this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
503 points (92.4% liked)

Technology

76440 readers
4624 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A new study published in Nature by University of Cambridge researchers just dropped a pixelated bomb on the entire Ultra-HD market, but as anyone with myopia can tell you, if you take your glasses off, even SD still looks pretty good :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Baggie@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Honestly after using the steam deck (800p) I'm starting to wonder if res matters that much. Like I can definitely see the difference, but it's not that big a deal? All I feel like I got out of my 4k monitor is lower frame rates.

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Pixel density is what makes content appear sharp rather than raw resolution. 800p on a 7" screen is plenty, if you think about it a 50" 1080p TV is ~~almost 10x the size~~ more than 50x the size with a ~25% increase in (vertical) resolution

[–] pirat@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

if you think about it

I tried that, and I'm not totally sure about the correctness of my numbers, but your numbers intuitively seem off to me:

a 50" 1080p TV is almost 10x the size [of a 7" screen]

How did you arrive at this? I'd argue a 50" screen is much more than 10 times the size of a 7" screen.

The inches are measured diagonally, and I see how 50" is somewhat "almost 10x" of 7", as 49" would be 7 times longer diagonally than a 7", and 7.something is " almost" 10.

But if we assume both screens have a 16:9 ratio, the 50" screen has a width of ≈110.69 cm and height of ≈62.26 cm, while the 7" is only ≈15.50 by ≈8.72 cm.

The area of the 7" is 135.08 cm² while for the 50" it's ≈6891.92 cm². The ratio between these two numbers is ≈51.02, which I believe means the 50" screen is more than 51x the physical size.

At least, that number seems more realistic to me. I'm looking at my 6.7" phone screen right now and comparing it to my 55" TV screen, and it seems very possible that the phone screen could fit more than 50 times inside the TV screen, not just "almost 10x".

If I totally misunderstood you, please explain what you mean.

My numbers for width and height were calculated using this display calculator site that someone else mentioned somewhere under this post, and I rounded the decimals after doing the calculations with all decimals included.

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Haha no, you have not misunderstood at all! I was just driving a point and I did no calculations whatsoever, by that «50" is almost 10x 7"» I did mean that 50 is "almost" 70 and nothing else x) As your calculations show, it's actually a much bigger difference in area, but that stat seemed enough to make my point and easier to understand :)

Thank you for actually thinking about it and taking the time to do the math ^^

[–] pirat@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Oh, I see. But yeah, it's a pretty big difference.

You're welcome. I like to think that I like thinking about things and stuff.