this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
1341 points (98.6% liked)

memes

10375 readers
2559 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 29 points 9 months ago (4 children)

4k is the reasonable limit, combined with 120 FPS or so. Beyond that, the returns are extremely diminished and aren't worth truly considering.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 27 points 9 months ago (4 children)

8k is twice as big as 4k so it would be twice as good. Thanks for coming to my ted talk

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That would sure be something if it was noticeably twice as good, haha.

[–] Emerald@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

My 16k monitor is noticeably twice as good as a 4k one /s

[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 2 points 9 months ago

But it got 4 times the pixels, so 4 times as pixely!

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

8k is 4 4k tvs, so 4 times as good?

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

8k makes sense in the era of VR I guess. But for a screen? Meh

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Even that's a big stretch, haha.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago

The new Apple Vision Pro uses 2 4K screens to achieve almost perfect vision, so it's not that big of a stretch.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

~~480~~ ~~720~~ ~~1080~~ ~~1440~~ 4k is as much as anyone's gonna need, the next highest thing doesn't look that much better

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There are legitimately diminishing returns, realistically I would say 1080p would be fine to keep at max, but 4k really is the sweet spot. Eventually, there is a physical limit.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I fully agree, but I also try to keep aware of when I'm repeating patterns. I thought the same thing about 1080p that I do about 4k, and I want to be aware that I could be wrong again

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

Yep, I'm aware of it too, the biggest thing for me is that we know we are much closer to physical limitations now than we ever were before. I believe efficiency is going to be the focus, and perhaps energy consumption will be focused on more than raw performance gains outside of sound computing practices.

Once we hit that theoretical ceiling on the hardware level, performance will likely be gained at the software level, with more efficient and clean code.

[–] NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

4K id agree with, but going from 120 to 240fps is notable

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

Perhaps, I suppose that can get upped.