- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
A new study published in Nature by University of Cambridge researchers just dropped a pixelated bomb on the entire Ultra-HD market, but as anyone with myopia can tell you, if you take your glasses off, even SD still looks pretty good :)
Oh there are more pixels, sure. But not worth the money and most (and a big most) applications want more frames and smoother movement with less input lag over more pixels. The push for 4k gaming has went no where and it has been more then 10 years. You want to watch some 4k video? sure! That is a use case, but just get a TV with the nicer lumen, slower rates and comparably tiny price tag. I can not stop people from buying stupid crap, but I am judging them.
What about the vast majority of people who stare at screens for work?
Frame rates aren’t really important, it’s making things more readable in less space.
The cost / benefit is a completely different dynamic.
Oh I said it before there are use cases. Most working monitors are 1080p since excel is not really benefited from 4k+. However I have seen some graphic designers want the higher resolutions for example.
The vast majority of people working will get pissed at you if you changed their monitor to an ultra high resolution (I have been the one getting yelled at) without scaling it to look like 1080p. No one wants to squint to use their workstation.