But I don’t get why you’d want to have a worse-measuring product—
Let us cut you off right there, because we know how this argument goes. And goes. And goes. And keeps on going. Here’s the deal: we are free to believe what we want. So are you. If your belief system leads you to devices that perform well by standard metrics, cool. If not, that’s also cool. There’s room for both viewpoints. Read
“Schiit Happened, The Objectivist/Subjectivist Synthesis.” And even then you may think we’re entirely full of it. And that’s cool.
No, you’ve got a fair point, and have asked a fair question.
Why would you want a worse measuring device?
I’m going to bring something in from video, and resolution. For the following, please ignore considerations other than resolution (OLED v LCD, etc.).
Basically, if you’re watching a 1080p image, the ‘sweet spot’ for viewing distance is 3x the height of the screen. What that means is, for someone with (what Americans call) 20:20 vision, if you sit closer than that distance, you’ll possibly start to see the pixel and line structure. If you sit further away, you won’t get the full benefit of the extra detail.
For 4k that’s 1.5 x screen heights.
For 8k it’s 0.75 x screen heights.
Now, most people won’t sit closer than 3x screen heights from a 55” HD tv. A but closer if you have 65”.
If you have a 65” set, it’s vanishingly unlikely that you’ll sit close enough.
So here’s the question (in answer to yours).
If you can buy a 4k TV for £1,000 why would you want to spend £10,000 on an 8k?
It’s money for detail you’ll never see. It’s £9,000 extra for bragging rights.
If you care about prime of ownership, that’s fine, and that’s up to you.
But please don’t be surprised by those who are happy to stick with a £1,000 set, nor with their insistence that you can’t see more resolution. Because they’re right.
And by the way, those limits to human vision, they’ve been discovered through extensive scientific research and testing techniques.
Now, if you’ve ever flown on a plane, I have a question for you. Are you happy with the pilot’s eye-sight testing? Or do you trust the experts who’ve discovered the limits and carried out the tests?
Because the tests for the limits of how much distortion we can hear, how much noise we can hear, and what frequency range/fluctuations from flat, are carried out under exactly the same criteria.
That’s just my way of looking at it.
I don’t care if my pilot has better than 20:20. The display in his cockpit was designed to be read by someone with 20:20, anything more is a waste of resolution.
