A lot of this 4k and 8k stuff is more of a marketing ploy, as it won't be noticable unless you have a big enough TV and are at the right viewing distance. It's also a bit like digital cameras and megapixels, as consumers are impressed by big numbers. However, the resolution is only one part of the picture quality.

Personally, it depends on what I'm watching. Here in Canada, internet is way overpriced, so I just stick with a budget tier internet package. I'm also in an apartment, so I'm not going to run cables for a LAN. If I'm streaming something over WiFi, I'll usually use 720p or 1080p. That's good enough for most things. Anything above that is nice, but not stuff that I seek out. I also have a Blu-ray player on my Xbox, but I watch far more DVDs on it. A large part of that is just that used DVDs are cheap and I prefer older shows and movies anyways.

I've stuck with 1080p for modern(ish) gaming, mainly to save money on graphics cards. I don't know if I'm missing out on much, but 1080p still looks great for me. Retro gaming is another thing. I love CRTs and 240p is essential for older console games. I have been using composite with a Raspberry Pi, but it's way harder to get 240p over s-video or component. I recently bought a VGA hat and an s-video transcoder, so hopefully that will work for me. My backup plan is to get an old Wii, but I'd prefer to use a Pi if possible.

Depends on the device.

For a phone, something around 6" at most, around 1280×720 is perfectly fine. For tablets at 7-10" something around 1400×800 is should be perfectly OK. The 7" tablet I use for an ebook reader is 720p and it's still mostly OK. At very small text sizes its not perfect, but readable.

For laptops at 14-15.6" 1600×900 is the sweet spot. My tinkering laptop as 900p screen (Elitebook 8470p) while my work laptop has 1080p at the same size and without interface scaling 1080p is not comfortable to look at.

For computer screens (modern) for 20" 1600×900 is still fine; up to 25" 1080p is fine; at 27" it's better to switch to 1440p up to about 32". My previous monitor was 40"@4K I'm now using as a TV. I bought it for that reason anyway.

For TV, I don't see anything above 4K being justified. Unless maybe if it's a really huge screen above 50" and you watch it from way too close.

For retro computer screens between 1280×960 and 1440×1080 for Windows, but both are rare for desktop LCDs so that leave us with 1280×1024 and 1600×1200. Or you switch to CRT which often works much better with weirder resolutions. Back in the day I often used 1152×864.

For content: if it's not pre-rendered then on LCD/OLED anything that matches the screen's native resolution. If it's pre-rendered, it's a matter of distance and type of content. On a TV I'm mostly fine with SD on my 40"@4K watching from 2.5 meters away or my 27"@1440p monitor watching from 1 meter away. Not that I don't notice the upgrade from SD to FullHD and FullHD is definitely preferred for its sharpness. On my tinkering laptop youtube (FreeTube) is set to default to 480p since I don't use full screen anyway. SD/480p is also OK for my phone/tablet. I don't notice the difference on those small screens.

For most of my uses, I don't really need or want anything bigger than 1080P resolution. It works fine with all the current hardware and it looks nice enough to get by without trouble.

gerry wrote on 2024-05-06, 16:27:

i'm fine with a DVD, sure bluray looks better but DVD is fine by me

Hi there! To me, it depends on type of film, also. A hand draw animation can be scaled better, because of outlines etc.
These films also don't depend on interlacing so much. There's no movement in-between, as there is with a real TV camera.
So I don't mind collecting new DVDs of such films, still.

Speaking of interlacing, DVDs also were being mastered with CRTs in mind.
The format is interlaced all the time. A real CRT monitor is being recommend, thus.

Back in the 2000s, I've used an S3 Chrome card with a sophisticated video decoder built-in.
Together with PowerDVD 6 I was able to interpolate/de-interlace my DVDs at high quality on PC.

Blu rays in 1080p use proper progressive scan and are more TFT/LCD friendly, thus.
They also work on the native resolution of these screens (or an even fraction).

4k Blu Rays are nice to have, too. Often, they come with a 1080p Blu Ray, so nothing is lost.

