• thehatfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 hours ago

      For a lot of people most of their content isn’t even 1080p. Plenty of people watching DVDs and many TV channels only broadcast in SD.

      Display technology has long outpaced content delivery.

      • khannie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Yeah, surprisingly DVD is still heavily outselling 4K bluray. Seems weird to me but I guess the players are ubiquitous.

      • PhoenixDog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I still watch most streaming like YouTube and twitch on 720p because I really don’t see nor care about the difference to 1080p.

        • iLStrix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 hour ago

          It’s crazy how different people experience things. I find it annoying and less pleasant to watch YouTube at 1080p since they downgraded the bitrate and locked it behind premium. I actually almost always watch at 4k or 1440p60 even on a phone screen just because of the bitrate.

    • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Not on desktop use. Which is a market segment that is under served.

      Would love to replace my 4x 1440p monitor setup with a 50 inch 8k TV setup.

      • qupada@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Presuming you mean 4x 2560x1440 there, you can have close enough to that pixel count today; one of the things Dell released at CES this year was a 52" 6144x2560 display (U5226KW).

        Since it’s intended to be a monitor, you get a USB hub, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, and other things you wouldn’t get on a TV, too.

        I’ve been looking at it longingly, but I can’t quite justify that pricetag right now.

        • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Its a step in the right direction.

          Not quite the aspect ratio I am looking for and the price is too eye watering.

          What I want is an 8k 16:9 or 16:10 display for around double the price of a 4k display at the same price as a high end 4k TV (OLED or mini led)

      • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        That would be nice for CAD work, but it would have to be an actual PC monitor, not a TV. 42 inch would be just about right for my desk. The only ones I’ve seen are 32 inch, which is too small to replace four monitors.

        • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          I think 50 inch is about the upper end for what can fit on a desk, but a 42 inch is the upper limit for most. I used to have a 42inch 4k monitor ($400), but it broke and got discontinued. It was basically a 42inch IPS TV display.

          I still miss that display.

      • Zoldyck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        8k gaming? In this economy? That’s a niche that less than 0.1% of people can even afford