How does 1080p look on a 4k display?

[hawtdawg]

it has NOTHING to do with what i am saying. you are not following. I am saying there is nothing magical at 1/2 or 1/4 resolution. the lower you go the worse it looks. the size of the monitor is irrelevant in the context of what i am saying.

You're not getting this.

Lets say you have 2, 27 inch monitors. One is a 4k monitor, and the other is a 1080p monitor. 1080p will look exactly the same on both monitors. No one is trying to say that a 4k monitor makes 1080p look better, we're trying to say that it will have perfect scaling, as 4k vs 1080p = 4:1 pixel ratio. 1080p will look better on a 4k monitor, than it will on a 1440p monitor, etc.

I honestly don't understand what on earth you're confused about, this is about the most straight-forward thing imaginable.

 

[SolMiester]

I think it has a load to do with the size and density of the screen TBH, A 4k monitor will probably look the same as 1080 on a 27" LCD if they are using the same 1080 image.

 

[toyota]

You're not getting this.

Lets say you have 2, 27 inch monitors. One is a 4k monitor, and the other is a 1080p monitor. 1080p will look exactly the same on both monitors. No one is trying to say that a 4k monitor makes 1080p look better, we're trying to say that it will have perfect scaling, as 4k vs 1080p = 4:1 pixel ratio. 1080p will look better on a 4k monitor, than it will on a 1440p monitor, etc.

I honestly don't understand what on earth you're confused about, this is about the most straight-forward thing imaginable.

no YOU are not getting it. 1080 will NOT look the same just because they are the same damn size and that is stupid to claim that. if you had a 27 inch native 4k screen then running 1080 would look like crap compared to the 27 inch that has 1080 native. going below native will ALWAYS look worse.

 

[hawtdawg]

no YOU are not getting it. 1080 will NOT look the same just because they are the same damn size and that is stupid to claim that. if you had a 27 inch native 4k screen then running 1080 would look like crap compared to the 27 inch that has 1080 native. going below native will ALWAYS look worse.

You're going to have to explain how pixel doubling on a 4k monitor would look noticeably worse than a native 1080p monitor. Your anecdotes thus-far indicate that you have no idea what anyone in this thread has even been discussing.

 

[toyota]

You're going to have to explain how pixel doubling on a 4k monitor would look noticeably worse than a native 1080p monitor. Your anecdotes thus-far indicate that you have no idea what anyone in this thread has even been discussing.

because AGAIN when you drop below native res it will look worse. there is nothing magical about pixel doubling to stop that from happening. every person here has a monitor so try for yourself and see instead of just claiming that myth as fact. thats right up there with the people that say screen tearing does not happen unless you go past your refresh rate.

 

[hawtdawg]

because AGAIN when you drop below native rs it will look worse. there is nothing magical about pixel doubling to stop that from happening.

look worse than what? are you saying that If I full screen a 720p image on my 1440p monitor, that it will look worse than If I have an actual 720p monitor of the same size? Your statements defy facts and logic, and your anecdotes continue to indicate that you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[toyota]

look worse than what? are you saying that If I full screen a 720p image on my 1440p monitor, that it will look worse than If I have an actual 720p monitor of the same size? Your statements defy facts and logic, and your anecdotes continue to indicate that you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

yes I am saying that. and no it does not defy logic. going below native resolution will look blurry and out of focus compared to native. you might have more of a point with a crt but not with an lcd.

 

[hawtdawg]

yes I am saying that. and no it does not defy logic. going below native resolution will look blurry and out focus compared to native.

Unless the scaling being used is pixel doubling.

 

[serpretetsky]

because AGAIN when you drop below native res it will look worse. there is nothing magical about pixel doubling to stop that from happening. every person here has a monitor so try for yourself and see instead of just claiming that myth as fact. thats right up there with the people that say screen tearing does not happen unless you go past your refresh rate.

Most of us can't properly test this because most of us do not have two identically sized monitors that are scaled versions of each other in terms of resolution.

Simply reducing your resolution to half on each dimension on your current monitor is far from a scientific test. Subjectively I can tell you what you will see; it will look crappier. But that answer tells us nothing, obviously its going to look crappier, your pumping less pixels. That is not the question.

To truly test this you would need two monitors side by side that are the same size, but one of them can support some scaled amount resolution of the other (Like your example: 1920x1080 and 960x540). You would then pump 960x540 resolution to each monitor and see if you can see a difference.

If the high resolution monitor is decent, it should be a perfect pixel mapping, and you should see no difference in the crispness of the image.

 

[bystander36]

yes I am saying that. and no it does not defy logic. going below native resolution will look blurry and out of focus compared to native. you might have more of a point with a crt but not with an lcd.

The reason blurriness happens, is because when you've lowered resolution in the past, it is to something that doesn't evenly divide into the native resolution. So everything is stretched to try and fit.

4K to 1080p has no stretching required, as you simply take 4 pixels in a cluster to equal a single pixel in 1080p.

 

[toyota]

The reason blurriness happens, is because when you've lowered resolution in the past, it is to something that doesn't evenly divide into the native resolution. So everything is stretched to try and fit.

4K to 1080p has no stretching required, as you simply take 4 pixels in a cluster to equal a single pixel in 1080p.

and how is that any different than running 960x540 on a 1080 screen which of course looks like poop.

 

[bystander36]

and how is that any different than running 960x540 on a 1080 screen which of course looks like poop.

Because 960x540 looks like poop all by itself, down scaling or not.

Of course, we are assuming they don't attempt to do some extra processing during the upscaling. It could be done one of the two ways I mentioned earlier.

 

[toyota]

Because 960x540 looks like poop all by itself, down scaling or not.

but that goes against what you just said.

 

[bystander36]

but that goes against what you just said.

I never said 960x540 looked good to begin with. Even on a native 960x540 screen (none exist because of how bad it would be).

1080p, looks like all the 1080p monitors we use in our daily lives. 1080p on a 4k, will look like 1080p on a 1080p screen...at least if they choose to not do any special upscaling.

That part may be optional, or out of our control. I honestly don't know, but you clearly are having troubles grasping the concept.

 

[bystander36]

and how is that any different than running 960x540 on a 1080 screen which of course looks like poop.

Does 960x540 look any different on a 1080p screen than a 960x540 screen?

 

[toyota]

I never said 960x540 looked good to begin with. Even on a native 960x540 screen (none exist because of how bad it would be).

1080p, looks like all the 1080p monitors we use in our daily lives. 1080p on a 4k, will look like 1080p on a 1080p screen...at least if they choose to not do any special upscaling.

That part may be optional, or out of our control. I honestly don't know, but you clearly are having troubles grasping the concept.

you make up the rules as you go along. first its this excuse and then its that but no matter what you cant actually prove it anyway. every single instance of running half or 1/4 resolution has looked like crap compared to native. so until you actually prove it by showing it in action its nothing more than a theory.

 

[toyota]

Does 960x540 look any different on a 1080p screen than a 960x540 screen?

so again with that? according to your reasons why blurriness occurs it should like fine since its exactly the same concept as running 1080 on a 4k screen. reality is that it looks worse than 1280x720 on the same 1080 screen though as that 1/4 pixel nonsense just does not pan out.

 

[bystander36]

you make up the rules as you go along. first its this excuse and then its that but no matter what you cant actually prove it anyway. every single instance of running half or 1/4 resolution has looked like crap compared to native. so until you actually prove it by showing it in action its nothing more than a theory.

Apparently you can't understand anyone who has posted on the subject, but I do realize there is a couple possible ways it can happen. You on the other hand, are not recognizing the reason that 960x540 looks like poop is the simple fact that the resolution is so low res. You're also likely just making up the fact that it looks like poop without actually looking at it.

However, there is one simple way to test. Take a 1440p screen, and set it to 720p, and compare it to a 720p screen, which actually exist.

 

[bystander36]

so again with that? according to your reasons why blurriness occurs it should like fine since its exactly the same concept as running 1080 on a 4k screen. reality is that it looks worse than 1280x720 on the same 1080 screen though as that 1/4 pixel nonsense just does not pan out.

Hey, what math are you using that makes 720p 1/4 of 1080p? I must have missed that class.

 

[bystander36]

Just to clarify. We are talking about the possibility of games not trying to smooth out an image with special smoothing algorithms. It may also be possible they do apply some sort of scaling, to attempt to take advantage of the native screen. However, your examples of why it looks like poop are not comparable.

720p on a 1440p screen compared to a 720p screen would be a valid test, however.

 

[toyota]

Hey, what math are you using that makes 720p 1/4 of 1080p? I must have missed that class.

sigh, congratulations on not paying attention. I guess that happens when you just keep making up rules or excuses as we go along. 960x540 is 1/4 on 1080 screen just like 1920x1080 is 1/4 on a 4k screen. you had said that 1080 on a 4k screen would look ok because it would be 1/4 the pixels. you were saying that we had blurriness because it was not 1/4 the pixels. I was saying that if that was the case then 960x540 on a 1080 screen would look better than 1280x720 on that same screen.

 

[toyota]

Apparently you can't understand anyone who has posted on the subject, but I do realize there is a couple possible ways it can happen. You on the other hand, are not recognizing the reason that 960x540 looks like poop is the simple fact that the resolution is so low res. You're also likely just making up the fact that it looks like poop without actually looking at it.

