Why 4k Sucks
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- A look at my problems with 4k
EDIT: I made a dense error while making the images and for some reason put 4096x2160 instead of the correct resolution of 3840x2160 -_- apologies...
Official Website - wideasfcuk.com
My PC Setup - wideasfcuk.com...
Patreon - / wideasfcuk
PayPal - wideasfcuk.com...
Twitter - / wideasfcuk
Reddit - / wideasfcuk
Facebook - / wideasfcuk
I think 1440p 21:9 is the sweet spot
Wolfeh It certainly seems to be atm!
+WideAsFcuk but its so... expensive
why not get 1 on a pay monthly plan? you pay just as much for a phone.
What do you mean monthly plan
I'm guessing you're on a pay as you go phone. A pay monthly plan is basically a loan where you get an item and you pay x amount over a few years. Say the $1000 monitor, if you choose a 2 year plan you'll pay $51 a month for 2 years. If you choose 3 year plan you'll pay $36 a month for 3 years.
4:3 1440x1080p is sweet spot.
Well said, wider is better
For flight sims and space combat games 4:3 is still best. Defining the best Aspect Ratio entirely depends on the type of content.
Actually between 4:3 and 16:9 we had 16:10 which most people preferred over 16:9 due to the increased vertical space. Most productivity applications are vertically orientated, so a taller monitor makes sense. People prefer 1440p over 1080p for productivity due to increased number of pixels increasing the number of pixels vertically (as well as horizontally and the greater pixel density giving more space in general, obviously). Unfortunately 16:10 ceased to be when the HD branding unified PC desktop monitors and TVs.
+other tomperson absolutely, 16:10 I must say I loved using because of the extra height, when I moved back to 16:9 after years of 16:10 things felt extremely narrow!
My only explanation is that 21:9 screens look stupid. thats why its not being marketed.
We might have a greater horizontal field of view compared to vertical, but we only see things in focus in a very small area in the middle of our vision. Looking at a smaller screen is therefore easier than a wide screen or a large screen, depending on how close you are to it.
I'm Staying with Blu-Ray 1080p HD
I'm Not A 2160p 4K Ultra HD Person
2 years later, 4k is still a gimmick and waste of perfomance, ultrawide+144hz is superior in every way
Yeah, I am really waiting for the day where the two merge. Have a 21:9 aspect ratio monitor that is essentially a 4k equivalent. At this point you are forced to choose between the two. I think it is a waiting game. Samsung and LG will probably make the push once that problem is solved.
Going for 2 2560x1080 monitors at the moment. 😃
oooh lush!! that's sounds awesome
+WideAsFcuk The monitors I want tho only have HDMI so I won't be able to game on both as far as I know, but it will still bea great experience.
Why not get 1 3440 x 1440 and pour a bit more $ into a gpu?
All the ultrawide 1440p monitors I have seen are in the 600-800 dollar range, whereas I can get a nice ultrawide 1080p one for a mere 180 dollars. I have decided to go with 1 monitor instead of 2 to afford a 6700k and a GTX 1070.
www.amazon.com/LG-25UM58-P-25-Inch-21-UltraWide/dp/B01BV1XB2K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1468777364&sr=8-3&keywords=21%3A9+monitors
240hz is the future. You can make a 21x9 resolution within a16x9 resolution. The only benefit of 21x9 is you can get away with a bigger fov without as much of a fish eye effect.
Dread Simulator 2kfuckin'17 Going to higher refresh rates can have diminishing points of returns. Humans cannot see individual frames at 480 Hz. However, humans can see other side effects of non-analog motion (discrete frames to represent moving objects). Many researchers including Oculus’ chief scientist Michael Abrash, extoll the benefits of *quadruple-digit refresh rates.* So even 480 Hz is not the final frontier yet. Higher hz gives:
💚Reduced Phantom Array Effect,
💚Reduced Motion Blur,
💚Improved Persistence of Vision Effects,
💚Reduced Input Lag.
