It'll always depend on your distance to the TV and it's size.
For me with a 65" TV sitting 2.4 m from it I can see clearly the difference between 1080 and 4k, as I should according with the chart below.
But 1440p to 4k is just the same for me.
As an example, at the same distance, a 40" TV with 720p and 1080p are about the "same" for the viewer, but with a 50" TV the 1080p will be perceived to be much better.
But diminishing doesn't mean no returns. There's still going to be a difference between 1080p and 4K once we get to games that make real use of the resolution bump. That's going to be gen 10 for consoles, or mid-gen 9 at best.
compare native 1080 on a native 1080 screen of the same size with the same distance. Then its fair.
Even expensive displays ofthen use linear interpolation instead of just displaying every pixel 4 times, leading to a softer image when you show 1080p on a 4k screen.
I've had conversations with people who played things like Overwatch and Ace Combat 7 on their Pro, and they were talking about how they barely see a difference in 4K, and I had to tell them that plenty of those games they had set to "4K" were actually running at 1080p.
There are very real diminishing returns as resolution increases, but I also think some of the claims from people that they don't see the benefits of 4K are due to things like the PS4 Pro generally being more of a 1440p machine, if not lower for some cases. The PS4 being far-and-away the most popular platform this gen made it more common for that kind of confusion with "4K" support on the Pro.
Thats my experience. People ofthen dont even realize that they see 1080 instead of 4k.
2 Feet from my 4k 27" (163dpi i think) i cant see pixels. About a feet away i can see pixels, but then im a feet away from a 27" screen... then its essentially filling my entire view.
If 4k will have an effect on you is easy to test:
Computer monitor:
With a 32" Computer monitor you need to sit nearer than 64cm to see pixels
If you sit 127cm far away from the screen, you cant see the difference between 1080p and 4k
(except you have vision that is better than 20:20)
Computer monitor:
4K: With a 55" TV you need to sit nearer than 109cm to see pixels
If you sit 218cm far away from the screen, you cant see the difference between 1080p and 4k
(except you have vision that is better than 20:20)
In short: PC users will usually sit closer to the screen, and there will be a visible difference between 1080 and 4k.
With TV users, the difference will be way smaler, since you usually are further away from the screen.
55" is a sizable TV, and siting 2+ meters (7feet) from it on the couch is pretty usual. In those cases, 1080p and 4k look the same (asuming that colors, contrast, etc is the same)
Also: There is a limit how near to the screen you can get. If the screen gets bigger than your field of view, then we definitely have reached a limit. Just coming near to moan about resolution while not being able to see the whole screen at once would be strange.
Does anyone else feel like the difference between 720p and 1080p is a lot more noticeable than the difference between 1080p and 4k on a television (I think the proximity to a PC monitor changes the equation a bit)?
For example Darksiders: Warmastered edition on Switch has a 1080p mode and a 60fps mode (which actually renders slightly higher than 720p). The difference is obviously noticeable. However on my PS4 pro the difference between performance modes and resolutions modes in various games is a lot less noticeable than this even when the jump is from 1080p to 4k.
Does anyone else agree with me or am I just weird?
I was, perhaps oddly, never particularly impressed by 720p to begin with. 1080p was where I really started to take notice. So the jump between the two is monumental from my perspective.
I was, perhaps oddly, never particularly impressed by 720p to begin with. 1080p was where I really started to take notice. So the jump between the two is monumental from my perspective.
I think it really didn't help how many games in the "720p era" were running well below that res, and that as more and more HDTVs transitioned to 1080p, they were also LCD displays, meaning the pixel mapping was often more blurry for actual 720p sources than in the past.
That said, I've gotta (politely) say I'm surprised at anyone who doesn't think the jump from 480p (often even less) to the ~720p era wasn't the biggest jump of our times. Even though I had been gaming at roughly 1024x768 on PC well before that, the asset and material change that happened alongside the jump to HD to actually take advantage of the higher resolutions was dramatic.
480i to 720p was an absolutely massive difference. Was blown away first time I saw CoD 2. Since then it's been diminishing returns. Sacrificing performance (frame rate) for anything above 1440p is a terrible idea.
