Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlawson | Hacker News Reader

Honestly my completionist instincts make me like 4K/8K.

It's the point where I think we can pretty much say, okay, we are now finished with resolution increases. There's nowhere else to go. We've 100%'d that part of the tech tree. Weirdly satisfying.

View on HN

Agreed. An 8K monitor will be great. The equivalent of a 300DPI colour laser printer. Genuinely letter quality text. The quality is good at 4K, but there's still room for visible improvement. I can still easily distinguish individual pixels, so we're not yet down to the Rayleigh limit. To be fair, there will still be room for improvement above and beyond 8K, but the gains will likely be marginal, not to mention the image itself getting prohibitively expensive to render and send to the display.

That's also why I want HD audio. I'm not saying I can hear the difference above 16-bit 48khz, but I feel more comfortable with a 200-400% buffer. And maybe someday I'll get bionic ears.

Considering that with proper dithering, 12-14bits is the threshold, you already have at least a 400% noise-floor buffer.

The good news for you is that this is also going to be running with 22.2, so you can live in a room full of speakers and watch the Olympics as if you're in the pool yourself.

Apart from IMAX/70mm film sources...it is satisfying to watch a movie on a 4K HDR TV and know that you’re getting almost all (if not all) the visual information the director captured on the medium. Assuming the transfer was handled well (which most are).

Seeing the film grain detail on older movies is strangely satisfying to me. Even newer movies shot digitally are done so at 2K or 4K.

Except when movies shoot in 8K and digitaly downsample to 4K after editing.

https://www.red.com/news/gotg-vol-2-to-shoot-on-8k-weapon

I'm not sure 8k will suffice completely for 2030's VR experience.

>> "We've 100%'d that part of the tech tree."

"640k ought to be enough for anybody."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com