Source: Scientists who work with monitor manufacturers to test and improve technology blurbusters.com/4k-120hz-with-bonus-240hz-and-480hz-modes
4k resolution on 21:9 ips led monitor. :D that's the future
+j vdbogaard haha yusss though make that an oled monitor and you're in heaven!
exactly
Don't forget 144hz! Also 4K is (according to wikipedia) 4096x2160, wut ppl call 4K is 3840x2160, so u mean 7:3 (21:9) that is 2160 pixels high.
I'M A PROPER RESOLUTION NAMES NAZI MUHAHAHAAHAAHAHHA
and a scratch proof screen :D
+Max Bond Well actually, its just called 21:9, but the correct thing is actually 64:27, or 21.33:9. 4:3*4:3=16:9. 16:9*4:3=64:27
I actually DO prefer 16:9 over 21:9, and I actually DO prefer 30fps over 60fps. I'm not joking.
Yer sound like a Jehovahs witness trying to sell me a watch tower
You have an interesting channel. I like it. At first I was like, "Man this is Bullshit 16:9 is fantastic" but then I watched your gameplay. 21:9 does look a lot better. Earned a sub.
Lone Hawk haha thanks so much for taking the time to watch! Far too many people refuse to hear the other sides argument and so miss out on potentially finding something new and better :) thanks for subbing :D
@@WideAsFcuk 1080p is better right?
While I can understand where you're coming from I don't think that 16:9 is there to leave.
You're forgetting about three things that define 16:9 - the space neccessary for a single 21:9 monitor is way higher than for a single 16:9 monitor. I know guys that literally play in closets and they can't afford more space just for a monitor.
The 2nd thing is the modulability. Just think about how cheap monitors have become, you can grab a single monitor for ~100 bucks which allows you to upgrade to 2/3 monitors later on. And if one is broken you can simply switch it for another one. That allows you to use a smaller amount of money which you can then spend on a rig or whatever.
And the last thing's that you're able to switch the FOV in most FPS' which could make 21:9 monitors for FPS players obsolute. Does that mean that they aren't interested in them? Certainly not.
In my opinion 21:9 should be still where it's at right now minus the support of it by game devs. 21:9 should still be the standard for films, while 16:9 is for home video/ TV series. I think they could both coexist.
PS: As far as I know 4k isn't 16:9, it's 17:9. 3840*2160 should be 16:9.
***** ahh no i can agree 16:9 is definitely not going to go anywhere soon however just imagine what people said about 4:3, they probably said the same thing of not having enough space but when they finally got a 16:9 screen they just made space.
price wise oh definitely 16:9 is absolutely the main monitor, far far cheaper then 21:9 however again its been around a lot longer so it will take time before 21:9 becomes just as competitive.
btw not sure what you mean about the fov on 21:9? i am interested to hear tho :)
hmm see the problem I dont think they can co exist well, they very well might but really I think one will always win, but again who knows, we shall just have to see (and hope 21:9 wins ;P)
ahh thanks :) good to know, funny how manufactures simplify everything for consumers, wonder where the fine line is between them lying and making things just easier...
***** Old technology always coexists with the new, but something always takes over. 480 coexisted with 720p and 1080p until it became obsolete. The only reason I'd still have a 16:9 alongside a 21:9 monitor is because of TV Shows and games that don't run in 21:9.
If TV Shows started to go to 21:9, then 21:9 would win the war guaranteed.
Yeah my 34 inch 2560X1080 LG IPS monitor is the best I've ever owned.
Don't you think it's a bit too pixelated, man? I mean, for gaming it's ok, but for reading and some other tasks.
i have a 29inch LG 2560x1080 and honestly i can only see pixels if i go extremely close to the monitor.
Such Doge I have the 29" also and it's ok for me, but the 34", dunno.
Matheus Moreira oh i get you,you talking about the pixel density...hmm it might bea little less crisp but nothing major
In my opinion movies and TV-series should improve on frame rate, that motion blurry 24fps is out dated.
+The Lassu ahh im totally with you, people keep arguing with me that 'that's film' and it 'dosent feel like a movie' with higher fps but that's just not an excuse imo, we would get used to the higher fps and it would allow the quality of movies to continue to increase
The biggest cons over overwidened aspect ratios is that while giving the more seamless space it's taking control out of you. While with two monitors i can easily jump between screens, transfer windows instantly or even change the orientation if needed, all that is lacking in the ultrawide configs.
