Apparently Your Eyes Can't See 4K... 

I purposely lower my eyes resolution to see faster.

The human legs can only hear 8gb of ram.

Him: "8k is never going to happen" Dell: "Hold my 4k"

"8K will never happen" February 2019 Samsung QLED 8K

fun fact: the human eye can't see at all, what you're "seeing" is just your imagination, so in reality you're just crazy.

Barry, I hope you realise that the human eye can't see more than one pixel.

4K is just the amount of money you spent on the monitor

Umm no you are all wrong the human eye can only see 144p at 5 FPS and you should sit 80ft away for safety Edit: Thank you all for 50+ likes Edit 2: Thank you all for 150 likes

Looks like BulletBarry is being chased by a disosaur, he can see 144 fps

But how can 4k be real if our eyes aren't

"8K will never happen" *cough cough linus tech tips cough cough there's literally 8K displays now COUGH COUGH*

He also said 60 will become the new standard.... what? It's been the minimum standard since CRT, pretty much all LCD's are 60hz+.

"Most games dont support 4k" > Me furiously increasing rendering resolution

I can only see 144p

“Soap opera effect” is a real thing, but only happens when the frame rate is being artificially “upped” by an algorithm to a rate higher than the original source material.

But really, I really would take 60fps in a game rather than having 4K ultra settings... It's just buttery smooth... I would take a 1080p monitor at 144Hz than having a 4k monitor at 60Hz

I down grade my eye fps to 30 cause 60 is too life like.

