• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    11 months ago

    4k is the reasonable limit, combined with 120 FPS or so. Beyond that, the returns are extremely diminished and aren’t worth truly considering.

    • kandoh@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      8k is twice as big as 4k so it would be twice as good. Thanks for coming to my ted talk

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        There are legitimately diminishing returns, realistically I would say 1080p would be fine to keep at max, but 4k really is the sweet spot. Eventually, there is a physical limit.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          I fully agree, but I also try to keep aware of when I’m repeating patterns. I thought the same thing about 1080p that I do about 4k, and I want to be aware that I could be wrong again

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yep, I’m aware of it too, the biggest thing for me is that we know we are much closer to physical limitations now than we ever were before. I believe efficiency is going to be the focus, and perhaps energy consumption will be focused on more than raw performance gains outside of sound computing practices.

            Once we hit that theoretical ceiling on the hardware level, performance will likely be gained at the software level, with more efficient and clean code.

    • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      4K id agree with, but going from 120 to 240fps is notable