But at this tpoint, the video compression and the artifacts are more important than resolution, maybe.
There's nothing worse than bad compression. It's one of the main differences between video streaming and Blu Ray.
A Blu Ray / BD 4k always has better quality. The bandwith and storage capacity is simply no match for streaming services.

PS: I still collect VHS of some films and VCDs, as well. Quality can be acceptable, depending on the equipment.

For a laptop 11-15", 1280x800, more than this everything, text, icons, dialogs, etc are too small

For phone i really dont care AT ALL, is the same for my 800x480 1280x720 or a no idea what resolution latest samsung or iphone. I have a personal phone with 1280x720 and im happy, but my working one is 960x540 and same for me

My ereader for books and mangas is 1024x768 and i found perfect, but i have a tablet for american comics, and yes, i bought 1920x1080 because american comics have a lot of very small text

For computer games, only use CRT, before quake 3 320x200 is fine, quake 3 and higher 640x480 looks good, but i dont care much, for example im playing alice madness return at 320x240 and is fine for me

Movies it depent content, for example, i was watching Sledge Hammer and 240p is fine to enjoy, but movies in my CRT i want 720x576 for PAL and 720p in the TFT, but i cant see muchthe difference from 720p to 1080p even in a 50" LCD

Having adequate size and resolution is most important for productivity applications, where one is looking over schematics, charts, text, photos, etc.

Otherwise, it's not that important because no amount of resolution makes up for the other problems that exist in video content, broadly. Low framerates, low bitrates, interlacing, dumb aspect ratios, DRM, ads, bad contrast, bad direction, bad writing, bad acting, and so on 😀

I also enjoy to watch TV shows or movies on more "period correct" TVs now. I find that high definition is almost too good and older standard definition content look worse in some ways on them. In particular, I really notice the actor's mascara when watching the original Star Trek on my high-def TV. This isn't as noticeable on a CRT TV. Similarly, 90s CGI doesn't stand out as much as being computer generated when I watch it on a CRT. In some ways, this is comparable to playing old games with the type of monitors that they were developed for. While that high-end, 19" CRT from the late 90s probably cost you an arm and a leg, it might not be the best choice for an 80s adventure game. Since I watch a lot of really of shows from the 50s and 60s, I've been looking for a little B&W TV to watch them on.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-05-06, 17:02:

A lot of this 4k and 8k stuff is more of a marketing ploy, as it won't be noticable unless you have a big enough TV and are at the right viewing distance. It's also a bit like digital cameras and megapixels, as consumers are impressed by big numbers. However, the resolution is only one part of the picture quality.

good point about camera an mega pixels, once the image can fill a big 1080 or greater screen i always think what else are we getting for all the extra mp? the images also take up more memory, not that this is much of a constrain any more.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-05-06, 19:56:

I also enjoy to watch TV shows or movies on more "period correct" TVs now. I find that high definition is almost too good and older standard definition content look worse in some ways on them. In particular, I really notice the actor's mascara when watching the original Star Trek on my high-def TV. This isn't as noticeable on a CRT TV. Similarly, 90s CGI doesn't stand out as much as being computer generated when I watch it on a CRT. In some ways, this is comparable to playing old games with the type of monitors that they were developed for. While that high-end, 19" CRT from the late 90s probably cost you an arm and a leg, it might not be the best choice for an 80s adventure game. Since I watch a lot of really of shows from the 50s and 60s, I've been looking for a little B&W TV to watch them on.

maybe too much detail can spoil older shows, i've heard this before - where shows were shot for tv and they knew that certain things wouldn't show up so didnt need to account for it while shooting. i also find 'upscaled' old shows often strange looking

RandomStranger wrote on 2024-05-06, 17:50:

For content: if it's not pre-rendered then on LCD/OLED anything that matches the screen's native resolution. If it's pre-rendered, it's a matter of distance and type of content. On a TV I'm mostly fine with SD on my 40"@4K watching from 2.5 meters away or my 27"@1440p monitor watching from 1 meter away. Not that I don't notice the upgrade from SD to FullHD and FullHD is definitely preferred for its sharpness. On my tinkering laptop youtube (FreeTube) is set to default to 480p since I don't use full screen anyway. SD/480p is also OK for my phone/tablet. I don't notice the difference on those small screens.

