB-S2 tuners.

In denmark we like to follow germany. And there isnt even DVB-C2 on the drawing board yet. Meaning its quite some years out in the future.