I like how you’re calling bullshit on a study because you ~feel~ like you know better.
Read the report, and go check the study. They note that the biggest gains in human visibility for displays comes from contrast (largest reason), brightness, and color accuracy. All of which has drastically increased over the last 15 years. Look at a really good high end 1080p monitor and a low end 4k monitor and you will actively choose the 1080p monitor. It’s more pleasing to the eye, and you don’t notice the difference in pixel size at that scale.
Sure distance plays some level of scale, but they also noted that by performing the test at the same distance with the same size. They’re controlling for a variable you aren’t even controlling for in your own comment.
Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You should publish a study
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
And publish it in Nature, a leading biomedical journal, and claim boldly.
richardwallass@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
With 44 inch at 2,5m
the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Sounds like a waste of time to do a study on something already well known.
Soup@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Literally this article is about the study. Your “well-known” fact doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The other important detail to note is that screen size and distance to your TV also matters. The larger the TV, the more a higher resolution will offer a perceived benefit. Stretching a 1080p image across a 75-inch display, for example, won’t look as sharp as a 4K image on that size TV. As the age old saying goes, “it depends.”
literally in the article you are claiming to be correct, maybe should try reading sometime.
JigglySackles@lemmy.world 1 day ago
So I have a pet theory on studies like that. There are many things out there that many of us take for granted and as givens in our daily lives. But there are likely equally as many people out there to which this knowledge is either unknown or not actually apparent. Reasoning for that can be a myriad of things; like due to a lack of experience in the given area, skepticism that their anecdotal evidence is truly correct despite appearances, and on and on.
What these “obvious thing is obvious” studies accomplish is setting a factual precedent for the people in the back. The people who are uninformed, not experienced enough, skeptical, contrarian, etc.
The studies seem wasteful upfront, but sometimes a thing needs to be said aloud to galvanize the factual evidence and give basis to the overwhelming anecdotal evidence.