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

Technology

76415 readers
3793 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
508
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 13 hours ago) by artifex@piefed.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
296 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
[–] relativestranger@feddit.nl 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

And no, 4k desktops do not “look nicer”, it is stupid and tiny for no reason. Unless you have like 250 shortcuts on your desktop what is the point?

if you have an ultra-high desktop resolution, you're probably using a scaling factor to make everything look about the same size it would otherwise be at ~ 1080p.. windows will even default to something around that.. just no 'jaggies'.

so yea, it does 'look nicer' and no, everything is not 'stupid and tiny'.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago

Why is it that this example keeps coming back as if having your ultra high resolution using scaling to look like 1080p is not a self burn? Its not a worth while cost for the monitor, more so when you run them in lower resolutions for performance anyway. You would be foolish to go for a ultra high resolution monitor over a lower response time or higher frequency. The desktop argument is pathetic, its the desktop, no one but arch users spend their time stareing at it.