• SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      and a lot of movies aren’t even sharper in 4k. Since for a long time movies used a 2k intermediary format for post production, even if the movie was shot with a 4k camera.

      • b34k@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Early 2000s to mid 2010s movies shot digitally? Sure. Film shot movies, especially on 35mm or larger, absolutely look better in 4k. Especially when they’ve been restored from the negative and converted to HDR for a 4k release.

        There’s a lot of older movies out there where the UHD Blu Ray is the definitive version to own, looking significantly better than any prior version (and will likely never look better).

    • thehatfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      11 hours ago

      For a lot of people most of their content isn’t even 1080p. Plenty of people watching DVDs and many TV channels only broadcast in SD.

      Display technology has long outpaced content delivery.

      • khannie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Yeah, surprisingly DVD is still heavily outselling 4K bluray. Seems weird to me but I guess the players are ubiquitous.

        • b34k@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          When 4K players cost $500 to get something considered “good but not great”… yeah no wonder no ones buying

        • DaGeek247@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 hours ago

          New blurays are 30-50 each. New DVDs are 5 or less, each. Libraries usually have bigger dvd collections than bluray collections. People use what they can afford, not what is best.

          • b34k@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Amazon has 3 for $33 sales a couple times a year. I just got Wicked (2024), F1 and Sinners in 4k for $11 each.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Also there’s nearly 30 years worth of DVD content available, it’s basically for the same reason why VHS still has a present following.

            • DaGeek247@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Well, that, and vhs is one of those things that is fun to play with. It’s never going to be perfect, and that’s enough to keep people like me coming back to see what new improvements I can make to my vhs setup this time.

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

        I still watch most streaming like YouTube and twitch on 720p because I really don’t see nor care about the difference to 1080p.

        • iLStrix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 hours ago

          It’s crazy how different people experience things. I find it annoying and less pleasant to watch YouTube at 1080p since they downgraded the bitrate and locked it behind premium. I actually almost always watch at 4k or 1440p60 even on a phone screen just because of the bitrate.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I watch YouTube on a HP pavilion CRT, weirdly enough it almost requires me to watch with the improved bitrate due to weird artifacting. But I have premium regardless due to shitty work reasons, I drive for work so yeah.

    • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Not on desktop use. Which is a market segment that is under served.

      Would love to replace my 4x 1440p monitor setup with a 50 inch 8k TV setup.

      • qupada@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Presuming you mean 4x 2560x1440 there, you can have close enough to that pixel count today; one of the things Dell released at CES this year was a 52" 6144x2560 display (U5226KW).

        Since it’s intended to be a monitor, you get a USB hub, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, and other things you wouldn’t get on a TV, too.

        I’ve been looking at it longingly, but I can’t quite justify that pricetag right now.

        • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Its a step in the right direction.

          Not quite the aspect ratio I am looking for and the price is too eye watering.

          What I want is an 8k 16:9 or 16:10 display for around double the price of a 4k display at the same price as a high end 4k TV (OLED or mini led)

      • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        That would be nice for CAD work, but it would have to be an actual PC monitor, not a TV. 42 inch would be just about right for my desk. The only ones I’ve seen are 32 inch, which is too small to replace four monitors.

        • thejml@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I’ve got a 43" 4k Gigabyte Aorus display. 144hz+freesync, dual hdmi+usb-c+DP with a hub and all that. It’s IPS, they had an OLED but it was 48" and more money than I could justify at the time.

          Definitely recommend, but 8k would be so much better. I know this article is primarily “no 8k TVs” but the panels are used across many segments and I fear they will no longer have manufacturering setup for 8k for desktop use either at this rate.

        • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          I think 50 inch is about the upper end for what can fit on a desk, but a 42 inch is the upper limit for most. I used to have a 42inch 4k monitor ($400), but it broke and got discontinued. It was basically a 42inch IPS TV display.

          I still miss that display.

      • Zoldyck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        8k gaming? In this economy? That’s a niche that less than 0.1% of people can even afford