Comment on The TV industry finally concedes that the future may not be in 8K
DirtyAnCom@discuss.online 1 week ago
What’s interesting to me is that film is roughly, perceptually around 8K. However, very very few people have cinema-sized screens in their home, so what’s the point if it’s “only” even 80 inches?
I think giant 8K monitors are still useful for productivity, but only for a small number of people. I personally like having multiple monitors over one big one.
ccunix@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I cannot fathom why, but people do not seem to capable of understanding resolution, screen size and viewing distance as important factors that interplay with each other.
8k is absolutely pointless on a 49" TV that is several metres away. However, I will take 4k over 1080 on even a 24" computer screen every time.
That is just me though, your preferences and vision may be different to mine. Same with the monitors. You like multiple screens, I prefer a single larger screen.
TheOakTree@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
4K vs 8K on a 49" screen across the room is going to have much less of a noticeable difference than 4K vs 1080p on a 24" screen a foot or two away (dancing around the boundary of retina).
I think an 8K 42" would make a great single monitor for productivity, I just can’t imagine driving 8K at idle is very efficient if there aren’t software/firmware solutions to recognize non-moving screens.