What do you think about 4K?

[IPD]

On 9/13/2022 at 12:40 PM, WildDagwood said:

Haven't looked into it in depth but maybe there's diminishing returns on PPI above a certain point.

 

As mentioned above, I did notice a difference going from 55", 1080p to 65", 4k, and seems others have noticed the difference going from 1080p-4k in their own scenarios. Not all panels are equal either so there's probably some other factors influencing everyone's perceptions, at least partially.

I've determined this is somewhere north of 180 ppi.  If your ideal viewing distance is 2:1 or greater, it may be much less.  If you're like me and sometimes you're at .7:1--180 ppi might still have room for improvement.  YMMV.

 

How did I arrive at this conclusion?  On a 15.6" screen, I can easily see the difference between 1080p and 1620p (3k).  I cannot see the difference between 1620p and 2160p.  So the threshold may be as low as 1440p (188 ppi) (I haven't compared), or may be at 1620p (211 ppi).  But it definitely isn't as low as 1080p (141 ppi).

[IPD]

37 minutes ago, NastyFlytrap said:

Probably the peak of the resolutions.

Anything above it is entirely pointless. Yes, yes, i know that bigger number better, but, what even is the point of an 8K display if you cant tell the difference between that and a 4K screen anyway? Quit your yammering. Resolutions above 4k are unnecessary, and while humanity is about pushing forward constantly, resolutions peaked with 4K.

We'll need need features, or new tech to make monitors interesting, once 4k High refresh rate screens become as common as 1080p is now. At that point, higher resolutions will be meaningless, and so will refresh rates above 240hz, hence why the industry will have to reinvent the wheel once again.

As for the monitor's actual size, anything above a 32" 16:9 for desktop use is just too much. Im running a 27" for example and i dont feel the need for a 32". This is big enough already

We are going to agree to disagree on this; your experience is not the be-all-end-all of what manufacturers should cater to.  Nor is mine.  Different strokes for different folks.

 

2160p is not enough PPI for a 55" display like the Odyssey Ark (~80ppi).  And that's on a 55" display 1 person is using.  8k will be WOEFULLY insufficient for large form, multi-viewer displays like 120-150" projector screens (home use)--or anywhere like theaters.  Technology moves at a snail's pace sometimes; but it is only a luddite who would think that "4k is enough".

 

Nor is 32" "enough".  I'm running a 40" and I want to go bigger--hence why I bought an Ark.

 

Features/tech is already too focused on.  HDR-OVER-9000, 700hz refresh rates, and a host of other junk are all misplaced focus from getting the PPI up where it should have been years ago. 

 

 

[IPD]

I have a 110" screen in my living room.  Your argument is invalid.

[Mitko_DSV]

Considering I'm near sighted I don't care much about a TV's resolution, especially when watching cable TV were most programs are SD and very few HD. My main PC's monitor is 22" 1080p and I can see the pixels... when I'm 10 cm away from the screen. My parents bought a Samsung 52" 4k TV for the living room, I don't see a difference from the JVC 48" 1080p TV that was there before, at least resolution wise. I'm actually pretty happy with 1080p, so I don't need higher resolutions, but this is just me. For a PC monitor I don't want anything bigger than 22", guess I'm just strange.

[Neroon]

I give zero shits for my TV. Sure, the next one will be 4K, but that isn't because I need it.
 

I'm still rocking an 8-year-old 55 inch led Sony TV, which is still really quite solid. It ain't no Oled, but the screen itself is still great.

 

My monitor (49inch 5120x1440) has a higher ppi than a 55inch 4k (119 vs 80), and I can tell you that's not a luxury. Sure I could still work with a lower PPI, but it does make the experience very nice, and I specifically choose to get the higher resolution one, since there is also the 1080 version of this size.

For those who don't know, this is effectively the size of 2 27inch screens.

 

My 14 inch laptop has a 2560x1440 screen, and imo that's not needed, but it is extremely crisp.

[Lairlair]

1 hour ago, Mitko_DSV said:

I don't want anything bigger than 22", guess I'm just strange.

I don't know that it's strange to be satisfied by what you have. It's actually quite a healthy behaviour imho

[Mitko_DSV]

@Lairlair Oh, I didn't mean that being satisfied by what I have is strange, I agree it's a good thing. I was tired and I tried to make a joke that I'm strange since most other replies mentioned pretty big monitors... reading it now, it doesn't make sense, but I guess when I wrote it I was tired enough that it made sense.

[rikitikitavi]

PPI vs viewing distance (clarity ratio) is the main thing. Resolution is trivial and is a result of the 'clarity' ratio tolerance (of a user), content and the screen size.

 

So a phone by your face with 400ppi, laptop with 240ppi, and a monitor at the edge of the desk with 160ppi look similar and pleasingly crisp.

North of that you get wasted pixels. South of that is loss of clarity.

 

... while I believe that the clarity matters more for static images, and way less for motion, I've encountered people who swear by 4K TVs while happily using pixelated monitors... so go figure with the tolerance/preferences...

[Sir Beregond]

4k made sense as you increase screen size. 

 

The bigger upgrade is just in panel type. Going from my VA to my OLED was quite the upgrade.