5 ms·

I see various claims about the uselessness of 4K all over the web usually combined with words like "visual acuity" and "resolve". So, yeah, it might not be a hu

I see various claims about the uselessness of 4K all over the web usually combined with words like "visual acuity" and "resolve". So, yeah, it might not be a huge deal in many cases, but saying that you need a 100"+ screen to tell the difference is just wrong. In this test, viewers easily tell the difference from 9 feet on a 55" screen: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-201312153517.htm http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-201312153517.ht... This is not a weird audiophile kind of thing, these are very noticeable differences. All that said, I'm more excited about all of the other improvements coming to display technology these days: HDR, wide gamut, high/variable FPS, low persistence, etc.

JohnTHaller 12y ago
Requiring a 55" screen to tell the difference is still outside the realm of the VAST majority of home setups. I don't even know anyone with a screen that large other than a single friend of a friend with an expensive home theater room with a full-screen projection setup. And it doesn't do 4K.
- reportingsjr 12y ago
  For my anecdote I will state that I know quite a few people with screens larger than 50 inches. None with 4k since it is so cost prohibitive, but that can change when the cost of 4k screens comes down.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  The test is still relevant: most people (especially those with smaller TV's) sit closer than 9ft away, in my experience.
  - JohnTHaller 12y ago
    All of my nearby friends do. But then, I live in NYC. So, the biggest TV of a nearby friend is 45". Then again, most folks I know in CT and CA stick to around 42" even in much larger houses.