I can see 1p at 1hz It's pretty radh

Here's the optics math to prove the *average* person can see 4K: In order to determine if a person can see 4K, we're going to use mathematics from astrophysics / photography. What we want to know is the maximum PPI (pixels per inch) that our eyes can resolve at a typical monitor / TV viewing distance. Then we'll compare that max PPI to the known PPI values of 4K monitors of various sizes. --------------------------------------------- First we have to determine the viewing angle of our eyes. The equation for this is: alpha = 2 * arctan( d / 2f ) -- where d is the size of our film (cone width), and f is the focal distance to our lens. We know these values for the eye. For the *average* human, the cone density in the fovea centralis is 147,000 cones / mm^2, or about 383 cones / mm (measured in one dimension.) We can therefore use 1 / 383 = mm / cone as our value of d. f -- the focal distance from the fovea centralis to the lens is also well known: the *average* human value is 17.1 mm. So the *average* human viewing angle is: alpha = 2 * arctan ( (1/383) / (2*17.1)) Plug this into a calculator (and ask for the result in arcseconds) and you get 31.49 arcseconds. So the *average* human viewing angle is 31.49 arcseconds. Anything smaller than this at the observing distance will not be resolved. --------------------------------------------- Now we'll find the *average* PPI that this corresponds to at the relevant viewing distance. Let's use two: 1) monitor viewing distance, 2) TV viewing distance. I just measured the distance from my head to my monitor and got ~31 inches. Call this D(mon). Let's assume a TV viewing distance of 6 feet, or ~72 inches. Call this D(tv). -------------------------------------------- Our viewing target is a single pixel. Its size will depend on the PPI of the display. Its size is relatively straightforward in terms of PPI: the size of our pixel (d) is (1 / PPI). You can show this pretty easily: PPI is measured as pixels / inch. The inverse of this is inches / pixel. So (1 / PPI) is a measurement, in inches, of the size of our pixel. In summary: d = (1 / PPI), so (1 / d) = PPI. -------------------------------------------- With this information, its very easy to find the max PPI of our vision. First, let's set up our equation and then solve for (1 / d): The equation is: theta = 2 * arctan (d / 2D) This is the same equation as before, with different variables. Theta is our viewing angle (we know this is 31.49 arcsec from our previous calculation.) D is either 31 inches or 72 inches for our purposes (although we can set it to anything), and (1 / d) is the PPI we want to solve for. Manipulating the equation, step by step (for those with no background in math): theta / 2 = arctan (d / 2D) tan(theta / 2) = d / 2D tan(theta / 2) / d = (1 / 2D) (1 / d)= 1 / ( 2D * tan ( theta / 2 ) ) ------------------------------------------- Plugging in our two values: 1) Monitor viewing distance: (1 / d) = 1 / ( 2*31 * tan(31.49 arcsec / 2)) = 211.3 PPI. 2) TV viewing distance: (1 / d) = 1 / (2*72 * tan(31.49 arcsec / 2)) = 90.97 PPI. These values represent the maximum PPI that the *average* human can resolve for monitors @ 31 inches and TVs @ 72 inches respectively. Values above these numbers are lost on the *average* human eye. ------------------------------------------- Only one last thing to do: compare to the PPI of 4K monitors / TVs. You can easily look this stuff up: 21.5 - 27 inches seems like a reasonable size for a monitor. At this size, the PPI of a 4K monitor is between 205 @ 21.5 inches, to 163.18 @ 27 inches. 50 - 70 inches seems reasonable size for a TV. At this size, the PPI of a 4K tv is between 88.12 @ 50 inches, to 63.2 @ 70 inches. ------------------------------------------- So can the *average* human eye see 4K? Absolutely: 163 - 205 PPI is less than the max of 211 for monitors at 31 inches, and... 63.2 - 88.12 PPI is less than the max of 90.97 for TVs at 72 inches. ------------------------------------------- This all assumes *average* vision. People with *good* vision have many times more cones in their fovea centralis. Science shows a large variance among individuals, and its not inconceivable for people with good vision to have up to 320,000 cones / mm^2 in their fovea centralis. To save you the time, this is equal to 21.3 arcsecond angle of view, corresponding to a max PPI of: Monitors @ 31 inches: 312 PPI TVs @ 72 inches: 134.5 PPI At *8K (!!!!)* this means someone with very good vision could pick up the following monitors / TVs and get something out of them: 28.5 inch 8K monitor: 310 PPI 65 inch 8K TV: 135.5 PPI ------------------------------------------- So where does Knowing Better's analysis go completely wrong? He makes two downright terrible assumptions: 1) Every cone in the eye can only look at ONE pixel on the screen. 2) That pixel density and cone density don't matter. Also -- you know --- he just doesn't use the appropriate optics math at all. ------------------------------------------- Hopefully now: you know better.

We can all see 4K See you just saw the words 4k

I can only see 512 MB of DDR3 VRAM

So is that dude watching TV at 1080p at a 100 inch TV

8 k's already here .. Wise up ..

This dude reminds me of that one guy the watches one Rick and Morty episode and thinks he’s Einstein.

The human eye can only see 24 frames per minute

Oh boy, it's the next 'THE EYE CAN'T SEE 60 FPS'.

He reminds me of someone who’s from a previous generation who prefers the things that exist when they were growing up.

"And 8K will NEVER come" pfft what about the 5K mac and the new 8k Samsung TV

I thought that was you in the thumbnail and i was like "jesus you've changed"

Barry, I figured it out: The reason the eye cant see over 30/60fps is because its at 29.97/59.97 fps, and its just being rounded up, thus its not actually 60/30, so we see 59.97/29.97 fps.

People who use glasses and take them off : 144p 240p 360p

"there's virtually no content for 4k right now" is this guy serious? there are plenty of youtube videos that can play in 4k, and plenty of games offer it as a resolution option. sure, your phone doesn't need 4k, but for a large tv there is a huge benefit.

I can't see 4k , because I dont have a 4k TV. :(

Silly Barry, the human eye is not as enhanced as you give it credit for. It can only see at 10FPS at 360p, and we can only see three colours. Our brain just fills in the gaps. Everything else you've heard is sensationalist hooey, cooked up by superstitious yokels.

