Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

Image size in your posts.

I also use Photobucket, it has editing features built in including the ability to resize, so do several other photo hosting sites, it's not very difficult.

There are many different devices people use to access the Internet these days, you all need to be aware of this when posting images. Do you really want to make threads nearly useless and unreadable to a large percentage of those viewing the forum?

Almost no one has a desktop anymore, I haven't used one for years, of the several people I know not one of them owns a desktop. The smart phone seems to be the computer of choice these days, we have:

Android phones
iPhones
Windows phones

Then we have tablets:

Android tablets
iPads
Windows tablets

Then we have:

Netbooks
Chromebooks

Then we have:

MacBooks
Windows laptops

Some devices will display the image full screen while reducing the size of the rest of the thread as in the screenshots I posted, I seldom bother with reading these threads, I expect the same is true for many others. When you post giant images you are deliberately causing trouble.

Alan
 





Just applying a max-width: 100% style to ANY image on the page would remedy this problem with little side effects.
 
Hopefully that huge image of the troll face on the previous page gets removed soon, I've got a triple screen setup and even my browser stuttered a little... Can't imagine how a puny iPad or any mobile graphics processor would deal with that like a lot of people here have, including Alan...
 
Last edited:
There are no 8k TVs yet, and zero 8k content. Even 4k content is lacking... networks don't want to upgrade to it, since higher resolutions are coming. We're not likely to see 8k TVs in mainstream use until 2018-2019 and even then content will take a long time to catch up.

From the production side of things higher resolutions, and refresh rates make things far more difficult too. Makeup, props, and effects that look good at lower resolution, start to look terrible at 4k. At 8k, and higher, attention to detail will have to be extreme. We're actually not really all that far off from approaching true to life resolution. 10 years at most.
 
I wonder at what point it becomes pointless to go any further up in resolution for TVs. Like at a reasonable distance our eyes would no longer be able to notice any further increase in resolution.
 
Well, speaking from personal experience, I am unable to see the difference between 1080p and 4k at a distance past 8 feet, on a 50" TV.

At 10 feet, the difference between 720, 1080, and 4k is also not apparent at all.

Now close up there is a BIG difference. So the question is really, what is the highest pixel density we can perceive at a given distance. I remember reading that the number is 16k, if looking at something at as close a distance as possible.

Of course technology can move from there too, if you have a screen that can track your pupils, a higher pixel density and source image would allow the screen to zoom in for you, on what you are looking at.
 
This is a good question, I expect one day we could have such high resolution that it is indistinguishable from something real, like the equivalent of looking out an open window. In time we may get there.

Alan
 
Look what I have found:

resolution_chart.png

Source


Huge resolutions consume a lot of processing power, so sometimes it would be better to have somewhat lower resolution with better refresh rates (for example: gaming).
4k display requires 4 times as much resources as 1080p display, but I am not sure it looks that much better. I am not going to look the screen under a microscope anyway.
Of course, TV, laptop and phone screens aren't the same category.

Displays that take up a large portion of visual field don't need large pixel density at the edges, because peripheral vision is bad at detecting details.

Image quality doesn't depend only on number of pixels (resolution). I far too often see photos of 12MP+ (or videos over 720p) that are blurred or grainy.
Frankly, I think pretty good photos can be taken even at 2MP (1080p).
 
Dont take this as me talking down or anything similar its just something i notice.

Do you actually have a 3840x2160 or larger resolution display with true video/photo running in that resolution (not upsacled or anything like that)?
Alot of people seen as tech savy / reviewers like to go against the norm claiming that 4k is just a fad or something and while yes it is gonna get dressed up by manufacturers its always going to be a higher pixel density than 1920x1080.
You can have better brightness, better color, good viewing angles but your still not passing the barrier in sharpness.

i used to work in tech retailer that had lots of TV's on display here in aus (some of you may be able to guess it :cryyy: ) and i came to the realization that we had at least 25% of our TV's on display were in 3840x2160 (40", 50", 55") so i decided to download a library of 4k images (since the tv's built in media players wouldnt run the video" and you could instantly see the difference anywhere from 1 meter up to 20 meters, mind you customers would buy it, watch free to air TV (~640x480'ish ) and bring i back complaining it didnt look spiffy despite me telling them that would be the case.

My setup is a $320 3840x2160 60Hz, 10ms RT 41.5", and my god the amount of work you can do on one screen, i can have consoles open for multiple Virtual machines with room for a PDF and a web browser without having to alt tab anything( i have secondary benQ 24" for gaming).

Though for movies it may be less noticeable (But still applicable!!) 4k has no downside to being used as a PC monitor other than as you pointed out for gaming which is then all just a matter of how much cash you've got to spend but so long has you have a 4k monitor with good response times and refresh rates just turn down the resolution for 1080/1440 if your hardware isnt up to spec for it yet, though after testing DOOM on a GTX 960 at 3840x2160 though my FPS was only around ~20 at best, i wish i could game on this sort of screen.


To sum it up people should be welcoming the new greater resolutions for too long we've been stuck getting 1920x1080 or paying double for slightly higher Res.


edit: why am i doing this a 4am.... -_-
 
Last edited:
I'm just saying that in some circumstances there are no benefits of really high resolutions, and that image quality is more important than number of pixels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top