480p is good enough for small screens, the screen size is the main thing as you noted, though maybe its me but 4k is kind of lost on me with any screen size

RetroGamer4Ever wrote on 2024-05-06, 18:00:

For most of my uses, I don't really need or want anything bigger than 1080P resolution. It works fine with all the current hardware and it looks nice enough to get by without trouble.

if i had to settle on one i guess it would be this - enough pixels for all eventualities, even though as per RandomStranger's post the screen size somewhat dictates the resolution in terms of how good it look

theelf wrote on 2024-05-06, 18:55:

For computer games, only use CRT, before quake 3 320x200 is fine, quake 3 and higher 640x480 looks good, but i dont care much, for example im playing alice madness return at 320x240 and is fine for me

Movies it depent content, for example, i was watching Sledge Hammer and 240p is fine to enjoy, but movies in my CRT i want 720x576 for PAL and 720p in the TFT, but i cant see muchthe difference from 720p to 1080p even in a 50" LCD

i dont have crt anymore so make do with older 4:3 lcd, its ok - but there is a quality with crt that i sort of miss - its kinder with low res

240p is fine for older movies and shows and while i can see a difference between 720 and 1080, its far less noticeable that the actual number of pixels suggests it would be, and when watching a movie i really dont mind which

bakemono wrote on 2024-05-06, 19:48:

Having adequate size and resolution is most important for productivity applications, where one is looking over schematics, charts, text, photos, etc.

Otherwise, it's not that important because no amount of resolution makes up for the other problems that exist in video content, broadly. Low framerates, low bitrates, interlacing, dumb aspect ratios, DRM, ads, bad contrast, bad direction, bad writing, bad acting, and so on 😀

for work related stuff i like 2 screens and a high res, but thats for work related applications. i look back and think of the work i did on a 14' crt or early 15' flat screens! seems strange but it was normal, alt-tab used a lot!

you're right about extra pixels not making up for other factors, no amount of pixels can save the tiresome endless superhero 'multiverse' movies or the ruins of star wars now 😀

gerry wrote on 2024-05-07, 07:47:

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-05-06, 17:02:

A lot of this 4k and 8k stuff is more of a marketing ploy, as it won't be noticable unless you have a big enough TV and are at the right viewing distance. It's also a bit like digital cameras and megapixels, as consumers are impressed by big numbers. However, the resolution is only one part of the picture quality.

good point about camera an mega pixels, once the image can fill a big 1080 or greater screen i always think what else are we getting for all the extra mp? the images also take up more memory, not that this is much of a constrain any more.

It matters if you plan to print it. But yes I see no reason to have anything bigger than 10-12MP. From that point a lot more depends on other stuff like optical zoom. Phone cameras have all those extra megapixels to make up for the garbage quality of digital zoom.

gerry wrote on 2024-05-07, 07:47:

maybe too much detail can spoil older shows, i've heard this before - where shows were shot for tv and they knew that certain things wouldn't show up so didnt need to account for it while shooting. i also find 'upscaled' old shows often strange looking

I see it more as a matter of upscaling/digitizing. When they remaster old media for 1080p or 4K they sometimes clean it up far too much and make them sterile. If they avoid that, old movies look awesome at high resolutions. Film itself is analog media, it doesn't care about resolution. DVD and broadcast versions are sort of already downscaled.

https://youtu.be/h-MB0Sej9tQ

Jo22 wrote on 2024-05-06, 18:08:

Hi there! To me, it depends on type of film, also. A hand draw animation can be scaled better, because of outlines etc. These fi […]
Show full quote

gerry wrote on 2024-05-06, 16:27:

i'm fine with a DVD, sure bluray looks better but DVD is fine by me

Hi there! To me, it depends on type of film, also. A hand draw animation can be scaled better, because of outlines etc.
These films also don't depend on interlacing so much. There's no movement in-between, as there is with a real TV camera.
So I don't mind collecting new DVDs of such films, still.

Speaking of interlacing, DVDs also were being mastered with CRTs in mind.
The format is interlaced all the time. A real CRT monitor is being recommend, thus.