Definitely, and for me I think a big part of this has to do with using a 720p plasma set for the bulk of the generation before moving to a 4k led one a few years ago. If I were to have been used to 1080p for awhile and then switched to 4k then I'm sure the difference would be a lot more noticeable, and I also think part of it has to do with what level of detail your brain is used to noticing at a given moment TV set or not. Do you typically look at a carpet and consciously process all the fine detail in the fibers? Well I don't lol...and with resolutions like 4k I don't really notice granular details like this unless its a static backdrop like a sidescroller, point and click game, or in a photo mode for something like a Sony exclusive.
I also think its a brain training thing, like last night playing Hitman 2016 I was struck by all the fine detail in the textures @ 1440p, but this isn't a regular occurrence, and I think part of it has to do with the slower more methodical pace of that gameplay to give you time to drink in the surroundings, plus with a recent upgrade to my PC I can enjoy it at a higher framerate, point being better performance equals more frames to process what's going on in front of you. I've been mostly used to playing more demanding games at 30 fps so this is another factor. That bump in fps goes a long ways to showing you details your brain may have missed at lower perf.
I'd say for me 1440 is where my upper end threshold for noticing finer details in IQ tops out sans a VR display which is obviously focused at a distance with lenses so the perceived resolution inside the headset is smaller. I'm sure part of this for 2d viewing is sitting distance from TV, set size, etc, and maybe if I were sitting 4-5 feet away from my set I'd see more at 4k but well my set (TCL P605) doesn't look great sitting that close so until I get something better there's no reason for me to drive most games above 1440 considering I'm not perceiving much of a difference in detail anyway.
Shure, i was oversimplyfying with this comparison.
But the comparison still stands: there is a point, where people dont see that much of a difference anymore. Following: rambling, just ignore it if you want ;)
And while i see 4k as an desirable upgrade, for most people, there are enough that haveviewing position where 4k will help less then lets say a display with better contrast/color acuracy.
You see enough people here that where not impressed by 4k, but with hdr instead (and in those cases the previous display was probably either bad calibrated or just worse in color reproduction ... just thinking how many used (and still use) TN or bad VA panels.)
Thats the Gamer Perspective. The content market is kinda barren with good 4k content.
Hows 4k blue ray doing? Not so great. Were showing 4k masters in cinemas. Most of them.
Streaming is killing physical, and we need to compress the hell out of video to transport 4k over the internet. and just to use youtube as an example: it looks ofthen worse then a uncompressed 1080 file localy. So many artefacts, crushed colors. Watching a video with a lot of noicy effects/particles? puh, it can get ugly.
In the end: the jump from 1080 to 4k is still noticable, and if you are siting near or use a big display and have good sight the difference is definitely noticable...., but depending on other factors not for 80% of people like with 720 to 1080, but say 40-60% of people. (numbers are obviously not based on data)
Just looking at the sales data of 4k displays, the adaptation was waaay slower compared to 1080.
There is a space where people wont be against more, but will be satisfied with what they have. With audio, we are already past that point, with video we are getting there. (Classic, not talking about lightfield displays or increased color gamut displays, or posibility to display flourescent/metalic colors,...)
4K displays are now the standard, in 6 years it will be 8K displays and beyond that we'll be looking at 16-32K for VR. People are making the same mistakes as they did with 1080p. If you go back to those arguments it was always the same stuff. I remember being told I need to be x feet away from the tv to enjoy 1080p. 4K gaming with AI upscaling makes the most sense
I loaded the Witcher 3 at 2160p60 with higher resolution texture pack on my newly acquired 3080, it was insane. Granted, I never owned a 1080p tv, and the previous tv before my 2160p faux HDR set was a 2006 720p LCD. Most of the benefit to a higher resolution is only afforded while keeping frames at or near 60 and above, otherwise increasing resolution becomes less impactful. Most of the 4k console games have been at 30 with reconstruction/native, so you lose any benefit to that resolution bump.
There is a more of a difference between 1080 (monitor) to 4k than 720p to 1080 (monitor), but not without an associated framerate bump.
With games it's not just the output resolution. I can see the difference, but 4K means a performance hit, and I will always choose 1080p with higher performance over 4K with lower performance.
4K displays are now the standard, in 6 years it will be 8K displays and beyond that we'll be looking at 16-32K for VR. People are making the same mistakes as they did with 1080p. If you go back to those arguments it was always the same stuff. I remember being told I need to be x feet away from the tv to enjoy 1080p. 4K gaming with AI upscaling makes the most sense
Im not standing behind those people that you all mention.
How good our eyes can resolve did not change in the last 10 years. Its something thats already quoted in Textbooks from 20+ years ago. I just cant find the original paper for it.
