3 ms·
Or people who argued that “the eye can’t see more than 60fps”
by joshspankit 4y ago
Or people who argued that “the eye can’t see more than 60fps”
- favadi 4y agoOr people who argued that "4k is pointless, you can't see the different with 2k anw".
- Gigachad 4y agoFor gaming or videos I actually can’t tell the difference between 4K and 1440p. For text rendering I absolutely can.
- glowingly 4y agoAs an aside, many 4k/1440p videos are not really 4k or 1440p, vs how we would classify a 4k/1440p monitor. Video is mostly 4k/1440p light levels, but less than that w.r.t. color information. A common video subsampling setup is 4:2:0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling In addition, common video compression techniques (at least the simple ones that I could still understand) basically reconstruct blocks of pixels. Reconstruction is lossy, at best. If I had to guess, something similar could be done in games as part of their optimizations.
- joshspankit 4y agoSomething similar is done in video games through two technologies (in addition to colourspace trickery): DLSS and “dynamic resolution”
- jeroenhd 4y agoThis really depends on the size of the screen. For most laptops, I'd argue that 4k is useless; 1440p is high-res enough that you get perfect clarity anyway. For 83" TVs you obviously need more pixels to get a good viewing experience because you don't position yourself several meters in front of the screen to make the pixels unnoticable.
- LoveMortuus 4y agoI think even for phones anything above 1080p, is kinda pointless. Just a drain on the battery.
- t-3 4y agoFor me, there's only a difference for the text console. For GUIs I have to halve the resolution to make things usable so it doesn't really help anything.