Comment on By technical standards were 3D TVs impressive, Why didn't they catch on back then?
watson@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
They are not impressive, they were extremely expensive, and there was no standard for distributing 3-D movies.
Finally. Everyone got over their craze for three movies and instead I was more interested in 4K.
IonTempted@lemmynsfw.com 18 hours ago
Yeah, nowadays I only watch movies in 4K and it’s night and day over Full HD and I don’t know why anyone would say otherwise.
Kirca@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Honestly 2k is fine for most tvs, I wish that became standard. Imo 4k should be reserved for computer screens and the like, that are less than a metre from you, most people can’t really see the difference anyway.
Also side rant, drives me mad when people are more worried about resolution than bitrate (not directed at anyone here) . I have a friend who “can’t stand watching things in 1080p” but half the 4k streaming content is compressed to hell.
domi@lemmy.secnd.me 14 hours ago
You can up that to 80%. Almost anything coming from Netflix in 4k is severely bitrate starved.
Then there is the opposite extreme, like the Arcane blu-rays that put animated content in a 100 Mbit/s stream. Completely overkill but I love it.
cRazi_man@europe.pub 16 hours ago
1080 is quicker to download an easier to store than 4K. There is a difference between them, but it’s not a huge deal if youvd got good quality full HD. Leaves me plenty of space on my home server for other data hoarding.
IonTempted@lemmynsfw.com 16 hours ago
I used to think the space until I saw movies like Oppenheimer and I can’t go back to 1080p.