Images of items I have purchased (except trainers [no feet pics])

spoffle said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
G-MAN2004 said:
UHD. Or is that wrong too? I don't know these days.
Click to expand...

UHD is fine, as that is what it is. Though technically it's UHD-1.

Raikiri said:
But UHD is 4096x2160, not 3840x2160 technically.

It could also refer to 8k, unless we call that UUHD, which sounds daft.



Yeah, pretty much :p
Click to expand...

It's the other way around. 3840x2160 is UHD. 4096x2160 is 4K.

It's even worse with "8K" because that's 7680x4320, which is even further way from 8000 than UHD is from 4000.

7680x4320 is still part of UHD, it's just UHD-2.
 
Heisenberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
spoffle said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Heisenberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
IMG_0241.jpg


Sadly the brew was not included :(
 
spoffle said:
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.
Click to expand...

4K is the widely regarded and advertised name for a TV with a resolution of 3840x2160+. 4K in monetary terms is £4000. That was the cause of my confusion. I didn't realise I was replying to a smart arse who thinks his opinion is the only thing in the world that counts. I'm done discussing it tbh. Take it up with Sony,Samsung,LG etc.
 
Bought the mrs a pug which we're picking up tomorrow. Major brownie points :cool:

Jgkm33A.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom