this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
504 points (92.3% liked)

Technology

76415 readers
3759 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 :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 11 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

The study doesn't actually claim that. The actual title is "Study Boldly Claims 4K And 8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes, But Is It True?" As with all articles that ask a question the answer is either NO or its complicated.

It says that we can distinguish up to 94 pixels per degree or about 1080p on a 50" screen at 10 feet away.

This means that on a 27" monitor 18" away 1080p: 29 4K: 58 8K: 116

A 40" TV 8 feet away/50" TV 10 feet away

1080p: 93

A 70" TV 8 feet away

1080p: 54 4K: 109 8K: 218

A 90" TV 10 feet away

1080p: 53 4K: 106 8K: 212

Conclusion: 1080p is good for small TVs relatively far away. 4K makes sense for reasonably large or close TV Up to 8K makes sense for monitors.

https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The article updated it's title. The original title is retained in the slug.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 0 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

The article title is basically a lie intended to generate clicks by pretentious people far stupider than the people who did the actual research which is why the non morons who did the research called it "Resolution limit of the eye — how many pixels can we see?"

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 2 points 15 hours ago

You appeared to be complaining that OP's title didn't match the article title, and I was only pointing out the article's title has changed since OP posted.

My apologies if I misread.