Answers.Body: <p>My experience in viewing a lot of 4k and some 8k, is that 4k will be the threshold... thank god. </p>
  
  <p>This upgrade pattern over the last 10 years has been crazy. We went from SD which was the standard for eons, to 720 to 1080 to 4 in like under a decade. </p>
  
  <p>Theaters, use 4K. So if 4K projected on a screen 24 feet high is high enough quality, it's certainly going to appear sharp as hell on a 72" home screen. </p>
  
  <p>I viewed a 4K and 8K side by side, I did not see any perceivable difference, in terms of sharpness, from a few feet away. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-03T08:10:52.493Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-09-03T08:10:52.493Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: McFlySoHigh
Answers.Body: <p>It depends on viewing distance / angle and pixel pitch, but it's a rare circumstance when 4K will actually be a benefit. In terms of user experience, contrast ratio and color fidelity are more important than resolution.</p>
  
  <p>I don't know of any studies that deal with tablets, but for general viewing anything over 1080p is probably wasted unless you're right on top of the screen: perhaps counter-intuitively, more resolution is wasted unless you move closer to the screen, because the eye can't distinguish more than about 60 pixels per horizontal degree of arc in the central fovea, less outside it.</p>
  
  <p>Take a look at <a href="https://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/" rel="nofollow">this blog post</a> for more information.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-31T13:35:41.363Z
Answers.Text: Interesting link. It seems like the most that you would ever reasonably need for consumer electronics is 4k, or maybe 8k.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Smale
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-30T14:14:28.420Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-08-30T14:14:28.420Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jim Mack
Answers.Body: <p>It all depends, of course, on what you are watching and where you are watching it. For instance, if you are showing something on a huge screen in a movie theater, you could definitely perceive a difference between 1080p and 4K. If you are looking at your phone, perhaps not as much. For standard computer monitor sizes, it's still fairly easy for many to see a difference at 4K, purely because we sit so damn close to our monitors.</p>
  
  <p>Also keep in mind that there are scenarios in which you need to <em>shoot</em> in 4K in order to <em>distribute</em> in 2K or 1080p. You may need to zoom into one part of your shot and crop most of it out, which you can get away with if the footage you shot was a higher resolution than what you need to output at. This also applies to any footage that you may need to stabilize (i.e. windy drone footage) since stabilization requires cropping your frame. So in these situations, we not only need cameras to shoot in 4K+, but also monitors and devices that can play them back in their full resolutions.</p>
  
  <p>While there are certainly diminishing returns on ever-increasing resolution on small consumer devices, there are people who absolutely perceive the differences between 4K and lower resolutions. Up to 8K and beyond, I'm not so sure, but for the moment, we have not actually crossed that threshold.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-31T13:44:30.147Z
Answers.Text: Thanks. Are there not artifacts produced when converting from 4k to 1080p, and if so do these artifacts become less noticeable when using higher resolutions... say 8k to 4k.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Smale
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-31T20:36:44.843Z
Answers.Text: Actually @TomSmale in filmmaking it has been preferred for years to shoot at a higher resolution and then scale down. When done correctly (which isn't difficult), you should actually have far _fewer_ issues with artifacts than if you had shot in the same resolution that you're delivering in. This is because camera sensors and glass lenses aren't flawless, and usually come with a few visual abnormalities of their own. When you have a ton of resolution to work with, you can correct those issues. We're also very good at scaling these days, so that process doesn't generally introduce new issues.
Answers.UserDisplayName: daniel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-01T11:30:45.247Z
Answers.Text: There's also the fact that 4K video shot at 8-bit with 4:2:0 colour becomes essentially 10-bit 4:2:2 when downsampled to 1080p, due to the way four pixels are averaged to make one pixel. So you get much better dynamic range and colour resolution, even on prosumer level cameras.
Answers.UserDisplayName: stib
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-13T08:30:01.253Z
Answers.Text: You can tell the difference between 4K and 1080 when watching it at 1080.  When I edit content, and have to mix media from say my RED Epic, shot at 4K or 5K, with 1080P from an A7S, when you watch the output, the 1080 content... looks blurry, because the 4K content is just really really sharp.
Answers.UserDisplayName: McFlySoHigh
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-30T22:55:20.097Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-08-30T22:55:20.097Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: daniel
Body: <p>Hello I'm new to StackExchange so I apologize if I'm asking this in the wrong place.</p>
  
  <p>My question though, at what point does the resolution of a tablet, monitor, television etc. make no difference to the human eye? Will the standards ever stop or will companies keep on milking our wallets forever (silly question really)?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-09-01T11:33:04.163Z
Comments.Text: I work at a museum. Very high resolution screens offers great scope for large interactive displays that can contain more than just picture content. If you're displaying video on a wall that people are interacting with at close range, HD starts to look fairly shabby. Now if only we had the money to actually afford an 8K projector.
Comments.UserDisplayName: stib
Tags: <video-quality>
Title: Is 8k UHD or even 4k UHD actually necessary?
UserDisplayName: Tom Smale
ThreadText: # Is 8k UHD or even 4k UHD actually necessary?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-08-30)
  
  Hello I'm new to StackExchange so I apologize if I'm asking this in the wrong place.
  