Certainly i'm talking mostly about professional usage: editing, 3d and programming. But the everyday experience could be hell too i believe - dragging-closing windows.
Well, you'll never know until you try by yourself.
I do believe now the best time to implement eye tracking mouse control - or you would say bye-bye to your wrists even before 40.
I totally agree. Monitor manufacturers, hear us!!! Please!! I want everything in 21:9 going forward.
Just make sure it's flicker free and low blue light too. Must have.
I watch this video on my 21:9 monitor and have 2 black bars on the side
*TRIGGERED*
I'm using a 2560x1080 (21:9) LG 29um57-p, 29 inch, IPS. I was skeptical when a friend of mine told me I should buy a 21:9 monitor,, however now using it I can't go back, it's perfect for everything.
The only downside is that it's a lot more expensive, in fact it was 3 times as expensive as low end LED, TN monitors .
4k is supposedly higher than what the eye sees. 4K isn’t even old and they’re about to drop 5k. If we could put more effort into original movies and TV shows instead of 4K and 5K life would be way better
Hi! I was commenting on one of your videos a while ago about how I was going to build a pc. Now I'm typing this comment on said pc with a 3440x1440 monitor in front of me :)
So, thanks for your videos! They did help me decide! I really hope the shift to 21:9 happens sometime in the future. I think this will take some years, but I'm already seeing more and more content for 21:9 monitors.
Peter Bock WOAH!! congrats!!! ahh that sounds like a lusshh monitor ;P
Fantastic news! I'm really glad they helped you! Yeah the content is slowing growing, hopefully we will look back in a few years at how little we have now and laugh because 21:9 is by then fully supported!
While I agree for the most part. Being an avid lover of 21:9 also, watching films/tv shows is the only drawback. Stuff filmed in Anamorphic is obviously made for 21:9 and should be watched on such. But watching content for 1.85:1 (films) or 1.75:1 (tv shows) is ultimately better on a 16:9 screen as you don't get pillar boxing as you do with a 21:9. 16:9 seems to be the sweet spot between fitting all these different kinds of aspect ratios on to a screen while giving the best viewing experience for all content. Personally, I hate watching 1.85:1 and 1.75:1 content on a 21:9 as I find the pillar boxing more distracting than letter boxing on a 16:9. Other than that, 21:9 is the way to go for computing and gaming without a doubt.
If you use a multi monitor set up, you have big black bezel between your screens if its 16.9 contend.
Your annotation game is crazy!
premydaremy haha yeahh kinda forgot -_- all done now
why is this video not 21:9?
+Taylor youngreen (Kodi4444) well when I was making it I was trying to decide who my target market was for this video and I realized it was probably more likely going to be those people who are on 16:9 and not those who have already made the jump to 21:9 so thought 16:9 would, sadly, be the better option
DCI 4K... Just to give you black bars when you don't want them. Wider than regular 4K just enough to annoy you.
I am here with my AOC U3477PQU the best of the best in this price. Nice video man Ultra Wide Master Race ! :D
+Patrox92 thanks! and nicee whoop!
I think already (a year after this video) 3440x1440 monitors are becoming the new standard for high end PCs.
So I believe in the future there will be 3 "standards" : 1080 (just because its cheap), 4k and 21:9 (especially after adding ultrawide support in consoles) for TVs...
1080 (general users), 4k (image editors) and 21:9 (video editors, gamers, movie buffs) for PCs.
The only thing missing is faster GPUs with newer faster videolink support and OLED panels and build-in HDR support (mainly 10bit color gamut).
The sad part about this is that they did try to market 21:9 TVs back in like 2011/2012. I didn't even know they existed at the time. And that VIZIO CinemaWide has just about everything I want in a TV... Curse that 16:9 ratio coming along and meeting 4:3 halfway in the first place :P
It was a fail be cos it sucks its only good for watching movies it sucks for normal tv shows and sports.
and in the end every one is saying, that the system, which he is using is the best. its like this stupid discussion about ps4 or xbox one
For video games, I'd prefer my system use that power to display a game at 30 fps, and perform better than to try to go at 60 fps and have lag.
