Do you care about resolution beyond 1080? From what Ive seen on 4K I am not impressed. So I cant even imagine the LG 8K TV.
For now I think 1080 is fine and pay more for something you may or may not notice isnt justified.
I care for DPI
1080p is fine on 24" screen, but for bigger screens you need 1440p or 4K or whatever name they will come up next
Also 144Hz > 4K
Of course. I'd rather have pixel density higher than my eyes can detect and this depends on the screen size in relation to the viewing distance as much as the resolution. 1920x1080 would be insufficient for everything else than some mobile screens in my experience. 4K is lovely for TVs and computer monitors but doesn't entirely hide the pixel grid in all cases. For VR 8K would be extremely cool.
>>55175181
this
i'm using a 22 inches 1080p monitor, the quality is just fine
I dont' think a higher resolution will be ever beneficial at this diagonal
>>55175115
I use 4k screen just a hair under 40inch and they are great. Programming gaming whatever. Programming I am usually breaking the screen up with tmux or terminals.
Im excited for 8k only because I do some security camera shit at work and the idea of a 4x4 grid of 1080p windows is nice.
>>55175181
>Also 144Hz > 4K
The opposite. The only real time youll even use that speed is some shooters. It will only matter to the counter strike people and shit like it.
>>55175645
I should add I have a 27inch 1440 and 2 40 inch 4ks.
Also I still have my note 4 and would like a higher resolution phone because I have been doing shit with the vr on it.
>>55175671
Nigger it makes everything smoother, not just gaymes
>>55175688
But the human eye can't see past 28 fps
>>55175709
nice me:me
>>55175683
How close do you sit in front of the 4k monitors? I was thinking of getting one but I'm not sure what size if I'll use it on my desk.
1080p is fine for 50 inches unless you are sitting right on top of it. If you are right up on it then 1080p is fine for 32.
>>55175753
Probably 2-3 ft. They are on monitor arms off the desk. The 27inch in the center has a decent stand and rests on the desk.
nope
until they cost under $200
is there really that big difference 1080p vs 4k at normal tv viewing distance?
bigger than dvd vs 1080p?
Moving to HDR and 10bit will require replacement of current monitors in the future as there will be compatibility issues when duplicating video output to pc monitors and tvs.
>>55175754
>>55175181
Are there any videos on youtube about this PPI/screen size stuff?
I hope someday that desktop monitors reach the same pixel density as phone screens, but we'd actually need HIGHER than 4K resolutions to accomplish such a thing. That's why I am convinced that eventually, VR is going to widespread. It's a lot easier (and cheaper) to make smaller screens with high pixel density than larger ones. Even if 4K and 8K screens came down in price, our video cards aren't powerful enough for them yet. We're just barely at the point now with the GTX 1080 that 4k gaming is at an acceptable level. Even if I shelled out for the top of the line video cards that can handle 4K, I'd prefer to use that extra power for more frame rate instead. IMO 1080p@120Hz > 4K@60Hz.
I'm fine with 1920x1080. I'm sure I'll get a higher resolution screen in the future, just by virtue of the fact nothing lasts forever and old technology dies out, but its not something I'm "hyped" for or anything i'll shell out a premium price for.
>>55175862
It's really simple to explain. The human eye can't really discern a difference of detail beyond ~300PPI or so. There are individual differences between people of course, but that's a rough ballpark number. So if I have two phones, both with 5 inch screens, one is 1080p (~440PPI) and the other is 4K (~881 PPI), and both were showing the same video/picture/whatever, you wouldn't really be able to see much of a difference.
Here's a site if you want to calculate the PPI of your display:
https://www.sven.de/dpi/
>>55176005
>The human eye can't really discern a difference of detail beyond ~300PPI or so.
There is a simple way I can tell you are full of shit, because you didn't account for the viewing distance. Which is why you need 1080p for both 24" PC monitor and 5" phone to have a comfy experience.
>>55175780
This. As soon as it is affordable I'll give a shit not one day before.
8k high dpi with 4k of screen real estate in a 40 inch monitor is the way to go for productivity
>>55176005
>The human eye can't really discern a difference of detail beyond ~300PPI or so.
That is idiotic because viewing distance is equally important here. 300ppi is very high and nice for handheld mobile devices as the pixel grid fades away at around arm's length due to limitations of how much the average human eye can resolve. It makes more sense to think the meaningful resolution by arc seconds/minutes as it is resolution as a function of viewing distance. It's more complex than this however. Stereoscopic vision resolves differently and especially so if you move your eyes around a bit. Motion resolution will always be much smaller than these numbers in both your eyes and in the displays. It's always better to oversample if you can. You hide artifacts which might be visible even beyond the maximum resolution of our eyes such as pixel crawl or moiré. Subpixel arrays differ from each other and don't have equal resolution for all three color channels. I think it's also worth noting how modern video codecs such as HEVC(which are essential at pushing these resolutions to consumer markets) show greater compression efficiency as resolution increases.
