But is it game over for 8K on the PC, too?

  • Technus@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s because we’re at the limits of the human visual system. The difference in pixel pitch between 4k and 8k at the distances we watch TV is literally imperceptible.

    It also doesn’t help that there’s not much content authored and distributed for higher resolutions. It’s exponentially more expensive to produce, store, and deliver.

    Home Internet connections on average aren’t any better than they were ten years ago, either, at least not in the US. I doubt a lot of them can even support 8k streaming, let alone with anyone else using it at the same time.

      • Technus@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Yeah but we’re talking diminishing returns here. Doubling the resolution to 8k makes about as much sense as doubling refresh rates to 480hz. At that point it’s going to be mostly dependent on the individual, and likely heavily subject to the placebo effect.

        By my math, a 55" 8k screen has pixels that are 0.056" (56 thou) wide.

        At ten feet, that subtends an angle of 0.268 degrees or 1.6 arcminutes.

        There’s obviously a lot of variation and it depends on exactly what you’re measuring, but normal human visual acuity struggles to distinguish details less than about 5 arcminutes, maybe 1-2 arcminutes depending on the test.