• Dirty AnCom@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 hours ago

    What’s interesting to me is that film is roughly, perceptually around 8K. However, very very few people have cinema-sized screens in their home, so what’s the point if it’s “only” even 80 inches?

    I think giant 8K monitors are still useful for productivity, but only for a small number of people. I personally like having multiple monitors over one big one.

    • ccunix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      I cannot fathom why, but people do not seem capable of understanding resolution, screen size and viewing distance as important factors that interplay with each other.

      8k is absolutely pointless on a 49" TV that is several metres away. However, I will take 4k over 1080 on even a 24" computer screen every time.

      That is just me though, your preferences and vision may be different to mine. Same with the monitors. You like multiple screens, I prefer a single larger screen.

      • TheOakTree@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        54 minutes ago

        4K vs 8K on a 49" screen across the room is going to have much less of a noticeable difference than 4K vs 1080p on a 24" screen a foot or two away (dancing around the boundary of retina).

        I think an 8K 42" would make a great single monitor for productivity, I just can’t imagine driving 8K at idle is very efficient if there aren’t software/firmware solutions to recognize non-moving screens.