File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Dear 4chan. Tell me about Ultra High Definition Video.
>> Anonymous
This is something that would be a pain in the ass to play. Modern CPUs are not capable of decoding such amounts of data in realtime, so hardware acceleration is required. The trouble is it only works in really gay software like powerdvd, which is 100mb huge and still can't open mkv. nVidia must release DirectShow compatible decoder.
>> Anonymous
i think we still need a couple of Moore's law cycles.
>> Anonymous
>>399666
Totally retarded. There aren't consumer level screens that can handle this at a visible size. While eventually it will become a reality, it simply isn't worth bothering with until we have screens with extraordinarily low pixel pitch.

Moral: ENVIDYA, GR8 4 MOVIE THEATERS.
>> Anonymous
>>399784
And the best thing about this comment anon, is that by this time next year we're talking 22nm processors with multiple cores. So sweet not long to go eh!
>> Anonymous
>>399789
I'll wet my pants if i can carry something like that around with me, but squeezing current technology into a smaller form factor is only half of what you can call advancement. give it a couple more Moores.
>> Anonymous
>>399785
if i ever see dot pitch measured in micrometers, my mom will come back to life.
>> Anonymous
OP Here. Is there any samples clips from either. QFHD or UHD. I remember trying to play a 10s QFHD a while ago in like 10 fps. But since then I have got a new computer and it would be kinda nice to try out just as a bench.
>> Anonymous
>>399789
Really? They've actually cracked sub-30nm architecture?

How the hell are they dealing with the power losses at that scale? They've got to be wasting up to 60% as heat. And the manufacturing process... I can't believe we can etch that fine. There'd be so many useless chips through etching errors. Anything below 35nm is sitll inviable, and will be for some time. Until we start using particle streams to etch, we won't be able to go beyond that reliable. And there's still the power loss to contend with. The chip'll destroy it's structure under normal loads.
>> Anonymous
wiki copypasta:
A person's ability to distinguish small details is described by visual acuity. When individual pixels are barely resolvable, increased resolution brings little benefit for the viewer unless the viewing distance can be shortened or the display enlarged. Thus for 1080p television viewing, there is a minimum size to distance ratio to see a significant benefit. The ability of the eye to resolve 1080p content also depends on the amount of contrast in the picture. For optimum viewing, it is recommended to sit back approximately three times the height of the screen.[9][10][11]

To distinguish the difference between 1080p and 720p with the human eye with 20/20 vision and a 50 Inch screen, you need to be sitting within 6 feet of the screen- approximately half of this recommended distance.

Moral: pixel density has pretty much reached the limit at which the human eye can see a difference.
Good news for movie theatres though.
>> MR. Anon
>>400079
>>Moral: pixel density has pretty much reached the limit at which the human eye can see a difference.

nonsense, so long as we sit closer or have better than 20/20 vision (20/20 is actually sub-normal), there's no reason we can't go better than 1920x1080. I still question the reasons behind 7680x4320 outside of theater settings though...

I used this calculator to figure out what distance I should be from my screen to watch 1080p stuff.
http://www.carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator/
I sit between 1.5 feet and 3 feet of my 22.5in display (aspect ratio is 1.6), and it says that at my closest, I would be able to notice higher. In practice, however, my CRT starts to blur a bit after 1200 pixels wide.

And yes, I have a widescreen CRT computer monitor.
>> Anonymous
OP here again. Id like to stress my last post. Is there any sample images or clips at all out?

Anything else you could show me?
>> Anonymous
Why is this retarded?

Several reasons. First, it's video, so the increased resolution doesn't have the same benefits as it would to, say, text.

Not only that, but the human field of vision is only so large before you can't see the whole screen at once. So you have to be really close to see the difference between it and lower res video, yet be far back to actually see it all.