this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
515 points (92.3% liked)

Technology

78183 readers
2272 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
515
Study Boldly Claims 4K And 8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes, But Is It True? (hothardware.com)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by artifex@piefed.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
308 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] olympicyes@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Isn’t 2k and 1080P basically the same thing?

[–] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

1920x1080 vs 2560x1440

Not crazy higher but a noticeable increase

[–] Noja@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

It's not 2k, it's 2.5k

[–] stefenauris@pawb.social 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

2k is about double of 1080p and 4k is double of 2k

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

If 4k is 4k because the horizontal resolution is around 4000, so you'd think 1080p, with its 1920p-long lines would be 2k. It's fucked that it isn't.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

It's all just marketing speak at this point.

[–] _g_be@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"4k" is supposed to be a term for cinema widescreen resolution, but got taken over because it's short and marketable because "4k is 4x as many pixels as 1080p"

What makes it worse is that then 1440p becomes 2k because "it's 2x as many pixels"

The flip flop irks me

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They shouldn't use numbers at all tbh. QQVGA, QVGA, VGA, q(uarter)HD, HD, Full HD, QHD, UHD and so on works for all aspect ratios, and you can even specify by adding prefixes like FW (full wide) VGA would be 480p at 16:9. It gets a little confusing cause sometimes the acronyms are inconsistent (and PAL throws a wrench on everything), but the system works.

PS: I also don't like that 540p is called qHD cause it's a quarter of Full HD.

[–] Noja@sopuli.xyz -2 points 2 months ago

1080p is 2k, the commenters above are just wrong.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. They went from counting pixels by rows to columns. A 16:9 widescreen 1080 display is 1920×1080, and most manufacturers are happy to call 1920 "2K".

[–] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago

Ah yes, my 1920x1080 monitor with a resolution of 2560x1440