Comment

Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes

fritobugger2017@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

The study used a 44 inch TV at 2.5m. The most commonly used calculator for minimum TV to distance says that at 2.5m the TV should be a least 60 inches.

My own informal tests at home with a 65 inch TV looking at 1080 versus 4K Remux of the same movie seems to go along with the distance calculator. At the appropriate distance or nearer I can see a difference if I am viewing critically (as opposed to casually). Beyond a certain distance the difference is not apparent.

source

Sort:hotnew top

markko@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Exactly. This title is just clickbait.

The actual study’s title is “Resolution limit of the eye — how many pixels can we see?”.

source
- definitemaybe@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Can’t believe I had to scroll down this far to find this:
  
  Here’s the gut-punch for the typical living room, however. If you’re sitting the average 2.5 meters away from a 44-inch set, a simple Quad HD (QHD) display already packs more detail than your eye can possibly distinguish. The scientists made it crystal clear: once your setup hits that threshold, any further increase in pixel count, like moving from 4K to an 8K model of the same size and distance, hits the law of diminishing returns because your eye simply can’t detect the added detail.
  
  On a computer monitor, it’s easily apparent because you’re not sitting 2+ m away, and in a living room, 44" is tiny, by recent standards.
  
  source
- SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Exactly why big box stores force you to look at TVs in narrow aisles, not at typical distances at home. They also adjust pictures on highest margin models properly.
  
  source