Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tepix | Hacker News Reader

Do you think that the market will sooner or later move to 8K monitors? I'm not so sure.

At a normal viewing distance a 100dpi monitor is already decent. A UHD monitor is just great. You have to get very close to see individual pixels. I'd say doing AA is no longer required even then.

8K seems overkill for most purposes. Sure, there is a niche that can take advantage of it, but I don't see advantages for the mass market.

Same as with SACD, CD tech is simply good enough for pretty much everyone so SACD never took off.

I write this despite being a high dpi junkie, I bought a ViewSonic VP2290b (IBM T221 clone, 3840x2400 22") back in 2006 and dealt with a huge hassle of 4 DPI inputs for years.

View on HN

I have a 28" 4k screen and while I find the crispness amazing I still notice a little bit of aliasing in games (and I don't exactly have an amazing eyesight). Nothing terrible of course, but I still leave AA enabled for that reason.

I'm guessing that for monitors <= 30" 8K will be the endgame, at least for me.

In any case, I'm super happy to see the resolution race back in full force, it took the industry quite a while to recover from the CRT->LCD switch. It was about time we moved past 1080p as the standard.

It's also amusing that so-called "high definition" is not so high anymore, and SD not so standard. What will 8K be? Ultra HD Alpha Plus?

>At a normal viewing distance a 100dpi monitor is already decent.

No it isn't.

You'll see, it'll do perfectly in a couple of decades. Most people wear glasses nowadays, and those who don't will at some point in the future.

Nope, I'm "old" and wear glasses and my small 4k monitor (~250dpi) was a significant improvement.

Actually, my eyes are more sensitive to low resolution as they get worse. The blurry of the text compounds with natural blurriness of eyes.

Wearing glasses doesn't reduce the need or desire for higher resolution monitors. Maybe uncorrectable vision problems do, but if your glasses get your eyes close to 20/20, you'll benefit from higher resolution just like people with natural 20/20 vision.

And as another poster pointed out, the blurriness of the screen may compound with the natural blurriness of uncorrectable vision loss.

Depends on the usage I guess. The larger the screen, the further away you stand. I have a 2560x1440 32" monitor with a <100dpi. It's great for text editing (I use a bitmap font). For other use, I would love 5k :)

I thought font rendering was the biggest let down in switching to 4k.

AA not only is still required on my 27" 4k display, but in terms of clarity AA fonts are still MARKEDLY inferior to fonts which are optimized for non-AA rasterization (like Terminus).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com