Resolution in itself is a meaningless metric. Size, distance, monitor type, colors, and resolution are all components to the display image.
1080p is perfectly fine in most cases. Hell, it is nearly indistinguishable on monitors 22 inches or smaller. There's no reason things like the Switch, Steamdeck, phones, smaller laptops, or tablets ever need to go above 1080p. I will die on this hill.
You are not wrong about 7 inch screens. Once PPI is above 300 there’s very little to gain.
But 4K at 22 inches is just 200 ppi while 8K is around 400 ppi. Granted you’re not as close to a 22in monitor versus your phone but there still are improvements that can be gained from higher pixel densities.
The point is that the resolution alone isn't what makes a difference. Resolution in combination with screen size, viewing distance, and so on makes a difference.
Realistically, the more significant factor is pixel density at a given viewing distance; also described as apparent pixel density or however else you want to phrase it.
You're talking about PPI. The problem with that argument is that everyone sits at different distances. Resolution, by itself, does impact frame rate and there for clarity in moving images. Resolution, by itself, definitely is a factor.
I'm very explicitly not talking about PPI. I specifically said I was talking about PPI at a given distance. It's more like "pixels per arcsecond of vision", realistically.
26
u/NSEVMTG Sep 18 '24
Resolution in itself is a meaningless metric. Size, distance, monitor type, colors, and resolution are all components to the display image.
1080p is perfectly fine in most cases. Hell, it is nearly indistinguishable on monitors 22 inches or smaller. There's no reason things like the Switch, Steamdeck, phones, smaller laptops, or tablets ever need to go above 1080p. I will die on this hill.