Ive startyed recently using 21:9 resolutions on my 50" 4k TV, mainly gaming. Adds black bars top and bottom but the aspect is pretty good, and still large enogh screen for usability
I'm going for 21:9(3440x1440p) plus an 16:9 (4k) together. that gives me a 37:9 eyefinity without the bezel in the middle ( fps friendly ) and get the best of both worlds for movies and TV if I wanna use separately
oh very cool! actually never thought of combining the two in that manner to achieve eyefinity! really want to try it myself now!
Just got a 21:9 monitor. No way I could EVER go back to 16:9. Been binge playing The Witcher 3 and I've wasted I don't know how much time just looking around in awe and taking screen shots. Beautiful.
adamaj74 Hahaha congrats! and you have just EXACTLY described my life with the game!! I have a ridiculously big folder of screen shots from the game, i'm always like 'Wow thats such a beautiful scene, stop to screenshot, oh wait thats a new angle, stop to screenshot, oh no wait the wind is blowing now and it looks even better, stop to screenshot' ;P haha endless but yeah 21:9 just sells the game!
Thanks! I know exactly what you mean. And I'm a photographer so I really go all in. I'm like, ok if I position Geralt here at 7:28 p.m. the light temperature and angle should be just right, and I'll wait for the wind to blow his hair and the trees just right, and if I wait for him to look off to the left I'll get Rembrandt lighting on his face, etc. etc. Then I get the screen shot, take a couple of steps and think oh man it would really look good right HERE...over and over lol!
adamaj74 Dude, I know just how you feel! I'm playing this game currently in 21:9 too! Those sunsets man... brings a tear to my eye :')
adamaj74 hahaha ahh its a hard life ;P
The screen is always evolving into something wider, only the people are stuck in history.
1:1 (square photo) => 1.19:1 (1924 Movietone) = > 1.25:1 (5:4) => 1.33:1 (4:3) => 1.375:1 (Academy ratio) => 1.41:1 (ISO 216) => 1.5:1 (3:2) => 1.6:1 (16:10) => 1.66 (15:9 or 5:3) => 1.77:1 (16:9) => 2:1 (Univisium) => 2.35:1 => 2.4:1 (24:10) => 3.6:1 (IMAX Ultra-widescreen 3.6) => ?? 4:1 ?? (Screen X 270°)
Latest Format: screenx.co.kr/
It annoys me that this video is in 16:9. Sorry
I am actually half tempted to upgrade to a 1440p monitor with 120 or 144 Hz.
But I am not sure yet whether to get it in 16:9 or 21:9.
I would love to have 21:9 but as you said, 16:9 is the standard which makes me afraid of running into a lot of stupid black bars.
Some games wouldn't support it, leaving me having to play with that classic old bars-on-the-side-claustrophobia, and even worse, not a single UA-cam video wouldn't have black bars (except yours lol).
Yeah 4k is horrible and shit and i wish i had 9k because it acutally comes through the screen and slaps the shit out of me.
1.6:1, because it's close to the golden ratio and I only have one good eye.
Lu Tello ;P hahaha
Playing on a 4k and I absolutely love it. 55" 4k, best part is if my rig can't handle something I turn i down to 1440p windows mode and I get a 36" 1440p monitor.
Damn there's a tonne of content for me to catch up on and great video!
CrackKat Yeaaa and thanks :D
On 3x 21:9 while also feeding out to a 4k tv. I prefer my widescreen, though from a distance I've gotten used to the tv, but I agree that 21:9 is the ideal
Hmm you won me over. Now I need a 40" 21:9 monitor.
3440x1440 is the best so far, although I would like an extra 1cm in vertical height.
Still feels a tad on the letterboxy side.
