Would 3 4K displays be the same as a 12K monitor if it existed?

[Brom954]

I am having a debate with a friend who thinks that 12K on one monitor would be different to the computer than running 3 4K displays at once. The Apple Mac Pro can do 3 x 4K monitors so, if it existed, could you say that it would run a single 12K monitor? Thanks in advance.

 

[pyr0_m4n]

Resolution doesn't stack like that. If you put 3 1920x1080 monitors together, it doesn't equal 5760x3240. You can stretch a picture across all the screens, but each one is still displaying 4k per screen.

 

[k1114]

9x 4k monitors is 12k because of aspect ratio.

 

[pyr0_m4n]

9x 4k monitors is 12k because of aspect ratio.

It sounds like he's asking if it becomes 12k actual. adding 3 1920x1080 monitors is still 1080p per monitor though.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

No. 4k is 4k wide, 2k high. 3x4k is 12k wide, 2k high. A 12k monitor would be 12k wide, 6k high.

That's slightly simplistic, but that's the issue.

 

[pyr0_m4n]

No. 4k is 4k wide, 2k high. 3x4k is 12k wide, 2k high. A 12k monitor would be 12k wide, 6k high.

That's slightly simplistic, but that's the issue.

Is there even any point to that then? Wouldn't everything just be upscaled 1080p? I'm not aware of anything that utilizes 4k-12k yet.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

There is 4k content around. Just not a whole lot.

Also, video isn't the only point of lots of pixels. Same reasons people use QHD can be extrapolated up to 4k - more windows, more room around video feeds, all those kinds of stuff.

 

[Brom954]

Ok, so the 4 in the 4K is based off the wide resolution, I think that if that is the definition of 4K then it’s a bit broad. If that is the case then the definition of 12K should be roughly 12k horizontal pixels. Although what you might expect from a 12K monitor would taller (in pixels) considering the standard 16:9 ratio. However having a 12K monitor would be impractical since our eyes could not see the pixel density. So, doing a google search for 12K comes up with 3 4K displays. Because of what I have said, I think that the most practical use of the term 12K, would be to refer to a triple 4K set up. What would you guys think about that conclusion?

 

[Someone Somewhere]

Not really. Because that would imply that an 8K screen is a pair of 4Ks, whereas it has a very well formed definition of 7680 pixels wide by 4320 pixels tall.

 

[k1114]

You could say it's broad since "4k" is generic to multiple different specifications close to 4k horizontal pixels. But when you refer to 4k, it's about the dominant 4k standard which is uhd, 16:9, 3840x2160. By these standards, 12k = 11520x6480. 3x4k would be 48:9 and there really isn't any standard with that aspect ratio. The widest standard is ultra wide 21:9 or cinemascaope which is hardly different at 21.51:9. The only time you are seeing this odd ratio of 48:9 is with computers in eyefinity/surround but other than games with those res, there is no other media that uses this format. 3x 4k may have 12k horizontal but you wouldn't call 3x 1080p, 6k. I could name off smaller monitors in eyefinity/surround and none of them are named after the horizontal pixels. The whole point is when you refer to these terms, it's about the dominant 16:9 standard.

Higher resolution does not mean higher pixel density. A single 4k monitor and 9x 4k to make 12k are still exactly the same pixel density.