5 ms·

Some people still say that 1080p is plenty, whether for reading text or watching videos (including gaming), but anyone who has used a 4K monitor knows that text

Some people still say that 1080p is plenty, whether for reading text or watching videos (including gaming), but anyone who has used a 4K monitor knows that text looks far clearer and games look far more realistic and detailed at 4K. And the same will probably be true when 4K becomes truly mainstream on desktops.

fnands 1y ago
Yeah, I think diminishing returns kick in at some point. Going from 1080p to 1440p feels like a huge improvement. Going from 1440p to 4k (aka 2160p) is a little bit sharper. I don't think the jump from 4k to 8k will improve things that much.
- bombcar 1y ago
  I can tell the difference between 1080p (or upscaled 1080p) and 4k on a 50" screen at "living room" distances, but it's nowhere near as obvious as SD to DVD was. At "laptop" screen distances the difference between my Retina display and non-retina external monitors is quite noticeable; so much so that I run 4k in 1080p mode more and more. 8k is going to require those curved monitors because you'll have to be that close to it to get the advantage.
  - ant6n 1y ago
    DVDs are SD, with 480 pixels of resolution for ntsc.
    - bombcar 1y ago
      Yeah I meant VHS → DVD (which was noticeable), and also SD → HD (1080p) which was again noticeable.
  - close04 1y ago
    > I can tell the difference between 1080p (or upscaled 1080p) and 4k Are you talking about the resolution of the video or of the screen itself? Lower resolution video looks worse also because of the compression. I saw bigger difference from video compression than from screen resolution. E.g. good 1080p video looked better than bad 1080p video on any screen and resolution. I have a 43" 4k monitor at ~1m distance and when I use the computer set up with 100% scaling it looks bad, I see pixelation... and "subpixelation". On a different computer connected to the same screen but something like 150% scaling it's like night and day difference. Everything looks smooth, perfect antialiasing. This is the money picture [0]. Above a certain distance any improvement is imperceptible. But don't compare compressed video on a screen, it will add quality issues that influence your perception. [0] https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-025-64679-2/MediaObjects/41467_2025_64679_Fig2_HTML.png https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/...
    - bombcar 1y ago
      It’s most noticeable with animation that has text-like lines, in my experience. For plain video, 1080p at high enough bitrate is fine.
- eterevsky 1y ago
  Probably not for 32” monitor, but I think 8k would be noticeably better for a 43”.
epolanski 1y ago
> but anyone who has used a 4K monitor knows that text looks far clearer and games look far more realistic and detailed at 4K It depends on the distance really. Text at a desktop at an arms distance max, possibly on 24"+ will be noticeably better. I have a 34" inches ultra wide 1440p and I definitely would love higher pixel density. But start getting 24" or less and 1440p vs 4k are borderline marketing. People do swear to be able to see the difference, yet I remember they random tested some 120+ gamers who were shown the same TV with different output res, and the distribution of guesses had a very minor slight advantage for the 4k, well in the realm of errors, and it obviously dropped to non existence with just few centimeters of distance more.
- orbital-decay 1y ago
  It also heavily depends on the content being displayed. You might not be able to tell any difference in a typical game frame or a movie, but a 1px black on white line still activates your cones while being way below the minimum angular resolution you can see. You can see stars for the same reason.
  - reactordev 1y ago
    People forget this. Our eye resolution is infinity. Our focal length is different.
    - spoiler 1y ago
      I don't think it's actually infinit, but it's probably very high! We do have little receptors (cones) in our eyes (retina) that react chemically to light. So the density is the resolution (and different cone types react to different wavelengths, which is why some people are coloured blind, for example)!
      - epolanski 1y ago
        Well, technically speaking: - we are all colorblind, as we only see a very small part of the light spectrum - there are no two individuals that perceive colors in the same way in the world as the receptor distribution changes by person to person (actually, even day by day on a single-individual basis)
pfortuny 1y ago
Actually, just going from 1080 to QHD (1200?? I don't remember) has made my work so much pleasant.
onion2k 1y ago
This is hard to gauge though because it's rarely only a change from 1080p to 4k. The screen tech often changes from LCD to LED (or microLED, or OLED), there's all manner of motion smoothing added, sometimes higher refresh rates, and so on. Anecdotally I was at a family Christmas where relatives were watching some home videos that were encoded at 480p on a flash drive on a new TV, and they all said that the quality of the 4K picture was amazing despite the fact they were all watching 480P video (without upscaling because I'd turned it off.) To be fair it did look better than an old TV, but not because of the resolution.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  I have a 34" 4K TV and from the couchthere is a difference between 1080p and 4K on it. 4K is crisper whether on Netflix or YouTube. Only potential variable, I think is the codec and compression used on each resolution.
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    There is less blending at the edges of high contrast, so some edges wil likely seem sharper.
wronex 1y ago
I find it fascinating that the same is true for frame rate. Some people think 60Hz is OK, while anyone who has tried a 120Hz screen will agree it is infinitely smoother. The same is true again for a 240Hz screen. I have yet to try a 480Hz screen but imagine the jump will be equally impressive.
- throawayonthe 1y ago
  i was going to say it likely would not be as impressive because the frame times would decrease by a lesser fraction, but then i found this article, interesting: https://blurbusters.com/massive-upgrade-with-120-vs-480-hz-oled-much-more-visible-than-60-vs-120-hz-even-for-office/ https://blurbusters.com/massive-upgrade-with-120-vs-480-hz-o...
bookofjoe 1y ago
Vision Pro — for me — differentiates itself from all other screens in its ability to render closeups of the human face. The 6k detail is staggering.

