this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
1355 points (98.6% liked)

memes

10671 readers
2836 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zink@programming.dev 52 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yeah. Once games are rendering 120fps at a native 6K downscaled to an amazing looking 4K picture, then maybe you could convince me it was time to get an 8K TV.

Honestly most people sit far enough from the TV that 1080p is already good enough.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I find 4k is nice on computer monitors because you can shut off anti-aliasing entirely and still leave jagged edges behind. 1440p isn't quite enough to get there.

Also, there's some interesting ideas among emulator writers about using those extra pixels to create more accurate CRT-like effects.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 5 points 10 months ago

Oh yeah, I have read some very cool things about emulators and being able to simulate the individual phosphors with 4K resolution. I have always been a sucker for clean crisp pixels (that’s what I was trying to achieve on the shitty old CRT I had for my SNES) so I haven’t jumped into the latest on crt shaders myself.

[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But anti-aliasing needs far less performance. And you need to mess about with scaling on a 4k monitor which is always a pain. 1440p for life IMHO

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 10 months ago

Anti-aliasing also softens the image a bit. Image quality is better if you can leave it off.

[–] minibyte@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I’m to THX spec, 10 feet from an 85 inch. I’m right in the middle of 1440P and 4K being optimal, but with my eyes see little difference between the two.

I’d settle for 4k @ 120 FPS locked.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago

I’m 6-8 feet from a 65, depending on seating position and posture. It seems to be a pretty sweet spot for 4K (I have used the viewing distance calculators in the past, but not recent enough to remember the numbers). I do wear my glasses while watching TV too, so I see things pretty clearly.

With games that render at a native 4K at 60fps and an uncompressed signal, it is absolutely stunning. If I try to sit like 4 feet from the screen to get more immersion, then it starts to look more like a computer monitor rather than a razor sharp HDR picture just painted on the oled.

There is a lot of quality yet to be packed into 4K. As long as “TV in the living room” is a similar format to now, I don’t think 8K will benefit people. It will be interesting to see if all nice TVs just become 8K one day like with 4K now though.