4k is the Standard NOW, but it took waaay longer to be there than 1080p, not because the tech wasnt there, but people where not that motivated to buy new tvs because the benefit did not seem that high.
If you dont want a bigger screen, or to sitnearer, the benefits either are not there, or your screensice to view distance was already off for 1080p.
"I remember being told I need to be x feet away from the tv to enjoy 1080p."
yeah, if you are to far away, the benefits of 1080p compared to the lower resolution are not there.
You can calculate that. Extreme example: stream to your phone in 1080, 720, and then 420p and watch from 3 feet away. Do you see a difference?
Shure, its an extreme example, but with usual view distances and 4k we are reaching those fuzzy regions where the benefits, even when most peoplecan see them, are just not enough to make a big difference.
If you are siting infront of a pc monitor with >24inch, shure, there is no question that you will se a big difference between 1080 and 4k, because you are sitting right infront of it...
The charts that where posted are the same that there where 15 years ago, they did not change.
8k will really be irrelevant for 90% of people. To see a difference on my 4k27 i would need to sit<2 feet infront of the display.
And VR is a kompletely different usecase: the display is only 1-2 inches infront of your eyes with correcting lenses. There higher resolutions make sense.
4K wasn't personally as massive a leap for me as 1080p was for gaming. For editing photos, my 4K monitor literally revolutionized my workflow but with games I definitely started to feel diminishing returns. HDR was the thing for games that truly elevated the current generation of systems, seeing TLoU II in HDR was a mind blowing experience despite it technically being rendered at 1440p.
I actually feel the opposite. Back on GAF people go nuts about 720p or 900p compared to 1080p, but honestly to me the difference was never that significant. Like don't get me wrong it was noticeable, especially when you put the two side by side, but really it never was a big deal to me.
ever since getting a 4K tv I can safely say that native 4K vs 1080p is SUPER noticeable. Like 1080p is by no means a dealbreaker for me (especially if it means 60fps), but I can instantly identify the improved IQ of a 4K image. It's night and day, and that's without including other improvements such as HDR.
eyes are weird so I'm sure everyone had their own takes on this and everyone's opinion is totally valid, but to me the jump from 1080p to 4K is so much bigger than the jump from 720p to 1080p and I'd say it's not really all that close.
With games it's not just the output resolution. I can see the difference, but 4K means a performance hit, and I will always choose 1080p with higher performance over 4K with lower performance.
Shure. There will be games where ill prefere 4k over 60fps. But especially in fast paced games, we cant see so many details in realy fast movement (no time for the fovea to scan over a lot details), so temporal resolution is king.
I was only arguing that there is a physical limit how good our eye can resolve, and that argument "people said that prior" does not hold, since tha distance and screen size/dpi corelation was always the same, and i dont see people buying even bigger tvs like they have done in the last 10 years.
1080p content looks really good upscaled to 4K on my displays. I've been playing a ton of games at 1080p hooked up to my 4K TV recently to try and get some more mileage outta my GTX 970, because my desktop monitor is 1440p and I'm struggling to push that many pixels in newer games. I've been very impressed with the result, and find that my games look pretty damn good. Not near as good as native 4K obviously, but damn good from my couch viewing distance.
720p games during the 360/PS3 era looked like trash on my 1080p screens. Hell, everything non-native looked bad on my 1080p displays. So the jump to 1080p native rendering with the PS4 was EXTREMELY noticeable and welcome.
compare native 1080 on a native 1080 screen of the same size with the same distance. Then its fair.
Even expensive displays ofthen use linear interpolation instead of just displaying every pixel 4 times, leading to a softer image when you show 1080p on a 4k screen.
Closest point of reference I have is I still own a pretty decent 55in 1080p TV, but my 4k TV is 65in. 1080p on the 55 still looks fine but native 4k on the 4k set (even without HDR in the equation) in comparison just looks so much better.
Closest point of reference I have is I still own a pretty decent 55in 1080p TV, but my 4k TV is 65in. 1080p on the 55 still looks fine but native 4k on the 4k set (even without HDR in the equation) in comparison just looks so much better.