I don’t think you have the right to call him out on his soap analogy when you were using a car analogy a few minutes earlier

3:30 You instantly noticed the difference between 120 FPS, and 144 FPS... ? How?... wow... what? are you a wizard?

I cant even see cause im legally blind take that.

I chose not to see in 4k at birth so I could see in 240fps, thank you very much

After watching his video, I think you missed the whole point man...its an analogy for the human eye. So yea. he does need to get into the anatomy of it...

“8k is never going to happen” say that to IMAX which has film resolutions up to 12k and has been that way for well over 30 years.

This guy was that one kid who always tried to outsmart/correct the teacher in school but was always wrong.

console peasants quote 38.5

You didn't get the point. The video wasn't about not being able to perceive 4k, it was more about the mainstream consumer who would buy anything that's new just because 'it's somehow better,' for example, a 4k tv without even having any movie in 4k or a console which can run 4k. It happens a lot and they believe they are getting a 4k image by playing their old DVDs or their PS4 stardard on it. If you know what you're looking for, then you shouldn't care about Knowing Better's video, because you're not his indended audience. That video is for people who really have no idea what they're buying; people who just want the best thing on the market. That's the reason he spent a lot of time explaining resolutions and frame rate. I don't know why are you playing dumb here. You know well he's oversimplifying and never said there was no difference between 2160p and 1080p. He was just speaking 'average people's tongue.'

I love hearing "8k will never happen" while watching on a phone that records 8k video.

Everyone knows you can’t see higher than 480p at 1fps

Oh silly berry you must know that we simply dont exist

The dude normally makes good content, but it seems he's seen one too many dubious news articles...

The real point behind the video isn't that you can't tell the different d between the formats, rather, the difference between them is so miniscule that going out of your way to buy "4k" products is not really needed.

I remember watching this video a month ago and being like “what?”

Hey, i went to a store and moved a mouse around on a 1080p 144hz screen they had on a setup for people to try, it felt much better than my 60hz monitor, i must be on cocaine lmao.

I remember when my phone only supported 720p and I thought it looked great and that 1080p couldn't top it. Then I got a new phone that supports up to 1440p and I was like damn okay I was really wrong.

"8K will never happen!" 8K happened.

I can only hear up to 2 giga pixlels per second, and when I'm on dinosaur cocaine I am able to feel all three colors at 15 fps. That's why I only have a 144p tv, and I set all my games to have 40gb of ddrsd ram at 4 tflops

Well they definitely can't see more than 24fps right... Right?

Always searching for watchable YT videos, for me 90% don't make it past 1-minute. Your 4K video was the an exception. Clever video inserts, tightly edited, excellent narration. Well done!

Fun fact, movies are quite often filmed at 4 or 8K and are simplified to 1080p which means they look better than a movie filmed at 1080p only.

I can only see in 30 fps and think that humblebundle is a scam

bruh this guy should play vr in 60fps and then play it in 90 or 120 fps and say he can't see a difference

Fr though who keeps motion blur on?

KnowingBetter actually makes good videos. Perhaps he didn’t do all his research with this one but he definitely covers other topics quite well.

4:58 "Notice how there's no motion blur" (30fps blurred intermediate frames intensifies)

Yeah makes sense Barry your just old your vision you can only see 1080p while kids through 1-18 see 4K and grandpa see 144p. But to get a better vision you need better internet that’s why before internet people saw black and white through CRT TVs and before TVs came around people just saw in play and before that people saw nothing until we invited plays. So yeah just upgrade your brain with a new graphics card.

I had to downscale my 4K ears to 4 gigs of ram in order to understand what hes talking about

I was wondering wut Dat black pixel was

Does he not realize that there are already 8k monitors and tvs

The worst part is when he says "nothing before last year was filmed in 4k, so we won't be able to see them in 4k." 35mm film (invented around the beginning of the twentieth century) has even more detail than any 4k camera can capture, allowing for classic films to be transferred to 4k and even greater resolutions

This video introduced me to Bullet Barry. It was a great time watching the console peasant quotes, and learning more about PC's. So much so, that I am now attempting my own PC build very soon. Thank you Barry!

