this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
484 points (92.6% liked)

Technology

75756 readers
7176 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 :)

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It's all about the baseline.

Cinematic, Blu Ray bitrate 1080p vs 4K is not too dramatic.

Compressed streams though? Or worse production quality? 4K raises the baseline dramatically. It's much harder to stream bad-looking 4K than it is 1080p, especially since '4K' usually implies certain codecs/standards.

[–] oppy1984@lemdro.id 4 points 3 days ago

I have friends and family with good eyesight and they can tell a difference. Sadly even with Recent prescription lenses I still can't see a difference. Eh, at least I can save on TV's since 1080p is cheaper.

[–] caboose2006@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

I've been saying this for years.

[–] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Given how much time I spend actually looking at the screen while the show/movie is on, it might as well be in ca. 2000 RealVideo 160x120 resolution.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The question for me isn't whether or not there's a difference that I might be able to see if I were paying attention to the picture quality, it's whether the video quality is sufficiently bad to distract me from the content. And only hypercompressed macroblocked-to-hell-and-back ancient MPEG1 files or multiply-recopied VHS tapes from the Dark Ages are ever that bad for me. In general, I'm perfectly happy with 480p. Of course, I might just have a higher-than-average immunity to bad video. (Similarly, I can spot tearing if I'm looking for it, but I do have to be looking for it.)

[–] SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

8k is a little high. I feel like 4k is a significant change from 1080p, especially if you use your screen as a computer monitor.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yes, as a monitor, if it's over 30" or so, 4k makes sense. If it's a TV, 4k doesn't make much difference given how far most sit from their TV. Maybe if it's a massive TV or something at like 80"...

[–] Olap@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

That's why I have a 65" and sit barely 2m from it. Stick on a 4k Dolby Vision encoded file through Jellyfin. Looks fucking great!

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This is pretty obvious due to how they had to add HDR at the same time to sell it. The HDR was a real progression, but they wouldn’t get to sell you higher res Blu-ray formats and streaming packages with just that.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›