I'm not trying to be funny, I'm pointing that it's ridiculous to call 3840x2160 "4K". Given how confused you were about me saying £3800, it shows how valid my point was.
What should we call it then?
I'm not trying to be funny, I'm pointing that it's ridiculous to call 3840x2160 "4K". Given how confused you were about me saying £3800, it shows how valid my point was.
What should we call it then?
UHD.
Or is that wrong too? I don't know these days.
I'm not trying to be funny, I'm pointing that it's ridiculous to call 3840x2160 "4K". Given how confused you were about me saying £3800, it shows how valid my point was.
But UHD is 4096x2160, not 3840x2160 technically.
It could also refer to 8k, unless we call that UUHD, which sounds daft.
Yeah, pretty much![]()
UHD. Or is that wrong too? I don't know these days.
But UHD is 4096x2160, not 3840x2160 technically.
It could also refer to 8k, unless we call that UUHD, which sounds daft.
Yeah, pretty much![]()
It's a 4K TV. It's the term accepted by almost everyone except you. You may not agree with it, but frankly your opinion over the subject counts for nothing when the TV's are advertised by every single electronics store as 4K.
You paid 4000 for a 4K TV? You can buy the latest Samsung for $1500 here...
And that's logically fallacious. Something doesn't become true based solely on the belief that it is, argumentum ad populum. 3840 doesn't become 4XXX, regardless of how many people believe it.
Who actually cares if it isn't factually 4K? Call it whatever you want to call it. I and probably most, will continue to refer to its name as it is widely accepted as.
Cup of tea far more interesting than 4k TV bickering
Yet you objected to my suggestion that he'd paid £3800 for it. That shows on some level it doesn't make sense to you.
Yet you objected to my suggestion that he'd paid £3800 for it. That shows on some level it doesn't make sense to you.