How much do you really need?

1440p is the new 1080p.

And 32" is the new 24".

Wrong. I need at least 4k on my Nokia 3210 otherwise my apply friends make fun of me

Depends what you're doing.

I run 1440p and 4k.

720 works just fine for me
dunno why people _need_ 4k 5" screens

but still, smarphones need more detail, because their icons, fonts everything are so tiny that it needs more pixels per space. im not saying 720p isnt enough though

Depends on the size of your display and how far you are away from it. 8K ought to be enough for anybody.

>8K ought to be enough for anybody.
8k still isn't enough to rival 70mm IMAX.

70mm film is roughly 12-18k digital.

Unless you have an 80 inch display and sit 3 feet away from it, 8K is plenty. Maybe in the future well have every wall of our house covered in displays and we'll need higher resolution standards for that, but until then I doubt more than 8K will ever be really necessary outside of movie theaters.

>home theaters don't exist

alright then.

Honestly 120-160" home theater setup would be perfect with 8k.

Though obviously that will likely be the roll of projectors for the most part. I'd still like to see some TV panels of that size and res.

For computer use, I can also see the value in 40" 8k res for high PPI 200% GUI scaled 4k res desktop usage. Would be great for editing video.

I can also see the value in 8k at 24" with 400% GUI scale to make it 1080p desktop but with super sharp image quality due to the massive PPI.

And you would have to go noticeably larger than 160 inch for resolutions above 8K to make a noticeable difference. Even if you had a 600 inch panel, the optimal distance would be about 11 feet.

For a 600 inch 8K panel, that is

>Even if you had a 600 inch panel, the optimal distance would be about 11 feet.

lol what?

The distance to see individual pixels with 8k at 600" is around 20 feet.

Using THX suggested viewing distance for a screen at 8k and 600" diagonal would be about 30-35 feet.

Just FYI, an IMAX screen is generally around 1250 inches. With 70mm film, and viewing distances of anywhere from 30-80 feet.

>dunno why people _need_ 4k 5" screens
This

This picture triggers my autism, god dammit OP you fucking faggot use a better picture next time.

1000ppi @ 144hz and encompases my entire fov.

Anything more than 1080p is a resource sucking meme with God awful diminishing returns. Die in a fire 4k fags.

16k minimum.

720p is the minimum, but 1440p is the sweet spot for most people.
8K is the final reasonable resolution for traditional displays.
Somewhere between 16K and 32K lies the limit for VR.
Anything beyond 32K will be placebo tier.

Attached: deer.png (492x453, 328K)

>Anything beyond 32K will be placebo tier.
Except for cinema potentially and niche scientific or educational uses.

>for cinema
Dude have you ever been to a cinema?
Screen is like 20m away from the viewer, at that distance I don't think I can even tell the difference from 720p to 1080p

if you can still see aliasing then the resolution isn't high enough
prove me wrong

640x480

>he doesn't have a gtx 2080 ti and a 12TB HDD
Your poorness is showing

I like my UWQHD

This. 32' 1440p @ 75 Hz VA Freesync is the way to go.

>inb4 144 Hz

Name a GPU under 600 euros that can give you those framerates @ 1440p ultra settings in modern games.

1080p at 106 inches from my projector looks good enough for me

Well using the current highest resolution digital capture which is 16k (15360 x 8640).

A standard IMAX screen of ~86x63 feet, gives you a minimum viewing distance of 20m, and at 16k, a visual acuity distance of about 6 meters.

8k res gives us a visual acuity distance of 12.5 meters

4k res gives us a visual acuity distance of 24.8 meters.

So by that logic anything beyond 8k gets to be a bit silly for current standard IMAX screen size.

However you should always overshoot a bit due to the visual acuity distance being based on 20/20 vision, some people have better, some worse.

So realistically you should shoot for at least 6k, and 8k isn't all that absurd.

16k might make sense for the largest imax display which measures a much larger 117.2 x 97 feet. Where at 8k res your minimum seating distance to see the entire screen at once is only slightly higher than the visual acuity distance.

I'm happy with my dual 1440p setup but more resolution would be nice. I play a lot of eve online and 4x 1080p clients (i.e. 4K) on the same monitor without overlap would be great. At 720p it still works but text becomes a little hard to read at small UI scaling. Don't think I'd ever buy a 60hz monitor again though and the only 144hz 4k monitors right now are total memes so I'm not in any rush.

This isn't my setup but you get the idea from this image.

Attached: 4Pb8EzK.jpg (3190x1746, 775K)

1024x768 was absolutely fine, before faggots made their sites thicc.

my computer struggles at 720p60

CS1.6

I have a 1070ti and it's on the cusp of being fine for 1440p@144 as long as you have gsync. FPS is around 100-120 FPS in BFV at the high setting preset. For sub 600eur I'd expect a RTX 2070 memecard would hit 144 fairly consistently with occasional drops to 120.

My performance is with a 3.9ghz 1700 and 2800mhz ddr4 so there's quite a bit of performance to be gained there with faster RAM and a better-clocked CPU too.

>apply friends
apply doesn't even have 1080p on the XR yet

200-300PPI from the usual viewing distance.
Who gives a shit about film in 2019 - 4 days.

I have an RX480 paired with a 144Hz monitor. I can't remember wishing I had a lower refresh rate.

I'm using 1024x768 and all is right with the world.

something between 1440p and 4k at 27inches would be sweet spot

720 is okay, 1080 is ideal, anything higher is fucking retard tier.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=8kL9Qhu_W18