I believe 4K is already basically there. I have a 50" 4K (2160p) that I sit 9 feet away from and based on the Nvidia PPD calculator, that makes for 168ppd, and according to that page 150ppd is around the upper limit of human vision. Apple’s “retina” displays target around 50-60ppd (varies based on assumed viewing distance), which is what most people seem to consider “average eye visual acuity”. Imo 4K / 150ppd is more than enough.
According to this calculator, my 65" 4k setup is around 100ppd.
I find that anything with a higher density than that (e.g. sitting further away, or replacing it with an 8k screen of same size) requires scaling up text and wasting a lot of pixels when rendering other things.
So yeah, I think 8k is a total waste if you’re not targeting a much higher fov, at which point a curved screen would probably be better.
At what point do we just declare that the screens they try and sell are pushing for higher resolution than real life?
I believe 4K is already basically there. I have a 50" 4K (2160p) that I sit 9 feet away from and based on the Nvidia PPD calculator, that makes for 168ppd, and according to that page 150ppd is around the upper limit of human vision. Apple’s “retina” displays target around 50-60ppd (varies based on assumed viewing distance), which is what most people seem to consider “average eye visual acuity”. Imo 4K / 150ppd is more than enough.
According to this calculator, my 65" 4k setup is around 100ppd.
I find that anything with a higher density than that (e.g. sitting further away, or replacing it with an 8k screen of same size) requires scaling up text and wasting a lot of pixels when rendering other things.
So yeah, I think 8k is a total waste if you’re not targeting a much higher fov, at which point a curved screen would probably be better.