4K Monitors: Can the human eye actually see the difference?

4K screens on a mobile phone are and will always be overkill. I think some people need to be reminded of the monochrome monitors of the 80's. That way they will stop calling 1080 crap. 1080 is not crap because it works quite well for many people.
 
4k is sooo yesterday. im waiting for 8k screens, bc 4k is too blurry. or something :p wonders who get 8k first, tv/monitors or phones.

Sanyo(?) I believe has already announced the first commercially available 8K TV. It's due out next year and will only set you back a cool $20k USD
 
Have a big gold star for doing your calculations using the diagonal DPI which many other people who attempt the same calculation don't.

But unfortunately you also get a big black mark for assuming that the objective is to be able to see individual pixels. On an ideal screen at an ideal viewing distance for your eyesight the very last thing you want to be able to see is the individual pixels which will only detract from the natural curves and lines of the image you actually want to see.
 
4K screens on a mobile phone are and will always be overkill. I think some people need to be reminded of the monochrome monitors of the 80's. That way they will stop calling 1080 crap. 1080 is not crap because it works quite well for many people.
1080 is crap because it has been around since the 90s and it was thrown around like god technology up until recently. If the market wasn't held at 1080, there wouldn't be so many 4k scaling issues with operating systems. If you think some people should be reminded of the 80s monochrome monitors, imagine telling someone the cheapest walmart smartphone that can't even store all your contacts that it works quite well since it's not the first generation of cell phones that were in cars.
 
1080 is crap because it has been around since the 90s
By that Logic, Cars are crap because they've been around way before the 90's? Same with Washing Machines and Planes and many other things in this world, the invention of the wheel was way before the 90's, still think wheels are rubbish?

1080p is not crap, on a phone of about 5.5inchs and below it's pretty ideal as a resolution. on PC monitors of about 22inchs and below it still looks pretty damn good and on TV's depending how far away you sit it looks just as good as a 4k screen, just doesn't cost the earth and generally the panel's are better at reproducing colours and are more power efficient.

Plus the fact nearly no 4k content exists, the problem with TV manufacturers and 4k is that they are selling something you basically won't see the benefit of for years to come, which by then all the teething problems would have been ironed out and the screens would be cheaper and better. Just like what happened with 1080p.

I'm not against 4k, far from it, I'm all up for progression, but right now, 4K is pointless, no content, costs more, harder to run, scaling issues and is not the same jump in quality as 480p to 1080p was, not even remotely.
 
This is pretty cool that you guys worked this out. As many of us have been saying 4K is pointless except for very large displays. For sitting in front of a computer you need a 40" screen before 4K is useful. As for TV's in the living room you need a freaking 120" almost if you're sitting 10 feet from it.

Now where this shows 4K isn't pointless is virtual headsets. 4K is not enough now. I'm sure many people would be able to see the pixels in a 4K virtual headset. What we need is a 16K curved OLED panel 7 inches diagonal with a 21:9 aspect ratio. I think that will be pretty close to an ideal VR headset screen.
 
I have no problem seeing the difference as well as the price tag ...... which is yet another good reason to hold onto my money for a few more years when it becomes "standard" and at a more standard price!
I was going to say "I can spot the difference between 1080p & 4K displays from a mile away, but only the price sticker".
Really, I'm not going to splurge on 4K just for the sake of saying I've got 4K. I'm perfectly happy with 1080p, even on my biggish screen TV.
Monitors, TV's etc. aren't things you tend to replace and upgrade all that often, only when they break down if I'm honest.
Tech manufacturers need to sell something new all the time in order to survive so they WILL over hype new tech. 4K, although nice, I think is overrated and this article hasn't altered my mindset one iota.

On computers 4k can make a difference in many ways but with a TV not much. I have a 2k Plasma and a 4k LED and the Plasma looks better at 12 feet. They are both 64" screens. Now if I get really close I can tell a difference. But from 12 feet no. You need around a 100" + TV to make 4k worth it. Unless you sit 2 feet from the screen. Total wast right now.
 
Nice, free eye exam. I have at least 20/15. (I haven't tried a 7" 1080p yet). I understand the whole point of this is to see what size of what resolution to see individual pixels. But as far gaming goes, shouldn't it really depend on "jaggies" ? at what resolution/distance/size do you not notice jaggies without an Anti-Aliasing technology.
 
I've checked for a 55 inch TV at 150 inch distance and indeed I cannot see the pixels.
Following the spreadsheet I should sit at 115 inch to just see the pixels.
It was a wise choice to skip 4K and take a superb 1080p television.

And indeed VR on 4K makes sense
 
On computers 4k can make a difference in many ways but with a TV not much. I have a 2k Plasma and a 4k LED and the Plasma looks better at 12 feet. They are both 64" screens. Now if I get really close I can tell a difference. But from 12 feet no. You need around a 100" + TV to make 4k worth it. Unless you sit 2 feet from the screen. Total wast right now.
If I'm honest, 4K is overrated but manufacturers HAVE to keep on improving and innovating with current tech otherwise they'll go out of business, it's as simple as that.
With VR just around the corner for the average consumer 4K will probably come into it's own which will make it a lot cheaper still but as I said, I'm skeptical of buying a 4K monitor or TV right now, it's for bragging rights only and in no way a must have.
 
My eyes don't really see the difference on a 24-27" monitor, But I also can't really see any difference playing a game above 60FPS either. I notice it on TV and I think it will become more noticeable as more media content is shot in 4k. But until then my Monitors will stay 1080p, heck my dock for my Precision can't even go above 2560 x 1600 on the Display ports so no rush on my part.

You will never notice a difference above 60FPS if you don't use a monitor geared towards higher refresh rates. You need a 120hz or 144hz monitor to get above 60fps...
 
You will never notice a difference above 60FPS if you don't use a monitor geared towards higher refresh rates. You need a 120hz or 144hz monitor to get above 60fps...

The monitor being used when I noticed the lack in difference was my friends 144hz Asus monitor. I played a good 8 hours over 2 days on his display in 4 different games and noticed pretty minimal difference.
 
The monitor being used when I noticed the lack in difference was my friends 144hz Asus monitor. I played a good 8 hours over 2 days on his display in 4 different games and noticed pretty minimal difference.
Really?! I have a 144hz monitor and I find there's a massive difference between running a game at 60fps at 60hz and 144fps at 144hz.
 
Really?! I have a 144hz monitor and I find there's a massive difference between running a game at 60fps at 60hz and 144fps at 144hz.
Like I said in my original post it comes down to the eyes viewing it. I didn't see a huge difference, definitely not a difference worth the $400 he paid for each of his displays.
 
Back