this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
513 points (92.4% liked)

Technology

76457 readers
3520 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
513
Study Boldly Claims 4K And 8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes, But Is It True? (hothardware.com)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by artifex@piefed.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
307 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
[–] fritobugger2017@lemmy.world 40 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The study used a 44 inch TV at 2.5m. The most commonly used calculator for minimum TV to distance says that at 2.5m the TV should be a least 60 inches.

My own informal tests at home with a 65 inch TV looking at 1080 versus 4K Remux of the same movie seems to go along with the distance calculator. At the appropriate distance or nearer I can see a difference if I am viewing critically (as opposed to casually). Beyond a certain distance the difference is not apparent.

[–] markko@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Exactly. This title is just clickbait.

The actual study's title is "Resolution limit of the eye — how many pixels can we see?".

[–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Can't believe I had to scroll down this far to find this:

Here’s the gut-punch for the typical living room, however. If you’re sitting the average 2.5 meters away from a 44-inch set, a simple Quad HD (QHD) display already packs more detail than your eye can possibly distinguish. The scientists made it crystal clear: once your setup hits that threshold, any further increase in pixel count, like moving from 4K to an 8K model of the same size and distance, hits the law of diminishing returns because your eye simply can't detect the added detail.

On a computer monitor, it's easily apparent because you're not sitting 2+ m away, and in a living room, 44" is tiny, by recent standards.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

Exactly why big box stores force you to look at TVs in narrow aisles, not at typical distances at home. They also adjust pictures on highest margin models properly.