"fuckey resolution ...." I kept hearing that hahaha
+Milo Sheffts ;P
i own a decent 21:9 lg 34 inch, its literally amazing, the black bars dont exist for me i dont understand what your talking about, most games support 21:9, and there are apps that remove the bars if u have them the only drawback is unless u zoom in 150%-200% depending on how far u are from the monitor in some games, in-game chat becomes very difficult to read
21:9 is still too small I reckon. Think about it, for single tasking, a 4:3 monitor can neatly fit 1 webpage, 1 word document etc without anything else on the screen. at 16:9 you can't comfortably fit two webpages or a webpage and a word document side by side, without some overlapping, or zooming to fit everything in. 21:9 yeah you can fit two webpages side by side no problem, but it's a weird aspect ration when you split the two different things, it's 10.5:9, I don't think i've seen any resolution choice in anything that would agree to that ratio. so why not make the monitor 24:9? you can have a split screen of 2 4:3 ratios, which have standard sizes since computers became popular, you can still fit things on the screen comfortably and it's not that much different to 21:9 so any black bars would be not really noticeable when viewing movies (unless the industry adopted a 24:9 ratio.
Just my thoughts.
Still love my 21:9 monitor though.
WRONG! 4k is 3840 × 2160 . 3.840 k rounds up to 4 k so the marketing people went with it. Also 16:9 is terrible for most productivity. How often do you scroll your screen? Oh!! a lot you say. That's because you need more vertical pixels. 16:10 was / is the professional standard for PC displays. I don't disagree that wider can be better.. just not at the price of vertical pixels. 3840 x 1600 is a nice resolution. I wish there was a 5120x1600. Also note that these high resolution displays are basically maxing out the DP connection (until DP v2.0 arrives).
we dont care about your you 4k sucks
How come we still don't have 5120x2160?
Well, 21:9 laptop and smartphone screens would be pretty awkward to handle I think.
So I guess that's one good reason to not have 21:9 as the standard. 21:9 and 16:9 can happily coexist. I just want better support by games. Oh yeah and Netflix 21:9 support, I mean come on!
+Holzkohlen oh yes definitely smartphones and tablets will be different aspect ratios but they are also frequently 16:10 currently so its always been the case that they differ from the larger tv/pc screen aspect ratios. But yea games are a big one!! omg I HATE how netflix insist of making me watch a stupidly cropped movie not only making me lose half the movie but also have black bars on the sides as well!! unbelievable...
21:9, the cinema resolution is the best.
I've bought a screen 21:9 like 3 weeks ago, resolution 3440*1440, for games and for movies it look fucking amazing, and I wont change it for anything, even the best 4K monitor of the world.
The cinema resolution is the best, it change everything.
+Jérémy Soetens it absolutely does!! anyone would be crazy to go back to 16:9 after seeing 21:9!
Hey I just found your channel it looks great ! I had a question I'm currently trying to choose between a 21:9 34" 1080p monitor or a 27" 16:9 1440p one, which would give me the biggest surface for work ? Can't find any info on that anywhere
This vid made me wanna try a 21:9 ratio.
I agree with and endorse this video!
Talks about how historically screens have widened to the 16:9 aspect ratio and asks why stop there? Then claims that 21:9 is the perfect aspect ratio and gives no reason why wider aspect ratios are no better (while previously arguing wider = more immersive).
Says that science backs up this claim, yet this science is only him stating the fact that you have two eyes that lie next to each other horizontally and not vertically offering a wider view than vertical (which 16:9 is, and wider aspects than 21:9 are possible)....
Says that 16:9 pales in comparison to 21:9 in anything other than TV viewing (4:3 content) at the same pixel density... The Widest ultra wide resolution is currently 3840x1600 (which I don't believe existed when this video was created). At the same pixel density, a currently available 4k monitor is the same width but taller (and cheaper [though higher than 60Hz panels are not available]).
I do like ultra wide resolutions for first/third person games, but I'd rather a 16:9 or taller for my main monitor (in fact I'd rather a taller aspect ratio in a stand alone monitor in some cases, especially if I'm running two windows side by side that use the A4 paper standard, or playing a strategy game).
Click bait title but I don't disagree 21:9 has many benefits. 4k is the future why ever the aspect ratio. I personally much prefer 4k 16:9 over 1440 21:9 right now, despite all the fanboys there are still plenty of games that don't support the ratio.
What the hell people talking about like 2560X1080 is WAY TOO pixelated, have you ever seen a 1080p 27" Screen... It's litrallly the same and I owned one for about 3 Years by now. Those higher resulutions are such a Bullshit and barely seeable O.o
What about an ultrawide with a pixel density of 4k?
4K sucks? K I'm goin to 8K
But I do like 30fps over 60fps and like HD over 4K and Rec 709 over Rec.2020. Why? Because it takes less time and computational resources to render which ends up being cheaper to me as a producer. :^)
couldn't agree more with you..
I have 1440x900 Resolution and wanna upgrade my GPU in 2017/2018 and see how much fps i can get 100% i can get above 60fps :v
I agree 21:9 is better but for 16:9 you need to admit 4k is the best
This video should be on 21:9 tho
Agreed! Many times over!
as an addendum to this, I would also love to see more 21:9 support and videos here on UA-cam (coming from someone who doesn't even own a 21:9 display [yet])
How do you compare this?
4k Sucks because you like another Aspect Ratio? Thats 2 different things. I love 4k and it is beautiful, but i also love 21:9 and hope this is going to be the new aspect ratio standard. But i also hope 4k is going to be the new resolution standard, so i am going to go for a 21:9 4k Monitor in the future, why do you exclude 4k at a 21: 9 aspect ratio? I want both.
Sorry for my bad englisch, I am german :D
Why isn't this video in 12:9?
i wish good sized 21 by 9 monitors werent still so bat shit expensive. I got a 43 inch 2160p 16/10 tv (60 hz refresh) for half the price of a 34 inch 1440p 21/9 monitor. Isnt that a bitch?
+aceous99 haha yeah they really are damn expensive currently, give it a year and im sure prices will have fallen significantly but currently they are definitely at the top tier or price points
We need 4:3 monitors to come back. Watch this: ua-cam.com/video/Q7zGoQ-FkDk/v-deo.htmlm32s
Even just going around a banked corner this game is using the entire vertical Field of View. 16:9 is superior to 21:9, and for many games 4:3 would be better still.
Ultimately people need to choose the aspect ratio to fit their preferred content, there is no right answer. 4K is objectively better than 1080p, 60fps is objectively better than 30fps, but 21:9 is NOT objectively better than 16:9, or 3:2 (the aspect ratio of 35mm film and digital photography) or 4:3.
What's it's like gaming @ 16:9 on a 21:9 monitor (with black bars)? I assume it's a personal thing, but is it so annoying that you would keep a spare 16:9 monitor in case the game doesn't properly support 21:9? Is it distracting?
+abc140290 it is really not great tbh, definately a personal thing but i think it will annoy just about anyone at least a little. MY ultimate set up would include a 16:9 monitor on the side of my 21:9 ones just for games that don't support 21:9 and tv shows. its not so much distracting as it is just gives you this feel of being enclosed, you feel restricted, like you are missing something. not a lovely feeling...
you've convince me I getting a 21:9
My main worry with switching to one 21:9 monitor vs what I have now (a 16:9 and a 4:3 Monitor) is that say when I want to watch something fullscreen (like UA-cam for example) I may get black bars that can not be used. What I mean by this is that right now I can have something running fullscreen on one monitor while still being able to use the extra horizontal space that my second monitor provides. So I guess my question is: is there an easy way to simulate having two monitors on a 21:9 screen (or in general for that matter)? Can you split that one 21:9 screen into two virtual ones, one 16:9, the other 1:1?
XDerKleineX You absolutely can, the software exists.
XDerKleineX I personally dont know of the software name but like Jali Hawkins has said, i'm more than sure it exists, I actually have found i rarely fullscreen youtube anymore, and instead just have the video in theater mode to the side of the monitor while i browse etc in the the of the monitor, i can see why you might want to simulate 2 screen as that is something you have been used to, so definitely let me know if you find something that dose this as I would love to try it out!
This is a very well done video discussing 21:9 vs 16:9, having a 21:9 monitor myself I completely agree. but I would say your title and thumbnail is a clickbait (no offense) so thats a point to improve on, because I your content is more of the mature discussion kind so I feel that your title should match it to
Sum Yuan Loong Hmm its a a difficult one, I genuinely didn't intend for it to be clickbait (it pisses me off when others do it so i'm not going to start doing it!) but on the other hand I suppose I could have put more info there, it was actually a friend of mine who I was chatting to about what's in the vid and what I should call it and he straight up said 'why 4k sucks' and it just seemed to fit it so well so I used it, but yeah sorry if it seems clickbaity, it wasn't the intention
***** hahaha thanks ;P ill try and work on that last part....
thanks for this
VR is the future
36:9 Nuff said
21:9 (AKA ultrashort screen) sucks big time. What a waste of pixels on the sides!
+Shot Dot lol not sure what you're talking about? pls explain
+Wide As Fcuk This video is lame ultrashortscreen propaganda.
1. Human vision is 4:3
2. Ultrashortscreen cost arm and leg compared to UHD while having less pixels
3. Toolbar&ribbon happy applications make a joke of vertical dimension. Productivity my a**
4. Photos are 3:2 and some are even portraits.
...
haha yeah im with EpicJonah, clearly this isn't the channel for you ;P
hey bud, could u make a video playing 40k death wing in 21:9?
Almost 1 year after doing your video, 4k still sucks, but everyone still want it... And they miss the real and better evolution of monitor : 21:9
+justicetout haha wow cant believe its been so long since i made this video!!! yeah they really need to wake up and move to 21:9 first!! ;)
why not 32:9
You mean 3840x2160 not 4096x2160, right?
+Keels Boswell yeahh I realised about a day after what an idiot I had been but the video had gotten a load of view so i didn't want to take it down, really annoys me that I somehow blanked while making the video! thanks for the heads up tho :)
1080p is best
I think this is the first video of yours with some dislikes. Shame on them.
Seth Knows sadly is, always going to get some haters :'(
4096x2160 ISNT 16:9
+Alex Porter haha yup I know, mind went blank when making the images and noticed it after I had uploaded it, I have made a point in the description though pointing out my error
1080p for me
8K sucks
Now that was some guerrilla shit!
xD
What do you think about projectors?
EZ1cks haha ;P
umm i really don't know much about them but the really high end ones are fantastic! You know much about them? Would love to hear about them from someone who knows the details!
Wide As Fcuk No, i don't... i thought you knew something about it xDDD
I actually researched a little bit and got surprised by how much time i took to find a 21:9 projector and by the fact of how ucommon they are...!
www.esterline.com/avionicssystems/en-us/productsservices/simulation/simulationprojectors/f35series.aspx
+EZ1cks god I totally missed this comment!! but thanks for this link, somewhere for me to start learning more about the (limited) availability of them
+Wide As Fcuk
Your wheels turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.
+EZ1cks hahaha ;P
no sense
Dream monitor : 4k 21:9 at 144hz gsync 😂
ahh man that is just gorgeous to think about haha hopefully not too long to wait for!
4096x2160 is 17:9, 3840x2160 is 16:9 ;)
lol yeah I had a mind blank when writing this video -_- soo frustrating being unable to change the video haha
That's fine man, I've only watched a few vid and they're great, keep it up!
Quick question, If you got a decent sized 4k monitor/tv (like 40'+) then why not game in a custom 21:9 resolution?
lol. how bout we all meet in the middle at 18.5:9
bro it's 3840 x 2160 not 4096.. hahaha.. anyway, great vid you have here bro..
ITS 7:3 NOT 21:9😂👌🏿
oh nice you totaly forget to mention that after 4:3 monitors we had 5:4 monitors.^^ I am just nit picking xD.^^
Oh Btw Watching OLD TV SHOWS Totaly suck at a 21:9 Monitor.^^ So Fuck that shit you always have black bars live with it.^^ I like the argument for lets say games and for a better workflow that 21:9 is better but for watching anything like videos it is bullshit, every aspect ratio sucks at this point there is no good what so ever you just can't win a battle with 21:9, 16:9 and 4:3 Medie at the same time not to mention I think some movies have even a different aspect ratio.
