Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Your TV Is Too Good for You

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: Your TV Is Too Good for You

#11

Post by uyvs5 »

safety1st wrote: post #9

The author observes that 4K TV sets have come down dramatically in price but 4K content seems to be retreating into a niche. For the latter he cites price increases to his streaming services. He wonders why this is, muses on cultural history and doesn't come up with a precise answer. I propose the answer is simple: the prices of TVs and streaming services are unrelated. Hardware tends to trend down in price as we get…

There is more content than there are eyeballs. And its growing faster than eyeballs can be grown. There are many kinds of content competing for those finite eyeballs.

What happens in such an abnormal environment of over supply will never make any sense.

Re: Your TV Is Too Good for You

#13

Post by drbig »

Instead looking at smartphone screens, it seems to me we're approaching the "CD moment" - in case of screens it's the DPI. Can't see a pixel with a naked eye? Not even when a water droplet forms a lens? If so then packing more pixels doesn't... change anything; in pretty much the same sense that after 44.1 kHz 16 bit it's the human senses that don't perceive any difference.

Seems screen-wise the new frontier is brightness and HDR.

Re: Your TV Is Too Good for You

#14

Post by cassianoleal »

sumuyuda wrote: post #12

I am perfectly happy with my 1080p TV from 2010. Movies and games look great. I don’t see what is gained with 4K.

With a large enough TV at a close enough distance, it can make a difference. On my 55" at about 4m distance I can see better detail in 4K but 1080p is still very good. Anything larger and/or closer, and the difference will be a lot more pronounced.

Re: Your TV Is Too Good for You

#15

Post by atmanactive »

Once I started running 3D games in 4K I'm never going back to 1080p. I presume this has something to do with anti-aliasing which is crucial for rendered image quality. For movies, however, I can barely see the difference between 4K and FHD. My point being: camera video is one thing and real-time rendered 3D world is something completely different when it comes to 4K.

Re: Your TV Is Too Good for You

#16

Post by xela79 »

jj999 wrote: post #8

I watch tv on my 720p non-smart tv and it still feels like I'm living in the future. Nobody needs 4k. Hell, nobody needs 720p. A lot of people lives in a luxury bubble.

in that case, you also don't need a TV. or internet. or entertainment in general.

Re: Your TV Is Too Good for You

#17

Post by JohnBooty »

drbig wrote: post #13

Instead looking at smartphone screens, it seems to me we're approaching the "CD moment" - in case of screens it's the DPI. Can't see a pixel with a naked eye? Not even when a water droplet forms a lens? If so then packing more pixels doesn't... change anything; in pretty much the same sense that after 44.1 kHz 16 bit it's the human senses that don't perceive any difference. Seems screen-wise the new frontier is brigh…

Agree totally.

I fear it's a tough sell though.

Screen size and resolution are firmly implanted in consumers' minds as THE metrics to rule all metrics.

Just like other flawed metrics like horsepower for cars, megapixels for cameras, "watts" for amplifiers and powered speakers, and so on. Hope I'm wrong!

Re: Your TV Is Too Good for You

#18

Post by JohnBooty »

atmanactive wrote: post #15

Once I started running 3D games in 4K I'm never going back to 1080p. I presume this has something to do with anti-aliasing which is crucial for rendered image quality. For movies, however, I can barely see the difference between 4K and FHD. My point being: camera video is one thing and real-time rendered 3D world is something completely different when it comes to 4K.

It's funny. 4K hasn't really hooked me for games?

It feels like the 4K rendering resolution often outpaces the quality of the assets being rendered. Similarly, back in ye olden days, I felt a lot of early 3D games looked better at 320x240 at high framerates than 640x480 at lower framerates.

Obviously that moment has long passed. I'm sure it will be the same for me with 4K vs. 2K vs. 1080p as the technology and production values progress.

Re: Your TV Is Too Good for You

#19

Post by brycewray »

Of course, the author’s main point, that 4K isn’t worth the additional fees most providers charge, is demonstrably true. However, there’s another factor the author didn’t mention: a 4K TV also adds high dynamic range (HDR), an improvement that definitely is noticeable regardless of one’s distance from the screen. Even “just” 1080p is pretty snappy when HDR is available. For example — and, yes, I know many HN commenters aren’t into sports, but just for the sake of the example — HDR makes a world of difference when you’re watching, say, a night game and can see a much more realistic range of brightnesses in uniforms, helmets, and even just stadium lighting in general. The same is true for watching 4K/HDR travel videos on YouTube.

Re: Your TV Is Too Good for You

#20

Post by twelfthnight »

alanfranz wrote: post #10
twelfthnight wrote: post #5

Article doesn't mention AI upres tech like DLSS, which could be the future. My experience on 4k monitors is that DLSS is noticably better than 1080, and not much worse than native 4k. Don't know about 8k, but I think 4k is a sweet spot for TVs.

4k is great and a noticeable improvement for computer work, while I agree with the article about not being so useful for TV screens, unless you go 55-inch or larger. Source: I own a FullHD 40” TV set and a 43” 4k monitor. I once tried swapping them and watched 4k footage, and quality difference was not significant IMHO. But you can notice pixels at fullhd on larger screens ofc - noticed them on a 55” and a 65” TV set…

Oh, yeah important caveat for sure. If you go to the store now many TV brands don't even sell mid/high level TVs smaller than 55", unless they are intended for gaming (probably expected to sit closer).
Post reply on HN