Well, we are limited by how big the screens and how near you can get (before parts of the screen escape your field of view), so there are natural limits, which can be caled "diminishing returns".
my honest opinion is that, having grown up from snes/n64/ps1 through every PS until now.. I understand that the game textures got better and the stuff looks better. I was mainly looking at Final Fantasy and rpgs and Socom as the standard. PS3 with GTA4 and Assassins Creed 1 and 2 and MGS4 was amazing but I didn't feel like I noticed the switch to HD too much. I noticed the games looking better though clearly. gta4 looked real back then to me. All this in mind though... I think the biggest jump ever for me was when I played Horizon and God of War in 4k on ps4pro. That was the best and sharpest things ever looked and the screen popped. It is amazing. (HDR too but the overall pop and clearity and sharpness was amazing for me. Maybe I had edge enhancement on, maybe. Idk. But I think that was a big jump in my opinion.
I feel like when I got a ps3, I had Warhawk and was waiting for Assassins Creed, GTA, and FFXIII, so I didn't really compare games too much to the previous generation. I didnt get to play resistance though i did play killzone 2 and it was definitely beautiful at the time.
1440, so a pc monitor. You usually sit 2 feet away from it (i asume). For a 27" display you would need to sit almost 3 feet away so that you dont see jaggies. (if the game is rendering correctly, but thats a different story...)
1440, so a pc monitor. You usually sit 2 feet away from it (i asume). For a 27" display you would need to sit almost 3 feet away so that you dont see jaggies. (if the game is rendering correctly, but thats a different story...)
Then it is clear. With the 1080 screen you sat to near for the sweetspot where the resolution gets higher than you can disscern (would be @7 feet), your viewing distance for the 4k is at the sweetspot, where 8k would not be more detailed (4+), but where you can definitely see a difference between even 1440p and 4k.
At the same time: you are sitting waaay closer than the average TV user.
Viewing Distance Recomendations: *While recommended viewing distances vary, you can refer to this chart to see a range of the minimum and maximum distances you could be sitting from your screen:
55" 6.9' – 11.5' (2.1 m – 3.5 m)
65" 8.13' – 13.5' (2.5 m – 4.1 m)
Picture this: you’re headed to the movies with a friend and you’ve got your popcorn in hand. You’re the first ones there, and you can have any seat in the house. Where do you sit? For most of us, the prime location is somewhere near the center, not smack dab in front of the screen or off in the...
www.bhphotovideo.com
.
Thats also probably why so many here are confused by people that dont "get" 4k...
If you really want to sit that close, or use a desk based pc monitor right infront of you, then you definitely can profit from higher resolutions. Your average console gamer? nah, to far away for a increase in perceived resolution.
Yeah, for you the sweetspot would be 27"4k @ 1.5-2feet where you would not see individual pixels anymore (higher than 4k would only be visible if you either go with a bigger display, or just 1 feet distance)
Thats the reason why you see jagies and still need AA =D
Shure. There will be games where ill prefere 4k over 60fps. But especially in fast paced games, we cant see so many details in realy fast movement (no time for the fovea to scan over a lot details), so temporal resolution is king.
I was only arguing that there is a physical limit how good our eye can resolve, and that argument "people said that prior" does not hold, since tha distance and screen size/dpi corelation was always the same, and i dont see people buying even bigger tvs like they have done in the last 10 years.
Yeah, that's something people should keep in mind. And TVs can't just keep getting bigger indefinitely, agreed. Some of the hugest TVs we have already are just crazy.
I got a 55" 4K TV back in June 2017 after my old 42" 1080p plasma screen died. I bought an Xbox One X when it released i November that year. I noticed an immediate improvement. So much more detail than in 1080p, especially when compared to my old plasma screen. Now, it's been a while since I played on a 720p screen. My best friend/former roommate had one he bought back in like early 2007, and I bought my plasma screen back in 2011 to finally replace my aging 19" tube TV, so I can't recall if I ever noticed the resolution boost from 720p to 1080p.
Yeah, that's something people should keep in mind. And TVs can't just keep getting bigger indefinitely, agreed. Some of the hugest TVs we have already are just crazy.
Another factor people often forget: screen aging.
newer display technology ages more (TFTs get slighly slower, the light gets dimmer, clouding...), so people often see a big inprovement and acount that to a better resolution. But Contrast plays a big part in how we perceive resolution and sharpness, so a dull display that cant reproduce contrasts correct lets the resolution look worse than it is.
Adding to that, what 10 years ago was a "good" 1080p screen would now be a bad display regarding blacklevels etc, and people usually buy more expensive displays instead of "same price bracket". All of those factors make the WOW factor huge, but is less clear in numbers like the resolution.
Once i moved from a 22" 1080p monitor to a 24" monitor i bought from my workplace. It looked waay sharper...but both where 1080p, and the new one should have been more pixelated since it was a bigger size. But since it had waaay better contrast and colors, the feel was "sharper".
this. console wise most people went from 480 to 1080, a few went to 720, some games were only 720, and if i remember correctly x360 had to get a patch to output 1080p instead of i in 2007.
as someone who had to stop mid game playing The darkness on x360 at 1080 to play it 480i, resolution is noticible but the horse power under the hood matters more, a lot more, it looked good on a 480i cheap crt
Im not standing behind those people that you all mention.
How good our eyes can resolve did not change in the last 10 years. Its something thats already quoted in Textbooks from 20+ years ago. I just cant find the original paper for it.
4k is the Standard NOW, but it took waaay longer to be there than 1080p, not because the tech wasnt there, but people where not that motivated to buy new tvs because the benefit did not seem that high.
If you dont want a bigger screen, or to sitnearer, the benefits either are not there, or your screensice to view distance was already off for 1080p.
"I remember being told I need to be x feet away from the tv to enjoy 1080p."
yeah, if you are to far away, the benefits of 1080p compared to the lower resolution are not there.
You can calculate that. Extreme example: stream to your phone in 1080, 720, and then 420p and watch from 3 feet away. Do you see a difference?
Shure, its an extreme example, but with usual view distances and 4k we are reaching those fuzzy regions where the benefits, even when most peoplecan see them, are just not enough to make a big difference.
If you are siting infront of a pc monitor with >24inch, shure, there is no question that you will se a big difference between 1080 and 4k, because you are sitting right infront of it...
The charts that where posted are the same that there where 15 years ago, they did not change.
8k will really be irrelevant for 90% of people. To see a difference on my 4k27 i would need to sit<2 feet infront of the display.
And VR is a kompletely different usecase: the display is only 1-2 inches infront of your eyes with correcting lenses. There higher resolutions make sense.
You need to remember displays were actually much much smaller for mobile devices back then. 720p on a 3 inch display looked good. But the conjecture about 1080p was completely wrong. Similarly as 4K tvs and 4k content become more ubiquitous people will be able to tell the difference and they won't want to use anything else. phone displays, TVs projectors are all pushing higher resolutions. Same thing with 8K tv displays. They will become ubiquitous as well eventually. And next next gen games will be developed for 8K. Already 16K textures are being used to train upscaling algorithms that infer 4k from as low as 1080p.
Well, we are limited by how big the screens and how near you can get (before parts of the screen escape your field of view), so there are natural limits, which can be caled "diminishing returns".
No need for AA if the resolution is high enough... AA is a tool to combat to low resolutions.
But diminishing returns is too broad a descriptor for what's happening with resolution bumps, and much less applicable than stating the technical context for which something like diminishing returns would specifically apply.
On my 65" from 10ft away, diminishing returns is applicable at 8K
But in VR, or in Theaters -- nope.
Context. So I'd rather explain how the science works, and then on a case by case basis, determine if diminishing returns is applicable.
Connecting my PC to a 4K tv confirmed to me that in my usual use case 4K isn't important. I played with the resolutions and 720 was noticeably soft on a 55 inch display which I'm sat maybe 8 feet away from but the difference between 1080p and 4K while somewhat apparent was much less noticeable to the point that resolution will be the among the first things I turn down for more frames if future releases are too demanding for my system.
The move to 720 was a mixed one for me at the time, I found myself missing the benefits of CRT tech just as much as I appreciated any increase in resolution. Going to 1080p I'd got over that to some degree so that probably helped it feel more impressive only having very similar tech to compare it to.
But diminishing returns is too broad a descriptor for what's happening with resolution bumps, and much less applicable than stating the technical context for which something like diminishing returns would specifically apply.
On my 65" from 10ft away, diminishing returns is applicable at 8K
But in VR, or in Theaters -- nope.
Context. So I'd rather explain how the science works, and then on a case by case basis, determine if diminishing returns is applicable.
Diminishing returns is not measured by the extreme ends. You are a poweruser, that sits quite close to a really big screen for the average person.
VR: shure, thats an edge case and not comparable, the screen is so near to our eyes.