"You can't see with rods." What? Then how does my friend with achromatopsia see anything? Sure he gets blinded in broad daylight without sunglasses but even he sees the difference between 1080p and 4K. Hell, it benefits him because it creates better contrast.

I'd just like to point out that he said most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference in frame rate by sight. Whereas your experiment was telling the difference by feel. When you game you can feel the difference of high fps because of reduced lag between your input and visual output. It's much more difficult to see the differences. That's why movies don't look completely garbage even though they are low framerate. There are giveaways like blur etc but those very easily go unnoticed because of how our eyes and brain work.

I can only see 144p 24fps, my doctor said so!

well yeah, 1080P and 4k look the same on a 1080p screen, ez debunk

3:30 gaming frame rates are different. What knowing better is talking about is whether you can notice something appear or disappear for that amount of time. When you were doing the gta 5 test, you were looking for it and it was a constant thing.

I think you misunderstood a lot of his points tbh

Barry, Barry, Barry... You thought we wouldn't notice, but I did, you don't have a brother, you just changed the fps yourself so you looked smart. 😤

this guy: it will take 5-10 years to have 4k tvs be mainstream ps5 and xbox series x: hold my fast ssd

random guy: hUmAnS CaNt sEe iN 4k me with my 10,000,000x1,000,000 resolution, 10k fps and 1k hz eyes: hold my beer

"8k will never happen" Yeah sure buddy, tell that to Linus and his 16k setup. Really if 16k is feasible now, you don't think 8k will catch on in the next few years? This guy needs to do more research on technology.

Anyone else clicked on this video knowing 100% you just got baited

everyone in the comments are making jokes about it but i just want so see comments on how horribly this aged

One last thing; you said "most game devs design textures far above any resolution we have access to right now." This is wrong, just wrong. While creating and packaging games with 4k textures is becoming more and more common, it's certainly not standard practice, and we absolutely don't package games with textures that have absurdly high resolutions in the idea of "future-proofing", primarily because of memory constraints. Doubling the size of a texture (going from a 1080p sized texture to a 4k sized texture) QUADRUPLES the amount of memory used by that texture, and since each pixel of a texture typically contains 4 bytes of information (most cases representing Red, Blue, Green, and Alpha Opacity), an uncompressed texture with a resolution of 1024x1024 pixels (a somewhat large, but nonetheless common size for textures in modern games) costs 4MB in memory all by itself. Yes, I know compression will reduce the file size, but most games do not directly render compressed textures (there are drawbacks in doing so that make it generally undesirable), so the texture must be uncompressed back to its full size in memory before it can be used. Then consider that modern game objects typically have multiple textures in addition to the diffuse lighting map, such as a bump map (aka normal maps), specular map (aka highlight maps), and/or environmental map (aka reflective maps). Some objects may use more than those four types, some will use fewer, but most objects will use at least three: diffuse, specular, and bump in order to create the finished visual effect. That's 12 megabytes of texture memory for just this one object alone; double them to 4k resolutions (2048x2048 pixels) and that same object now uses a whopping 48MB in texture memory!! Sometimes a hi-rez version for a texture exists, kept around "just in case" we ever need it later, but we absolutely do not future-proof with astronomically large textures just in case the game is ever remastered. It'd be a waste of time and harddrive space for most games, it's much easier to simply create an up-rez texture if/when you actually need it. I'm a game dev, have been in the industry for nearly a decade. You can look up games I'm credited on at mobygames.com if you don't believe I'm being truthful.

Don't have access to a Tesla? Well then you can't perceive it! Don't have access to a PS4? Don't worry; the general population can't see it either Want a dog but you only have a cat? Well your in luck! You probably do have a dog, you just can't tell!