fnands 1y ago

Yeah, I think diminishing returns kick in at some point. Going from 1080p to 1440p feels like a huge improvement. Going from 1440p to 4k (aka 2160p) is a little bit sharper. I don't think the jump from 4k to 8k will improve things that much.

bombcar 1y ago
I can tell the difference between 1080p (or upscaled 1080p) and 4k on a 50" screen at "living room" distances, but it's nowhere near as obvious as SD to DVD was. At "laptop" screen distances the difference between my Retina display and non-retina external monitors is quite noticeable; so much so that I run 4k in 1080p mode more and more. 8k is going to require those curved monitors because you'll have to be that close to it to get the advantage.
- ant6n 1y ago
  DVDs are SD, with 480 pixels of resolution for ntsc.
  - bombcar 1y ago
    Yeah I meant VHS → DVD (which was noticeable), and also SD → HD (1080p) which was again noticeable.
- close04 1y ago
  > I can tell the difference between 1080p (or upscaled 1080p) and 4k Are you talking about the resolution of the video or of the screen itself? Lower resolution video looks worse also because of the compression. I saw bigger difference from video compression than from screen resolution. E.g. good 1080p video looked better than bad 1080p video on any screen and resolution. I have a 43" 4k monitor at ~1m distance and when I use the computer set up with 100% scaling it looks bad, I see pixelation... and "subpixelation". On a different computer connected to the same screen but something like 150% scaling it's like night and day difference. Everything looks smooth, perfect antialiasing. This is the money picture [0]. Above a certain distance any improvement is imperceptible. But don't compare compressed video on a screen, it will add quality issues that influence your perception. [0] https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-025-64679-2/MediaObjects/41467_2025_64679_Fig2_HTML.png https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/...
  - bombcar 1y ago
    It’s most noticeable with animation that has text-like lines, in my experience. For plain video, 1080p at high enough bitrate is fine.
eterevsky 1y ago
Probably not for 32” monitor, but I think 8k would be noticeably better for a 43”.

epolanski 1y ago

> but anyone who has used a 4K monitor knows that text looks far clearer and games look far more realistic and detailed at 4K It depends on the distance really. Text at a desktop at an arms distance max, possibly on 24"+ will be noticeably better. I have a 34" inches ultra wide 1440p and I definitely would love higher pixel density. But start getting 24" or less and 1440p vs 4k are borderline marketing. People do swear to be able to see the difference, yet I remember they random tested some 120+ gamers who were shown the same TV with different output res, and the distribution of guesses had a very minor slight advantage for the 4k, well in the realm of errors, and it obviously dropped to non existence with just few centimeters of distance more.

orbital-decay 1y ago
It also heavily depends on the content being displayed. You might not be able to tell any difference in a typical game frame or a movie, but a 1px black on white line still activates your cones while being way below the minimum angular resolution you can see. You can see stars for the same reason.
- reactordev 1y ago
  People forget this. Our eye resolution is infinity. Our focal length is different.
  - spoiler 1y ago
    I don't think it's actually infinit, but it's probably very high! We do have little receptors (cones) in our eyes (retina) that react chemically to light. So the density is the resolution (and different cone types react to different wavelengths, which is why some people are coloured blind, for example)!
    - epolanski 1y ago
      Well, technically speaking: - we are all colorblind, as we only see a very small part of the light spectrum - there are no two individuals that perceive colors in the same way in the world as the receptor distribution changes by person to person (actually, even day by day on a single-individual basis)

pfortuny 1y ago

Actually, just going from 1080 to QHD (1200?? I don't remember) has made my work so much pleasant.

onion2k 1y ago

This is hard to gauge though because it's rarely only a change from 1080p to 4k. The screen tech often changes from LCD to LED (or microLED, or OLED), there's all manner of motion smoothing added, sometimes higher refresh rates, and so on. Anecdotally I was at a family Christmas where relatives were watching some home videos that were encoded at 480p on a flash drive on a new TV, and they all said that the quality of the 4K picture was amazing despite the fact they were all watching 480P video (without upscaling because I'd turned it off.) To be fair it did look better than an old TV, but not because of the resolution.

mytailorisrich 1y ago
I have a 34" 4K TV and from the couchthere is a difference between 1080p and 4K on it. 4K is crisper whether on Netflix or YouTube. Only potential variable, I think is the codec and compression used on each resolution.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  There is less blending at the edges of high contrast, so some edges wil likely seem sharper.

wronex 1y ago

I find it fascinating that the same is true for frame rate. Some people think 60Hz is OK, while anyone who has tried a 120Hz screen will agree it is infinitely smoother. The same is true again for a 240Hz screen. I have yet to try a 480Hz screen but imagine the jump will be equally impressive.

throawayonthe 1y ago
i was going to say it likely would not be as impressive because the frame times would decrease by a lesser fraction, but then i found this article, interesting: https://blurbusters.com/massive-upgrade-with-120-vs-480-hz-oled-much-more-visible-than-60-vs-120-hz-even-for-office/ https://blurbusters.com/massive-upgrade-with-120-vs-480-hz-o...

bookofjoe 1y ago

Vision Pro — for me — differentiates itself from all other screens in its ability to render closeups of the human face. The 6k detail is staggering.