1080p vs 2.7k vs 4k

[BossOlive]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Video Comparisons

 

[I B Spectre]

Not a huge difference to my no-longer-young eyes. Comparisons such as this are difficult similarly as when trying to match two colors. If they're not side-by-side on the screen at the same time where you can discern minute differences, it's nearly impossible for most people to nail it. Both are very impressive videos IMO, both very sharp on my 1920x1080 monitor watching YouTube. Maybe if I had a monitor capable of 4k and if YT could stream 4K, it might be more obvious. Thanks for sharing.

 

[pmshop]

The thing is, you cannot compare in the same video in YouTube or any other platform for that matter.
In this instance, 1080p & 2.7K have all been upscaled to 4K.
You would have to upload raw video in each resolution in separate videos to compare.

 

[Jeff K]

If you compare them side by side with your nose a few centimetres from the screen, you can see it - but sit an average viewing distance from a 50" tv and you won't see much difference between 1080p and 4k.

Steve Yedlin, cinematographer of "The Last Jedi" wrote a great white paper for American Cinematographer magazine, and has a two-part demo on his web site, showing why the number of pixels in an image isn't as important as perceived contrast and sharpness. You can watch the demos on his web site at yedlin.net.

Bottom line is, when it comes to resolution, don't believe the hype.

 

[tmgrood]

I liked the content of the video. Beautiful scenery.

 

[BossOlive]

[emoji319]

 

[BossOlive]

Not a huge difference to my no-longer-young eyes. Comparisons such as this are difficult similarly as when trying to match two colors. If they're not side-by-side on the screen at the same time where you can discern minute differences, it's nearly impossible for most people to nail it. Both are very impressive videos IMO, both very sharp on my 1920x1080 monitor watching YouTube. Maybe if I had a monitor capable of 4k and if YT could stream 4K, it might be more obvious. Thanks for sharing.

Actually I just got a 4k Roku tv it has YouTube 4k and WoW I was blind and now I can see [emoji23].
I lost 5” off my 70” 1080p
But gained 4k it was worth it especially with the bargains going around on 4k

 

[BossOlive]

If you compare them side by side with your nose a few centimetres from the screen, you can see it - but sit an average viewing distance from a 50" tv and you won't see much difference between 1080p and 4k.

Steve Yedlin, cinematographer of "The Last Jedi" wrote a great white paper for American Cinematographer magazine, and has a two-part demo on his web site, showing why the number of pixels in an image isn't as important as perceived contrast and sharpness. You can watch the demos on his web site at yedlin.net.

Bottom line is, when it comes to resolution, don't believe the hype.

I think he’s full of [emoji90] I had 70” Sharp Aquos 1080p and just got 65” Sharp Roku 4k and the difference is night and day and I’m sitting 22 feet from my television.

What he says is a myth. You shouldn’t believe the hype either and go to a tv store with a memory stick and see the difference for yourself.
You must watch the comparison on a 4k tv not a 1080.

 

[pmshop]

Really excited to get back home after Christmas in Las Vegas.
As we were leaving for the Airport, my Christmas gift arrived.
LG 32" 4K monitor

 

[BossOlive]

Really excited to get back home after Christmas in Las Vegas.
As we were leaving for the Airport, my Christmas gift arrived.
LG 32" 4K monitor

Oh yes you will see the difference my friend [emoji817][emoji108]
Watch the comparison video again you won’t need the side by side [emoji23]

 

[BossOlive]

I liked the content of the video. Beautiful scenery.

Thank you [emoji4]

 

[BossOlive]

The thing is, you cannot compare in the same video in YouTube or any other platform for that matter.
In this instance, 1080p & 2.7K have all been upscaled to 4K.
You would have to upload raw video in each resolution in separate videos to compare.

Watch on the 4k monitor then let me know [emoji106]

 

[Spark 317]

You shouldn’t believe the hype either and go to a tv store with a memory stick and see the difference for yourself.
You must watch the comparison on a 4k tv not a 1080.

That is good darn good idea about taking a memory stick with you for a trial run. ?

It might catch the sales person off guard a bit, but the proof is in the pudding.

Plug it in and see the difference.

Hundreds or thousands of dollars could be saved with a simple test.

 

[cappellen]

Next to resolution the bit rate is quite important for the compression that needs to be achieved. The lower rate of the Spark is quite obvious with a 4k computer monitor that's quite close to you. In the highly compressed YouTube universe the difference is much less obvious.

 

[BossOlive]

Next to resolution the bit rate is quite important for the compression that needs to be achieved. The lower rate of the Spark is quite obvious with a 4k computer monitor that's quite close to you. In the highly compressed YouTube universe the difference is much less obvious.

I tried 80000 bitrate cause it’s supposed to be the best but image wasn’t nice at all. Wondering if the memory stick isn’t fast enough ?

 

[cappellen]

I tried 80000 bitrate cause it’s supposed to be the best but image wasn’t nice at all. Wondering if the memory stick isn’t fast enough ?

It's the bit rate at which the video is made. For the Spark it's max 24 mb/s and for the mini 40 mb/s for mavic 2 100 mb/s. Increasing the bit rate later doesn't add extra information. Only for upscaling it will be useful.