Samsung FALSE ADVERTISING

Think of it as volume. It is 4 times. But I think what you meant is that you can fit 4 HD frames into 4K. Not exactly the same thing but I know where you were going with it.
 
maarek said:
That's just nonsense.

Photographers "have known"? I'm a photographer and I have no idea what your mumbling about. Four times as much resolution is FOUR TIMES as much resolution. End of story. 12mp is half of 24mp. 2mp is 1/4th of 8mp.
Click to expand...
I'm a photographer too, professional for years, that's why I said that. 12mp is indeed half of 24mp in terms of pixel count, what's your point?

Talking about linear resolution like it's some kindoff magical real resolution is so odd. 1080p is 4 times better than PAL SD. And it shows, you can actually see 4 times more information.
Click to expand...
Linear resolution is real resolution, period. It's the amount of lines per unit of measure in any dimension that you can visually perceive. I do agree that 1080p is significantly better than SD because of a number of reasons, including encoding and color sampling, but 1080p to 4K does not carry the same benefits since 1080p is already so efficient.

Just take a really sharp 100x100 image and scale it down to 50x50. Take a look at how much stuff is lost. A LOT. Four pixels become one.
Click to expand...
Two words: Diminishing returns. As you work with low resolutions, in your example 100x100 vs 50x50, the difference would be extremely visible. The difference between 2000x2000 and 4000x4000 however would be less so, depending on the subject and shooting conditions.

For an image to have 4x as much resolution, it would need 16x as much pixels.

edit: I do hope we're talking about increased resolution as a benefit to actual subject matter using existing technology and not an abstract concept?
 
Last edited:
UHD TV's are 3840x2160 resolution. You can fit four full 1920x1080p HD windows on a UHD display. I've toyed with the idea of using one of the 39" Seiki displays with a multi-touch screen bezel as an edit desk. Two or three full 1080p video windows and lots of real estate for time-lines, editing tools, and media access menus.
 
Kolor-Pikker said:
I'm a photographer too, professional for years, that's why I said that. 12mp is indeed half of 24mp in terms of pixel count, what's your point?


Linear resolution is real resolution, period. It's the amount of lines per unit of measure in any dimension that you can visually perceive. I do agree that 1080p is significantly better than SD because of a number of reasons, including encoding and color sampling, but 1080p to 4K does not carry the same benefits since 1080p is already so efficient.


Two words: Diminishing returns. As you work with low resolutions, in your example 100x100 vs 50x50, the difference would be extremely visible. The difference between 2000x2000 and 4000x4000 however would be less so, depending on the subject and shooting conditions.

For an image to have 4x as much resolution, it would need 16x as much pixels.

edit: I do hope we're talking about increased resolution as a benefit to actual subject matter using existing technology and not an abstract concept?
Click to expand...


sorry, but you've responded to his points out of context of what he was using them for. you've effectively sidestepped the issues he brought up with your comments.

bringing up diminishing returns and encoding and color sampling is not what any of this thread has been about. if that's what you meant, clarify. if not, don't detract just to conflict things up.
 
QuadHD can resolve all the information on four 1080p screens.

How can anyone possibly argue that that isn't 4x the resolution? It is exactly 4x the resolution.
 
ripupthehwy said:
I just saw the new TV ad for Samsung ultra hd televisions. Twice they say in the ad that it's "four times the resolution of HD" Did I miss something? Is it 8K? I keep hearing people refer to 4k as "four times" the resolution of HD and its not. So we are leapfroging over 4k and heading right into 8k now I suppose...and lying about it.
Click to expand...

You should've learned from the replies to your post here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-video&p=1986361459&viewfull=1#post1986361459
 
Barry_Green said:
QuadHD can resolve all the information on four 1080p screens.

How can anyone possibly argue that that isn't 4x the resolution? It is exactly 4x the resolution.
Click to expand...

I'll take a shot at it for the sake of keeping this thread going. What the heck.

If I were an old analog broadcast television person, in the olden days, I would talk about lines of resolution only on the horizontal axis. Since the vertical axis resolution was fixed to 525 lines (ANSI), the discussion of resolution was always about horizontal lines of resolution when talking about cameras or lenses. So going from 2k to 4k is only doubling the resolution.

But the days of analog are gone and so is the discussion in one dimension. There is no question that 4K resolves 4 times as much picture detail as 2k.
 
dustylense said:
People are still arguing this? 4k or QuadHD is 4 Times the resolution of 1080P HD.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Unless of course you are talking about area and not linear resolution. 4k vs 2k is only a 2x greater linear resolution in either horizontal or vertical directions.

In a word, you'll only get 2x more line pairs, theoretically, from a 4k sensor, as compared to a 2k sensor, when measured along any row or column.

This is not taking into account any 'wyrd' pattern to the physical implementation that an RGB sensor may require.
 
It really is just how things are. Same thing with so many things. The terminology is accurate, but it boils down to our perception of area. Because it involves two dimensions, if you double the area, it doesn't look twice as big. Here we are quadrupling the area. The maths proves it's accurate, but we've just doubled it in two directions. As frame sizes and pixel counts get bigger each year, the difference gets smaller.

If you load a 720 image into your editor expecting a 1080, then it's not that much smaller. If you bring in an SD image, it looks roughly half the size. They're right, you're wrong, but your mistake is perfectly understandable. If you do area on a sphere, the difference is even weirder!
 
Kolor-Pikker said:
I'm a photographer too, professional for years, that's why I said that. 12mp is indeed half of 24mp in terms of pixel count, what's your point?


Linear resolution is real resolution, period. It's the amount of lines per unit of measure in any dimension that you can visually perceive. I do agree that 1080p is significantly better than SD because of a number of reasons, including encoding and color sampling, but 1080p to 4K does not carry the same benefits since 1080p is already so efficient.


Two words: Diminishing returns. As you work with low resolutions, in your example 100x100 vs 50x50, the difference would be extremely visible. The difference between 2000x2000 and 4000x4000 however would be less so, depending on the subject and shooting conditions.

For an image to have 4x as much resolution, it would need 16x as much pixels.

edit: I do hope we're talking about increased resolution as a benefit to actual subject matter using existing technology and not an abstract concept?
Click to expand...

Your understanding of vision perception is clearly far beyond mine, but I believe you are mixing up the cargo and the vessel. Say we have 8 litres of water (the 4K/~8mp image) and only a 2 litre bucket (our eyes/vision perception at the current viewing distance relative to the screen size) that we are trying to fit it into, the other 6 litres does not magically disappear! It is still there, albeit now all over the floor and soaking into my very expensive Persian rug.

QuadHD/4K is 4x the resolution of 1080p - whether or not you'll actually see the benefits is a whole different, and far more subjective, discussion.
 
At your request:

watchdrama8jm.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top