Haha, the moron Neenyah literally buried himself, completely disgracing himself, because... Even in his own screenshots the difference is clearly visible. As in the case of Chrome, where he disgraced himself with his own screenshots, enlarged by me 4 times, like my own. There he quietly disappeared from the topic, but here I just won't let him.

The difference between 4k and fhd is not visible only on screens, bingo! 4k.
Moreover, on a 2.5k screen, not only is the cloudiness of the picture in 1080p resolution visible, but due to the fact that 2.5k at the pixel level is not compatible with either 4k or fhd screens, this moron has even higher cloudiness than these 1080p are displayed on my screen 1920x1200. Which, by the way, is obviously much better in terms of colorspace of the Neenyah screen, because my monitor have 94% AdobeRGB.

Thus, the moron Neenyah proved that he is still completely blind or just a stupid troll, just littering the topics. After all, others immediately saw this difference.

In general, the topic is closed, Neenyah has disgraced himself once again.

Let's summarize, proven by screenshots and test video from YouTube in dynamics:
Never watch 1080p on YouTube and especially on a 2.5k screen. Always choose 4k by default if it is available, thereby you will dramatically improve the video quality visually. And don't listen to any local morons.

Quote from: NikoB on Yesterday at 10:55:56Neenyah, shameful bot, where have you gone? ))

Just lost any interest to talk with a delusional retard who's using a trash 1200p (💀) screen which is visible from both of your screenshots. No wonder that you are always spamming the same irrelevant and incorrect s*** about 2.5K when you don't even have one, lmao. Sad...

Was the author of this news very offended by the real NikoB, who pointed out his obvious oversight?

Such a powerful hysteria at the obvious stupidity written in the news.

Let me emphasize once again - all modern "nanometers" indicated for current technical processes have nothing to do with reality. The dimensions of transistor gates are many times larger and this is a proven fact. This is marketing nonsense that fools the minds of young fools, and news must be written correctly - indicating nanometers in quotation marks or always making a footnote under the news that this is a marketing name for the technical processes of a particular company and has nothing to do with the real size of the key elements on the chip.

If someone else is crap about it, then just remove these trash comments, because you, the editors, know exactly where I write and where the fake "NikoB" is. ;)

If you're a drunk Neenyah bot, now hiding under the nickname "q" and you're seeing double, then probably muddy text in Chrome seems clear to you, and clear text in Firefox seems muddy. Well, what can I say, anyone can easily check it with their own eyes. ))

Neenyah, shameful bot, where have you gone? )) Or are you so ashamed now that your own screenshots clearly show the difference in favor of 2160k vs 1080p on YouTube, but you supposedly don't see it? You literally flogged yourself. As in the case of an attempt to refute the presence of persistent cloudy text in Chrome?

Even in the screenshots of this stupid bot, the difference is clearly visible even in a static picture. The detail in 2160p is many times higher than in muddy 1080p.
How blind, stupid or intentionally deceitful do you have to be to not see the difference in your own screenshots, Neenyah bot? =)

--
I do not and will not have a paid subscription to YouTube, but I was also interested in comparing the difference between 1080p in a paid subscription on the same frames from the same video and without a paid Premium subscription.

I'm sure that even with a paid subscription the difference will be obvious, especially in dynamics rather than static.

---
This is why NEVER watch 1080p/1440p videos on YouTube if there is a 4k source and your hardware can handle it. ALWAYS (and especially outside of a paid Premium subscription) select the default resolution in the settings of plugins like Tweaks for Youtube - 4k for screens with a resolution of 1920x1080 (1200) and 2560x1440 (1600). If your screen is 4k, select the default 8k resolution in Tweaks for Youtube or a similar plugin. Unless, of course, your Internet channel is capable of consistently receiving an 8K stream from YouTube without friezes.

It is better not to enable 8k on 1920x1080 (1200) screens for another reason - clearly visible moire appears. 8k should always be selected (if a source is available) on 4k screens. This increases the bitrate at least twice per pixel and allows you to use a 4:4;4 scheme for rendering, instead of 4:2:0, if it is possible to output to 4:4:4 while maintaining the hardware decoding layer.

Dumb moron, even the dumbest reader will instantly see the difference in real screenshots, not fabricated ones:
Real 1080p from Youtube: i.imgur.com/kMsk7Lu.png
Real 2160p from Youtube: i.imgur.com/76X0TvW.png
Zoom for 100% and switch fast both in browser

It's enough just to scroll carefully on the fhd screen to immediately see the monstrous difference in detail between 1080p and 4k, and even more so without a paid Premium subscription, deliberately imposed by Google through the deterioration of the 1080p bitrate without it.