"Beyond a certain speed things can be too fast to see" dude we can see light That's the fastest shit there is Yet we see it

Knowing Better is a good channel, except for this video.

2:11 says the 4k TV Market is at "$390.9 billion" while showing an article that clearly states "4K TV "Market Size Worth $380.9 billion By 2025". And then proceeds to call out the guy for not putting the sources for one of his speaking points in the description.

You wouldn't notice the change from HD to 4K? Bruh, you go to the doctor ASAP.

My grandma had a 4k TV in 2016, what is this guy talking about? Not mainstream? My grandma, who does not know how to correctly work an iPad, and needs me to hook everything up and CONNECT HER PHONE TO HER WIFI, has a 4k tv. Literally, to this day, she does not know how capslock works, so she will send me half of her texts in caps and half not. My dad has a 4k tv, my uncle has a 4k tv, my aunt has 2 4k TV's. I would not say anyone of them but my uncle is into tech. But they all got one as soon as they saw it in person, before that they all had 1080p tvs so it is not like they went from a tube tv to 4k

He wasn't talking about watching a 15" monitor from ten feet away. He either specifically mentioned, visually implied, or just evoked in my mind the idea that he was referring to TVs with large screens.

According to him, all gamers that have good monitors are: Superhumans, Fighter Pilots, and EXTREMELY high

i have a 2k monitor and it had a dead pixel on it and i noticed right away

Tfw you probably cant see 4k without your glasses because you have a 20/200 vision

Me an Aussie watching a 4K stream, “huh interesting”

Compression, the computer's finest method of making everything smaller without degrading quality.

its not about what you can see. its about putting to many pixels in the screen so that you cant see the pixels. jesus christ why is this still an argument

The you can only see 24 fps argument is so dumb at 24 fps your brain just recognizes the screen as motion its not the cap its the starting point

The guy didn't say people can't tell that there's a difference between HD and 4K. He said people cannot visually perceive the fullness of 4K resolution, meaning they can tell it's sharper than 1080p, 1440p, etc., but cannot see all the detail.

The "framerate" and "resolution" of your eyes depends on the amount of light you see. So if you are in a good lit area you will be able to see 4k or even 8k. (It also depends in the person's eyes). And as we saw by your testing you could easily see a difference between 60, 120, and 144. And I can see a difference easily with my 240 hz monitor from 144 hz. Also 2 more thing, Look up 240 hz videos (cant wach it in RU-vid) or the alien tests they are awesome.

The soap opera effect is a real thing Barry. many TVs use blank frames or other trickery to make things appear smoother than they are. Problem is, when watching a show or movie, this can become quite distracting and can cause motion sickness in some people, and is the reason why movies are still rendered at 24 FPS. This is also why TVs usually don't actually have their advertised refresh rates, and are just using tricks to make the image seem smoother, thus the "soap opera effect". This is only observable in TVs though, and watching a 24 FPS movie on a even a 240Hz monitor will not make you motion sick, and will look the same if it was played on a 60Hz monitor.

"Mainstream format 30fps" *Laughs while watching 1080p60fps*

You make many good points, actually, and your overall argument is constructed fairly well. The only real issue I have is with the part at 18:37 where you say that the problem is that he tells people that they cannot perceive 4K. Frankly, I didn't get that message from the original video. I rewatched it (and finished yours) before making this comment, and the closest I found to him making that claim is at 17:10 (his vid), where he says "if you don't have better than 20/20 vision, it's pretty much lost on you". This obviously implies that if you do have better vision, then the difference is not lost on you -- and the overall argument, as I understand it, is not that it's imperceptible, but rather that it's not a significant enough difference to justify the investment. I just saw it as one of those videos where the title and thumbnail are exaggerated for clickbait purposes, and don't accurately reflect the argument of the video.

Did this guy not understand why this video was made. It's to literally show why people don't look in 4K like the titel suggests.