• kameecoding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Not sure what the manufacturers were thinking, this chart has existed for a long time, you have to be sitting pretty close or looking at a rather large screen for 8K to make sense

    • Hazzard@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Yeah, most people aren’t within 6 feet of their TV, and most people aren’t buying 100" TVs either. 8K is relevant for virtually nobody.

      A lot of companies are successfully working on larger panels (I saw something about a 165" TV recently), so 8K may have a good place in a theatre room one day, but that still leaves you a lot of problems to solve first, and is far from mainstream until all of that becomes a lot cheaper.

      • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 minutes ago

        I am sitting within 6 feet of mine, well lying in bed really. The 50 inches of my TV are huge from that distance and it’s still well within the 1080p zone of that graphic. And this 4k TV was already pretty cheap when I bought it almost a decade ago. I gave up watching 4k content years ago when I could not tell the difference to high quality 1080p content.

      • djdarren@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        We bought a 60" LG LCD first. It was too big for our living room, so when the backlight went faulty and we were offered a refund we chopped it in for the 55" OLED, which is basically perfect for our room.

        Turns out 5" really can make a difference.