Comment on Big Surprise—Nobody Wants 8K TVs
Gerudo@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
How about uncompressed 4k before going to even more compression 8k. I have seen uncompressed 8k content on an 8k TV. I couldn’t tell the difference between it and a good quality 4k picture, and I’m admittedly a quality snob. I can tell the difference in 1080 vs 4k pretty easily even on cheap tvs, it’s just virtually non existent at 8k vs 4k in tv sizes up to 80 inch beyond viewing inches away from the screen.
Hexagon@feddit.it 1 day ago
That would be… (checks math)… about 5.972 Gbps of bandwidth, assuming just non-HDR content and 30 fps. Probably impossible for most people.
Less compression could make sense, but literally no compression would be a colossal waste of bandwidth and storage.
Gerudo@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Maybe that’s the point I meant to make clearer. 8k, even compressed would take more bandwidth, or it’s going to be compressed so much that it totally defeats the purpose of 8k content.
Hexagon@feddit.it 1 day ago
No, I wanted to make a different point: that uncompressed video would be unreasonably huge. Nobody uses it. Regardless of the resolution, a good compressed video looks basically the same but it is hundreds of times smaller.
You should ask for less compressed video. Uncompressed is just not worth it.