Quote:
Originally Posted by Mythica
I know what you were saying. The OP stated he might want 4k but would need to be a small screen as he lives in a box room and the TV he has is right next to the computer. I assumed rightly or wrongly that the OP would be sitting close to the screen. People advised a monitor for 4k rather than a TV. You said 4k is pointless on a small screen. Yes you were talking about a TV but 4k is 4k be it on a monitor or TV. It isn't pointless if you are sat close enough.
Size alone isn't a factor in resolution. It's size in relation to viewing distance that matters. If you are sat close enough viewing 4k material then yes it will look better than 1080p. People need to get away from the myth that high resolutions need massive screens. My phone has a screen size of 6.8 inch and a resolution of 3040x1440 and it is HDR. It looks beautiful if viewing 1440p videos, very crisp. That's because it's close to my face.
|
I get your points to an extent but I don't think it's a myth that you need a big screen to appreciate 4K. You can get 55" 8K sets now and you would really be pushed to tell the difference 4k vs 8k unless you stand extremely close to the point of touching it, because 55 inch is too small to fully compliment 8K. (there are plenty of online videos demonstrating this).
I have a 3K phone, my wife has a similar model. same screen size with a lower resolution but you really cant tell the difference at those sizes. You mentioned your phone, I would suggest that the main reason it looks so good is the HDR, subjectively it makes a much bigger difference than just moving to 4K.
Apple do a 5K laptop screen, it's screen real estate madness, we don't have the visual resolution to see the difference.