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

Technology

76460 readers
3813 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 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.ca 285 points 2 days ago (11 children)

Kind of a tangent, but properly encoded 1080p video with a decent bitrate actually looks pretty damn good.

A big problem is that we've gotten so used to streaming services delivering visual slop, like YouTube's 1080p option which is basically just upscaled 720p and can even look as bad as 480p.

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 112 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Yeah I'd way rather have higher bitrate 1080 than 4k. Seeing striping in big dark or light spots on the screen is infuriating

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Solitaire20X6@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I think age makes a big difference, too. I'm over 50 and I've never been able to really tell between 720p and 1080i and 1080p, much less higher resolutions. And I'm nearsighted.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DarkAri@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 day ago

4k is definitely a big improvement over 1080p. The average person probably doesn't have good eyesight, but that doesn't mean that it's a waste for everyone else.

[–] fritobugger2017@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day 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 1 day 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?".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Hackworth@piefed.ca 149 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (18 children)

I can pretty confidently say that 4k is noticeable if you're sitting close to a big tv. I don't know that 8k would ever really be noticeable, unless the screen is strapped to your face, a la VR. For most cases, 1080p is fine, and there are other factors that start to matter way more than resolution after HD. Bit-rate, compression type, dynamic range, etc.

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 86 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

Seriously, articles like this are just clickbait.

They also ignore all sorts of usecases.

Like for a desktop monitor, 4k is extremely noticeable vs even 1440P or 1080P/2k

Unless you're sitting very far away, the sharpness of text and therefore amount of readable information you can fit on the screen changes dramatically.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Sir_Premiumhengst@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (4 children)

It does make a difference for reading text like subtitles or navigating game menus.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] oppy1984@lemdro.id 6 points 1 day ago

I have friends and family with good eyesight and they can tell a difference. Sadly even with Recent prescription lenses I still can't see a difference. Eh, at least I can save on TV's since 1080p is cheaper.

[–] treesquid@lemmy.world 49 points 2 days ago (11 children)

4k is way better than 1080p, it's not even a question. You can see that shit from a mile away. 8k is only better if your TV is comically large.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] umbraroze@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 day ago

Heh, I'm getting back to physical media, and this big 4K TV is literally the first time ever where I've actually constantly noticed that DVDs might get a bit pixely.

(And even so, I usually blame not so great digitisation. Some transfers of old obscure titles were really sloppy, you really didn't need a great TV to see the problems. Original was a black and white movie, the DVD was a bunch of grey mush.)

[–] bobaworld@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I know I am a display tech nerd, but can people really not tell the difference? Even going from a 1440p to a 4k monitor to me was a very noticeable improvement to clarity. And there's a huge difference in the way that games look on my living room TV in 1080p compared to 4k.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›