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

Technology

76457 readers
3437 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
 

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 :)

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jjlinux@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 days ago (10 children)

This is so much bullshit. 4K does make a difference, specially if playing console games on a large TV (65" and up).

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Console games that all run at <720p getting upscaled to hell and back. We have come so far since the PS3 where games ran at <720p, but without upscaling. lol

load more comments (1 replies)

Agree they did the test with a 44 inch. That's why they got this result.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] cheesorist@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (4 children)

simply incorrect. in some circumstances sure 1080p is sufficient, but if the tv is big, close, or both. then 4k is a definite and noticeable improvement.

4k looks sharper as long as the actual content is real 4k, even from afar.

[–] leftascenter@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So completely correct as the point you are trying to make is the point the study focuses on (definition per viewed angle)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Sure but, hear me out, imagine having most of your project sourcecode on the screen at the same time without having to line-wrap.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DarthAstrius@slrpnk.net 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Hard disagree. 4K is stunning, especially Samsung’s Neo-QLED. I cannot yet tell a difference between 4K and 8K, though.

[–] wasabi@feddit.org 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

You would need a 150+ inch screen for 8K to make any difference. 8K is pretty much dead in the water considering DVDs outsell 4K Blu-Rays and 8K media is pretty much unavailable and 8K gaming being basically impossible. Even the TV manufacturers are phasing out their 8K devices since no one is buying them.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 days ago (8 children)

If you read RTINGS before buying a TV and setting it up in your room, you already knew this. Screen size and distance to TV are important for determining what resolution you actually need.

Most people sit way too far away from their 4K TV.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] elver@feddit.uk 5 points 2 days ago (7 children)

You know what would sell like hot cakes? A dumb TV with Dolby Vision support. I went down the rabbit hole of finding a large HDR monitor and adapters to trick end devices to output player-led Dolby Vision to a HDR monitors, because I don't need my TV to have a complete OS with streaming services and adverts integrated.

In the end I couldn't find anything that didn't have drawbacks. It's something that could easily exist but there are no manufacturers bold enough to implement it.

Streaming tech moves so fast, I want to add it to my TV through hardware like a fire stick, not to become dependent on the TV manufacturer putting out updates until it's 'Out-of-support'.

I went with a TV and disabled as much of the junk as I could with a service remote and just never connected it to the internet, but jumping through these hoops seems so silly.

[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

So dont give your tv internet access and plug in a pc.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] caboose2006@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

I've been saying this for years.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It's all about the baseline.

Cinematic, Blu Ray bitrate 1080p vs 4K is not too dramatic.

Compressed streams though? Or worse production quality? 4K raises the baseline dramatically. It's much harder to stream bad-looking 4K than it is 1080p, especially since '4K' usually implies certain codecs/standards.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (3 children)

4k is perfectly fine for like 99% of people.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 days ago

with all the menus now days I mainly want sharp text

[–] Quazatron@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

Sony Black Trinitron was peak TV.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The question for me isn't whether or not there's a difference that I might be able to see if I were paying attention to the picture quality, it's whether the video quality is sufficiently bad to distract me from the content. And only hypercompressed macroblocked-to-hell-and-back ancient MPEG1 files or multiply-recopied VHS tapes from the Dark Ages are ever that bad for me. In general, I'm perfectly happy with 480p. Of course, I might just have a higher-than-average immunity to bad video. (Similarly, I can spot tearing if I'm looking for it, but I do have to be looking for it.)

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›