60hz.... waste of time.

Also not 4k, which as false advertising goes, is more outrageous for a monitor.

Size_Mick:

Also not 4k, which as false advertising goes, is more outrageous for a monitor.

How is it not 4K ?

HawaiianBrian:

How is it not 4K ?

4k would be 4096 pixels wide. It's UHD, which is 3840 pixels wide (1920x2). This is a misleading conflation that became popular for marketing televisions because people are stupid and it's easier to say 4k than UHD. Just like how Blu-Ray won out over HD-DVD, because who the hell wants to say HD-DVD?

Size_Mick:

4k would be 4096 pixels wide. It's UHD, which is 3840 pixels wide (1920x2). This is a misleading conflation that became popular for televisions because people are stupid and it's easier to say 4k than UHD. Just like how Blu-Ray won out over HD-DVD, because who the hell wants to say HD-DVD?

Yeah.. BluRay won because people felt it was too hard to say HD-DVD and not because it was technically superior or because Sony pushed it in the entertainment industry or with playstation, subsidizing it's cost to the tune of ~$200 per PS3 - it was entirely because 3 syllables. Also it says 4K UHD. Everyone knows what the resolution is.

Hawaiian apparently didn't. And I am correct about the fact that it was conflated by marketers and should be considered false advertising. Also the HD-DVD comment was just a tongue-in-cheek type quip. But think about it! Say HD-DVD ten times and see if you still think it was blu-ray's technical superiority that made it win out :P! (By the way, in the early days, it was HD-DVD that had the technical advantage, both in storage and in compatibility).

https://books.google.com/books?id=MJ4uDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT1693&lpg=PT1693&dq=What+organizations+set+the+4K+standard&source=bl&ots=Xi4EdmLbUM&sig=fEjfFYGX0sRhiT4Agvxd-4LkBm8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBk4br-s7ZAhUT2mMKHSTyAWEQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&q=What organizations set the 4K standard&f=false If you scroll down a little you will see that the 4K standard is comprised of two resolutions. One is the DCI 4K standard and the other is what was stated as a consumer specification.

Size_Mick:

Hawaiian apparently didn't. And I am correct about the fact that it was conflated by marketers and should be considered false advertising. Also the HD-DVD comment was just a tongue-in-cheek type quip. But think about it! Say HD-DVD ten times and see if you still think it was blu-ray's technical superiority that made it win out 😛! (By the way, in the early days, it was HD-DVD that had the technical advantage, both in storage and in compatibility).

HD-DVD had better compatibility, but was always the inferior project, which is why i was always against it. Blu-Ray 25GB single/50GB dual with 1x speeds of 36 Mbit/s HD-DVD 15GB single/25GB dual with 1x speeds of 36 Mbit/s As to the rest of your post regarding 4K not being 4K, i don't really disagree, i wish things were not changed just because a couple companies or multiple companies wanted to change what the meaning of something was. That being said, that's not reality. You can either be someone who goes into forums and randomly for no reason at all post in a forum that mentions a monitor is 4K and proclaim its not 4K while everyone looks at you like you're insane, and never get anything done about what your issue is (because you can't), or move on with your life and accept the fact that reality is reality and though 4K is 4096, it is also now 3840 x 2160, and there is no false advertising about it no matter what you say, because this is reality. Even DCI 4K, which mostly adhears to 4096, has DCI 4K (flat cropped) 3996 × 2160 resolution. Quite frankly, if they were to make "4K" TV/monitors be 4096 x 2160, we'd end up going through another transition period for aspect ratios and TVs and media for them, since "DCI 4K does not conform to the 16:9 aspect ratio, so it is not a multiple of the 1080p display."

Not to put too fine a point on this, but: https://www.google.com/search?q=4k%20vs%20uhd clearly the "4K" moniker is false advertising. Also, if you check out the tortured history of blu-ray, it originally couldn't hold as much as an HD-DVD. I guess money and the promise of a better spec saved it.