Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes
M0oP0o@mander.xyz 3 days agoWhat is your point? Why would someone pay for a 4k monitor? Its a waste of money, that is the point I made. How does showing me that even after 10+ years of 4k or higher monitors being for sale that 30% of users have them (well Linux users at least)? That is not showing what you think it is.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 3 days ago
The study says that users can appreciate resolutions up to 94 pixels per degree. A FHD 27" monitor at 18" distance is 29 PPD. At 4K its 58. Users can appreciate the fact that a 4K display is much better.
qasimk.io/screen-ppd/
M0oP0o@mander.xyz 3 days ago
What are you on about, just tell me why anyone who likes money should buy a 4k or more monitor? So I can fiddle with my desktop settings? Is this a arch thing?
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Because if you draw things with very few pixels it tends to look blocky and unrealistic because the universe like your mom has curves. The more pixels you use the more realistically we can represent both real and virtual pictures. Cambridge says people can see up to 94 PPD. This means that 4K monitors on your desk are trivially within the range that people can distinguish but its dubious that 8K TVs are useful. The more you know!
M0oP0o@mander.xyz 3 days ago
Yes, we are clearly using so much fidelity that 4k is needed… and 3d TVs are going to come on back. I am not saying you can not tell the difference, I am saying people want smooth frame rates over pixels and that 4k monitors are not worth it. That all the bullshit sold to users is just that. But hey thanks for bringing up my mother, who does not have curves (unless ash is curvy?).