The M2 Pro chips finally allow 8k displays! That's a pretty significant new feature (at least on Macs, Windows has supported 8k displays for some time already).
Putting a very fancy lens on a 0.3MP sensor doesn't give you higher resolution photos.
Retinas degrading is a factor of age.
My plan is to buy a 65" or 75" 8k TV and use it as computer monitor. I'll have a screen that is as big as my desk.
A display of that size will allow me to have my IDE, source control, terminals, log files, the app that I'm developing, my email, the CI dashboard all visible at the same time.
Of course I'll mainly use the bottom center of the huge display, but I think it will be a completely different experience when you no longer have to cmd-tab between apps but can just glance up/left/right to see what's going on.
How far away are you going to sit??
A 75" TV is going to cost you a lot of money for a very ineffective display. It's so large that you'll probably have to physically move several feet to see the edges, meaning that realistically only about half the screen is usable.
I currently have two 27" and three 24" displays on my desk. I already physically move to focus on specific tasks (eg. I have email on a vertical monitor on the side, so when answering emails I'll roll over a bit to the side with my chair).
With a TV, I could have one big seamless area instead.
The one thing that does worry me about the TV is the lack of tilt at the top -- everything in the top half of the monitor will be hard to see because of the angle.
When I work with pen and paper, my entire desk is full of stuff, a dozen sheets and books, printouts and diagrams, all visible at a glance.
I don't see why I should limit myself to a much smaller area when working digitally.
But I genuinely believe 4k is the upper limit where you stop seeing benefits in increased resolution for a monitor. Our eyes do have limits after all! I have pretty good vision and 4k is enough, and at that point I'd prefer focus on other aspects of picture quality like color accuracy and higher refresh rate.
It's already annoying enough how large a screenshot of your monitor comes out (just tested on my desktop and it came out to 10MB). 8k is unnecessary in the vast majority of cases.
I think it depends on how big the monitor is. You're probably right for 27" monitors. But running a 43" TV as a monitor, the pixel density is quite a bit lower than I'd like.
I've currently got a 32" one running 1080p, from a normal viewing distance I can't see any pixels at all. Going beyond that and having to render 4x as much already seems super gratuitous. 8K is just completely ridiculous unless you're projecting a DnD game board or something that will be viewed up close.
You might be if it had a higher pixel density. There are plenty of people who run 2, 3 or even 4 smaller monitors next to each other at close distances. That could potentially be replaced by one much larger 8k monitor in the future.
I am old enough that I've started to wear reading glasses to counter my age-related presbyopia, but if I had an 8K monitor it would probably sit less than two feet from my face just as this 4k monitor does, and I would make use of every pixel.
I sit 16-20 inches away from my monitor. I don't really think I sit further from this monitor than smaller monitors I've had in the past. Or a laptop on a stand.
As other people point out, I use it like multiple monitors that are seamlessly glued together with a tiling window manager (MacOS so Rectangle).
I run it at native resolution, like it's 4 1080p monitors glued together with no bezel.
I can definitely tell reading text is exactly like reading from a 1080p monitor compared to my retina display macbook screen right next to it.
A 43" 8k monitor for $750 or so would be an insta-buy for me.
From what I understand, even 4k is usually a waste for a living room TV when viewed across the room from a couch. People just don't have the visual acuity to really tell the difference.
But I can easily tell the difference between 4k and 8k when a 43" TV is 16" away from me.
I get that companies want to make money so the new tech is going into big TVs. But at some level, it's very strange to me.
I imagine the benefits of 8k only really start showing on 80"+ screens.
I've seen a number of resolution charts like the one here[1]. But I suppose I forgot how different peoples' setups can be.
Sometimes across the room is 6', sometimes it's 15'. And for sure, screen size and eyesight can make a big difference.
---
1. https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-r...
AMD's Llano (2011) supported dual/triple(1) displays on release and Trinity(2012) brought support for up to four displays at once.
(1)You could do triple displays on Llano, but it took a particular set of boards using Dual-Link DVI to drive two monitors IIRC.
This is very confusing imo