4k and if its worth it

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Random Collector

It's kind of hard to race technology, is 32K a thing yet? Remember when we use to race pixels on our digital cameras every two days? Sticking with standard blu as my format until it's no longer available to buy, I just got rid of dvds.

And you know there will be some humans claiming to they can see the difference between 32K and 16K.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

No it isn't. There is such a thing as diminishing returns. The worth of 4K is dependent upon the size of screen the viewing distance from which you sit.

For some applications, it would be worth it, like a front projection system and or a large TV. However, 4K on a 60 inch TV from 10 feet is worthless.

Balderdash, and a lot of it!

Originally Posted by Auditor55

You probably have a fantastic TV for many reason, not just resolution. Having said that, just because you are impressed with your TV doesn't mean that you can dismiss scientific fact.

Precious little science either.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by kirsty_mc

balderdash, and a lot of it!



Precious little science either.

smh

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by halon

Blah blah blah. 4k>1080. Just like 8k will be better when it comes out. And soon enough 1080p TVs will be rare.

And then 16K right, 32K, 48K, by that time 8K will be rare, yet human visual capability will remain the same. (SMH)

[Auditor55]

"If you give a human an HD screen, they're just going to want it more HD. But experts are saying we may have gone too far.

A new report from NBC says you're paying for more than you're seeing; that there are now so many pixels on some of today's screens, the human eye can't even process how sharp the images are. (Via Unbox Therapy)

"When it comes to televisions touting new 4K technology, "a regular human isn't going to see a difference," said Raymond Soneira, head of display-testing firm DisplayMate." [http://www.ajc.com/news/news/nationa...n-eyes/ncMGD/]