Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
It always goes something like, "here's the actual science about what human eyes can do", and then the people who have invested in the technology and want to feel like it's money well spent tend to go "well I can notice the difference", and the first group don't believe them because... again... science.
Well, if you did your research, selected the appropriate set for your TV environment and adjusted that environment accordingly to get what you want out of it, I have no doubt that you're seeing a benefit. I just think that if we're talking about the normal use case, people don't tend to build their living room around their TV's resolution. My impression (since we're going with personal experience) - and I seem to be the person people ask about their TV buying decisions - is that for most people, they either get what the salesman tells them to get or just buy a TV that seems to be a good deal, and put it where the spot for the TV is in their house. And for the vast majority of people, the benefit of a modern set over the late FHD generation of TVs from ~7-8 years ago is HDR, not the resolution bump.
|
We don't disagree that HDR is the bigger evolution for TV's across a larger body of use cases. Nonetheless, your original contention that 4K is effectively useless because most people sit farther away seems to paint the situation with a bit too broad a brush. I mean, I revel in the difference at around 6.5-7 feet, and it isn't all that marginal, and I'd suggest furthermore that a lot of the people who linger around in threads like this (or people who would invest the extra money in something like an Xbox One X over an S, or in a PS4 Pro over a base model), are likely to already be a bit more savvy and dialled in to what benefit they're getting from the hardware.