A new study published in Nature by University of Cambridge researchers just dropped a pixelated bomb on the entire Ultra-HD market, but as anyone with myopia can tell you, if you take your glasses off, even SD still looks pretty good :)
Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes
Submitted 2 weeks ago by artifex@piefed.social to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
Hackworth@piefed.ca 2 weeks ago
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Seriously, articles like this are just clickbait.
They also ignore all sorts of usecases.
Like for a desktop monitor, 4k is extremely noticeable vs even 1440P or 2k/1080P
Unless you’re sitting very far away, the sharpness of text and therefore amount of readable information you can fit on the screen changes dramatically.
cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
The article was about TVs, not computer monitors. Most people don’t sit nearly as close to a TV as they do a monitor.
Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Complete bullshit articles. The same thing happened when 720p became 1080p. So many echos of “oh you won’t see the difference unless the screen is huge”… like no, you can see the difference on a tiny screen.
We’ll have these same bullshit arguments when 8k becomes the standard, and for every large upgrade from there.
someguy3@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You should actually read it, they specified what they looked at.
Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
So, a 55-inch TV, which is pretty much the smallest 4k TV you can get, has benefits over 1080p at a distance of 7.5 feet. And that is the smallest, and thus closest for the benefits… how far away do people watch their TVs from? Am I weird?
And at the size of computer monitors, for the distance they are from your face, they would always have full benefit on this chart. And even working into 8k a decent amount.
And that’s only for people with typical vision, for people with above-average acuity, the benefits would start further away.
But yeah, for VR for sure, since having an 8k screen there would directly determine how far away a 4k screen can be properly re-created. If your headset is only 4k, a 4k screen in VR is only worth it when it takes up most of your field of view. That’s how I have mine set up, but I would imagine most people would prefer it to be half the size or half the distance away, or a combination.
So 8k screens in VR will be very relevant for augmented reality, since performance costs there are pretty low anyway. And still convey benefits if you are running actual VR games at half the physical panel resolution due to performance demand being too high otherwise. You get some relatively free upscaling then. Won’t look as good as native 8k, but benefits a bit anyway.
There is also fixed and dynamic foveated rendering to think about, with an 8k screen, even running only 10% of it at that resolution and 20% at 4k, 30% at 1080p, and the remaining 40% at 540p, even with the overhead of so many foveation steps, you’ll get a notable reduction in performance cost. Fixed foveated would likely need to lean higher towards bigger percentages of higher res, but has the performance advantage of not having to move around at all from frame to frame. Can benefit from more pre-planning and optimization.
4am@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
A lot of us mount a TV on the wall and watch from a couch across the room.
Damage@feddit.it 2 weeks ago
I’ve got a LCD 55" TV and a 14" laptop. Ok the couch, the TV screen looks to me about as big as the laptop screen, and I’ve got perfect vision; on the laptop I can clearly see the difference between 4k and FULL HD, on the TV, not so much.
I think TV screens aren’t as good as PC ones, but also the TVs’ image processors turn the 1080p files into better images than what computers do.
frongt@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
There’s a giant TV at my gym that is mounted right in front of some of the equipment, so my face is inches away. It must have some insane resolution because everything is still as sharp as a standard LCD panel.
ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Good to know that pretty much anything looks fine on my TV, at typical viewing distances.
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
The counterpoint is that if you’re sitting that close to a big TV, it’s going to fill your field of view to an uncomfortable degree.
4k and higher is for small screens close up (desktop monitor), or very large screens in dedicated home theater spaces. The kind that would only fit in a McMansion, anyway.
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
8K would probably be really good for large computer monitors, due to viewing distances. It would be really taxing on the hardware if you were using it for gaming, but reasonable for tasks that aren’t graphically intense.
Computer monitors (for productivity tasks) are a little different though in that you are looking at section of the screen rather than the screen as a whole as one might with video. So having extra screen real estate can be rather valuable.
Lemming6969@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
People are legit sitting 15+ feet away and thinking a 55 inch TV is good enough… Optimal viewing angles for most reasonably sized rooms require a 100+ inch TV and 4k or better.
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Would be a more useful graph if the y axis cut off at 10, less than a quarter of what it plots.
Not sure what universe where discussing the merits of 480p at 45 ft is relevant, but it ain’t this one. If I’m sitting 8 ft away from my TV, I will notice the difference if my screen is over 60 inches, which is where a vast majority of consumers operate.
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
How many feet away is a computer monitor?
Or a 2-4 person home theater distance that has good fov fill?
treesquid@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
4k is way better than 1080p, it’s not even a question. You can see that shit from a mile away. 8k is only better if your TV is comically large.
balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 2 weeks ago
I think you overestimate the quality of many humans’ eyes. Many people walk around with slightly bad vision no problem. Many older folks have bad vision even corrected. I cannot distinguish between 1080 and 4k in the majority of circumstances.
Rooster326@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
And the size of most people’s TV versus how far away they are.
MangoCats@feddit.it 2 weeks ago
I used to have 20/10 vision, this 20/20 BS my cataract surgeon says I have now sucks.
SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one 2 weeks ago
I can immediately tell when a game is running at 1080p on my 2K monitor (yeah, I’m not interested in 4K over higher refresh rate, so I’m picking the middle ground.)
Its blatantly obvious when everything suddenly looks muddy and washed together.
psycotica0@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
I think that’s relevant to the discussion though. Most people sit like two feet from their gaming monitor and lean forward in their chair to make the character go faster.
But most people put a big TV on the other side of a boring white room, with a bare white ikea coffee table in between you and it, and I bet it doesn’t matter as much.
I bet the closest people ever are to their TV is when they’re at the store buying it…
CybranM@feddit.nu 2 weeks ago
As someone who has a 4k monitor, 1440p is a great middle ground for gaming
fritobugger2017@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The study used a 44 inch TV at 2.5m. The most commonly used calculator for minimum TV to distance says that at 2.5m the TV should be a least 60 inches.
My own informal tests at home with a 65 inch TV looking at 1080 versus 4K Remux of the same movie seems to go along with the distance calculator. At the appropriate distance or nearer I can see a difference if I am viewing critically (as opposed to casually). Beyond a certain distance the difference is not apparent.
markko@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Exactly. This title is just clickbait.
The actual study’s title is “Resolution limit of the eye — how many pixels can we see?”.
definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Can’t believe I had to scroll down this far to find this:
Here’s the gut-punch for the typical living room, however. If you’re sitting the average 2.5 meters away from a 44-inch set, a simple Quad HD (QHD) display already packs more detail than your eye can possibly distinguish. The scientists made it crystal clear: once your setup hits that threshold, any further increase in pixel count, like moving from 4K to an 8K model of the same size and distance, hits the law of diminishing returns because your eye simply can’t detect the added detail.
On a computer monitor, it’s easily apparent because you’re not sitting 2+ m away, and in a living room, 44" is tiny, by recent standards.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Exactly why big box stores force you to look at TVs in narrow aisles, not at typical distances at home. They also adjust pictures on highest margin models properly.
the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Bullshit, actual factual 8k and 4k look miles better than 1080. It’s the screen size that makes a difference. On a 15inch screen you might not see much difference but on a 75 inch screen the difference between 1080 and 4k is immediately noticeable. A much larger screen would have the same results with 8k.
Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You should publish a study
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
And publish it in Nature, a leading biomedical journal, and claim boldly.
richardwallass@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
With 44 inch at 2,5m
the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Sounds like a waste of time to do a study on something already well known.
mean_bean279@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
SeriousMite@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This has been my experience going from 1080 to 4K. It’s not the resolution, it’s the brighter colors that make the most difference.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Depends how far away you are. Human eyes have limited resolution.
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
For a 75 inch screen I’d have to watch it from my front yard through a window.
Smokeless7048@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Have a 75" display, the size is nice, but still a ways from a theater experience, would really need 95" plus.
OR3X@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
ITT: people defending their 4K/8K display purchases as if this study was a personal attack on their financial decision making.
treesquid@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
My 50" 4K TV was $250. That TV is now $200, nobody is flexing the resolution of their 4k TV, that’s just a regular cheap-ass TV now. When I got home and started using my new TV, right next to my old 1080p TV just to compare, the difference in resolution was instantly apparent. It’s not people trying to defend their purchase, it’s people questioning the methodology of the study because the difference between 1080p and 4k is stark unless your TV is small or you’re far away from it. If you play video games, it’s especially obvious.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Old people with bad eyesight watching their 50" 12 feet away in their big ass living room vs young people with good eyesight 5 feet away from their 65-70" playing a game might have inherently differing opinions.
12’ 50" FHD = 112 PPD
5’ 70" FHD = 36 PPD
The study basically says that FHD is about as good as you can get 10 feet away on a 50" screen all other things being equal. That doesn’t seem that unreasonable
joyjoy@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Resolution doesn’t matter as much as pixel density.
Nalivai@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Right? “Yeah, there is scientific study about it, but what if I didn’t read it and go by feelings? Then I will be right and don’t have to reexamine shit about my life, isn’t that convenient”
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
They don’t need to this study does it for them. 94 pixels per degree is the top end of perceptible. On a 50" screen 10 feet away 1080p = 93. Closer than 10 feet or larger than 50 or some combination of both and its better to have a higher resolution.
For millennials home ownership has crashed but TVs are cheaper and cheaper. For the half of motherfuckers rocking their 70" tv that cost $600 in their shitty apartment where they sit 8 feet from the TV its pretty obvious 4K is better at 109 v 54
Also although the article points out that there are other features that matter as much as resolution these aren’t uncorrelated factors. 1080p TVs of any size in 2025 are normally bargain basement garbage that suck on all fronts.
Surp@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
8k no. 4k with a 4k Blu-ray player on actual non upscaled 4k movies is fucking amazing.
Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
I don’t know if this will age like my previous belief that PS1 had photo-realistic graphics, but I feel like 4k is the peak for TVs. I recently bought a 65" 4k TV and not only is it the clearest image I’ve ever seen, but it takes up a good chunk of my livingroom. Any larger would just look ridiculous.
Unless the average person starts using abandoned cathedrals as their livingrooms, I don’t see how larger TVs with even higher definition would even be practical.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
(Most) TVs still have a long way to go with color space and brightness. AKA HDR. Not to speak of more sane color/calibration standards to make the picture more consistent.
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
I think you’re right but how many movies are available in UHD? Not too many I’d think. On my thrifting runs I’ve picked up 200 Blurays vs 3 UHDs. If we can map that ratio to the retail market that’s ~1% UHD content.
killerscene@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
life changing. i love watching movies, but the experience you get from a 4k disc insane.
lepinkainen@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
4k with shit streaming bitrate is barely better than high bitrate 1080p
But full bitrate 4k from a Blu-ray IS better.
art@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
An overly compressed 4k stream will look far worse than a good quality 1080p. We keep upping the resolution without getting newer codecs and not adjusting the bitrate.
Psythik@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This is true. That said, if can’t tell the difference between 1080p and 4K from the pixels alone, then either your TV is too small, or you’re sitting too far away. In which case there’s no point in going with 4K.
At the right seating distance, there is a benefit to be had even by going with an 8K TV. However, very few people sit slose enough to benefit from going any higher than 4K:
deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
If you read RTINGS before buying a TV and setting it up in your room, you already knew this. Screen size and distance to TV are important for determining what resolution you actually need.
Most people sit way too far away from their 4K TV.
4am@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Highly depends on screen size and viewing distance, but nothing reasonable for a normal home probably ever needs more than 8k for a high end setup, and 4K for most cases.
Contrast ratio/HDR and per-pixel backlighting type technology is where the real magic is happening.
DarthAstrius@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
Hard disagree. 4K is stunning, especially Samsung’s Neo-QLED. I cannot yet tell a difference between 4K and 8K, though.
Baggie@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Honestly after using the steam deck (800p) I’m starting to wonder if res matters that much. Like I can definitely see the difference, but it’s not that big a deal? All I feel like I got out of my 4k monitor is lower frame rates.
dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Sure but, hear me out, imagine having most of your project sourcecode on the screen at the same time without having to line-wrap.
Kowowow@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
with all the menus now days I mainly want sharp text
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The study doesn’t actually claim that. The actual title is “Study Boldly Claims 4K And 8K TVs Aren’t Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes, But Is It True?” As with all articles that ask a question the answer is either NO or its complicated.
It says that we can distinguish up to 94 pixels per degree or about 1080p on a 50" screen at 10 feet away.
This means that on a 27" monitor 18" away 1080p: 29 4K: 58 8K: 116
A 40" TV 8 feet away/50" TV 10 feet away
1080p: 93
A 70" TV 8 feet away
1080p: 54 4K: 109 8K: 218
A 90" TV 10 feet away
1080p: 53 4K: 106 8K: 212
Conclusion: 1080p is good for small TVs relatively far away. 4K makes sense for reasonably large or close TV Up to 8K makes sense for monitors.
imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
I have 65" 4K TV that runs in tandem with Beelink S12 pro mini-pc. I ran mini in FHD mode to ease up on resources and usually just watch streams/online content on it which is 99% 1080p@60. Unless compression is bad, I don’t feel much difference. In fact, my digitalized DVDs look good even in their native resolution.
For me 4K is a nice-to-have but not a necessity when consuming media. 1080p still looks crisp with enough bitrate.
I’d add that maybe this 4K-8K race is sort of like mp3@320kbps vs flac/wav. Both sound good when played on a decent system. But say, flac is nicer on a specific hardware that a typical consumer wouldn’t buy. Almost none of us own studio-grade 7.1 sytems at home. JBL speaker is what we have and I doubt flac sounds noticeably better on it against mp3@192kbps.
W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
I didn’t get why HD tv was relevant at all. I really did not understand that at all.
Then I got glasses.
I suspect 4k matters for screens of a certain size or if you sit really close, but most of us don’t so it doesn’t matter.
jjlinux@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
This is so much bullshit. 4K does make a difference, specially if playing console games on a large TV (65" and up).
_haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
This is highly dependent on screen size and viewing distance.
On a computer screen or a phone screen? No, it’s not really noticeable.
On a 120"+ projector screen? Yes, it is definitely noticeable.
wizzor@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
I can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. I will probably never buy another TV.
Maybe I need glasses?
Sauvandu60@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
i suspect screen size would make the difference. you won’t notice 4K or 8K on small screens.
QBertReynolds@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
My desktop monitor is a 54" 4K TV that I sit about 3’ from. It’s somewhat difficult for me to pick out individual pixels even when I lean in. My living room TV is 70" 4K, but I sit 15’ away from it. There’s no way I could tell the difference in 4K and 1080 from pixel density alone. I can however tell the difference between 4K and 1080 streams because of how shitty low bitrates look. 4K streams crush all of the dark colors and leave you with these nasty banding effects that I don’t see as often on lower resolution streams.
IronpigsWizard@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
After years of saying I think a good 1080p TV, playing a good quality media file, looks just as good on any 4k TV I have seen, I now feel justified…and ancient.
cheesorist@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
simply incorrect. in some circumstances sure 1080p is sufficient, but if the tv is big, close, or both. then 4k is a definite and noticeable improvement.
4k looks sharper as long as the actual content is real 4k, even from afar.
sturmblast@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
4k is perfectly fine for like 99% of people.
ManosTheHandsOfFate@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This finding is becoming less important by the year. It’s been quite a while since you could easily buy an HD TV - they’re all 4K, even the small ones.
pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Personal anecdote, moving from 1080p to 2k for my computer monitor is very noticeable for games
DarkAri@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
4k is definitely a big improvement over 1080p. The average person probably doesn’t have good eyesight, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a waste for everyone else.
umbraroze@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
Heh, I’m getting back to physical media, and this big 4K TV is literally the first time ever where I’ve actually constantly noticed that DVDs might get a bit pixely.
(And even so, I usually blame not so great digitisation. Some transfers of old obscure titles were really sloppy, you really didn’t need a great TV to see the problems. Original was a black and white movie, the DVD was a bunch of grey mush.)
TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Kind of a tangent, but properly encoded 1080p video with a decent bitrate actually looks pretty damn good.
A big problem is that we’ve gotten so used to streaming services delivering visual slop, like YouTube’s 1080p option which is basically just upscaled 720p and can even look as bad as 480p.
Feyd@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Yeah I’d way rather have higher bitrate 1080 than 4k. Seeing striping in big dark or light spots on the screen is infuriating
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
i’d rather have proper 4k.
bdonvr@thelemmy.club 2 weeks ago
For most streaming? Yeah.
Give me a good 4k Blu-ray though. High bitrate 4k
makyo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I was wondering when we’d get to the snake oil portion of the video hobby that audiophiles have been suffering. 8k vs. 4k is the new lossy vs. lossless argument.
woelkchen@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
YouTube is locking the good bitrates behind the premium paywall and even as a premium users you don’t get to select a high bitrate when the source video was low res.
That’s why videos should be upscaled before upload to force YouTube into offering high bitrate options at all. A good upscaler produces better results than simply stretching low-res videos.
azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
I think the premium thing is a channel option. Some channels consistently have it, some don’t.
Regular YouTube 1080p is bad and feels like 720p. The encoding on videos with “Premium 1080p” is catastrophic. It’s significantly worse than decently encoded 480p. Creators will put a lot of time and effort in their lighting and camera gear, then the compression artifacting makes the video feel like watching a porn bootleg on a shady site. I guess there must be a strong financial incentive to nuke their video quality this way.
deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
HEVC is damn efficient. I don’t even bother with HD because a 4K HDR encode around 5-10GB looks really good and streams well for my remote users.
notfromhere@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
I can still find 480p videos from when YouTube first started that rival the quality of the compressed crap “1080p” we get from YouTube today. It’s outrageous.
IronKrill@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Sadly most of those older YouTube videos have been run through multiple re-comoressions and look so much worse than they did at upload. It’s a major bummer.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
This. The visual difference of good vs bad 1080p is bigger than between good 1080p and good 4k. I will die on this hill. And Youtube’s 1080p is garbage on purpose so they get you to buy premium to unlock good 1080p. Assholes
TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
The 1080p for premium users is garbage too. Youtube’s video quality in general is shockingly poor. If there is even a slight amount of noisy movement on screen (foliage, confetti, rain, snow, etc) the the video can literally become unwatchable.
Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
I’ve been investing in my bluray collection again and I can’t believe how good 1080p blurays look compared to “UHD streaming” .
someguy3@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I stream YouTube at 360p. Really don’t need much for that kind of video.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
360p is awful, 720p is the sweet spot IMO.