88
4k is not 2160p - heard it here first!
(www.dexerto.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
88 points (81.4% liked)
Games
32664 readers
936 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I get not wanting to call it "2160p" because that's a lot of syllables. But you're right, it was really dumb to switch which lines we are referring to. I'm sure a better name could have been come up with. Even UHD was better imo.
The one that really irks me are the people who call 2560x1440 2K. I have always known 2K to mean 2048 x 1080. But it has picked up so much traction that it has pretty much been redefined at this point.
2k is the term i refuse to use in my linguo. Ill yake QHD, or 1440p, but not 2k. 2560 doesnt even round to 2000 in the thousands place.
2K is supposed to refer to a 2048x2048 square 1:1 aspect image, same with 4K being a 4096x4096 image. This term is correctly used a lot when referring to texture sizes. A 4K texture is 4096x4096 texels.
I think the term started getting mixed up with people discussing what resolutions benefit from texture size increases. Generally, if you are running, say, 4K textures, you would really only always benefit from that if you have a 2160p screen, just because lower resolutions dont have the definition to actually display those texels. So, people start inter changing "4K screen" and "4K-benefitting screen" and we end up where we are now.