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
[–] 25 points 10 months ago (19 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    You should publish a study

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Sounds like a waste of time to do a study on something already well known.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Literally this article is about the study. Your “well-known” fact doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    The other important detail to note is that screen size and distance to your TV also matters. The larger the TV, the more a higher resolution will offer a perceived benefit. Stretching a 1080p image across a 75-inch display, for example, won't look as sharp as a 4K image on that size TV. As the age old saying goes, "it depends."

    literally in the article you are claiming to be correct, maybe should try reading sometime.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    Yes, but you got yourself real pissy over it and have just now admitted that the one piece of criticism you had in your original comment was already addressed in the article. Obviously if we start talking about situations that are extreme outliers there will be edge cases but you’re not adding anything to the conversation by acting like you’ve found some failure that, in reality, the article already addressed.

    I’m not sure you have the reading the comprehension and/or the intention to have any kind of real conversation to continue this discussion further.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

    It's not my fault you can't read.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It is your fault if you start an argument over your inability to read however.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    So I have a pet theory on studies like that. There are many things out there that many of us take for granted and as givens in our daily lives. But there are likely equally as many people out there to which this knowledge is either unknown or not actually apparent. Reasoning for that can be a myriad of things; like due to a lack of experience in the given area, skepticism that their anecdotal evidence is truly correct despite appearances, and on and on.

    What these "obvious thing is obvious" studies accomplish is setting a factual precedent for the people in the back. The people who are uninformed, not experienced enough, skeptical, contrarian, etc.

    The studies seem wasteful upfront, but sometimes a thing needs to be said aloud to galvanize the factual evidence and give basis to the overwhelming anecdotal evidence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    It’s the screen size that makes a difference

    Not by itself, the distance is extremely relevant. And at the distance a normal person sits away from a large screen, you need to get very large for 4k to matter, let alone 8k.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •