Ultra-HD televisions not noticeably better for typical viewer, scientists say

Ultra-HD TVs Not Worth Upgrading for Average Viewer

For the average viewer in a modern living room dominated by a large television, scientists have found that the difference between ultra-high-definition (UHD) screens and lower-resolution displays is negligible. Researchers at the University of Cambridge and Meta, the company behind Facebook, conducted a study on 18 participants with normal vision or corrected to be normal, who were shown images with increasingly fine details to determine the point at which the human eye could no longer distinguish differences.

According to Dr. Maliha Ashraf, the first author of the study, "at a certain viewing distance, it doesn't matter how many pixels you add." The researchers used a 27-inch monitor mounted on a mobile cage that allowed them to vary the viewing distance from the viewer. They found that even for sharp images like text and line patterns, there is a resolution limit beyond which no further improvement in image quality can be perceived.

The study revealed that the average human eye can resolve more detail than previously thought, with a resolution limit of around 94 pixels per degree (PPD) for greyscale images viewed straight on. However, this number drops to 53 PPD for yellow and violet patterns, suggesting that certain colors may not benefit from higher resolutions.

The researchers developed a chart showing different screen sizes and viewing distances, along with the nearest standard resolution that exceeds or slightly surpasses the visual limit for most people. According to Ashraf, if your setup falls within one of these squares, upgrading to a higher-resolution screen would not provide noticeable benefits.

To help users gauge whether they can see the difference between resolutions, the researchers created an online calculator that allows users to enter their viewing distance and screen size, providing results on whether the setup is above or below the resolution limit. The study suggests that for many viewers, UHD TVs may not be worth upgrading from lower-resolution displays due to limited perceivable differences in image quality.

omg u guys, can't believe this just upgraded my 4k tv and now i'm wondering if it's even worth it lol the study says that for most ppl, the diff between 1080p & 4k is literally negligible at like a reasonable viewing distance anyone else feelin me?

I just got a new 4K TV for my living room , but honestly, I'm not really sure if it's worth the upgrade price. I mean, have you ever seen your favorite show or movie on a huge screen? It's pretty cool, right? But according to this study, I might be wasting my money because my viewing distance is pretty close to the optimal point where the human eye can't make out any difference between 4K and not. Like, what's the point of having all those extra pixels if it doesn't even affect how I watch TV? It just makes me think about how tech advancements are always pushing us to upgrade, but sometimes it feels like we're just upgrading for the sake of it... or maybe that's just me

omg I cant believe this lol like who needs 94 pixels per degree anyway? I have a friend who just upgraded to an Ultra-HD TV and honestly I dont think she can see the difference from her old one maybe its just me but Im good with my 1080p set at home

I mean, who needs 8K when you can't even tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p at my place? I'm not saying don't get that fancy new TV if it's within your budget, but for most people, it's just gonna be a pretty picture with slightly more pixels than necessary. And honestly, has anyone ever tried to watch Netflix on those stupid smart TVs? It's like they're trying to make you use the internet or something

I feel ya! Upgrading to an ultra-HD TV can be a major splurge, and if it's just gonna make no difference to most people, then why bother? I mean, think about all the other ways you could spend that cash . But at the same time, if you've got the means and you're someone who cares about the little details in life (like screen resolution), then go for it! Just don't expect it to be a game-changer or anything .

I'm kinda surprised by this study . I mean, I've been splurging on a 4K TV and it's made such a big difference for me – the picture is so sharp and detailed, you can really see every stitch of fabric or detail on a character's face. But I guess that's just me being nitpicky .

For most people, an FHD TV might be more than enough, especially if they're not sitting right up against the screen like I am . And yeah, the study says that for viewing distances over 2 meters or so, you can barely tell the difference between UHD and lower resolutions. That makes sense, really .

Still, it's worth noting that some people might notice a difference – especially those with perfect vision like the participants in this study . And if you're into gaming or watching movies on a big screen, the extra resolution might be worth it, even if it's just a tiny bit more noticeable .

