R
rotty dog
Guest
Now I know it looks like im "Banging on" about Resolution but its only because this is so important regarding how we understand the level of benefit we get from the new, and the "new to come" standards.
It is NOT for any points scoring as I think its be seen as.
In other words, in plain English, how "much better" compared to bla bla is this or that standard.
So the ONLY way to get the real feel is to use the Resolution figure.
Number of pixels will become higher and higher and pass on no meaningful information for us to use as evaluation.
If we use HD as our baseline, and use Resolution to compared to that baseline, then we get a true feel and a clear Picture (no pun) for comparison.
So using HD baseline and plain English to describe: (Resolution figure in bold)
HD baseline 1x (2073600 pixels)
4K UHD can be up to 2x better than HD (8294400 pixels)
8K UHD can be up to 4x better than HD (33177600 pixels)
(Possible future standard) 16K UHD would be up to 8x better than HD (132710400 pixels)
If you look at the pixel count in each case, it gives you no feel at all for evaluation, in fact it does exactly the opposite and gives a completely false feel. Only the Resolution figure provides you with the information you need.
That's why I have been trying to put this across, it is important to us.
P.S.
A useful thing to think about is that you can use the Resolution figure to work out how much bigger a new TV could be than your existing HD TV and stay with the same pixel density (i.e. pixels per square Centimetre) you have now.
So for example, if you wanted say a 4K UHD TV, the resolution figure is 2x, then you can have a TV that is twice the width and height of your existing HD TV and the pixel density (pixels per square Centimetre) will be the same as your existing HD TV.
If you wanted say a 8K UHD TV, the resolution figure is 4x, then you can have a TV that is 4 times the width and height of your existing HD TV and the pixel density (pixels per square Centimetre) will be the same as your existing HD TV.
etc....
It is NOT for any points scoring as I think its be seen as.
In other words, in plain English, how "much better" compared to bla bla is this or that standard.
So the ONLY way to get the real feel is to use the Resolution figure.
Number of pixels will become higher and higher and pass on no meaningful information for us to use as evaluation.
If we use HD as our baseline, and use Resolution to compared to that baseline, then we get a true feel and a clear Picture (no pun) for comparison.
So using HD baseline and plain English to describe: (Resolution figure in bold)
HD baseline 1x (2073600 pixels)
4K UHD can be up to 2x better than HD (8294400 pixels)
8K UHD can be up to 4x better than HD (33177600 pixels)
(Possible future standard) 16K UHD would be up to 8x better than HD (132710400 pixels)
If you look at the pixel count in each case, it gives you no feel at all for evaluation, in fact it does exactly the opposite and gives a completely false feel. Only the Resolution figure provides you with the information you need.
That's why I have been trying to put this across, it is important to us.
P.S.
A useful thing to think about is that you can use the Resolution figure to work out how much bigger a new TV could be than your existing HD TV and stay with the same pixel density (i.e. pixels per square Centimetre) you have now.
So for example, if you wanted say a 4K UHD TV, the resolution figure is 2x, then you can have a TV that is twice the width and height of your existing HD TV and the pixel density (pixels per square Centimetre) will be the same as your existing HD TV.
If you wanted say a 8K UHD TV, the resolution figure is 4x, then you can have a TV that is 4 times the width and height of your existing HD TV and the pixel density (pixels per square Centimetre) will be the same as your existing HD TV.
etc....
Last edited by a moderator: