5 ms·
Yeah, for TVs that sounds right, but not for desktop displays. I wonder if desktop display pixel density is only stagnated because the TV industry has so much i
by 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
Yeah, for TVs that sounds right, but not for desktop displays. I wonder if desktop display pixel density is only stagnated because the TV industry has so much influence on the momentum and the TV industry thinks 4k is good enough.
- bobthepanda 3y agoBandwidth. ISPs already throttle streaming and have data caps.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- vladvasiliu 3y agoI think that influence is pretty clear. In my neck of the woods, when pc monitors in 16:9 became a thing, the marketing copy was basically how great they were for watching movies. Only now do some manufacturers start to put out taller monitors, but they're still rare, at least in my market.
- fomine3 3y agoThat's why I'm happy to see new 8K TV release. I think it's overkill for 99% TV usage, but it's needed for PC display.
- prmoustache 3y agoAlso, if you compare same laptop available with a 1080p screen or a 4k screen, the former gets much better battery time.
- jon-wood 3y agoIs it even needed on desktop displays? My experience has been that anything under 32” you need to use scaling to make anything readable on a 4K display. I’m current using a 43” 4K display as my main monitor, sitting not very far from to, I can’t distinguish individual pixels as it is, and frankly even this is uncomfortably large, I have gutters set up around the edges so that windows maximise to a comfortably viewable size.