4K or 8K TVs Offer No Distinguishable Benefit Over Similarly Sized 2K Screen in Average Living Room, Scientists Say (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0179885278
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/25/10/27/1821210/4k-or-8k-tvs-offer-no-distinguishable-benefit-over-similarly-sized-2k-screen-in-average-living-room-scientists-say
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/27/ultra-hd-televisions-4k-8k-not-noticeably-better-study
> Scientists at the University of Cambridge and Meta, the company that owns Facebook, have found that for an average-sized living room a 4K or 8K screen offers no noticeable benefit over a similarly sized 2K screen of the sort often used in computer monitors and laptops. In other words, there is no tangible difference when it comes to how sharp an image appears to our eyes.
>
> "At a certain viewing distance, it doesn't matter how many pixels you add. It's just, I suppose, wasteful because your eye can't really detect it," said Dr Maliha Ashraf, the first author of the study from the University of Cambridge. Ashraf and colleagues, writing in the journal Nature Communications, report how they set about determining the resolution limit of the human eye, noting that while 20/20 vision implies the eye can distinguish 60 pixels per degree (PPD), most people with normal or corrected vision can see better than that. "If you design or judge display resolution based only on 20/20 vision, you'll underestimate what people can really see," Ashraf said. "That's why we directly measured how many pixels people can actually distinguish."
>
> The team used a 27in, 4K monitor mounted on a mobile cage that enabled it to be moved towards or away from the viewer. At each distance, 18 participants with normal vision, or vision corrected to be normal, were shown two types of image in a random order. One type of image had one-pixel-wide vertical lines in black and white, red and green or yellow and violet, while the other was just a plain grey block. Participants were then asked to indicate which of the two images contained the lines. "When the lines become too fine or the screen resolution too high, the pattern looks no different from a plain grey image," Ashraf said. "We measured the point where people could just barely tell them apart. That's what we call the resolution limit."
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/27/ultra-hd-televisions-4k-8k-not-noticeably-better-study
I can confirm (Score:4, Informative)
I was given a curved 4K 55" Samsung TV about a year ago. Before that I was using a 40" Samsung with a native resolution of 1920x1080. Even with the larger real estate I saw no difference when viewing 4K material on the 55" TV. I set my HTPC to use a screen resolution of 1920x1080 on the 55" and it looks great. I really see no need to obtain 4K, or for that matter 8K, content whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I'd take improved colorspace gamut, better black levels, and higher contrast over higher resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
"improved colorspace gamut" is meaningless unless you have source material that uses it. As for better black levels and higher contrast, good luck getting those without high resolution.
But hey, good thing you agree with an invalid test. Makes your opinion even more respectable!
Re: (Score:2)
resolution has fuck all to do with black levels. If I stick a few pieces of glow in the dark paper on a wall like a tic-tac-toe board, the places I didn't put the paper are darker than whatever any display can currently muster at any resolution. But the paper board is only 3x3 and almost a foot per pixel.
your opinion is that the test is invalid, well that's just, like your (incorrect) opinion, (wo)man.
Re: (Score:2)
For a TV, the "curved screen" feature is a strategy to sell a bigger screen to a viewer that can't sit further away from a bigger FLAT screen.
For a computer user, the situation is different. If the curved screen gives the user a bigger screen, then that equates to more desktop space to place windows and icons. It's nice to have the extra space. That being said, personally I prefer to have two flat screens of the same type side-by-side and just angle them to face me, rather than one giant curved screen.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have never purchased a curved screen myself. Like I said, this was given to me by a friend that upgraded to a behemoth of a screen. The curve is a real pain because any light source in the room seems to become amplified as it reflects off the screen. The family room is much darker now during movie nights because of the curve. Which is actually cozier, especially now with the winter months rolling in and the ambiance of the fireplace going. I'm in the mood to watch The Fifth Element again for the 30t
Re: (Score:3)
I can see very little difference between 1080p and 2160p content on my 55" OLED when sitting about 8' away. But I can see a huge difference with high dynamic range and wide gamut color content. I've watched a few horror films that use light spilling into dark rooms with HDR to great effect. Likewise, I've seen some sci-fi films where bioluminescence in wide gamut color looks amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not a valid test. What you are alleging is merely no visible different using different source material, not different resolutions.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had the all of the Star Wars movies in HD for many years now. When I got the 55" 4K TV hooked up a friend brought over his 4K versions of the movies. I was thinking I was going to see something amazing. With the TV set to 4K resolution I saw no difference from the HD versions set to HD resolution (1920x1080). Sure, if I get within a foot or less of the screen I can see a slight difference, but everyone is sitting 6 foot+ away from the TV. At that distance no difference whatsoever. In my opinion 4K is m
I'm inclined to believe that BUT... (Score:2)
...this seems like flawed proof. A 27" screen seems a tad small. True, 25" TVs were popular in living rooms in the CRT era, but LCDs generally start in the high forties for a living room (and are priced well below what that 25" TV used to cost.)
And programme makers are generally taking advantage of the large sizes too. It's blindingly obvious watching HD content from the 2000s when it was designed to be simulcast in 4:3 for legacy TVs and watching TV even from the following decade that they've changed the
Re: (Score:3)
> ...this seems like flawed proof. A 27" screen seems a tad small.
That depends on the distance from your eyes. The experiment varied this distance in order to vary the PPD (Pixels Per Degree) and see what participants could distinguish at various PPDs.
Re: (Score:3)
That's right, as we don't need a new study to learn what has been known for many decades. If you want to see the benefit of 4K increase your angle of view.
While it's trendy to argue here that higher resolution is of no value, tomorrow we can go back to arguing how valuable 144Hz refresh rates are.
Re: (Score:3)
Screen sizes may change, but how your eye perceives things at a distance is fixed, as the researchers confirmed in a follow-up experiment:
> In another experiment ... "The resolution at which people stopped noticing differences in text matched what we saw with the line patterns,” Ashraf said.
Thus, their results can be extrapolated for any size screen, and in fact ...
> The researchers have released a chart that shows different screen sizes and viewing distances, along with the nearest standard resolution that reaches or slightly exceeds the visual limit for most people.
> “In other words, if your setup falls into one of those squares, you wouldn’t gain any visible benefit from going higher,” Ashraf said.
> The team have also created a free online calculator that allows users to enter their viewing distance along with the size and resolution of their screen, with the results indicating whether the setup is above or below the resolution limit of the human eye. As a result, users can explore whether a higher-resolution screen with more pixels would make a difference to what they see.
[1]https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/resea... [cam.ac.uk]
[1] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/rainbow/projects/display_calc/
Re: (Score:2)
> A 27" screen seems a tad small.
Agreed, seems better suited for a smartphone. :-)
(I do have an HP 27e for my monitor and it's great, but it would be too small as my TV, which is a 40" Sony Bravia from 2006.)
Re: (Score:2)
The 27" screen was just for measuring the true pixels/degree resolution for human eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but their calculation was that a 4K screen is sharper than human eyes can resolve for a 44" screen at 2.5 m (8.2 ft) away. A hypothetical 2K 44" screen needs to be 5 m away in order to give the same number of pixels per degree (PPD) -- and most people are not sitting 5 m away from their TV, especially if it's 44" diagonal. 65" screens are pretty cheap nowadays, and a 50% increase in diagonal size would translate to a 50% increase in viewing distances to get the same PPD.
Their online calculator makes
Re: (Score:2)
The aspect ratio really did a number on perception of TV size with the jump to HD.
Its true that 27" diagonal was common during the 4:3 CRT era.
But to get the same vertical size in a 16:9 display, you basically need at least 33" diagonal.
better speakers (Score:3)
I think the built-in speakers on a massive 32" CRT cabinet sounded better than the ultra thin bezel-free TVs of today.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because the 100% organic whizzer cones.
