4 ms·
> While newer systems have more detail, most of the time it's imperceptible since you don't have time to look at the scenery anyway and when it matters But hig
by Aaargh20318 3y ago
> While newer systems have more detail, most of the time it's imperceptible since you don't have time to look at the scenery anyway and when it matters
But higher resolutions never were about more details. At least not for TV's (and thus consoles).
At the end of the SD era (576p) I had a 28" TV. At the end of the HD era (1080p) I had a 50" TV. That's a very similar pixel density. We're now partway through the 4k era (2160p) and I currently have a 77" TV. 8k TV are not here yet in any significant numbers; my last 4k TV will likely be around 100". When we move to 8k it won't be because we want a more detailed image, it's because we want a wider field-of-view. We need more pixels so our screens can get larger.
- bzzzt 3y agoI think pixel density is a strange metric for a screen you're watching fully (instead of reading text from a part of the screen). If you want a bigger screen you can take the same content and upscale it (early digital cinema showed mainly 2K movies and that was about as sharp as film). These days lots of "4K" blu-ray discs just contain an upscaled 2K movie and most people don't seem to bother. Also, I don't think the market will ever get to 100" TVs as a norm. You're an outlier: most people have other priorities (don't want TV to dominate the room, don't have room, don't want to pay for the extra energy required etc).