Theaters: we already have the "problem" that 4k is about as good as analog film was (no hard cut of, because age/development/quality/producer...), and most cinemas today (except some IMAX and specialty/extra big cinemas) use 4k projectors. Smaler cinemas still use 1080 in smaler rooms.
Your Setup has a bigger screen to distance ratio and higher resolution than the indie cinemas in my town.
is 4k enough for cinema? probably not, there is potential there, and 8k will be expected.
Is 4k probably enough for 90-95% of home users (of TVs)? probably. Even if for 5 people the extra 8k makes sense...that IS diminishing returns, because those are edge cases.
Connecting my PC to a 4K tv confirmed to me that in my usual use case 4K isn't important. I played with the resolutions and 720 was noticeably soft on a 55 inch display which I'm sat maybe 8 feet away from but the difference between 1080p and 4K while somewhat apparent was much less noticeable to the point that resolution will be the among the first things I turn down for more frames if future releases are too demanding for my system.
The move to 720 was a mixed one for me at the time, I found myself missing the benefits of CRT tech just as much as I appreciated any increase in resolution. Going to 1080p I'd got over that to some degree so that probably helped it feel more impressive only having very similar tech to compare it to.
Yeah, TV tech other then Raw Resolution is something people underestimate.
The badly calibrated tv in stores in bad viewing situations (to bright store lights, to near, demo mode,...) dont transport the true quality of better displays. Stickers work. Numbers work. "4K Ultra HDR" works better than a chart tht shows the color gamut and contrast measurements.
For me, 8k will only start to be relevant when we get to display tech that is either extra near (Near Field Displays -> VR, still to bulky), or when we have Displaypaint / Displays so thin that you position it as a film infront of the wall (and samsung hs some of this tech, but its far from peing a mass market produkt)
4K is a huge difference over 1080p for me, but I do feel anything past 4K is now diminishing returns. I have seen 8K in-person on a massive TV and I wasn't able to tell much of a difference over 4K other than extra detail in the background, but then again, that was just my experience.
Diminishing returns is not measured by the extreme ends. You are a poweruser, that sits quite close to a really big screen for the average person.
VR: shure, thats an edge case and not comparable, the screen is so near to our eyes.
Theaters: we already have the "problem" that 4k is about as good as analog film was (no hard cut of, because age/development/quality/producer...), and most cinemas today (except some IMAX and specialty/extra big cinemas) use 4k projectors. Smaler cinemas still use 1080 in smaler rooms.
Your Setup has a bigger screen to distance ratio and higher resolution than the indie cinemas in my town.
is 4k enough for cinema? probably not, there is potential there, and 8k will be expected.
Is 4k probably enough for 90-95% of home users (of TVs)? probably. Even if for 5 people the extra 8k makes sense...that IS diminishing returns, because those are edge cases.
Yeah, TV tech other then Raw Resolution is something people underestimate.
The badly calibrated tv in stores in bad viewing situations (to bright store lights, to near, demo mode,...) dont transport the true quality of better displays. Stickers work. Numbers work. "4K Ultra HDR" works better than a chart tht shows the color gamut and contrast measurements.
For me, 8k will only start to be relevant when we get to display tech that is either extra near (Near Field Displays -> VR, still to bulky), or when we have Displaypaint / Displays so thin that you position it as a film infront of the wall (and samsung hs some of this tech, but its far from peing a mass market produkt)
But that's what I'm saying. Diminishing returns isn't a good enough catch all answer vs just telling people: Size/Distance will dictate "diminishing returns"
I'm not disputing that diminishing returns is at play for the masses, but I'd rather not describe the situation like that in general BECAUSE we have these fringe ends that need to be covered (and who knows how long stuff like VR stays fringe)
But that's what I'm saying. Diminishing returns isn't a good enough catch all answer vs just telling people: Size/Distance will dictate "diminishing returns"
I'm not disputing that diminishing returns is at play for the masses, but I'd rather not describe the situation like that in general BECAUSE we have these fringe ends that need to be covered (and who knows how long stuff like VR stays fringe)
The Thread question is still scientifically easy to answer:
"720p to 1080p more noticeable than 1080p to 4k on a TV?"
Yes. There are mathematically more realistic situations (excluding distances like <1 feet or >10m...those are VR and projection instalations)
where 720 to 1080 makes a difference than 1080 to 4k, since its a subset.
People can talk what they want about "for them", but they never see the whole.
If the question is "does 4k make a difference for me?", then the answer is "depends on view distance and screen size". Absolutely true.
