Recent comments in /f/gadgets

FlanOfAttack t1_it9uqhv wrote

For me it's a desktop productivity thing. I've been using 27" 1440p monitors for about a decade, and I'd like to high-PPI the desktop and gain a little more screen real estate. To properly double my resolution I'd have to go up to 5K, and that would still be a 27" monitor.

With 8K at 40", I could have the pixel density of a MacBook display, but the screen real estate of two full desktop monitors.

8

BenekCript t1_it9u2xy wrote

For similar reasons (cost) they also use lower fidelity sound mix. This is most noticeable in the surround channels. If you have at least a 5.1 system, watch a show you own on a streaming platform and then on 4k blu ray. Even those who don’t care about such things will notice the difference. The majority do not though, or would be unwilling to stomach increased cost to get there with streaming today. It also doesn’t help that the general internet infrastructure probably can’t support it en masse.

1

danielv123 t1_it9sboy wrote

It's about bitrate. All video is compressed. Compression introduces artifacts - you can see this on low res youtube videos for example, rather than seeing large squares with a uniform color you see weird blob like patterns etc, especially in areas with gradients.

The bitrate is how much compressed data is transferred per second. More bitrate means less artifacts, but more expensive for the provider.

Typical 4k blue ray runs at about 100mbit/s. Apples high quality streaming tops out at 40, youtube typically runs about 15 but can reach as much as 40 in some scenes. Netflix doesn't go past 20.

This is not an inherent streaming limitation though, it's just about how much the provider wants to spend. I stream shows from Plex just fine at 120mbps.

5

MrMitchWeaver t1_it9lnxa wrote

I'm going to have to go sentence by sentence because your comment is laughable.

> less peak power consumption will save the planet.

Partly, yes. Maybe not my TV specifically but billions of them working every day do have an effect.

> Better yet, stop eating meat & start eating bugs, they’re greener.

I try to cut back for sure, but me changing my diet for the rest of my life is absolutely not comparable to you having to wait a few months until the engineering is fixed. Not even a little bit.

> The amount of propaganda you guys eat from corporations and billionaires

You are literally defending the 8K lobby right now. They wrote the article that spawned this thread.
Remember when corporations told us that cigarettes didn't cause cancer?
Now they are telling us that they can't make efficient TVs.
Let's talk again in 12 months to see if they were able to decipher this unsolvable challenge.

> YOU as a person are 100% responsable for global warming is unbelievable

They don't say that and I don't believe it. I do believe we are all responsible of making green choices whenever we can by choosing to consume or not consume something, or to encourage or not encourage certain products and businesses. I don't encourage inefficient electronics.

> They live like kings, 1 polluting like 1 million of us pheasants,

I think you meant to say peasants. Yes, they are worse than us.

> but we must be held responsible for them.

No, each person is responsible for their own actions. They for theirs and we for ours.

> You guys can live like as you like,

Thank you for your permission. I will continue trying to not melt the planet.

> I have only 1 life

Fortunately.

> I won’t live like a dog.

So not getting an inefficient TV at an early date equates to "living like a dog." Gotcha. I'm going to try really hard to not die of laughter whenever I think of that.

−3

NelchaelSS t1_it9l73j wrote

>Imagine typing this rant attached to an article literally written by corporations wanting to sell you more unsustainable crap.

So? What does me being a consumer to a company has to do with the fact that companies/billionaires pollute?

Should we stop buying anything just because the guys we buy from pollute?

And the article says clearly: for the technology we have microLED (which is already very power efficient), we can't reach the EEI, because 8K displays would need to consume as much energy as 4k displays. 33 million pixels can't consume less energy than 8.2 million pixels + that you need a more powerful SoC to process the image.

As easy as that. That's why laws about tech should be passed by walking fossils that are tech illiterates. (and that these kind of laws should be updated regularly)

8

Jv1856 t1_it9jzjn wrote

Yes they should, bc this shit isn’t the problem. The problem is places like my old company that are using 40yo electric motors at 37% more draw than a contemporary motor. It works, so they’ll run it in to the ground. The power that place uses is 200x more than the rest of the town combined. Now think about the fact that there are 11 other manufacturing sites in that town, most (if not all) of which are at least as dated. And they all get a lower rate per kWh than residents. The municipality is just as bad too.

But yeah, focus on the consumers….

7

NelchaelSS t1_it9ii9s wrote

Yeah, keep believing that your green TV with 50W/h less peak power consumption will save the planet. Better yet, stop eating meat & start eating bugs, they’re greener.

The amount of propaganda you guys eat from corporations and billionaires, that YOU as a person are 100% responsable for global warming is unbelievable. They live like kings, 1 polluting like 1 million of us peasants, but we must be held responsible for them.

You guys can live like as you like, but I have only 1 life and I won’t live like a dog.

5