514
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@lemmy.world
306 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
[–] 19 points 10 months ago (5 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

    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 more than 50x the size with a ~25% increase in (vertical) resolution

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    Haha no, you have not misunderstood at all! I was just driving a point and I did no calculations whatsoever, by that «50" is almost 10x 7"» I did mean that 50 is "almost" 70 and nothing else x) As your calculations show, it's actually a much bigger difference in area, but that stat seemed enough to make my point and easier to understand :)

    Thank you for actually thinking about it and taking the time to do the math ^^

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent