Falcosoft wrote:

No, since I have not had the opportunity to try/test 8K displays so far 😀.
But my experience with 4K and HD displays is the following: similarly as 1080p material does not look any better on a 4K display than on native 1080p displays (what's more quite the contrary, so I strongly think this is just a marketing gimmick) SD/VGA etc. material does not look better on bigger resolutions/display sizes, just because of bigger sizes/resolutions.

No one here was saying it would look better though, I was saying it would look the same (provided perfect scaling).

My main argument is/was the following: no matter the display size and resolution the same problem as displaying 1080p standard resolution/materials on 1440p screens can manifest itself even on 4K/8K screens when these screens have to display materials/standard resolutions that have to be scaled by non-integer ratio. So the problem of presenting lower non-integer ratio resolution materials cannot be solved on LCDs by simply increasing the size/resolution and even with improved software scaling implementations only compromise solutions are possible. To be clear: yes, I can clearly see that e.g. 800x600 looks better on an older 1600x1200 native resolution display than on a 4K display and I cannot even see the theoretical possibility of such a scaling algorithm that could change this phenomenon (there is no 'perfect scaling' in non-integer ratio cases).

Falcosoft wrote:

My main argument is/was the following: no matter the display size and resolution the same problem as displaying 1080p standard resolution/materials on 1440p screens can manifest itself even on 4K/8K screens when these screens have to display materials/standard resolutions that have to be scaled by non-integer ratio. So the problem of presenting lower non-integer ratio resolution materials cannot be solved on LCDs by simply increasing the size/resolution and even with improved software scaling implementations only compromise solutions are possible.

That these flaws are there is obvious, but irrelevant. What's important is whether or not people can see them. That's what we use displays for.

Falcosoft wrote:

To be clear: yes, I can clearly see that e.g. 800x600 looks better on an older 1600x1200 native resolution display than on a 4K display

What scaling algorithms did you try? What artifacts did you see? What sort of 800x600 image was it?

No idea about the exact scaling algorithm, it was the default one. I suspect bicubic/bilinear scaling in case of the 4K display because of the experienced blurriness. I use mainly AIDA64's Monitor diagnostics. I recommend this or similar utilities since they can reveal more problems than games (especially reading test).

Falcosoft wrote:

No idea about the exact scaling algorithm, it was the default one. I suspect bicubic/bilinear scaling in case of the 4K display because of the experienced blurriness.

That's very far from perfect scaling. Again my argument is that indistinguishable (to human eyes) from native resolution scaling is within the reach of LCD tech, but it requires perfect scaling and high resolution displays. Inventing a new display tech is going to take much more time than changes that can be done in software and for us to get 8K panels. It will also likely just introduce more problems.

My argument is not about what is available and common today, though the difference between 1080p and 4K is a great way to show where we're going.

ZellSF wrote:

My argument is not about what is available and common today, though the difference between 1080p and 4K is a great way to show where we're going.

I don not see "the way we are going" the same way 😀. There's an obvious pixel count increase. No doubt it will continue. But I do not see the improvements toward your anticipated more an more perfect scaling methods and more and more pleasing results. And resolution increase in itself cannot solve scaling/interpolation problems. Another aspect of this problem that is worth considering: With more and more pixels (4x the amount with every new display standard) scaling algorithms has to process significantly more data real time. Processing power of displays is far from infinite. It's not hard to imagine that instead of better and better results you will get worse result with future 16k/32K standards...

Sorry, that was phrased very badly by me. Yes, of course higher pixel counts is only half of the equation and better scalers are needed too, and that doesn't appear to be a focus of anyone who can fix that problem. We're not moving forward in that direction and so we're not getting more pleasing results either. What I meant to say was, asking for that is a plan that is more likely to succeed than asking for new magical display tech. It's doable. It just isn't happening because the demand isn't there.

Falcosoft wrote:

Another aspect of this problem worth to consider: With more and more pixels (4x the amount with every new display standard) scaling algorithms has to process significantly more data real time. Processing power of displays is far from infinite. It's not hard to imagine that instead of better and better results you will get worse result with future 16k/32K standards...

I'm just replying to this to say I didn't ignore this, but I'm way underqualified to speculate on what the hardware required to scale 16K/32K is going to cost in the future.