I think 8k has a use, just not in consumer televisions for things like Netflix or gaming. 8k’s real use is most likely in the medical field where high high high high detail is extremely important.
Some surgeries don’t open someone completely up and rely on imaging machines (like when they put a stint in a heart). Also some surgeries are done remotely. So high detail can be important.
I think you’ve missed the point. At a certain pixel per inch, your eye cannot see more detail or discern any difference, so it’s completely useless to have more if you’re not able to pick up on it.
The primary difference there will be in camera quality then, not monitor resolution - and if the doctor needs to see something in higher detail, they move the camera closer. Cameras that small aren’t going to be 4K anyways, the sensor density doesn’t get that high.
Because medicine is a field that seems to most benefit from high technology and, when a loved one of mine is treated by a doctor, I’d rather use a cannon to swat a mosquito.
Nonsense. Medicine is a mish-mash of reductive thinking and conservatism. You may be thinking of outlier cases, but the day to day bread and butter of medicine is 19th century with dipping mustards.
Your attitude is why we end up with antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Do you also drive a tank to the grocery store in case of a fender bender?
Why would the medical field need 8k screens? They can just zoom in on a lower res display y’know? Nobody is looking at a screen with a magnifying glass
I think a possible application for 8k displays is the huge displays where the viewer is extremely close to the display. But that would still just be the same pixel density as a lower res display.
Another area I think high pixel density might be useful for is patterning. Like PCB manufacturing and other photoresist stuff. But that’s a problem already solved by much cheaper technologies
I’d rather the doctor performing life-saving surgery not have screen resolution being an inhibition. I’d rather they have the best tools and resources available.
But the doctor needs to see every quark and gluon in your molecules! How did they perform heart transplants in the 1960s!
Please don’t get in the way of technophiles inventing all kinds of fantasy scenarios to justify their hoarder-like behavior.
High resolution imaging is important not hi res viewers.
You’re probably right in like 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of cases, but I’d want to ensure we could save that extra 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%. I’d sacrifice anything and everything for just one more day with my loved ones. So, its probably overkill, but I’d rather screen resolution not being the thing that costs me time with those I care about.
I think 8k has a use, just not in consumer televisions for things like Netflix or gaming. 8k’s real use is most likely in the medical field where high high high high detail is extremely important.
How high detail if 300 dpi is already almost impossible to separate into dots for a human eye?
Some surgeries don’t open someone completely up and rely on imaging machines (like when they put a stint in a heart). Also some surgeries are done remotely. So high detail can be important.
I think you’ve missed the point. At a certain pixel per inch, your eye cannot see more detail or discern any difference, so it’s completely useless to have more if you’re not able to pick up on it.
The primary difference there will be in camera quality then, not monitor resolution - and if the doctor needs to see something in higher detail, they move the camera closer. Cameras that small aren’t going to be 4K anyways, the sensor density doesn’t get that high.
Yikes, if you’re trying to put a “stint” into someone’s heart, imaging is the least of your worries.
Solution: use a stent.
Not a doctor, so I’ll take your word for it.
Then why offer all the medical examples? Stint and stent are two different words.
Because medicine is a field that seems to most benefit from high technology and, when a loved one of mine is treated by a doctor, I’d rather use a cannon to swat a mosquito.
Nonsense. Medicine is a mish-mash of reductive thinking and conservatism. You may be thinking of outlier cases, but the day to day bread and butter of medicine is 19th century with dipping mustards. Your attitude is why we end up with antibiotic resistant bacteria. Do you also drive a tank to the grocery store in case of a fender bender?
Why would the medical field need 8k screens? They can just zoom in on a lower res display y’know? Nobody is looking at a screen with a magnifying glass
I think a possible application for 8k displays is the huge displays where the viewer is extremely close to the display. But that would still just be the same pixel density as a lower res display.
Another area I think high pixel density might be useful for is patterning. Like PCB manufacturing and other photoresist stuff. But that’s a problem already solved by much cheaper technologies
I’d rather the doctor performing life-saving surgery not have screen resolution being an inhibition. I’d rather they have the best tools and resources available.
Oh come on most doctors still view stuff like scans on 720p VGA screens. It’s fine. High resolution imaging is important not hi res viewers.
This is like saying you need to have a 128k screen to view electron microscope images
But the doctor needs to see every quark and gluon in your molecules! How did they perform heart transplants in the 1960s! Please don’t get in the way of technophiles inventing all kinds of fantasy scenarios to justify their hoarder-like behavior.
You’re probably right in like 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of cases, but I’d want to ensure we could save that extra 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%. I’d sacrifice anything and everything for just one more day with my loved ones. So, its probably overkill, but I’d rather screen resolution not being the thing that costs me time with those I care about.
8k screens won’t make any difference.
I work in construction and the “digital” plan table has a resolution issue.