3 ms·

8k will be helpful primarily for significantly larger TVs (77"+) depending on the view distance. These higher resolutions will be really valuable for computer m

8k will be helpful primarily for significantly larger TVs (77"+) depending on the view distance. These higher resolutions will be really valuable for computer monitors so we can have high DPI screens available across all sizes. I'm really looking forward to a hopefully affordable 6k 32" monitor from Dell this year!

highwaylights 4y ago
Really though? I'm on a 4K 27" monitor right now and I can see no edges or pixelation. I'm not really sure what higher resolution would do. Honestly for the work I'm doing I'd struggle to justify a move to OLED (this is IPS), but at least there'd be a reason. I don't get what the point of ever higher resolutions is when I can't tell the difference. Sure, someone will say "you can't see the difference but I can", but at that resolution I'm very skeptical.
- csnweb 4y ago
  If you have a 5k 27 inch screen directly next to it you will see a difference, but it’s not huge and I agree that 4k at 27 inches is sufficient from a pixel density perspective. But the scaling is not so nice, 5k at 27 inches allows integer scaling and getting a reasonable size out of it. Same for 6k at 32 inches or more for even bigger screens. I am waiting for the 6k dell mentioned above as well.
- awoimbee 4y ago
  I think a good reference is Apple's "retina" brand [1]. For a 27" monitor to be (basic) retina it must be 5K. But yes, there are diminishing returns and resolution isn't everything (I've tried terrible 4K monitors...). [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display
- Kon5ole 4y ago
  The point of higher resolutions is bigger screens with the same quality. I was able to snag a 8k 55" tv for USD ~1000 a couple of years ago and it's absolutely glorious as a monitor. Basically it functions as 4 4k monitors in one unified canvas. When I sit down to work, most of my field of view is screen real-estate. I can have several pages of code vertically surrounded by handfuls of terminal windows and reference material, and it's all perfectly crisp since it's 8K on only 55". I think we are basically brainwashed when it comes to monitors. Monitors grow a few pixels in resolution and a few inches in size every decade or so, and I've heard the argument repeated - "I got a 21" (22", 24", 27") screen, it's nice but that's as big as I want to go". Somehow when a new few inches larger becomes the norm in the market, everyone thinks that's OK too. I think most knowledge workers would get hooked on 55" within a few hours of using it. I know I was. Unfortunately this TV seems to have been a bit of an anomaly. The market today is filled with worse products costing more money. :( LG was able to make this and ship it everywhere in the world for sub-1000 usd years ago. The technology exists and is not expensive, it just needs to be set free!
ksec 4y ago
>8k will be helpful primarily for significantly larger TVs (77"+) depending on the view distance. Even for THX recommendation for 40 degree FOV, 4K is above that threshold. And most people would prefer 30 FOV. There are cases where people prefer 50 FOV, then 4K would be at its limit. But even if we were to include 20/10 vision, 50 FOV viewing usage, 5K or 6K would still be enough with room to spare. We really should have pushed for 6K. 5K would likely get pushed back from marketing because 1K increase isn't enough. While 6K has double the pixel of 4K. ( Great for marketing ). Enough to satisfy even the most demanding, high end users.

highwaylights 4y ago

Really though? I'm on a 4K 27" monitor right now and I can see no edges or pixelation. I'm not really sure what higher resolution would do. Honestly for the work I'm doing I'd struggle to justify a move to OLED (this is IPS), but at least there'd be a reason. I don't get what the point of ever higher resolutions is when I can't tell the difference. Sure, someone will say "you can't see the difference but I can", but at that resolution I'm very skeptical.

csnweb 4y ago
If you have a 5k 27 inch screen directly next to it you will see a difference, but it’s not huge and I agree that 4k at 27 inches is sufficient from a pixel density perspective. But the scaling is not so nice, 5k at 27 inches allows integer scaling and getting a reasonable size out of it. Same for 6k at 32 inches or more for even bigger screens. I am waiting for the 6k dell mentioned above as well.
awoimbee 4y ago
I think a good reference is Apple's "retina" brand [1]. For a 27" monitor to be (basic) retina it must be 5K. But yes, there are diminishing returns and resolution isn't everything (I've tried terrible 4K monitors...). [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display
Kon5ole 4y ago
The point of higher resolutions is bigger screens with the same quality. I was able to snag a 8k 55" tv for USD ~1000 a couple of years ago and it's absolutely glorious as a monitor. Basically it functions as 4 4k monitors in one unified canvas. When I sit down to work, most of my field of view is screen real-estate. I can have several pages of code vertically surrounded by handfuls of terminal windows and reference material, and it's all perfectly crisp since it's 8K on only 55". I think we are basically brainwashed when it comes to monitors. Monitors grow a few pixels in resolution and a few inches in size every decade or so, and I've heard the argument repeated - "I got a 21" (22", 24", 27") screen, it's nice but that's as big as I want to go". Somehow when a new few inches larger becomes the norm in the market, everyone thinks that's OK too. I think most knowledge workers would get hooked on 55" within a few hours of using it. I know I was. Unfortunately this TV seems to have been a bit of an anomaly. The market today is filled with worse products costing more money. :( LG was able to make this and ship it everywhere in the world for sub-1000 usd years ago. The technology exists and is not expensive, it just needs to be set free!

ksec 4y ago

>8k will be helpful primarily for significantly larger TVs (77"+) depending on the view distance. Even for THX recommendation for 40 degree FOV, 4K is above that threshold. And most people would prefer 30 FOV. There are cases where people prefer 50 FOV, then 4K would be at its limit. But even if we were to include 20/10 vision, 50 FOV viewing usage, 5K or 6K would still be enough with room to spare. We really should have pushed for 6K. 5K would likely get pushed back from marketing because 1K increase isn't enough. While 6K has double the pixel of 4K. ( Great for marketing ). Enough to satisfy even the most demanding, high end users.