XPost: rec.arts.comics.strips   
   From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid   
      
   On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 09:45:36 +1300, Your Name    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 2025-10-21 15:54:41 +0000, Scott Lurndal said:   
   >   
   >> Paul S Person  writes:   
   >>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 12:58:58 +1300, Your Name    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>    
   >>>> On 2025-10-20 15:22:58 +0000, Paul S Person said:   
   >>>    
   >>>    
   >>>    
   >>>>> I could say the same about such "innovations" as 3D BD Players and   
   >>>>> associated TVs, TVs with enormous screens, and other tech stuff which   
   >>>>> is useful in itself but subject to "improvements" nobody really cares   
   >>>>> about except "the more-money-than-sense brigade", as you so aptly   
   >>>>> describe them.   
   >>>>    
   >>>> Yep. All these fools buying 4K and now 8K TV sets just to be "first",=20   
   >>>> because  there was/is very little actual content to play on them at=20   
   >>>> those resolutions anyway and brodacast TV networks won't have any such=20   
   >>>> content for years yet (if ever).   
   >>    
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >When the 4K TV sets first arrived in stores, basically the only content    
   >was the in-store demo.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>>> Realistically, few people would notice the difference unless they stick=20   
   >>>> 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.   :-\   
      
   This sort of thing reminds me of a discussion in which the   
   theatrical-release DVD of /The Fellowship of the Ring/ was deemed to   
   be inadequately done because, when the person expressing this opinion   
   multiplied the image from the player by 10x, it began looking fuzzy.   
      
   Guys, all that really matters is that the film be viewable and worth   
   watching.    
   --    
   "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,   
   Who evil spoke of everyone but God,   
   Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)