Study Boldly Claims 4K And 8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes, But Is It True?
hothardware.com
A new study published in Nature by University of Cambridge researchers just dropped a pixelated bomb on the entire Ultra-HD market.

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 :)

  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    3·
    12 hours ago

    I always keep one 24" 1080p monitor at my desk, alongside the larger and wider gaming monitor, because that size and resolution is (to me) perfect for text (and side viewing of old films that I don’t want to over-stretch).

    I got my first 4K, widescreen monitor recently, and it’s a hugely noticeable difference from 1080p, but depending on what I’m doing, it’s often not an improvement.

    • B0rax@feddit.org
      6·
      11 hours ago

      24“ with 1080p sucks. The pixels are clearly visible at normal viewing distance on a desk.

    • Elkenders@feddit.uk
      2·
      12 hours ago

      TV is definitely different to monitor because of what it’s used for and distance though.

    • StuartB@social.teamb.space
      1·
      11 hours ago

      @t3rmit3 @artifex Agreed - I recently went from a pair of 24" 1080p monitors to a 32"4k and a 24" 1080p for precisely this reason - had to upgrade my graphics (Intel UHD730 to GT1030 - I’m not a gamer, and had to find something that would fit into this case and didn’t need additional power) to get DP, but now I have so much screen real estate, it’s unreal!
      Still got a 1080p 55" tv on the wall downstairs, thoughI’ve been tempted a few times to update it, but it’s working fine, so it’s still chugging along.