However, there is one simple way to test. Take a 1440p screen, and set it to 720p, and compare it to a 720p screen, which actually exist.

and someone did that in another forum and said it looked like crap.

actually they tried 1280x800 on a 2560x1600 screen which is still the exact same test.

 

[hawtdawg]

sigh, congratulations on not paying attention. I guess that happens when you just keep making up rules or excuses as we go along. 960x540 is 1/4 on 1080 screen just like 1920x1080 is 1/4 on a 4k screen. you had said that 1080 on a 4k screen would look ok because it would be 1/4 the pixels. you were saying that we had blurriness because it was not 1/4 the pixels. I was saying that if that was the case then 960x540 on a 1080 screen would look better than 1280x720 on that same screen.

I do not care what you say someone on some forum said his monitor looked like. There are different types of scaling. If you let your GPU do the scaling, the image might look a little blurry (yet not necessarily worse). If you let your monitor do the scaling, chances are, it will simply double the pixels if the resolution allows for it. This very thing happens with my setup. If I run 720p with my 780 doing the scaling, it looks blurry. If the monitor does the scaling, it doesn't look blurry at all.

The bottom line, is that you are talking out of your rear-end, and you even know that you are. You have not even attempted to say anything other than "it looks like poop", supported by "it will look worse if it's not native". Meanwhile, the rest of us can sit here and explain to you why you don't know what you're talking about.

Nothing anyone here has said, implied that 720p would look worse than 960x540 on a 1080p monitor. What we have said, is that the scaling would be perfect with 540p, and that it wouldn't be perfect with 720p.

 

[toyota]

I love how you accuse him of making up the rules, and then proceed to use a strawman argument to support your ignorance.

At no point in this discussion has anyone said, or even implied, that 960x540 would look better on a 1080p monitor than 720p would. The only thing that anyone has said, is that 4k screens are capable of perfect scaling with a 1080p image.

I do not care what you say someone on some forum said his monitor looked like. There are different types of scaling. If you let your GPU do the scaling, the image might look a little blurry. If you let your monitor do the scaling, chances are, it will simply double the pixels if the resolution allows for it. This very thing happens with my setup. If I run 720p with my 780 doing the scaling, it looks blurry. If the monitor does the scaling, it doesn't look blurry at all.

The bottom line, is that you are talking out of your rear-end, and you even know that you are. You have not even attempted to say anything other than "it looks like poop", supported by "it will look worse if it's not native". Meanwhile, the rest of us can sit here and explain to you why you don't know what you're talking about.

lol I have stated the same thing from the beginning. he made claims and then changed the rules. he said we always had blurring before because it was not exactly 1/4 the damn pixels as if we cant do that now. he even said 720 will look fine on a 1440 screen which is nonsense as it will look worse than 1920x1080. again someone tested 1280x800 on a 2560x1600 screen and found that out. bottom line is either actually prove this magical 1/4 pixel myth or stop calling me ignorant.

 

[hawtdawg]

720 will look fine on a 1440 screen which is nonsense as it will look worse than 1920x1080.

This makes no sense. No one has said otherwise. No one has implied otherwise. This is not contrary to anything that anyone has said in this entire thread. What we have been saying, and what you still don't get, is that 720p on a 1440p is capable of being perfectly scaled by simple pixel doubling, and that 1080p on a 4k screen is capable of being perfectly scaled by simple pixel doubling

again someone tested 1280x800 on a 2560x1600 screen and found that out. bottom line is either actually prove this magical 1/4 pixel myth or stop calling me ignorant.

This is ridiculous. You proved it yourself in your own sentence. It's called "math". 1 divided by 1/4 = 4. I also explained to you in the very post you quoted how different results can be had with the very same monitor. A GPU is going to use an algorithm, to upscale and image, without taking the native resolution into account, making it seem blurry. The monitor won't necessarily. Mine does not, 720p looks completely different/sharp/crisp using monitor scaling vs GPU scaling. There is nothing about it that seems enhanced, or stretched or blurred.

No one has to prove anything to you, we're all waiting for you, to prove that you have any idea in the world what you're talking about. Because lord knows that you can't give an inkling of a reason for what you claim, all you do is simply claim it. This isn't church, no one is obligated to disprove your baseless claims. You're the one who is obligated to disprove the rest of us, who are explaining to you, using facts, why you don't know what on earth you're talking about.

It wouldn't take more than a couple of minutes, and google, to see that the entire AV community sees perfect scaling as a benefit of the UHD resolution. If we're using anecdotes, this certainly says a lot more than your claim about what some guy on a forum somewhere said.