Re: (Score:2)
For speakers, volume matters. Yes modern tech has reduced the required space inside a cabinet, somewhat. But not if you want bass. That's why the subwoofer is now off in it's own huge box.
Maybe I’m just being an old guy (Score:2)
but remember when “they” were saying the same thing about HDTV being no better “at normal viewing distances” than standard-def NTSC?
Re: (Score:3)
Dunno who "they" is.
But the jump from NTSC to 720 was massive for me. The jump from 720 to 1080 (that's 2k on the vertical, kiddies) was less noticeable. Quite less noticeable.
Anyone who claims HD isn't better in every measure better than Never Twice the Same Color must be blind, or drowning in delusions.
I will agree that past 2k there's very little to be had. Maybe more shadow details. Not enough to make me cough up money for new sources and projection.
Re: (Score:2)
> that's 2k on the vertical, kiddies
Arrrrgh, goddamn flipping of specs.. "HD is 2k on the horizontal , not the vertical."
Why'd they have to change how they measure? Assholes. Cabrones.
Re: (Score:2)
A few years back, I was in a appliance store and I passed a 4k TV on which they were showing "The Avengers" (Marvel) movie. The resolution was so high and I was standing so close that all of the CGI effects were glaringly obvious. For that application of a movie viewed at home, the 4k was just too much. Maybe it would make more sense for sports like hockey where there's a tiny black puck flying across the rink.
Re:Maybe I’m just being an old guy (Score:4, Interesting)
So they were kind of right I think if you had ideal circumstances. I had a VHS copy of Jurassic Park that was just amazing to watch the first two times. But it pretty quickly degraded and by the fourth watch you could noticeably see a loss of quality.
Early DVDs tended to be single-sided because they were expensive so they would heavily compress the video and it wouldn't come out all that much better. This was especially bad for anime where they would take a series that really should have been put out on 13 discs for two episodes per disc and then compress it down to five or six discs of a 26 episode series. Evangelion famously was one of the worst of the bunch and if you bought pirated DVDs you would get high quality Japanese rips that looked infinitely better.
Blu-ray changed that because you've got at least 25 gigs on a disk. Also by the time Blu-ray was out compression software had improved substantially.
I've got a couple of anime blu-rays they're on 2, 25 gig discs and they look fantastic because it's the equivalent of 11 single-sided DVDs and they were compressed with much higher quality software.
I guess what I'm saying is that under ideal circumstances hd wasn't that big of a jump but in the real world switching to it had huge practical consequences that resulted much much better quality.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a pretty old guy and I don't know anyone who said or thought that, 2 seconds of HD viewing can prove it ridiculously false. to the point that viewing TV is a fundamentally different process. Baseball and Hockey on HD is transformational, you aren't picking up any small details in the good old days.
Size may better point, spreading the same pixels over a larger area means they are bigger, and depending on the viewing distance absolutely *does* make a difference, you do not need a study to tell you that.
Re: Maybe I’m just being an old guy (Score:2)
Nothing makes me feel older than watching some hockey games from the early 00's and seeing how awful the picture quality looks. Not even that long ago...
Re: (Score:2)
Not long ago at all. And it wasn't just the resolution, it was noise, color bleed, airplanes flying over, the wind, etc. Color bleed and color accuracy was utterly *abysmal* on analog, most of the time black-and-white was more tolerable. Now, you can get cartoon colors, but can be adjusted to give nearly perfect if you turn down the saturation enough
Re: (Score:2)
Color accuracy was not a function of analog, sets were just worse back then. NTSC had very low color resolution, though. Broadcast NTSC was color-accurate.
"Now, you can get cartoon colors, but can be adjusted to give nearly perfect if you turn down the saturation enough"
What are you talking about? The strongest opinions are always the most ignorant ones.
Re: (Score:2)
The default color settings on most current TVs I have seen is blown out to comic proportions. That is, oversaturated to the point that the colors are "blocked". that is, there is no resolution, it's just "max red" or "max blue". Most of the time the color saturation has to be turned down substantially to prevent this.
I am not sure what you are getting at with the hostility, I know this is slashdot but you seem to be taking it to the next level.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't remember. And I've been alive at the time, and I know such obscure things like D2-MAC.
Re: (Score:2)
> but remember when “they” were saying the same thing about HDTV being no better “at normal viewing distances” than standard-def NTSC?
I was around (and a TV-owning adult) during the transition, and I don't recall anyone saying this.
This truly is a [citation needed].
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't remember anyone ever saying that. The difference was immediately obvious to anyone with normal vision. I do remember people debating whether Blu-Ray was significantly better than upscaled DVDs at normal viewing distance, but that is far different than HDTV vs NTSC.
4K is a gimmick; 8k is an ultra gimmick (Score:3)
On my 4K Sony TV: Going from SD to 720p makes a noticeable improvement in sharpness; going from 720p to 1080p makes a noticeable improvement in sharpness. I can make out when I am watching 4K, but it is so slight, and 1080p is fine, so my media player (a mac mini) is set to 1080p.
Re: 4K is a gimmick; 8k is an ultra gimmick (Score:2)
I wouldn't say 4k is a gimmick but do agree we've already surpassed "peak display" for most use cases.
At my old house I installed a 1080p projector and built a roughly 130" screen to project it on. After 4 or 5 years I upgraded to a 4k projector and definitely saw a difference but nothing like the jump going from 480 to 1080.
I use 4k monitors for work because I can have multiple windows open at once.
No desire to ever go up to 8k.
Re: (Score:2)
If you get off the couch and look up close you can tell the difference pretty easily from 4k to 1080p but while seated it is less apparent. What most people won't realize is how little content they have is actually reliably 4k apart from the 4k discs.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, but this whole discussion seems pretty moot... at least when it comes to television. There aren't exactly a large number of sub-4K televisions in the stores nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern sets upscale, you are not seeing a difference in set resolution, you are seeing differences in the signal.
Re: (Score:2)
You touch upon the layers of the 4K technology stack! There's more than just single-frame dimensions!
There's frame dimensions, frames-per-second (FPS), color gamut, and other data (including audio channels of their own specs) within the throughput afforded with 4K/8K.
And as with anything technological, real-world performance is roughly 50% advertised (theoretical) technical max. So for best 1080p/HD experience, I rely on 4K cable. And for my 4K? I use 8K HDMI cables.
Overall, even fewer people would
Streaming == crap video quality anyway (Score:2)
Most people are only streaming everything now, and with compression, the image quality is way worse than what most TVs are capable of displaying.
TV programs that show cellphone screens .... (Score:2)
... or small notes.
Then, they expect viewers to be able to read them.
Many video editors are completely out of touch with how most people watch the video they create.
Re: (Score:2)
Pause. Zoom. Pan left. Focus and enhance. Read small note. Zoom out and continue.
Didn't you learn how to use a computer from late 20th century tech thrillers?
4K blu-rays are getting harder to play (Score:2)
The only company making software that could play them has exited the market because it was too difficult to implement the DRM the industry mandates. If you have a standalone player you literally have to hook it to the Internet so it can phone home and make sure you're not a filthy pirate every time you watch your movie.
Meanwhile the quality of 4K blu-rays has gone to shit because instead of doing skillful remasters they're running them through AI. It's one of the cases where if you used to do that work
Yeah, because most channels and compression suck (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is the US, most of our sports are on ESPN/ABC. Maybe, maybe once in a week we'll get to see 1 or 2 college football games in 4K. The 99.9% or the rest is not even 2K. They're still in 720p ( 1/3 MPx).
On top of that, what if the video is 2K or 4K? Now the cheap lossy compression comes in. Ever watch a championship moment when the trophy comes out with confetti or glitter. The compression goes crazy. Now it's worse that SD on a CRT!
Re: (Score:2)
The Fox One streams of the current MLB playoff games have all offered a 4K viewing option.
I was thinking about this in my kitchen. (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see the living room TV from my kitchen and, despite it annoying my wife, I often watch from the kitchen. It's 50 inches or so, 4k with supposed HDR (8 bit dithering and 350 nit peak brightness doesn't count as HDR Visio! Lying pricks). The other night, I was standing there thinking about how the apparent size of this 50" TV was noticeably less than that of the 27" 2k monitor on my desktop, because I sit so much closer to the monitor.
And that's what all this comes down to - how close are you to the TV? If you're 20-30 feet away, the resolution doesn't matter as much. When I stand in my kitchen, I may as well be looking at a 2K TV. BUT! When I'm sitting with my wife in the living room, it absolutely does matter. At that distance, I can absolutely see the difference between 2 and 4K. I'd probably see that even better if I could lower it a bit to a proper viewing angle, which is part of the reason I watch while standing up in the kitchen. Though that isn't really relevant here.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what you mean about the angle. Having a good off-axis viewing angle was a primary requirement with my big screen.
The other day I contemplated watching a movie on my phone. I experimented with comparing the apparent size by bringing the phone closer to my face. I found that at around 8" the apparent sizes and resolutions were the same. While this might be inconvenient, it is where my near-sighted eyes focus best.
What? (Score:1)
A 4k display is pretty significantly different on my 65in. But even on a 32 inch monitor, the difference between text in 1080p vs 4k is pretty night an day. Maybe not casual image viewing, but finer details can totally be made out. When I do go into the office, I have to use their crappy 1080p monitors and it's pretty radically different from my twin 32in 4k screens at home.
The bigger difference is going to be HDR. I just recently got HDR working with mpv in Linux, which thankfully got me off of Windows+
The team used a 27in (Score:2)
"The team used a 27in..."
Who has a 27" TV in their living room? I have 1920x1080 27" and 2560x1440 27" computer monitors in front of me right now. The difference is night and day. This study is fucktarded throughout and contributing to the reason people don't trust science. Do it again with a 40" or bigger and STFU with your 27" strawman.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe try reading it again. It doesn't say anything about people using 27" displays. It says THEY used a 27" display to determine the resolution limit of normal vision. Then they calculated, for different display sizes, resolutions, and distances when the resolution of the display was greater than the vision resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
They used it to measure the distance where human eyes can no longer distinguish a higher resolution and extrapolated that out for larger screens. I guess you didn't bother to read or comprehend what they were explaining, even in the summary.
a self-evidently stupid statement (Score:1)
Can you read the text on the pod bay doors in 2001 A Space Odyssey? On a 70 mm print, in the middle of the auditorium, you can. On a 2K blu ray, you cannot, even if you get up close to the screen. 2K is nowhere near enough for a sharp picture. Also, a 27 inch monitor? Nobody uses that in a living room. On Costco's website right now the size category with the most options is 75-85. 2k isn't even enough for a desk as anyone who does work for a living can attest to.
Horrible summary (Score:3)
They have a "Resolution limit matrix" on their free calculator page ( [1]https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/resea... [cam.ac.uk] ) and a 4k or higher resolution is indicated as noticeable by your eyes for more than half of the chart! The summary only works for the smallest of tvs 20 inches and at 30 inches it's 50/50 depending on your viewing distance. But 40 inches or above and you should really be considering something with more resolution depending on your viewing distance.
[1] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/rainbow/projects/display_calc/
Re: (Score:2)
> They have a "Resolution limit matrix" on their free calculator page ( [1]https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/resea... [cam.ac.uk] ) and a 4k or higher resolution is indicated as noticeable by your eyes for more than half of the chart! The summary only works for the smallest of tvs 20 inches and at 30 inches it's 50/50 depending on your viewing distance. But 40 inches or above and you should really be considering something with more resolution depending on your viewing distance.
It also ignores that moving pictures are not the same as still pictures. When images are moving, you don't see each frame as clearly, so you can get away with lower resolution, and with a moving image, you can actually perceive far more resolution than the actual pixel resolution of each individual image, because things in the real world don't line up perfectly with grid lines on consecutive frames.
So with moving images, you would expect to perceive higher resolution above a certain point as a reduction in
[1] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/rainbow/projects/display_calc/
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and thanks to their matrix, I can now reliably prove that my habit of watching a 100" display from less than 1m supports my need for a 32k screen.
Aside: I enjoy that their calculator happily jumps between imperial and metric throughout.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, title and summary of this article tell pretty much the opposite as that resolution calculator. For my screen size and viewing distance, 2k look definitely worse than 4k, and are trivial to distinguish even for my old eyes.
Let's be real here (Score:2)
The real advantage of 4K is avoiding the low-bitrate 1080p that most streamers and broadcasters pass off as "HD" these days. Don't get me wrong, streamers and broadcasters are stingy with 4K bitrate too, but at least the resolution is higher, so the bitrate has to be higher (which means more information for your eyes). It's the reason 4K looks better even on 1920x1080 screens. Also, HDR were available (though 1080p HDR is also a thing).
Re: (Score:2)
*where available (sorry)
Yes we know (Score:2)
"4K or 8K TVs Offer No Distinguishable Benefit Over Similarly Sized 2K Screen in Average Living Room, Scientists Say"
Yes, we know. And not just scientists say that but ordinary peons like me say that too.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any 2K screens here sold as TVs here in Ohio. 720p, 1080p, and 4K are the choices I see in the big-box stores. Haven't seen much 8K or 16K offered, but I bet those are in higher-end AV stores. I went with 43" 4K, which is as big as my walls will allow (windows and doors and bookcases, oh my!), and our viewing distance is just under 8 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
2K and 1080p are the same resolution, but 2K -- like 4K and 8K -- is an approximation to the horizontal resolution, whereas 1080p is a combination of the vertical resolution and the scan mode (progressive scan rather than interlaced).
720p: 1280x720, 1080p or 2K: 1920x1080, 4K: 3840x2160, 8K: 7680x4320.
High dynamic range (Score:2)
4k screens offer HDR. You typically don't get this on a 1080p display (there are some).
Regarding resolution, though,I remember reading a rule if thumb about the resolution and the height of the screen.
For 1080p you won't notice any difference from 720p if you are more than 3 times the height of the TV away.
1.5 times for 4k
0.75 times for 8k
A 55" TV is around 27" tall, so if you are more than 81" from the TV you likely won't notice the difference in resolution between 720p and 1080p
You'd need to be no more t
This is stupid (Score:2)
We have human eye charts, have had for ages. It's used in an eye exam. Just look up the distance compared to the eye charts. Whatever this test was, it was pointless, we already know.
Re: (Score:2)
That's silly. Eye exam charts are just used to see if (and how much) correction is needed to get to acceptable vision. Every eye test I ever took I was able to read the smallest line (with correction). They never try to take it down to the point of 'failure'. Eye tests just say 'everyone else can see this at 20 feet, and so can you' (20/20). They don't say 'the absolute smallest thing you can see is x arcseconds' (for instance).
If you say so (Score:2)
I guess I must be special. I can certainly tell the difference between 4k and 1080P. I find it pretty noticeable. Same with 24k audio vs 16k. There is just more there, there. The detail between the details.
An Experiment (Score:2)
Draw a black image with a single white pixel, and then look at, taking steps until you cannot see it.
22 years with 106" projection screen - 540p to UHD (Score:2)
I got a 106" projection screen in 2003. The first projector was 540p - 960x540 . I was sitting about 12ft away from it in my townhouse. The jump to 720p made a huge difference.
I then moved to a bigger house in 2010, but kept the same screen. The sitting position was closer to 25ft away. I upgraded to 1080p. It still made some difference.
