you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 39 points 1 year ago (14 children)

I haven't seen this mentioned but apart from 8K being expensive, requiring new production pipelines, unweildley for storage and bandwidth, unneeded, and not fixing g existing problems with 4K, it requires MASSIVE screens to reap benefits.

There are several similar posts, but suffice to say, 8K content is only perceived by average eyesight at living room distances when screens are OVER 100 inches in diameter at the bare minimum. That's 7 feet wide.

1000009671

Source: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    Tell me Legolas, what do your elven eyes see?

    Fucking pixels Aragorn, it makes me want to puke. And what the fuck is up with these compression artifacts? What tier of Netflix do you have?

    Sorry Legolas, could we just enjoy the movie?

    Maybe if the dwarf stops stinking up the place. And don't think I didn't see him take that last chicken wing, fucking dwarves.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Not sure where 1440p would land, but after using one for a while, I was going to upgrade my monitor to 4k but realized I'm not disappointed with my current resolution at all and instead opted for a 1440p ultrawide and haven't regretted it at all.

    My TV is 4k, but I have no intention of even seriously looking at anything 8k.

    Screen specs seem like a mostly solved problem. Would be great if focus could shift to efficiency improvements instead of adding more unnecessary power. Actually, boot time could be way better, too (ie get rid of the smart shit running on a weak processor, emphasis on the first part).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    8K content is only perceived by average eyesight at living room distances when screens are OVER 100 inches in diameter at the bare minimum.

    65-75" tv's are pretty much the standard these days. I've got a 75" and I'll want the next one I replace it with to be even bigger, so 100"-ish will be what I'll be after.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Yeah but do you also watch tv from about 1.8 meters away? Look at that chart again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Yeh, pretty much. Those charts aren’t “fact” btw. They’re guides.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    My 36" TV is fine, you monster.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I’m sure it’s fine, but I much prefer my 75”. 36” would be way too small in my game room.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I like a big screen for gaming too, but just wanted to mention it also means you'll do worse at games. You can look it up, but a smaller screen gives you better performance, because your brain can properly see everything that's happening on screen at once.

    Unless your screen is significantly far away that is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Thats only if you’re sitting somewhere where you can’t see the whole screen at once. I can see everything that’s happening on my big tv. I’ve found I do worse on a smaller tv/monitor, moved my gaming pc from my 144hz 34” monitor to the 75” 120hz tv and my results are much better.

  • source
  • parent