You moron already disgraced yourself earlier when you quietly merged from the thread regarding the clarity of the text in Chrome under the pressure of irrefutable evidence from your own screenshots.

And it's morons like these who slow down progress. Or corrupt. paid trolls masquerading as ordinary people or simply real morons in terms of intelligence. You are more likely from the second category.

Dumb moron, even the dumbest reader will instantly see the difference in real screenshots, not fabricated ones:
Real 1080p from Youtube: i.imgur.com/kMsk7Lu.png
Real 1080p from Youtube: i.imgur.com/76X0TvW.png
Zoom for 100% and switch fast both in browser

It's enough just to scroll carefully on the fhd screen to immediately see the monstrous difference in detail between 1080p and 4k, and even more so without a paid Premium subscription, deliberately imposed by Google through the deterioration of the 1080p bitrate without it.

You moron already disgraced yourself earlier when you quietly merged from the thread regarding the clarity of the text in Chrome under the pressure of irrefutable evidence from your own screenshots.

And it's morons like these who slow down progress. Or corrupt. paid trolls masquerading as ordinary people or simply real morons in terms of intelligence. You are more likely from the second category.

Quote from: NikoB on May 12, 2024, 22:32:58Here is a typical example of how a low bitrate merges everything into a shapeless mess:
youtu.be/FjU_x1106pg?t=707
We look at the treetops from 11:48 in 1080p and then in 4k.

There you go:

1080p @ 2.5K screen: https://imgur.com/nrnovkI
2160p @ 2.5K screen: https://imgur.com/M1VsvIB

Now go bark at that same tree you dumb lying moron.

Quote from: Neenyah on May 12, 2024, 16:25:32

Quote from: NikoB on May 12, 2024, 15:41:30

Quote from: Victor Lilley on May 12, 2024, 13:35:12It would be more useful to me, having already bought it, if it made concrete suggestions, on a external monitor, that would overcome the disadvantages of the internal screen, bearing in mind the limitations of the current graphics card.

From my comment you can already draw a practical conclusion when watching YouTube - never choose a resolution lower than 4k (if available) on a 2.5k screen

1080p on a 2.5K screen: imgur.com/Wvpieqm
2160p on a 2.5K screen: imgur.com/NDvnXDm

Striking difference... Not.

Stupid bot with a carefully chosen example. I can easily give an example where the difference is visible in dynamics, and not in statics, where it is also clearly visible.

Google itself admitted that it deliberately lowers the bitrate and quality of fhd videos outside of the Premium subscription. Therefore, a person without a subscription can see good fhd quality only by choosing 4k (and even in this case, it will not be a reference, since the bitrate is still 1.5 times lower than on a BD disc, which uses an ideal quality master copy encoded in 2 passes on professional equipment by professionals, compared to the garbage that amateurs post on YouTube).

Only an idiot would argue with the fact that a 4k webcam gives a picture many times better than the same camera in fhd, which is instantly visible to the naked eye.

Here is a typical example of how a low bitrate merges everything into a shapeless mess:
youtu.be/FjU_x1106pg?t=707
We look at the treetops from 11:48 in 1080p and then in 4k.
Only a blind person would not see the difference. And so it is everywhere.

Rest, stupid bot, you are still far from real professionals in video processing.

Quote from: NikoB on May 12, 2024, 15:41:30

Quote from: Victor Lilley on May 12, 2024, 13:35:12It would be more useful to me, having already bought it, if it made concrete suggestions, on a external monitor, that would overcome the disadvantages of the internal screen, bearing in mind the limitations of the current graphics card.

From my comment you can already draw a practical conclusion when watching YouTube - never choose a resolution lower than 4k (if available) on a 2.5k screen

1080p on a 2.5K screen: https://imgur.com/Wvpieqm
2160p on a 2.5K screen: https://imgur.com/NDvnXDm

Striking difference... Not.

Quote from: Victor Lilley on May 12, 2024, 13:35:12It would be more useful to me, having already bought it, if it made concrete suggestions, on a external monitor, that would overcome the disadvantages of the internal screen, bearing in mind the limitations of the current graphics card.

From my comment you can already draw a practical conclusion when watching YouTube - never choose a resolution lower than 4k (if available) on a 2.5k screen, and even more so on an fhd screen, because the maximum bitrate per 1 pixel is only in 8k resolution (but it is in general is redundant and only benefits on 4k screens for the obvious reason - all videos are 4:2:0, not full 4:4:4). The same goes for any streaming service.

For YouTube, I recommend plugins of the "tweaks for youtube" level; they increase user comfort on YouTube by an order of magnitude with proper careful configuration.

Quote from: Victor Lilley on May 06, 2024, 19:21:46Received one on Tuesday 30 April 2024.

With me facing the sun, the screen was disappointingly grey for a pdf of a Word file. So not as bright as the photo in the article. I checked the contrast and it was a bit over half. I increased it to maximum and it was OK. It remains to be seen if that causes a large drain on the battery. It occurs to me I might be able to turn it down a bit. As it is 500 nits average I expected the contrast to be set in the middle and that would be 500 nits. But the maximum is only 528 nits. Then one would have expected the maximum to be more, given the minimum is zero. So I don't understand. The Windows background being black was virtutally invisible. Have changed this to white so hepfully OK when we, in the UK get some more sun. I tried a tropical island HD 1080 video from Youtube to run down the battery and was impressed by the quality of the display. It was as if I could touch the sand and feel the breeze.     

Error.I should have written brightness, instead of contrast.I have subsequently tried to reduce the brightness but for me its needs to be max in bright sunlight.However, it has subsequently occurred to me that I might need a hood for it in bright sunlight anyway, as we move towards the Summer, as it sems likely to get too hot from the suns heat. Then I might be able to reduce the brightness from max.

Quote from: NikoB on May 06, 2024, 21:46:32

Quote from: Victor Lilley on May 06, 2024, 19:21:46I tried a tropical island HD 1080 video from Youtube to run down the battery and was impressed by the quality of the display. It was as if I could touch the sand and feel the breeze.     

Even in a paid premium YouTube subscription, the video quality in 1080p resolution is shameful, compared to 4k resolution.
This is a proven fact, because The bitrate per 1 pixel, even in the premium version, is much lower than the bitrate in 4k resolution on a 2.5k screen.

Moreover, on a 2.5K screen there will never be the same pixel sharpness of fhd video as on fhd and 4k/8k screens, as well as the ideal pixel sharpness of 4k video for the same reason - hardware incompatibility of 4k/fhd video with 2.5k resolution pixel level.

So what did you see there in the blocky mess at 1080p, quite a funny question...

Quote from: Victor Lilley on May 06, 2024, 19:21:46The Windows background being black was virtutally invisible.

What's true in complete darkness? With a mediocre contrast of 1200:1? ;)

The information is nice to know but disregards price. I found this laptop to be the best large screen 500 nits laptop with no issues with the keyboard, for my budget of £1,400, for my use. I spent a lot of time looking at all the manufacturers. Schenker was no good because they filed to disclose a dealer in the UK from whom I could buy it. Dell was ruled out after they tried to overcharge me for a custom tower and are knowingly falsely in denial via their Resolver Complaints System. Plus Acer was ruled our because they do no offer an onsite repiar service. I wanted a 500 nits laptop so I can top up my Vitamin D more.I am not going to use it for gaming, just word processing and associated web browsing.

Also it offers no concrete alternatives.

It would be more useful to me, having already bought it, if it made concrete suggestions, on a external monitor, that would overcome the disadvantages of the internal screen, bearing in mind the limitations of the current graphics card.

Quote from: Victor Lilley on May 06, 2024, 19:21:46I tried a tropical island HD 1080 video from Youtube to run down the battery and was impressed by the quality of the display. It was as if I could touch the sand and feel the breeze.     

Even in a paid premium YouTube subscription, the video quality in 1080p resolution is shameful, compared to 4k resolution.
This is a proven fact, because The bitrate per 1 pixel, even in the premium version, is much lower than the bitrate in 4k resolution on a 2.5k screen.

Moreover, on a 2.5K screen there will never be the same pixel sharpness of fhd video as on fhd and 4k/8k screens, as well as the ideal pixel sharpness of 4k video for the same reason - hardware incompatibility of 4k/fhd video with 2.5k resolution pixel level.

So what did you see there in the blocky mess at 1080p, quite a funny question...

Quote from: Victor Lilley on May 06, 2024, 19:21:46The Windows background being black was virtutally invisible.

What's true in complete darkness? With a mediocre contrast of 1200:1? ;)

Received one on Tuesday 30 April 2024.

With me facing the sun, the screen was disappointingly grey for a pdf of a Word file. So not as bright as the photo in the article. I checked the contrast and it was a bit over half. I increased it to maximum and it was OK. It remains to be seen if that causes a large drain on the battery. It occurs to me I might be able to turn it down a bit. As it is 500 nits average I expected the contrast to be set in the middle and that would be 500 nits. But the maximum is only 528 nits. Then one would have expected the maximum to be more, given the minimum is zero. So I don't understand. The Windows background being black was virtutally invisible. Have changed this to white so hepfully OK when we, in the UK get some more sun. I tried a tropical island HD 1080 video from Youtube to run down the battery and was impressed by the quality of the display. It was as if I could touch the sand and feel the breeze.