58
Study Boldly Claims 4K And 8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes, But Is It True? (hothardware.com)
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by to c/technology@beehaw.org
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

Depends on the physical size of the screen. Which is why mostly only wealthy people with 90-inch+ screens really have ever cared about 8K. 4K is a noticeable improvement on a 60 or 70 inch screen, but the extra cost of content isn't anywhere near being worth it for most people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Bigger TVs was always the point of higher resolutions. SD content looked perfectly fine on the small CRT screens we had at the time. HD made bigger screens possible, same goes for 4k.

    My last CRT was a 28” beast which was considered huge at the time. Then I got a 50” HDTV which was considered huge at the time. Now I’ve got a 77” 4k TV which is considered huge at this time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Nah, the only thing the old analog 625-line resolutions looked OK on were things like my small bedroom TV in the 90s (though the refresh rates are major improvements in some media). The smaller living room TVs look way better with 720p and regular sized modern living room TVs are significantly better at 1080p. (Note that 4:3 ratio TVs had smaller advertised inch sizes than similarly sized 16:9 ratio TVs since they're measured diagonally so I'll avoid using actual sizes since they aren't comparable.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent