Technology

4k is a little much for me.

At a certain point yours eyes can't tell much difference. It is like music, people would obsess over tweaking their stereo systems to the point where I doubt you could physically tell the difference, it was mostly imagined.

Huge tvs also require big rooms to make the viewing angle work. Not everyone has a room they work in. Apartments are especially too small for huge tvs.

I've never felt the need to go 4k either. I'm totally content to buy 1080p 144hz+ monitors for $100.

Most developing countries have cheap 1080p TVs right now, but others are still using CRTs, and still others are watching on their phones (like some of my poorer relatives who do get their entertainment fix through their phones while the big TVs in their living rooms rarely gets turned on).

The University of Cambridge’s display resolution calculator, which is based on a study from researchers at the university’s Department of Computer Science and Technology and Meta, funded by Meta, and published in Nature in October, suggests that your eyes can only make use of 8K resolution on a 50-inch screen if you’re viewing it from a distance of 1 meter (3.3 feet) or less. Similarly, you would have to be sitting pretty close (2–3 meters/6.6–9.8 feet) to an 80-inch or 100-inch TV for 8K resolution to be beneficial. The findings are similar to those from RTINGs.com.

This is known since at least 2010, because our eyes are limited in optical resolution and in how big a surface we see.

What about 12K?

Yeahhhhh 8K is going to be pretty far off considering we still get 1080p "enhanced" trash with YoutubeTV for sports games. It looks like ass on my good, 4K TV. I can't imagine that on an 8K display.

Though some sports - like the Unrivaled games on HBO - are of a higher quality, you just don't get that everywhere.

And that's just sports. Couple that with the fact that some people still have data caps, and I just don't see widespread adoption any time soon.

What's interesting to me is that film is roughly, perceptually around 8K. However, very very few people have cinema-sized screens in their home, so what's the point if it's "only" even 80 inches?

I think giant 8K monitors are still useful for productivity, but only for a small number of people. I personally like having multiple monitors over one big one.

8K is theoretically good as “spare resolution,” for instance running variable resolution in games and scaling everything to it, displaying photos with less scaling for better sharpness, clearer text rendering, less flickering, stuff like that.

It’s not worth paying for. Mostly. But maybe some day it will be cheap enough to just “include” with little extra cost, kinda like how 4K TVs or 1440p monitors are cheap now.

I don't even have 4K. My main TV is still 1080p and my monitors are 2K.

Also, we haven’t even got HDR figured out.

I’m still struggling to export some of my older RAWs to HDR. Heck, Lemmy doesn’t support JPEG XL, AVIF, TIFF, HEIF, nothing, so I couldn’t even post them here anyway. And even then, they’d probably only render right in Safari.

Getting rid of my tv was the best thing I did for myself. That’s the future. Removing and reducing all screen time.

Make a TV that can accurately reproduce really high contrast ratios and don't put any pointless software on it. Display the image from the source with as much fidelity as possible, supporting all modern display technology like VRR.

That's all I want from a display.