>>4459827Generally, yes.
Like don't even... what this guy is saying?
>>4459827 ... it's not "wrong" but it's not the fucking problem, the modern TV is an abomination even with its ideal settings.
local dimming, bad greyscale uniformity, inaccurate colors, sometimes has inversion artifacts making 4k not any better than 1080p or 720p.. (per-pixel details smeared) and other things like HDR tone mapping not displaying SDR / SRGB images properly, or, it just being shit and having shit contrast with meme cheat things that don't hold up.
An HDTV from 2005 or 2010 is usually superior to a modern 4K display.
It shouldn't be, but it is, because back then there were standards and people had expectations. Now TVs are bait devices to trick children into going "mommy mommy mommy! I want this one for the netflix! look at all the gizmos and gadgets, mommy, it's a SMART tv! pleeeeeeeease it even comes with 30 days free of HBO!!" and people give in and don't even think of the screen quality. We are so fucked.
Now if you happen to have a good TV, with RGB subpixels, 4:4:4 chroma, good static contrast without HDR bullshit, your photos should look good. Unfortunately that isn't the case for 90% of consumer TVs today. They always fuck something up at the hardware level, then usually are out-of-box with shit settings that further degrade visual quality.
Remember the target audience doesn't even know what a JPEG is. They are fucking retards. Literal fucking retards. They will see a perfect specimen of a TV on display and actually choose the one full of motion artifacts, blooming, and backlight flickering because the color saturation was turned to 200% showing some flowers in a demo video and they thought the neon green stems and RGB red roses with no texture just pure red looked STUNNING.
