Is 4k an improvement for people with normal vision?
 

Mind you, I'm not asking if it's worth the extra money, I'm asking if it's even possible for the average person to see the extra detail. I read an article saying that 4k looks the same as 1080p to people with normal vision. I originally thought they were wrong, but now I realize the superior quality of the video in the store might've been more about color vibrancy than detail.

So I now have a $500 4k monitor of dubious value and a question. Do you guys see a difference between 4k and 1080p?

I have not tried 4K but I am guessing I will not be able to see the difference.

4K resolution is mostly for those 50+ inch TVs where it might be possible to see the difference.

4k resolution chart
 

This web site has helpful information and a chart where you can determine, given a screen size and viewing distance, what resolution benefits are visible.

[URL="http://4k.com/resolution/"]http://4k.com/resolution/[/URL]

[QUOTE=jasong;472805] Do you guys see a difference between 4k and 1080p?[/QUOTE]

On what size screen? From what distance?

On an unremarkably-sized television, viewed from across a room, no difference. If you're sitting closer than 1.8 * diagonal measure of the screen, 4K is noticeable to normal folks. e.g. a 50" TV viewed from 8 feet away is a big fat "maybe" for seeing any difference, but from 5 feet it's "definitely". I don't know many folks who watch a 50" TV from 5 feet, but one of the arguments for 4K is that it makes close-up-viewing more enjoyable, which is more immersive in movies; so, if you're willing to change behavior/buy a bigger screen/move the couch closer, it could be worth it.

In the store, you're walking by a TV at a distance of 2-3 feet, and the difference is very noticeable. If you're gonna use something like a 32" 4K screen as a computer monitor, on your desk, the answer will again be "yep".

I have a 4K TV and one thing I notice more than anything else is that CGI is noticeable in movies that use it heavily. If you want The Lord of the Rings movies or Star Wars movies (episodes 1 thru 3) on a 4K TV, the CGI is obvious compared to watching it on a 1080p TV. In other words, you can easily see that it is CGI due to the upscaling.

For video, bitrate is more important as a metric, the biggest facepalm I have is when people lap up 4K streaming and think it's comparable to 4K blu-ray. For monitors, 1080P has a quality sweet spot at 17" imo, but when you get to 22"+ you can definitely see and make use of the difference with higher resolutions. It depends on what you're doing, but if you're constantly focusing on different parts of the screen and juggling many windows, it can be a game changer. Not quite like going from an 800x600 CRT to 1080P, but in the same vein.

here's two images that one is double in both height and width to compare ( yes they are technically both really small, but one allows you to zoom out to 25% zoom before losing all detail, the other only 50% at least on my monitor).

[QUOTE=M344587487;472856]For video, bitrate is more important as a metric, the biggest facepalm I have is when people lap up 4K streaming and think it's comparable to 4K blu-ray. For monitors, 1080P has a quality sweet spot at 17" imo, but when you get to 22"+ you can definitely see and make use of the difference with higher resolutions. It depends on what you're doing, but if you're constantly focusing on different parts of the screen and juggling many windows, it can be a game changer. Not quite like going from an 800x600 CRT to 1080P, but in the same vein.[/QUOTE]

Wow, you must have good eyes if 1080p is only good enough for 17'' screens. I use 1080p on 27'' monitors and I do not even consider getting 4K.

Not many people uses screen sizes between the largest tablets at 10''-11'' and the smallest monitors at 22''-24'', not like 20-30 years ago when all monitors was 13''-17''.

Think I would rather buy a OLED with HDR TV than a 4K/UHD.

There is very little content for UHD yet, even less with bitrates high enough that would make a noticeable difference. For instance Netflix 4K/UHD streams are only 15-20 mbit/s, which is comparable (or lower) in apparent quality to a Blu-ray 1080P disk (of which the standard bitrate is something like 20-30 mbit/s I believe). There probably is a difference in codec (H264 vs H265), but any improvement in the codec is undone by the lower bitrate for 4 times the pixels.

[QUOTE=ATH;472883]Wow, you must have good eyes if 1080p is only good enough for 17'' screens. I use 1080p on 27'' monitors and I do not even consider getting 4K.

Not many people uses screen sizes between the largest tablets at 10''-11'' and the smallest monitors at 22''-24'', not like 20-30 years ago when all monitors was 13''-17''.[/QUOTE]

With my 23" 1080p monitor, I can begin to make out the individual pixels (especially where they differ in color in a diagonal manner) at approximately 20cm spacing between my eyes and the screen. My normal usage distance is perhaps twice that.

[QUOTE=ATH;472883]Wow, you must have good eyes if 1080p is only good enough for 17'' screens. I use 1080p on 27'' monitors and I do not even consider getting 4K.[/QUOTE]1080P is fine for larger monitors, but 17" is where I don't think anyone will be able to tell or make use of higher resolutions. My eyesight is not great, maybe just more sensitive to monitor PPI from years of excessive computer use. It sounds dumb, but I prefer smaller 1080P monitors to larger ones as your eyes have less distance to travel for the same screen real estate, makes a big difference to eye fatigue after extended use.

[QUOTE=ATH;472883]Not many people uses screen sizes between the largest tablets at 10''-11'' and the smallest monitors at 22''-24'', not like 20-30 years ago when all monitors was 13''-17''.[/QUOTE]Just laptop users, but that's more from the necessity of portability.