XPost: rec.arts.comics.strips   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   On 2025-10-21 20:51:53 +0000, Scott Lurndal said:   
   > Your Name  writes:   
   >> On 2025-10-21 15:54:41 +0000, Scott Lurndal said:   
   >>>   
   >>> There were 4K blu-rays available about the same time as 4K TV sets.   
   >>   
   >> Not for a while. There was a gap between 4K TV sets and 4K discs, and   
   >> there weren't that many discs to begin with.   
   >   
   > Small gap of a few months.  I got my 4k in 2016, and a 4K OPPO   
   > a month later.  Both still going strong.   
      
   According to Mr Google:   
      
      First 4K TV set released = 25 October, 2012   
      First 4K Blu-ray disc released = 14 February, 2016.   
      
   So, roughly 16 months.   
      
   While those "get it now" fools rushed out to buy their new TV set, the   
   manufacturers were laughing all the way to the bank and released at   
   least one newer model before any discs were available.   
      
      
      
      
   >>> Who cares about broadcast TV networks in this modern era?    Loads   
   >>> of reality-tv crap not worth watching.   
   >>>   
   >>> Netflix, on the other hand, provides high quality 4K content as   
   >>> do other streamers.   
   >>   
   >> They do now, but they didn't when 4K TV sets first began to be sold.   
   >   
   > It is a bit pointless to produce content that nobody can watch;   
   > and converting film to 4k digital costs $$.    Once there were   
   > enough consumers for 4K content, the studios produced it happily.   
      
   Yes, and it's equally pointless to buy a device that has no content   
   availbale for it.   
      
      
      
   >> When the 4K TV sets first arrived in stores, basically the only content   
   >> was the in-store demo.   
   >   
   > And those TV's sure looked good upscaling 1080p, for the most part.  So   
   > a win-win for the purchaser once the ecosystem started producing 4k content.   
      
   Nope, because as above, the companies updated their TVs at least once   
   before the discs became available.   
      
      
      
   >>>>> Realistically, few people would notice the difference unless they stick   
   >>>>> thier nose against the screen.  :-\   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Huh. I would have thought that the additional pixels would allow them   
   >>>> to sit closer to the TV without the individual pixels becoming   
   >>>> visible.   
   >>>   
   >>> The difference between 1080p and 4k content is very notable on   
   >>> a 4k capable screen.   
   >>   
   >> Depends on how close you sit to the screen. On a smaller computer   
   >> monitor where you sitting right in front of it, you'll see the   
   >> difference. On a large TV where you have to sit further back to see the   
   >> whole screen properly, you won't really see any difference.   
   >>   
   >> As I said, the only real way you'll notice any difference between 4K   
   >> and 8K is if you stick your nose on the screen. The up-coming 16K, 24K,   
   >> etc. displays are simply pointless gimmicks.   :-\   
   >   
   > While the conversation was about 1080P vs 4k, you bring up   
   > 4k vs. 8k, upon which I will not opine, other than to note   
   > that absent compelling content, I see no reason to upgrade   
   > my OLED 4K display.   
      
   "absent compelling content" ... that's precisely the point I was making   
   about "1080p vs 4k".  :-p   
      
   The same can also be said for SD vs 1080p, floppy discs vs CD-ROMs,   
   etc. Apple even stupidly left out the floppy drive from their iMac   
   computers leaving users now way to transfer files (other than the slow   
   internet or then-hugely expensive USB thumb drives) - people had to pay   
   extra to get an external floppy drive just to retain functionality of   
   the older Mac computers.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)