• Rekall Incorporated@piefed.socialM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I believe 8K is the limit for home use in terms of physiological perception.

    IMO, HDR is a bigger differentiation that resolution in our current environment (i.e. 4K being the high end). It sucks that HDR formats and monitor specs are such a mess.

    I wish there were two universal standardized formats / specification. A cheaper, lite version and a high end expensive one.

  • Kühlschrank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Is there a reason to upgrade to 8k in a normal home? I feel like we’re starting to get to the audiophile zone here where there is no perceptible difference. I guess for really big screens?

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Only if you’re a couple feet away from something with a 10’ diagonal or greater. 4k is already pushing the limits of human vision.

  • favoredponcho@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    16 hours ago

    4K already uses a crushingly large amount of streaming bandwidth. I think it will be decades before most streaming services and ISPs allow you to stream enough data to support 8k.

  • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    What point is there in buying an 8K TV when there is hardly any 8K content to watch on it? Most people don’t have room for a big enough screen to take advantage of the resolution anyways.

  • foodvacuum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    15 hours ago

    There’s very little content being produced for 8k. It’ll be nice someday when it’s the only option for televisions so it’s available at the cheapest 30"+ panels to the most expensive large ones. Play some old PC games at 8k 120hz HDR on a 150" television for the novelty and then 90% of the time on a 3440x1440 monitor

  • ellieficent@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I would love an 8K 43-50" monitor. The 4k 43 I have is nice, but i can tell the difference from a normal desk position.

    I don’t think my eyes will ever care until I have a theater setup with a massive screen… but even digital IMAX isn’t 8k.

  • Lembot_0006@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    16 hours ago

    The last time I stumbled upon TVs, they were eye-bleeding-tier mess in comparison to monitors while having the same resolution. But that was a while ago. If the situation stays the same, then it is a miracle that someone still buys that shit at all.

  • thesohoriots@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Shoot, I’m still fine with QHD. Maybe if I was like 10 inches away from a tiny screen, but not for that money.