| endimion said: not really... your perception of it is better through sharpness of the output.... if you have shit even with 16K you will just have very sharp shit at 16K I see what you are saying though... but to be fair, pushing better rendering at a lower res is better in most cases than the opposite (targeting higher res with lesser quality "rendering") and 4K on PC might be good but I'll argue that there isn't really many affordable 4K TV with a size to distance ratio interesting enough to justify the investment... without saying that you don't have much content out beside high spec PC games.... a 4k 60" or lower makes apsolutely no sense and I would deffy most people to make a real difference with a 1080p at the same standard viewing distance.... now 80" and over we enter a new galaxy of awesome :D |
I'm running triple 27" (81" total of screen real estate.) 2560x1440 monitors for a total resolution of 7680x1440, that's a larger resolution than 4k.
I have screen real estate AND resolution.
Resolution helps, I would rather poke my eyes out before going back to 1920x1080 or lord-forbid, 1366x768 regardless of panel size, the difference between those resolutions and mine is stupidly massive.
Besides, I won't accept a phone with a 720P resolution with a 6" screen, so why should I accept such a resolution on a larger display?
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
