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

Submitted ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨artifex@piefed.social⁩ to ⁨technology@lemmy.world⁩

https://hothardware.com/news/scientists-claims-4k-and-8k-tvs-arent-noticeably-better-than-hd-to-the-human-eye

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 :)

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

nyan@lemmy.cafe ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The question for me isn’t whether or not there’s a difference that I might be able to see if I were paying attention to the picture quality, it’s whether the video is sufficiently bad to distract me from what I’m watching. And only hypercompressed macroblocked-to-hell-and-back ancient MPEG1 files or multiply-recopied VHS tapes from the Dark Ages are ever that bad for me. In general, I’m perfectly happy with 480p. Of course, I might just have a higher-than-average immunity to bad video. (Similarly, I can spot tearing if I’m looking for it, but I do have to be looking for it.)

source
the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

source
- mean_bean279@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
  
  source
  - SeriousMite@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  For a 75 inch screen I’d have to watch it from my front yard through a window.
  
  source
  - Smokeless7048@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Have a 75" display, the size is nice, but still a ways from a theater experience, would really need 95" plus.
    
    source
- SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Depends how far away you are. Human eyes have limited resolution.
  
  source
- Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  You should publish a study
  
  source
  - SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    And publish it in Nature, a leading biomedical journal, and claim boldly.
    
    source
  - the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Sounds like a waste of time to do a study on something already well known.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - richardwallass@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    With 44 inch at 2,5m
    
    source
DarkAri@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

source
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I watch 576i DVDs on a 24" 1366x768 TV and I don’t mind because I sit reasonably far.

source
ilinamorato@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

Study Boldly Claims 4K And 8K TVs Aren’t Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes, But Is It True?

The rare exception to Betteridge’s Law.

But yeah, this matches my experience. I can tell the difference between 1080 and 4k from my couch if I work at it, but not enough to impact my enjoyment of what I’m watching, and definitely not as much as the difference HDR makes.

Even at computer monitor distance, running a 4k monitor at 1440 with high pixel density is probably going to be a better experience than wrenching every single pixel you can get out of it. Framerate is better than resolution for gaming, for the most part.

source
brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It’s all about the baseline.

Cinematic, Blu Ray bitrate 1080p vs 4K is not too dramatic.

Compressed streams though? Or worse production quality? 4K raises the baseline dramatically. It’s much harder to stream bad-looking 4K than it is 1080p.

source
Surp@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
8k no. 4k with a 4k Blu-ray player on actual non upscaled 4k movies is fucking amazing.

source
- HugeNerd@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
  
  source
- killerscene@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  life changing. i love watching movies, but the experience you get from a 4k disc insane.
  
  source
- Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
  
  source
  - brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
elver@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
You know what would sell like hot cakes? A dumb TV with Dolby Vision support. I went down the rabbit hole of finding a large HDR monitor and adapters to trick end devices to output player-led Dolby Vision to a HDR monitors, because I don’t need my TV to have a complete OS with streaming services and adverts integrated.

In the end I couldn’t find anything that didn’t have drawbacks. It’s something that could easily exist but there are no manufacturers bold enough to implement it.

Streaming tech moves so fast, I want to add it to my TV through hardware like a fire stick, not to become dependent on the TV manufacturer putting out updates until it’s ‘Out-of-support’.

I went with a TV and disabled as much of the junk as I could with a service remote and just never connected it to the internet, but jumping through these hoops seems so silly.

source
- the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  So dont give your tv internet access and plug in a pc.
  
  source
- glitch1985@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  All tvs are dumb tvs if you don’t connect them to the internet.
  
  source
  - elver@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I get where your coming from, and I have done that, but I get constant popup reminders that “You are not connected to the internet, would you like to set this up now to access exciting apps and features?” And on top of that, I’ve had to switch to a universal remote, because the one that comes with the TV activates a cursor on screen when it senses movement which is a “feature” you can’t switch off. I just want a remote with on/off, input, and volume control 😭
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
lepinkainen@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
4k with shit streaming bitrate is barely better than high bitrate 1080p

But full bitrate 4k from a Blu-ray IS better.

source
umbraroze@slrpnk.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.)

source
utopiah@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Me getting 480p videos for my video projector : “Oh… no really?” ¯\(ツ)/¯

source
cheesorist@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

source
- leftascenter@tarte.nuage-libre.fr ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  So completely correct as the point you are trying to make is the point the study focuses on (definition per viewed angle)
  
  source
  - cheesorist@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    well yes a microscopic 4k display is no different than a 1080p one to our eyes.
    
    but theyre claiming it doesnt matter on TVs in the usual setting which is just untrue.
    
    source
- MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Ok, but then 2k would usually do.
  
  source
- faintwhenfree@lemmus.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Yeah tell that to my sister, who wants 4k for her laptop simply because she’s heard 4k is better 4 times 1080p, she’s buying a 13 inch.
  
  Small numbers are just not sufficient for some people. I know if I send this article to her, I’ll be questioned “why do you not want me to see happy?”. So instead I just watch my nephews collage fund contribution shrink.
  
  Sorry it became a rant of family tech guy.
  
  source
  - MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Eh, let her for a few weeks, but show her how to switch resolution.
    
    source
W3dd1e@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

source
fritobugger2017@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

source
- markko@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Exactly. This title is just clickbait.
  
  The actual study’s title is “Resolution limit of the eye — how many pixels can we see?”.
  
  source
  - definitemaybe@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
    
    source
  - SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
    
    source
etchinghillside@reddthat.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Shhh – the ISPs need a reason to sell bigger data plans. Please think of the ISPs…

source
- b34k@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Except everyone uses crap bit rates and compression on their streaming content and it really doesn’t look that much better than 1080p. UHD Blu Rays tho are a totally different story, absolutely outclassing lower res content.
  
  source
DarthAstrius@slrpnk.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Hard disagree. 4K is stunning, especially Samsung’s Neo-QLED. I cannot yet tell a difference between 4K and 8K, though.

source
- wasabi@feddit.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  You would need a 150+ inch screen for 8K to make many difference. 8K is pretty mich dead in the water considering DVDs outsell 4K Blu-Rays and 8K media is pretty much unavailable and 8K gaming being basically impossible. Even the TV manufacturers are phasing out their 8K devices since no one is buying them.
  
  source
Sauvandu60@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
i suspect screen size would make the difference. you won’t notice 4K or 8K on small screens.

source
- CatAssTrophy@safest.space ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  It’s the ratio of screen size to distance from the screen. But typically you sit further from larger screens, so there’s an optimization problem in there somewhere.
  
  source
  - tomalley8342@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    so there’s an optimization problem in there somewhere
    
    The optimization problem is actually the point of the study, encoded as PPD, which represents the density of a display’s pixel per degree of your eye’s field of vision. It says that any more than 53-94 PPD is imperceptible to most. You can see if your display makes the cutoff if you have the viewing distance and screen size here:
    
    www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/…/display_calc/
    
    source
Baggie@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

source
- floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Pixel density is what makes content appear sharp rather than raw resolution. 800p on a 7" screen is plenty, if you think about it a 50" 1080p TV is almost 10x the size with a 25% increase in resolution
  
  source
  - Baggie@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Yes, but wouldn’t we be using % of your vision vs pixels in display? Steam deck being right in front of my face and tv 5 or 6 metres away etc.
    
    Absolutely higher res does look sharper though, which is great for movies etc. I’m more coming from a performance vs visual fidelity ratio. What I’m trying to express is that given 800p still looks surprisingly good, I’m starting to question the industry pushing higher resolution displays for gaming applications.
    
    source
  - pirat@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    if you think about it
    
    I tried that, and I’m not totally sure about the correctness of my numbers, but your numbers intuitively seem off to me:
    
    a 50" 1080p TV is almost 10x the size [of a 7" screen]
    
    How did you arrive at this? I’d argue a 50" screen is much more than 10 times the size of a 7" screen.
    
    The inches are measured diagonally, and I see how 50" is somewhat “almost 10x” of 7", as 49" would be 7 times longer diagonally than a 7", and 7.something is " almost" 10.
    
    But if we assume both screens have a 16:9 ratio, the 50" screen has a width of ≈110.69 cm and height of ≈62.26 cm, while the 7" is only ≈15.50 by ≈8.72 cm.
    
    The area of the 7" is 135.08 cm² while for the 50" it’s ≈6891.92 cm². The ratio between these two numbers is ≈51.02, which I believe means the 50" screen is more than 51x the physical size.
    
    At least, that number seems more realistic to me. I’m looking at my 6.7" phone screen right now and comparing it to my 55" TV screen, and it seems very possible that the phone screen could fit more than 50 times inside the TV screen, not just “almost 10x”.
    
    If I totally misunderstood you, please explain what you mean.
    
    My numbers for width and height were calculated using this display calculator site that someone else mentioned somewhere under this post, and I rounded the decimals after doing the calculations with all decimals included.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
jjlinux@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
This is so much bullshit. 4K does make a difference, specially if playing console games on a large TV (65" and up).

source
- richardwallass@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Agree they did the test with a 44 inch. That’s why they got this result.
  
  source
- SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Console games that all run at <720p getting upscaled to hell and back. We have come so far since the PS3 where games ran at <720p, but without upscaling. lol
  
  source
  - prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Yeah, my PS5 games are definitely not 720p
    
    source
- MangoCats@feddit.it ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  If you’re sitting 3’ from the screen, sure. Even 8K is better, if your hardware can drive it.
  
  source
  - jjlinux@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Let’s agree to disagree. I can see the difference at a distance of 6’, and I wear glasses.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
4am@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

source
- MangoCats@feddit.it ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Depends on your eyes quite a bit, too. If I’m sitting more than 15’ back from a 55" screen, 1080p is just fine. Put on my distance glasses and I might be able to tell the difference with 4K.
  
  source
CCMan1701A@startrek.website ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
HDR 1080p is what most people can live with.

source
sturmblast@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
4k is perfectly fine for like 99% of people.

source
- zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  4k is overkill for 99% of people
  
  source
  - sturmblast@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Yeah, but you also don’t need anything higher than that either.
    
    source
- MangoCats@feddit.it ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  640K of RAM is all anybody will ever need.
  
  1920x1080 is plenty, if the screen is under 50" and the viewer is more than 10’ away.
  
  source
Quazatron@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Sony Black Trinitron was peak TV.

source
treesquid@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

source
- SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
  
  source
  - CybranM@feddit.nu ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    As someone who has a 4k monitor, 1440p is a great middle ground for gaming
    
    source
  - psycotica0@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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…
    
    source
- balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
  
  source
  - MangoCats@feddit.it ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I used to have 20/10 vision, this 20/20 BS my cataract surgeon says I have now sucks.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Rooster326@programming.dev ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    And the size of most people’s TV versus how far away they are.
    
    source
vortexal@sopuli.xyz ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
This is why I still use 768p as my preferred resolution, despite having displays that can go much higher. I hate that all TVs now are trying to go as big as possible, when it’s just artificially inflating the price for no real benefit. I also hate that modern displays aren’t as dynamic as what CRTs were. CRTs can handle pretty much any resolution you throw at them but modern TVs and monitors freak out if you don’t use an exact resolution, causing them to either have input lag because the display has to upscale the image or a potential performance hit if the display forces the connected device to handle the upscaling.

source
dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

source
- CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I’ve been using “cheap” 43" 4k TVs as my main monitor for over a decade now. I used to go purely with Hisense, they have great colour and PC text clarity, and I could get them most places for $250 CAD. But this year’s model they switched from RGB subpixel layout to BGR, which is tricky to get working cleanly on a computer, even when forcing a BGR layout in the OS. One trick is to just flip the TV upside down (yes it actually works) but it just made the whole physical setup awkward. I went with a Sony recently for significantly more, but the picture quality is fantastic.
  
  source
- DeadPixel@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  And then there’s the dev that still insists on limiting line to 80 chars & you have all that blank space to the side & have to scroll forever per file, sigh….
  
  source
  - dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    80 is a tad short these days, but that’s still kind of win/win since now you can have way more files all showing side-by-side.
    
    source
  - treadful@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Split screen yo
    
    source
Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Given how much time I spend actually looking at the screen while the show/movie is on, it might as well be in ca. 2000 RealVideo 160x120 resolution.

source
- partofthevoice@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I’m supposed to be watching Haunted Hotel right now. It’s on, but here we are…
  
  source
Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
This discussion drives me crazy because it’s the EXACT SAME FUCKING discussion that happened when 1080p screens became available in the 00s. So many people argued “oh it depends how far away you sit but you don’t really notice it” and “oh if the screen size is small your eyes can’t tell”

NO monthafucka if you have halfway decent eyesight there’s NO WAY you won’t notice a huge change in quality from 720p to 1080p even on a 6” screen. 1080 to 4k is noticeable on almost ANY size screen (we all just skip 1440p, don’t we?) and as the size of the screen goes up and up, it just gets more and more noticeable.

source
- JasonDJ@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  And I’m sure most of those people were comparing VHS tapes or regular analog cable TV, or hooking up their DVD player with composite.
  
  source
  - Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I don’t doubt that for a second. It’s like in the early 2010s when tons of people on Reddit were like “30FPS is all you need, you don’t need more especially in a strategy game or RPG” and I’m seething because my neurospicy ass cannot handle the choppiness of 30FPS and they’ve probably never even seen 120, 144, 165FPS…
    
    source
- iopq@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I cannot tell 4K because my TV is 50’’ and I sit three meters away
  
  source
- sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I don’t remember that discussion at all… I remember people being super excited for 1080p, but annoyed that there was no content for it because DVDs were still 480p and TV content was similar. Blurays were 1080p, but weren’t really a thing until the late 00s.
  
  We’ve had 4k for a decade, and there’s still not much content for it. When there is, the difference w/ 1080p isn’t so significant as to be worth the cost, as it’s usually just upscaled 1080 content. 4k makes a lot of sense for a monitor that’s 30" or larger, but for a TV where you’re 10 feet away it doesn’t make nearly as much sense.
  
  source
  - Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I forgot to mention, I sold TVs when 1080p was popularized and HD-DVD and Blu Ray came out hahaha. That’s mostly where I heard the “you can’t tell the difference between 720p and 1080” BS. There was plenty of 1080p stuff by the end of the ‘00s and people were still making that argument.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
vane@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
But they are they are much better for energy companies

source
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It depends on how far away you sit. But streaming has taken over everything and even a little compression ruins the perceived image quality of a higher-DPI display.

source

-> View More Comments