3 ms·

This answer is just being contrary to be contrary. 'Most people' can't distinguish 1080p from 4k from 6 ft away, yet people still stream 4k content, which 'gob

• niftich 10y ago
  I found it a perfectly valid comment that illustrates the trade-offs that developers who have to code in support for the format would make, trade-offs that content streamers debating their codec choices would make, and trade-offs that consumers choosing their preferred format would make. Historically while streaming, lossy has been 'good enough' for reasons other than nothing else was supported.
• dawnerd 10y ago
  Is say most people not being able to feel the difference between 1080 and 4K to be inaccurate. I'm always seeing people look at 4K video after watching 1080 content and remarking how crisper it is. Of course there is a very large majority of people where what they have is good enough. When the iPhone went retina people argued that the extra pixels won't make a difference. Then they tried it. Now look where we are.
• whyoh 10y ago
  >'Most people' can't distinguish 1080p from 4k from 6 ft away 6ft away (and screen size) being key. From up close, everyone can and the difference is obvious. Whereas with lossy audio, a well encoded track will sound transparent to ~99% of people, no matter how they listen or what equipment they use. Digital audio is pretty much a solved problem in terms of transparent encoding. Consumer digital video still has a long way to go. (That said, I do support the use of FLAC, just for that extra safety and because it doesn't really cost too much.)
• imtringued 10y ago
  On youtube the 4k stream has a higher bitrate which means even if you're watching it downscaled to 1080p the quality will be far better.