Printable View
So my monitor is a regular HD connection, not a 4k monitor.
I went to youtube and played a video and screen grabbed it both at 1080p and 2160p (4k).
Compared it side by side and the 4k one is sharper and cleaner. Why is that? My monitor is not 4k and the screen grab in both is at 96dpi.
LOL. As they say, sometimes less is more.;))
The reason it is sharper are there are more pixels per square in on 4K thus the image is crisper..
if you are using a half-decent screen recorder it will capture the video at its native resolution; this is not [necessarily] the same as your screen resolution otherwise both your captures would have been the sameQuote:
the screen grab in both is at 96dpi
have you ever noticed that if you reduce the size of your player window your video may become clearer, and if you increase it in size it may degrade?Quote:
Compared it side by side and the 4k one is sharper and cleaner
what you are seeing is the same thing in a different way - like scotty said, the more pixels to play with, the better for a given size of playback
the recording, and the playback on a given monitor including as you record, are two seperate things
the term 'screen capture' is misleading here, what you are actually capturing is 'what is being sent to the screen' which may be being sent at a different resolution
Very very tricky guys. ;))
This isn't so relevant to this thread, but handdrawn mentioned degradation..
In January we bought our first 4K TV set - 55 inches, an update from our previous set which was HD - 43 inches. My daughter has a 55" 4K TV too. Quite a change from the widescreen 20" TV we used to love back in the day!
My daughter's partner had said that since buying that set he rarely wanted to watch non-HD content (besides 4K content), so I wondered if we would also dislike upscaling lower quality video to 4K.
I'm actually very impressed by how well the TV does to upscale video - it's processing the frames in real-time.
I've noticed it can recognise text and sharpens it so sometimes I've really been surprised at the crisp text that has no right to be so crisp on that source resolution.
I should think that in a few years time lower resolution footage is going to look great as AI processing will be able to interpret the footage to give much sharper pictures.
I have some 4K films and it was a WOW moment when I saw it.
Unlike my daughters partner, I don't mind the lower quality of old TV/films, but will go for at least HD if given the choice. I was looking forward to Wimbledon in 4K..
..diversion is over..
I am just looking forward to wimbledon, not really a tennis fan, but if/when it happens then things will be on the mend...
like behzad said - its a tricky subject... if You have a really expensive computer monitor, say at 4K native resolution, and you drop the resolution down to HD [1080p] then it will still look pretty good; but a cheap monotor will not
it sounds like you have a good TV
[as you may have noticed my implied point is - is the TV upscaling your video, or is it downscaling its resolution to match....]
LOL definitely not downscaled!Quote:
Originally Posted by handrawn
I sometimes take a picture from some TV programes because I want to keep a still reference. On every TV besides this one there's been a moire pattern - it's not present on the 4K set.
Here's the sales blurb:
- 4K UHD Processor: Powerful 4K UHD Processor Optimizes Your TV’s Performance by Upscaling Every Show, Season, and Scene With 4K Picture Quality
- Enhanced Detail with HDR: 4K Depth of Detail with High Dynamic Range Lets You See Shades of Color That Reveal More Detail than Hdtv Can Deliver
It's the top of the range of cheaper Samsung TVs.
Super pleased with it. I think the range has been superceeded in 2020 by the 8000 range.
https://www.samsung.com/uk/tvs/uhdtv...E55RU7400UXXU/
;)
there is a universal law that you cannot make a slik purse out of a sow's ear - that you cannot enhance beyond what is actually there.... :D
what the TV is doing is overlaying the 1080p onto the 4K - now that is not downscaling in one sense, but it could be seen that way in another
the increase in the number of pixels that the 1080p source can use is a bonus.. but you are still just seeing 1080p, stretched neatly onto a 4k platform so to speak - the subtlety that a 4K original would have is not there because it never was
In the future that's not going to be entirely true because I expect at some stage to see AI processing working to such a degree as to go beyond pixel manipulation, but also shape recognition to resynthesize an image to what it thinks it should be. Of course, if there is no way of recognising what's on the screen it can't do that but I do expect it will synthesize say a chair leg using the low-res version to show a high-res equivalent - a bit like reading a fuzzy number plate and substituting a sharp one.Quote:
Originally Posted by handrawn
Hmm.Quote:
what the TV is doing is overlaying the 1080p onto the 4K - now that is not downscaling in one sense, but it could be seen that way in another
the increase in the number of pixels that the 1080p source can use is a bonus.. but you are still just seeing 1080p, stretched neatly onto a 4k platform so to speak - the subtlety that a 4K original would have is not there because it never was
First of all I never claimed that "stretched" HD is equivalent to 4K.