  My question though, at what point does the resolution of a tablet, monitor, television etc. make no difference to the human eye? Will the standards ever stop or will companies keep on milking our wallets forever (silly question really)?
  
  **Tags:** video-quality
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I work at a museum. Very high resolution screens offers great scope for large interactive displays that can contain more than just picture content. If you're displaying video on a wall that people are interacting with at close range, HD starts to look fairly shabby. Now if only we had the money to actually afford an 8K projector.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2016-08-30. Score: 3 | Accepted answer
  
  It all depends, of course, on what you are watching and where you are watching it. For instance, if you are showing something on a huge screen in a movie theater, you could definitely perceive a difference between 1080p and 4K. If you are looking at your phone, perhaps not as much. For standard computer monitor sizes, it's still fairly easy for many to see a difference at 4K, purely because we sit so damn close to our monitors.
  
  Also keep in mind that there are scenarios in which you need to *shoot* in 4K in order to *distribute* in 2K or 1080p. You may need to zoom into one part of your shot and crop most of it out, which you can get away with if the footage you shot was a higher resolution than what you need to output at. This also applies to any footage that you may need to stabilize (i.e. windy drone footage) since stabilization requires cropping your frame. So in these situations, we not only need cameras to shoot in 4K+, but also monitors and devices that can play them back in their full resolutions.
  
  While there are certainly diminishing returns on ever-increasing resolution on small consumer devices, there are people who absolutely perceive the differences between 4K and lower resolutions. Up to 8K and beyond, I'm not so sure, but for the moment, we have not actually crossed that threshold.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks. Are there not artifacts produced when converting from 4k to 1080p, and if so do these artifacts become less noticeable when using higher resolutions... say 8k to 4k.  
  > **username_4**: Actually @username_0 in filmmaking it has been preferred for years to shoot at a higher resolution and then scale down. When done correctly (which isn't difficult), you should actually have far _fewer_ issues with artifacts than if you had shot in the same resolution that you're delivering in. This is because camera sensors and glass lenses aren't flawless, and usually come with a few visual abnormalities of their own. When you have a ton of resolution to work with, you can correct those issues. We're also very good at scaling these days, so that process doesn't generally introduce new issues.  
  > **username_1**: There's also the fact that 4K video shot at 8-bit with 4:2:0 colour becomes essentially 10-bit 4:2:2 when downsampled to 1080p, due to the way four pixels are averaged to make one pixel. So you get much better dynamic range and colour resolution, even on prosumer level cameras.  
  > **username_2**: You can tell the difference between 4K and 1080 when watching it at 1080.  When I edit content, and have to mix media from say my RED Epic, shot at 4K or 5K, with 1080P from an A7S, when you watch the output, the 1080 content... looks blurry, because the 4K content is just really really sharp.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2016-09-03. Score: 0
  
  My experience in viewing a lot of 4k and some 8k, is that 4k will be the threshold... thank god.
  
  This upgrade pattern over the last 10 years has been crazy. We went from SD which was the standard for eons, to 720 to 1080 to 4 in like under a decade.
  
  Theaters, use 4K. So if 4K projected on a screen 24 feet high is high enough quality, it's certainly going to appear sharp as hell on a 72" home screen.
  
  I viewed a 4K and 8K side by side, I did not see any perceivable difference, in terms of sharpness, from a few feet away.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2016-08-30. Score: 0
  
  It depends on viewing distance / angle and pixel pitch, but it's a rare circumstance when 4K will actually be a benefit. In terms of user experience, contrast ratio and color fidelity are more important than resolution.
  
  I don't know of any studies that deal with tablets, but for general viewing anything over 1080p is probably wasted unless you're right on top of the screen: perhaps counter-intuitively, more resolution is wasted unless you move closer to the screen, because the eye can't distinguish more than about 60 pixels per horizontal degree of arc in the central fovea, less outside it.
  
  Take a look at [this blog post](https://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/) for more information.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Interesting link. It seems like the most that you would ever reasonably need for consumer electronics is 4k, or maybe 8k.  
  
  ---
  
  