Back in the 2000s, I've used an S3 Chrome card with a sophisticated video decoder built-in.
Together with PowerDVD 6 I was able to interpolate/de-interlace my DVDs at high quality on PC.

Blu rays in 1080p use proper progressive scan and are more TFT/LCD friendly, thus.
They also work on the native resolution of these screens (or an even fraction).

4k Blu Rays are nice to have, too. Often, they come with a 1080p Blu Ray, so nothing is lost.

But at this tpoint, the video compression and the artifacts are more important than resolution, maybe.
There's nothing worse than bad compression. It's one of the main differences between video streaming and Blu Ray.
A Blu Ray / BD 4k always has better quality. The bandwith and storage capacity is simply no match for streaming services.

PS: I still collect VHS of some films and VCDs, as well. Quality can be acceptable, depending on the equipment.

yet, for all that technical difference, when i play a dvd on a 'modern' (albeit cheaper) widescreen i still think it all looks fine - maybe there is some compensation going on

i dont collect vhs, i have one old player and a few vhs from years gone by - vhs just seems bulky and more fragile somehow but i know there are some films that were never released on dvd and are never shown in streaming or broadcast, so they would be lost forever if not on vhs

For gaming I prefer the golden ratio of 16÷10, at 1920x1200. Best chance for pixel perfect retro resolutions, fine for movies and modern games and the extra vertical space is fantastic for browsing and working. I actively dislike higher resolutions, as to my eyes it wastes resources for minimal visual effect 'in motion', and needs all sorts of weird ai upsampling algorithms for modern games.

Same goes for phone screens: pushing extra pixels takes a faster gpu and goes at the cost of battery power. And battery reliability is the number one criterium for a mobile device to me.

Also don't like all the ridiculous ai upscaling of movies for 4k tvs, to produce an image that never existed, looks artificial and slurps up bandwidth when streaming. Have tv sets do this, optionally, for those who want it and don't ruin the source.

Anyway, this grumpy old man dislikes high resolutions for almost any application and thinks it's because of an industry mostly out of ideas 😉

In my case, it depends on the viewing distance. For TV viewing, from 2-3 meters away, I don't really need more than 1080p. Even 720p works for me in that scenario, although I do start seeing a slight reduction in quality. Going to 480p or lower is a no go, unless I have no other choice (old Xbox / PS2 games and DVDs). The flaws of such a low resolution are very visible on modern LCD displays. But on a CRT TV (or monitor) 480p content looks perfectly fine to my eyes.

For gaming on a PC monitor (30-50 cm distance) I think either 1200p (1920x1200) or 1440p would be my sweet spot. Going higher than that appears to give diminishing results, while needing much more GPU power. In particular, 8K seems like a marketing gimmick, unless you're talking about an extremely large TV screen. And you'd need some crazy hardware to natively render modern games at that resolution, without using hit or miss AI upscaling techniques and that weird frame generation stuff.

For the longest time I thought 1080p was enough. Then I bought a 75" 4K MiniLED TV and I can tell you at this size 4K matters.

For desktop, I am OK with 1080p up until 24". Beyond that, I enjoy 1440p considerably more. I've never really been able to tell 1440p and 4K apart on a monitor.

For retro systems the only time resolution bothers me is when I'm on the windows 3.1 / 95 /98 desktop , i favor cards with more vram so i can have smaller icons and more desktop , if I'm playing games I can live with 320x240 or 680 or whatever , i err on the side of higher res but if it hurts performance or if the game looks odd at higher res vs lower ill go with lower.

4k on a 27" monitor is superb. There is still some aliasing effects so I do think eventually a step-up to 8k will take care of that. I'm one of those people who can't stand Anti-aliasing of any kind, it just looks like a blur filter to me.

I will tell you that when I got my 4k 27" monitor I was blown away. 4k is stunning and very noticible on a 27" inch screen. If you have the video power to push 4k I fully recommend it.

When it comes to TVs and video sources I still watch DVDs and it doesnt really bother me even though I have a 4k TV. As long as the upscaler is decent most sources look just fine to me.

Interesting. I'm the exact other way around, DVD resolution on a big screen is unwatchable for me, but I can tolerate 1080p on a 27" display at work..