The TV is doing rather more than using four pixels in place of one. It's resampling the image.
I'm not going to have an argument about it, the picture looks far better on the 4K set than it did on my old HD one and that's even true for the older SD resolution.
I'm an animator Paul - I know about resynthesizing stills to produce motion - ok that is not quite the same as your AI point - but extrapolation is extrapolation whichever way you look at it [pun intentional]
resampling is extrapolation, only as good as the algorithm in use; I'll grant there are some damn good ones in play today
Does your icons on your monitor go any smaller with a 4k monitor,? would love them to be a little smaller so i can fit more in. Especially with photoshop and spreadsheets
Belmare I don't have 4k but in win 10 you can change under Display, change scale and layout you can change the size of text , apps and other items
Dear Xara Designer Pro users,
We’ve heard you!! Our desktop application Xara Designer Pro+ (get more information here and here) is ready to take off into the universe of high resolution
Therefore, we’re in search of volunteers who want to test Designer Pro+ on their 4k monitors or HD Laptops for one week.
When: Testing starts this Thursday, 06/11 - next Thursday 06/18
How: Volunteers will get access to our Designer Pro+ HiDPI beta version. The beta-version has full functionality scope and you can use it the way you use your current Designer Pro version. Whenever you encounter a bug or problem, you can take screenshots and feedback it directly to us.
Interested? PM me here on TG or write an email to: evak@xara.com
We’re looking forward to having you on board!
Thanks,
Eva
Product Manager @Xara
This is well worth bearing in mind. The resolution that you can percieve is dependant on your eyesight, and the distance from which you're viewing the screen etc. :
https://www.experienceuhd.com/blog/c...n-1080p-and-4k
Or even https://pastebin.com/qNiuPdpW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Egg Bramhill
Acorn ;))
I have v17 and Beta HiDPI Pro+ side-by-side on a 4K 26in @ 150% mag -reading distance from screen circa 18in-24in.
Not easy to replicate an exact visual, but here is a 300dpi image https://initiostar.co.uk/demo/XaraPr..._XaraPro17.png
Discernible differences as you might expect are crisper images and text. Clearly it is beta and there are a few scaling issues to resolve. Don't expect icon sizes to change, but what is apparent (in some cases) is handles and dialogue boxes look too small.
I made sure the installation was separate from any upgrade and so far, I have been able to open v17 websites/supersites in Pro+ without disasters, and reverse back into v17 to ensure they continue to work at that release level.
The Beta trial ends nexts week, but for me this is worthwhile analysis of what one might expect for real.
Gary
Thanks for trying Gary. I sliced out the two and aligned then to run a blink test but the sizing was a bit off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Initiostar
You can see the text is a tad smaller. I couldn't see much of an improvement with any of the icons.
Acorn
I only see the one paste there, which is a question, maybe if you log in there is more?Quote:
Originally Posted by Acorn
as far as the question goes, what arrives on the retina is actually a blurry mess which the brain has to interpret based on experience; new born babies cannot interpret, they have to learn and it is said the first thing they learn to interpret is a face/expression [smiling hopefully]; it takes a while then gathers pace, like walking/talking
as far as the cows are concerned that's down to field of view and the learned context [short answer; long answer is.... long] - but the brain can be fooled off course, eg optical illusions
so yes, the way the viewer's brain/vision works is also a factor in all this - some people do not see in stereo for example because their eyes do not 'work together'
QEgg's article was it depends on how close you are to seeing a difference: Dougal and Father Ted had the same experience but in a more surreal manner. I am sure there is a YouTube snippet that will explain it all away.Quote:
Originally Posted by handrawn
Acorn
I'll have rewatch the episode - surreal-ness is often in the mind :D