Currently Online 
| vivster said: I wish people would stop with that viewing distance crap. Our eyes aren't cameras and they can detect even minute details, especially in moving pictures. I sit 3m away from my 65" 4k TV and I see gigantic differences between 1080p and 4k and you can bet your fucking ass that I'll see a noticeable difference between 4k and 8k from the same distance. It's mostly due to being used to higher fidelity. I don't expect people to notice the same if they're used to low quality content. I know it's not their fault but I would still appreciate if they stopped making bullshit blanket statements about what looks good to everyone. |
3 meters from 65" is right on the edge where higher resolution is worth it, so that viewing distance crap is right on the money.
I bet you won't see any difference between 4K and 8K in the same setting. You are at 130 pixels per degree at 3 meters from 65". That's over twice the resolution 20/20 vision can make out (under the best contrast) You can't physically see the difference between 130 pixels per degree and 260 pixels per degree.
What you see is the difference between shitty upscaling / anti aliasing vs brute force (wasteful) native 4K rendering. A good upscaler from 1440p to 4K will be indistinguishable from native 4K at 3 meters from 65". Even 1080p with DLSS 2.0 stands a good chance of looking the same or better than native 4K rendering without temporal AA.
Also if you're comparing video content, of course 4K streaming looks better since that hardly reaches 1080p quality with compression. Most tvs are also very bad at motion resolution, 4K content / displays compensate a bit.
Anyway a quality tv/display makes a much bigger difference than higher source resolution.
(Switch doesn't have great upscaling and hardly any AA, still looks good but is far removed from something like Samsara on Blu-ray)
