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

• M0oP0o@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Oh there are more pixels, sure. But not worth the money and most (and a big most) applications want more frames and smoother movement with less input lag over more pixels. The push for 4k gaming has went no where and it has been more then 10 years. You want to watch some 4k video? sure! That is a use case, but just get a TV with the nicer lumen, slower rates and comparably tiny price tag. I can not stop people from buying stupid crap, but I am judging them.

  source

  • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    What about the vast majority of people who stare at screens for work?

    Frame rates aren’t really important, it’s making things more readable in less space.

    The cost / benefit is a completely different dynamic.

    source

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Oh I said it before there are use cases. Most working monitors are 1080p since excel is not really benefited from 4k+. However I have seen some graphic designers want the higher resolutions for example.

      The vast majority of people working will get pissed at you if you changed their monitor to an ultra high resolution (I have been the one getting yelled at) without scaling it to look like 1080p. No one wants to squint to use their workstation.

      source

      • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        There’s this thing called scaling that allows you to see things in an appropriate size but higher definition.

        Anyone who uses spreadsheets regularly wants the extra real estate. Anyone who works with complex documents wants the extra real estate.

        It’s not about more dots on your 24 inch, it’s about larger monitors that can display more stuff simultaneously. Instead of 4x 1080p monitors you can have 2x larger 4k monitors. Offer this to anyone who makes money by staring at a screen all day and they’ll tell you it’s worth it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments