Is the World Ready for 4K?

Here's the reasoning behind the recommendation of 1024 wide or 960 high, and the place to continue this discussion and make a suggestion.

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537

Cliff wrote: ...the current guideline of 1024x960...

It's recommended to post images no wider than 1024px or none taller than 960px, not a 1024x960 format.

Cliff wrote: Hi Miranda, Help please, how do we get to 12Mp?

Well, if you start from 24Mp you can use a 1.4x digital zoom.
Or you can just crop the top and bottom till you get there

I agree the numbers don't always seem to agree exactly with teh various sizes and I'm not sure how the system copes with small differences without losing bits off the sides. I presume it involves resampling, which makes me wonder what the costs are. Downsampling by a lot is usually okay, but downsampling by fractional amounts doesn't sound too good!

sybersitizen wrote: Miranda F wrote: My HDTV is only 2.5Mp, and even a new 4k TV is 12Mp ... I use estimates of 2mp and 8mp. How are your estimates calculated?

Okay, 2.5Mp was a bit of an approximation. It's just over 2Mp I think.
Yes, the quoted value for 4k is 8Mp but that's 16:9. If you take 4:3 or 3:2 images as I generally do, they start out as 10-12Mp before you crop them.

And this is one of my gripes about the latest HD/4k monitors - they are all widescreen which is fine for watchign videos, but if you take many pictures in portrait format they are only half the size, and nowhere near the stated Mp. I find the shift really annoying.

This is why I still keep an old 1280x1024 monitor for editing, so the landscape and portrait pics are both about the same size. Are there any modern affordable monitors with square or near-square size, say around 2k x 2k pixels?

Edited by Miranda F - 11 December 2017 at 22:51

Miranda F wrote: My HDTV is only 2.5Mp, and even a new 4k TV is 12Mp ...

I use estimates of 2mp and 8mp. How are your estimates calculated?

... and I'm not sure I'd see the difference anyway at the distance I sit (around six feet from the TV).

I've examined the practicalities of that myself. I'm looking at a 24mp file displayed on a 40" 4k TV. I can either view it at 3840x2160 by running it directly to the TV, or run it through a Blu-ray player to view it at 1920x1080 upscaled to 4k by the TV.

When I switch between the two sources, I can't see any difference in resolution until I'm about two feet from the screen. That's not the way I intend to enjoy photographs.

Why am I concerned whether my camera is 20Mp or 24Mp or 42Mp?

For cropping and/or printing large ... but not much else.

I can't help wondering where this is all going. TVs are heading toward high Mp the same way as cameras but they are a long way behind.

I have an HDTV which is very nice, and I can show pics from my cameras on it. But I edit photos on a square monitor which is basically 1.3Mp and photos get shown here on Dyxum at <1Mp. My HDTV is only 2.5Mp, and even a new 4k TV is 12Mp (I don't expect to get one of those for a while!) and I'm not sure I'd see the difference anyway at the distance I sit (around six feet from the TV).

Why am I concerned whether my camera is 20Mp or 24Mp or 42Mp?

Hi, interesting and relevant topic, one I've been struggling w too and most of us will sooner or later
My situation goes back not long ago I had several eye surgeries, both, and my vision must have deteriorated quite a bit. My TV was a 720, 32" Toshiba and had my mac hooked up to it. Using it as my monitor and TV. Working it w wireless keyboard, trackpad and a remote from were ever I was

The combination of deteriorated vision and the TV I was missing a lot of imperfections in my photos and uploading the photos w them. Unknowingly embarrassing myself in the process. Several times people tried to point it out to me and I didn't get it. I had purchased an iPad loaded my photos and then saw all my imperfect photos and was Really embarrassed. I even wrote an apology thread here: http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=123902

So a yr ago I was basically forced into buying a newer bigger set. I wound up w a 50" 4k, Ultra HD, what they call "Home Theater" and is too big. Should have a 45" max.

______________I viewed your video and you bring up many good points. Folks should absolutely view the vid before buying.


I use it mostly as my monitor that I process my photos with. I have "Cut the Cord". Being here in SF I have a Gig speed but no cable TV, I get over the air HD TV, which all the major networks are. I'm Good. I'm a news junky so I don't do many movies, no Netflix\, stream lots of news on youtube. I'm probably on flickr and iPhoto most of the time and here. Content is not an issue w me.

I'm certainly glad I don't get your side view distortion, at least not that bad. Your screen, you can't really call them TV's anymore is brand new. I think your going to have to do a lot of tweaking on it, till you get it more dialed in to your liking, after a while your going to get more and more pleased w it.
I've been working on getting the right size screen res on mine for most of the yr.

Syber:___"And one thing you didn't mention unless I missed it: screen reflectivity. Why are the current TVs all so reflective? The one we're replacing has a nice matte screen that diffuses all reflections without impacting sharpness."
Thats one of the most difficult things to get used to, going from a nice matte screen, to what I call plasticly like screen.

After viewing your vid I do have one suggestion that might help your viewing experience. Make your screen much more, stand alone. Move as much of your furniture and clutter as far from it as possible. Let that big screen have room to breathe and perform.

But in the end a real good 4k, Ultra HD show looks very good on these screens!

Thanks for the topic__________Coast