this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
56 points (93.8% liked)
Technology
40598 readers
238 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Depends on the physical size of the screen. Which is why mostly only wealthy people with 90-inch+ screens really have ever cared about 8K. 4K is a noticeable improvement on a 60 or 70 inch screen, but the extra cost of content isn't anywhere near being worth it for most people.
Bigger TVs was always the point of higher resolutions. SD content looked perfectly fine on the small CRT screens we had at the time. HD made bigger screens possible, same goes for 4k.
My last CRT was a 28” beast which was considered huge at the time. Then I got a 50” HDTV which was considered huge at the time. Now I’ve got a 77” 4k TV which is considered huge at this time.
Nah, the only thing the old analog 625-line resolutions looked OK on were things like my small bedroom TV in the 90s (though the refresh rates are major improvements in some media). The smaller living room TVs look way better with 720p and regular sized modern living room TVs are significantly better at 1080p. (Note that 4:3 ratio TVs had smaller advertised inch sizes than similarly sized 16:9 ratio TVs since they're measured diagonally so I'll avoid using actual sizes since they aren't comparable.)