• GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    ·
    22 days ago

    On the one hand, I’m not even running 4K yet, and it is vanishingly unlikely that I will own a >4K display within the lifetime of my PS5, so this makes no difference to me.

    On the other hand, I would like to see blatant false advertising punished every time it happens. “Nobody really cares” isn’t much of an excuse when they clearly thought people cared enough to put it prominently on the box. Being able to play high-end video 10 years down the line is a legitimate selling point for a gaming console that doubles as media box.

    • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      21 days ago

      On the third hand a TV at couch distance is going to look only slightly better at 4k vs 1080p. 8k is just a waste of electricity

      • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        21 days ago

        That’s EXACTLY what people said about 720p to 1080p.

        Source: sales bitch when 1080p came out. Blatantly false.

        1080p to 4k is a fucking huge different no matter what device, size, or distance. I’m not trying to be combative—I run all my stuff at 1440p144hz.

        1080p to 4k at couch distance is HUGE though. If I could easily run 4k144hz I would, but that’s not in my budget right now.

        8k is even more insane but you’re right—you need a BEAST of a computer to be able to display that.

        • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          I have a 4k tv. Most of the time I just play games at 1080p since it keeps the pc quieter and it looks the same. But I do also set it for 120 Hz

          • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            20 days ago

            Oh yeah, hz>>>>resolution for games for sure. I’d much rather have smooth gameplay (and much less screen tearing if it’s not an adaptive-sync display) than 4k60FPS or less.

            While watching stuff though, no matter what distance from any size TV, it’s insanely obvious how much better 4K is than 1080p hahaha. Not saying 1080p looks bad—I watch a lot of stuff 720p/1080p on my big 1440p display and it looks fine! But the first time I saw 4k (and especially 8k) on a display… holy heck (scuze my language)

        • Vilian@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          20 days ago

          the 720p to 1080p is a complete lie, not the 4k to 8k, because that is supported by math

          or maybe the couch distance was different back them, and the TVs were smaller there’s that

            • Vilian@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              20 days ago

              in a 50’ display of course, i’m just not sure it that apply to those smaller tube TVs lol

              • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                20 days ago

                Oh I was agreeing with yer comment hahaha.

                Maybe it differs for everyone, but I can absolutely tell 720p from 1080p on anything from a 17” flatscreen monitor to a giant TV from almost any reasonable distance!

                You’re right about CRTs though—due to how the picture is projected, it’s waaaay more difficult to tell resolutions if you’re watching/playing something. That’s why an N64 looks great on any size CRT, but looks like complete ass on any flatscreen (other than flat CRTs of course, lawl)

  • nehal3m@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    22 days ago

    Yeah I don’t see 8K delivering any value. My eyes can’t resolve past 4k anyway, it’ll just be heavier on the GPU and it won’t get me a damn thing.

    Sure, 64k ought to be enough, yada yada. That doesn’t apply when you’re running up against biological limits though.

    • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 days ago

      I think even 4K can be overkill depending on the size of your monitor. I feel like the size of a monitor that wants 8K for good enough PPI would be impractically huge, at least for desktop use.

    • optissima@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      22 days ago

      Okay but you can now have a larger screen with the same DPI and distance, giving you a wider fov.

  • Sony has quietly removed the 8k logo…a change that appears to have happened between late January and mid-February

    I must have gotten mine just before then. I still have the box and had to check; 8K branding. I got it somewhere between January and February, right around the time the thing started being regularly in stock again.

  • cum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    18 days ago

    Who the fuck wants to waste that much processing power on what’s essentially indistinguishable from 2k with a nice AA or upscaler (like DLSS or FSR) for a tenth of the processing power? It’s literally pointless and was thrown on there probably by marketing so people can see bigger numbers.