Also actually the correct resolution for 4K is 4096x2160 not 3840x2160, both exsist and both are called 4K well to be honest the industry just really looks at the first number whle the economy looks at what matters. Also fun fact pixel density isn't about resolution it is about pixels per inch or something like that, you know dpi and ppi. But you probably know that and you figured out everyone would so I let it fly.
Also Adobe LOOOKS TERIBLE on 4K, at least everything before CS6 no idea how it looks today but heard nothing good. And yeah Adobe also looks shitty on a 3K Panel. Everything is so small you need a magnifing glas.
+FlamRoyalBaer lol true, though 5:4 was never as big as the others so took a bit of a liberty and decided to try and get the more general point over instead.
Ok on your point of video watch, first the overwhelming majority of movies use essentially a 21:9 aspect ratio, only the rare few such as the recent planet of the apes and old movies use alternatives like 16:9, so 21:9 is a far better aspect ratio to 16:9 or 4:3 for watching movies. Next tv shows, firstly I did say that this was the one issue for 21:9 screens however there is a very big point to be made here, a very large number of people, myself certainly included, like to do other things whilst watching tv. TV shows differ from movies in that most people are happy to be browsing the web etc whilst the tv show is in the background, and 21:9 allows you to have the tv show play at its natively 16:9 and still have left over space to browse the web or play a game etc on the side. So i would definitely not agree that 21:9 is bullshit for video watching.
on your point of the 4k resolution i did make a mistake here, got sidetracked whilst making the video but it was corrected in the description. And yep dw I do know the difference just I've found overtime that the majority of people have no idea of the difference and its long explaining the difference to them everytime lol
yeah adobe certainly are one of the many software creators that are failing to support higher resolutions fast enough.
(sorry if I sound very defensive, obv running a channel dedicated to 21:9 means I have to try and fight my corner for everything 21:9 ;P)
Wide As Fcuk yeah that is cool. Well you got a point there, I mean the most series that you don't watch in the background are 16:9 anywhere, where it is very fine. But for TV Screens itself I see a little problem with 21:9, but than again the only people who really have this prople would never buy a 4K TV.^^ I talk abotu TV Rags, I mean ours is made for a 4:3 TV and now wer have a 16:9 so we have already a problem but than again only with old peoples.^^
I can see your points my brother uses a 21:9 screen and I see the sweet spot. The only real problem I have with that format is with a comperabel resoltuion to 4K 16:9 I need more GPU Power again! And I have a GTX970. Second one is that most Wallpapers aren't made for that format which again is Only my, I am a creative and I really love some nice backgrounds to inspire me. But when it catches on people will start to draw picture. Heck I would draw a picture gives me some nice ideas for some awesome paintings. So now I am totaly nitpicking.^^
And Btw. you know what is really bullshit? 100hz CRTs, who needs them, the only people buying crts now a days are nerds who want old pieces of shit to play their Genesis games on it.^^ xxxD.^^
You don't even know what you are talking about. 16:9 4k is 3840x2160 not 4096x2160. Which has more pixels than a 21:9 3440x1440 monitor.
Clearly you don't either. Because true 4k is 4096x2160 which is usually used by editing professionals and has an aspect ratio of 1.9:1 or 17:9 and 3840x2160 is actually UHD which is also known 4k but generally for public consumers and that has an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 or 16:9. So you were correct saying that 4096x2160 doesn't have aspect ratio of 16:9 but saying isn't 4k is not true because 4k was originally meant to be 4096x2160.
He didn't say 4096x2160 "isn't 4K", he stated that 16:9 4K is 3840x2160, which is correct. And given the context of this video which is comparing 21:9 to 16:9, he is correct that the video should have said 3840x2160.
1x8454400 has more pixels than 3840x2160, does that make it better?
None Give is right, show me all the 4096x2160 your friend have and I might say you are right. The standard = Public consumer and standard 4k = 1920 x 1080 (2k) multiply by 2 (4k) = 3840x2160.