A new study published in Nature by University of Cambridge researchers just dropped a pixelated bomb on the entire Ultra-HD market.

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 :)

  • Stalinwolf@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    8 months ago

    I don’t know if this will age like my previous belief that PS1 had photo-realistic graphics, but I feel like 4k is the peak for TVs. I recently bought a 65" 4k TV and not only is it the clearest image I’ve ever seen, but it takes up a good chunk of my livingroom. Any larger would just look ridiculous.

    Unless the average person starts using abandoned cathedrals as their livingrooms, I don’t see how larger TVs with even higher definition would even be practical. Especially if you consider we already have 8k for those who do use cathedral entertainment systems.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      8 months ago

      (Most) TVs still have a long way to go with color space and brightness. AKA HDR. Not to speak of more sane color/calibration standards to make the picture more consistent, and higher ‘standard’ framerates than 24FPS.

      But yeah, 8K… I dunno about that. Seems like a massive waste. And I am a pixel peeper.

      • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.worldEnglish
        01·
        8 months ago

        The frame rate really doesn’t need to be higher. I fully understand filmmakers who balk at the idea of 48 or 60 fps movies. It really does change the feel of them and imo not in a necessarily positive way.