this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
478 points (92.1% liked)

Technology

76415 readers
3437 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
478
Study Boldly Claims 4K And 8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes, But Is It True? (hothardware.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 12 minutes ago) by artifex@piefed.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
271 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

Personal anecdote, moving from 1080p to 2k for my computer monitor is very noticeable for games

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Going down from 24" 2048x1152 to 27" 1920x1080 was an extremely noticeably change. Good god I loved that monitor things looked so crisp on it.

[–] nek0d3r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 8 hours ago

Even 4K is noticeable for monitors (but probably not much beyond that), but this is referring to TVs that you're watching from across the couch.

[–] olympicyes@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Isn’t 2k and 1080P basically the same thing?

[–] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

1920x1080 vs 2560x1440

Not crazy higher but a noticeable increase

[–] Noja@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 hours ago

It's not 2k, it's 2.5k

[–] stefenauris@pawb.social 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

2k is about double of 1080p and 4k is double of 2k

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

If 4k is 4k because the horizontal resolution is around 4000, so you'd think 1080p, with its 1920p-long lines would be 2k. It's fucked that it isn't.

[–] _g_be@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

"4k" is supposed to be a term for cinema widescreen resolution, but got taken over because it's short and marketable because "4k is 4x as many pixels as 1080p"

What makes it worse is that then 1440p becomes 2k because "it's 2x as many pixels"

The flip flop irks me

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

It's all just marketing speak at this point.

[–] Noja@sopuli.xyz -1 points 4 hours ago

1080p is 2k, the commenters above are just wrong.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah. They went from counting pixels by rows to columns. A 16:9 widescreen 1080 display is 1920×1080, and most manufacturers are happy to call 1920 "2K".

[–] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 hours ago

Ah yes, my 1920x1080 monitor with a resolution of 2560x1440