this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
56 points (93.8% liked)
Technology
40653 readers
184 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think people, and this paper, misses a few elements.
4K encoded content often has significantly higher bitrate (well, duh, there’s more content) and often higher than the simple increase in pixel density would suggest. So content with heavy moment (flocks of birds, water, crowds etc) still looks better than 1080p, not because of the increase in pixel density, but because of the decrease of compression artefacts.
Second, high dynamic range yo! On a still picture on my TV it’s hard to see difference between 1080p and 4K but it isn’t hard to see the difference between SDR and HDR.
So I still vastly prefer 4K content, but not because of the resolution.