I mean, gotta give it to these researchers at Cambridge... they're really showing us what's up with our eyes . I was thinking of getting an UHD TV, but now I'm like, "meh" . Apparently, the difference is pretty negligible unless you're sitting right in front of it (like 1-2 feet away). And even then, it's not a huge deal . The study says that if you're watching from like 3-4 feet away or more, UHD just isn't gonna make a difference. Not saying I'm gonna go back to my old CRT TV or anything , but I do think this changes the game for who needs an UHD TV. For most people, it's not worth the extra cash .

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple."
I think its a shame that people are gonna waste their cash on 4k/8k TVs when they can barely see the difference at home. Its not about having the best setup, but using it for what matters - enjoying quality time with family and friends. The study shows that you just need to find your sweet spot

I mean, think about it... If you're watching TV at home and it's pretty far from your eyes (like more than 3-4 feet), the difference between a standard screen and an ultra-HD one is probably not gonna blow your mind . The study says that once you hit a certain resolution limit (which, btw, is kinda impressive - 94 pixels per degree? That's like, really detailed! ) then no matter how many more pixels you add, it's still hard to see the difference.

And don't even get me started on colors... Apparently, yellow and violet patterns are harder to resolve than greyscale ones . So yeah, if you're just chillin' at home watching TV or something, maybe an ultra-HD screen is not worth breaking the bank for .

im thinkin what's the point of upgrade to ultra-HD if u already can barely see diffrence at home lol like i got a 4K TV but my room is so dark and far away that it dont make much of a diffrence and now this study says its not even about how many pixels u have, its about how close u sit to the screen so maybe ill just stick with my old laptop display and save some cash

idk about this study ... think it's a bit harsh on ultra-HD TVs, but i guess if u watch movies or play games at really close range (like 2ft away) then yeah maybe u won't notice the difference . but for me, if i'm sittin' 6ft away from my TV and just chillin', i want that extra crispness . also, what about gaming? don't think lower res screens are gonna cut it when it comes to smooth gameplay .

You know, I've been thinking about this a lot... it's like our perception of what we need in life, right? We think we need the latest and greatest, but really, is it that important? For most people, the difference between UHD and lower resolution is pretty negligible. And you know what? That's kinda liberating! It means we don't have to feel like we're missing out on something just because it's new or better.

It's also making me think about how much money we waste on stuff that doesn't really make a difference in our lives. Is that UHD TV worth the investment if you can barely notice the difference? Probably not. But at the same time, is there value in having something that makes us feel good, even if it's just for a little while? Maybe that's where the real value lies...

I gotta say, I'm kinda surprised by this study . I've got a few mates who just upgraded their TVs and now they're all about the 8K resolution, but apparently, it's not as big of a deal for most people . I mean, don't get me wrong, it's still pretty cool to have a TV that can show you every little detail, but if you're watching TV in a normal living room, it's probably not gonna make a huge difference.

I've also been noticing how some movies and shows are now being mastered in 4K or even higher resolutions . I'm wondering, is all this just to try and sell more TVs? Like, do we really need that extra bit of resolution in our living rooms? Maybe they're just trying to make us feel like we're getting a better viewing experience when, in reality, it's not as noticeable as we think.

Anyway, it's definitely interesting to see the study's results and how they might affect people's TV choices . Maybe now we'll start seeing more of those 'UHD vs 4K' debates online .

I mean, have you ever stopped to think about how much screen time we actually do? Like, is it really worth the extra $1k for a TV that's gonna look virtually identical at home? They did this study and it turns out our eyes can handle way more detail than we thought. I'm not saying don't upgrade if you've got money to burn, but for most people, I think it's just not worth the investment.

so this sounds kinda weird but like if i had a 4k tv and watched netflix on it my brain probably just wouldn't notice the difference between 1080p and 4k lol also what's with all these fancy pixel per degree things? can someone explain that to me in simpler terms pls?