Research shows 4K or 8K screens offer no distinguishable benefit over similarly sized 2K screen in average living room

  • ryannathans@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    This is like the same bullshit research that said there’s no benefit to refresh rates over 30hz

    Study used a 27 inch monitor, not a TV, to show lines and grey boxes. Not actual movies or photos

    • ButteryMonkey@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      I used to have a screen with that refresh and when I was tired and tried to read anything on it, my eyes would, like, vibrate? Like visual stuttering. Not a fun experience. Upgraded to a 60hz and that’s the minimum I’d ever consider for any use now.

      So yep, definitely not true.

      I also prefer 4k for crisp text for similar reasons (e.g. game text). It might not matter for your average movie, but it matters for a lot of normal use if you don’t want to strain your eyes.

      • ryannathans@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        When I moved to 144hz it was a huge improvement again, and then 240hz on top of that is so much more fluid. It’s hard to use 60 sometimes let alone consoles running at 30

    • Cort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Study used a 27 inch monitor

      So if 1080 is fine for 27 inch monitor, 4k is fine for the 55 inch tv I have on my desk for a computer monitor.