4K projectors were available for about 15 years before I upgraded to one. I had a 720p PJ at the time. The 4K units started at $25k then. I waited until they dropped to $250
Yes, of course (Score:2)
It's simple math. Eyes have a limited resolution so you can calculate that easily.
I now have a decent 4K TV and I have to say that HDR provides way more value than the higher resolution.... at least for normal screen sizes and distances.
It's different for computer displays, as a 4k display at, for example 40 or 50 inch, offers way more space.
FB (Score:1)
so just wondering why Meta would fund a study to reach this conclusion, except they don't want to have to move their entire platform up a few notches so they don't look back on bigger TV's. NOT saying there is no truth the report, but ANYTHING Meta is involved in is, in my opinion, very questionable. Far too much money involved to be completely objective. I have a 4K TV at home and I'm pretty sure the difference between standard Blu-Ray and 4K is easy for me to see.
New projector (Score:2)
I'm using an early LED projector, the LG PF1500W. It's Full HD, FHD or 1920x1080 or 1080p depending on how you want to say it.
It was under $1000, probably $975 or something like that. I bought it because it had a "bulb life" that will outlast the internal display itself, which has started leaking pixels on the edges. It's something I could afford to replace now, but don't want to. I think I'd have to upgrade to an ultra short-throw 4k to make it worthwhile, and then we're talking $2k at the low end.
VR Still has a long way to go (Score:2)
The latest Pimax VR headset give you 57deg resolution with a limited field of view. This requires a more or less 4K by 4K display for each eye. A resolution that melts even the performance of a 5090, ideally you would be able to have a 5090 for each eye.. Their long term plan is to get to 6k4k per eye to give 57deg resolution and a wide enough field of view for full immersion.
What I get from this research is that VR ultimately is going require 12k8k per eye and the GPU performance of at least a dozen 50
HDR was highjacked by 4K (Score:2)
otherwise, 2K is more than enough for livinroom usage.
HDR was to be the next step up. HDR and 2K would have made a killer combo.... but, if 1080p or 2K HDR TVs would have been available at the time, no on in their right mind would have bought a 4K tv (except people trying to compensate for something)
for computers in general, 4K has value. and for media (photo/video) creation/editing your camera and monitor has to have more resolution than your target. so, if your target is 4k it behooves you to have 5K or m
when I was looking every TV I saw was 4K or 1K (Score:1)
I was searching for a television this summer, but everything that I found on places like Best Buy, Walmart, Amazon, Target, Costco was 4K and a few 1K. I don't remember any 2K.
BUT as a computer monitor, 4K is great! (Score:2)
I use a 42" 4K TV, which I paid $250 for, as my main computer monitor. It gives me the equivalent of 4 21" monitors, with no frames blocking the continuity of the screens. Instead of locking windows to strict 1K-size segments, I can have various windows positioned wherever I want them. I have no wish to go back to traditional 1K monitors of any size.
How does my tv rate? (Score:2)
I have a 98" TV (TCL 98Q672G) that does 4K and I sit 10' away from it.
I have no idea if I would see anything different between 4K and 1K. Don't really care either. The TV came as a 4K TV, so that's what I've got.
It was also only $999.97, the cheapest thing around at the time for a 98" TV. I don't think a 1K or 2K version in this size was even available, but if it were, I don't think it would have saved much money.
On a side note, my desktop monitors can do 2K, but I run them at 1K because otherwise the text
\o/ (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps we can have a follow-up study investigating whether a rolex can tell the time better than a Casio from 1984.
Re: (Score:2)
But such an old Casio would be a rare collector's item and might be worth more than the Rolex now!
Re: (Score:2)
> Perhaps we can have a follow-up study investigating whether a rolex can tell the time better than a Casio from 1984.
Well, we know it’s probably better with a 75’ Casio fx 7000 because they used a crystal oscillator and even with some brutal temperature drift it’s still likely ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
85^