No, you can absolutely notice a difference. Especially if you need to emulate a CRT. Having 15 LCD pixels to mimic the smearing of each CRT pixel from a 256x192 display looks way better than having fewer than 9.
It was visibly false with Monster cables, do you know anyone with a 1080p+4K monitor setup you can look at? The difference is really obvious with multi-monitor setups. Hell just try reading small text, it has to be way bigger on the 1080 before your eyes are straining to read it.
Also again, emulation, look really closely at a pixel on a CRT. Trying to copy the depth effects with 9 or fewer LCD pixels just isn’t possible.
Hell just try reading small text, it has to be way bigger on the 1080 before your eyes are straining to read it.
12pt font is 16 pixels tall on 640x480, 800x600, 1280x720, 1920x1080, and 3840 x 2160. On 1080p, 12pt text is 1/68th the height of the screen. On 4k, the text is 1/135th the height. The improved perception of quality is all in your head.
This happened to the Monster cable customers too. In a way, the situation is worse because the text is getting smaller and smaller and more unreadable but customers believe there are more pixels packed in somewhere and it’s actually making it easier to read.
I am not being deliberately obtuse. If I am obtuse, it’s genuine. But I don’t think I am.
You have 4x more pixels so you don’t render 12 pt font, you render 24 pt font and get a lot more definition.
That’s the thing. On 800x600 monitors, 12pt font wasn’t small text. It was the default. The norm. You could read it just fine. We’re not making small text easier to read, we’re just re-defining what small text is.
Absolutely nobody is or has ever claimed the same 512x512 image looks better on a 4K vs a 640x800 LED.
No. But they are claiming that 4K images look better than 1024x1024 images, which is true, but the returns are severally diminished. 1 million pixels is enough.
No, you can absolutely notice a difference. Especially if you need to emulate a CRT. Having 15 LCD pixels to mimic the smearing of each CRT pixel from a 256x192 display looks way better than having fewer than 9.
4K and 8K monitors are the new Monster cables.
Monster cables literally didn’t make a difference, you can immediately see the difference on a 4K vs 2K vs 1080.
Especially if you need to read a bunch of small text.
They said the same type of things about Monsters cables.
It was visibly false with Monster cables, do you know anyone with a 1080p+4K monitor setup you can look at? The difference is really obvious with multi-monitor setups. Hell just try reading small text, it has to be way bigger on the 1080 before your eyes are straining to read it.
Also again, emulation, look really closely at a pixel on a CRT. Trying to copy the depth effects with 9 or fewer LCD pixels just isn’t possible.
12pt font is 16 pixels tall on 640x480, 800x600, 1280x720, 1920x1080, and 3840 x 2160. On 1080p, 12pt text is 1/68th the height of the screen. On 4k, the text is 1/135th the height. The improved perception of quality is all in your head.
This happened to the Monster cable customers too. In a way, the situation is worse because the text is getting smaller and smaller and more unreadable but customers believe there are more pixels packed in somewhere and it’s actually making it easier to read.
I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately obtuse.
You have 4x more pixels so you don’t render 12 pt font, you render 24 pt font and get a lot more definition.
Absolutely nobody is or has ever claimed the same 512x512 image looks better on a 4K vs a 640x800 LED.
I am not being deliberately obtuse. If I am obtuse, it’s genuine. But I don’t think I am.
That’s the thing. On 800x600 monitors, 12pt font wasn’t small text. It was the default. The norm. You could read it just fine. We’re not making small text easier to read, we’re just re-defining what small text is.
No. But they are claiming that 4K images look better than 1024x1024 images, which is true, but the returns are severally diminished. 1 million pixels is enough.