Yeah until I can get a 8ki instead of 8kp I’ll hold off /s
Fr though both sound similarly ridiculous
Big Surprise—Nobody Wants 8K TVs
Submitted 7 months ago by TheImpressiveX@lemmy.today to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.howtogeek.com/big-surprisenobody-wants-8k-tvs/
Comments
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Wolf@lemmy.today 7 months ago
I would love to have an 8K TV or monitor if I had an internet connection up to the task and enough content in 8K to make it worth it, or If I had a PC powerful enough to run games smoothly in that resolution.
I think it’s silly to say ‘nobody wants this’ when the infrastructure for it isn’t even close to adequate.
I will admit that there is diminishing returns now, going from 4K to 8K was less impressive than FHD to 4K and I imagine that 8K will probably be where it stops, at least for anything that can reasonably fit in a house.
fuzzywombat@lemmy.world 7 months ago
What’s your opinion on using 8K TV as a monitor?
Wispy2891@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I’d buy a 8k TV, provided that it has no smarts, no WiFi, no TV tuner and its price isn’t over 5% than a 4k TV
bufalo1973@europe.pub 7 months ago
So an 8K monitor.
Wispy2891@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Somehow when it’s called a “monitor” it quadruples the price.
I can’t really accept that a basic 4k 27" monitor without even speakers costs the same of a 4k 65" TV with HDR, deeper blacks, WiFi and a whole spyware operating system
Samuelwankenobi@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Nothing is released in 8k so why would someone want something nothing is in?
FosterMolasses@leminal.space 7 months ago
PS3 has no games lmao
TeddE@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Computer monitor with multiple simultaneous 4k displays?
Grasping at straws here
simsalabim@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Nothing is produced in 8K either.
sixty@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
I’m so content with 1080p
Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 7 months ago
Tbh 720p is good enough
kautau@lemmy.world 7 months ago
TV and movies I’m totally good with 1080p. If I want a cinematic experience, that’s what the cinema is for.
But since switching to PC and gaming in 4k everywhere I can, it feels like a night and day difference to play in 1080p. Granted that means I care about monitor resolution rather than TV resolution.
But as an aside, as a software engineer that works from home, crisp text, decent color spectrum support, good brightness in a bright room, all things that make your day a whole lot better when you stare at a computer screen for a large chunk of your day
aceshigh@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I’m content with 480. High quality isn’t important for me. I still listen to music that I got from Napster.
eleitl@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Na, 4K, even 1080p upscaled to 4K is significantly better thsn FullHD with a video projector.
Routhinator@startrek.website 7 months ago
I like 4k for documentarys ans cinematic shows, but Ill never watch something like TNG or Jessica Jones on 4k again. Takes all the magic away, feels like you’re standing next to the camera guy - suddenly I just see an actor in room and the immersion is broken.
zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com 7 months ago
How many homes have walls big enough for a screen big enough for 8k to matter
Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 months ago
You’d basically need to be sat less than the screen size away from it in order to see any difference at all. And that’s if your vision is perfect.
Chances are you wouldn’t be able to tell for video content even then. I can only really tell on gaming when the anti aliasing is shit.
SippyCup@feddit.nl 7 months ago
Well now see my cousin Skeeter got himself a 8k TV with that settlement money he got from when he got run over by that bmw downtown tryin to get his kids back ya know? At the courthouse? Anyway he was sposed to use that money to pay fer his doctors and whatnot but he got himself that TV and the dang thing wouldn’t fit through the door! Got her in to the trailer but couldn’t go no where so he put that sucker up right outside has movie nights the whole park can come n see. Course ol Skeet likes them naughty flicks you know with the blood and gore and titties n stuff, talkin bout like Dusk Till Dawn, talkin bout some Striptease, uh you know what’s the other one the one where the girl takes off her bathing suit Fast Times that’s the one. Anyway the boys in the neighborhood LOVE ol skeets movie nights but I think some o them parents are gonna set his trailer on fire for too long here now.
eleitl@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
You can use a pull-down screen attached to ceiling and a ceiling-mounted video projector. 4K is fine for that. I would not be able to tell the difference between 4K and 8K in such a setup.
pulsewidth@lemmy.world 7 months ago
The consumer has spoken and they don’t care, not even for 4K. Same as happened with 3D and curved TVs, 8K is a solution looking for a problem so that more TVs get sold.
In terms of physical media - at stores in Australia the 4K section for Blurays takes up a single rack of shelves. Standard Blurays and DVDs take up about 20.
Even DVDs still sell well because many consumers don’t see a big difference in quality, and certainly not enough to justify the added cost of Bluray, let alone 4K editions. A current example, Superman is $20 on DVD, $30 on Bluray (50% cost increase) or $40 on 4K (100%) cost increase. Streaming services have similar pricing curves for increased fidelity.
It sucks for fans of high res, but it’s the reality of the market. 4K will be more popular in the future if and when it becomes cheaper, and until then nobody (figuratively) will give a hoot about 8K.
bufalo1973@europe.pub 7 months ago
It’s amazingly stupid having those prices. DVD should cost the same as Bluray and both should cost $25 max. After all, a DVD and a Bluray are two technologies far past their ROI date.
weew@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Some of the smaller 4k sets work as an XXL computer monitor
But for a living room tv, you seriously need space for a 120"+ set to actually see any benefit of 8k. Most people don’t even have the physical space for that
skisnow@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
I hate the wording of the headline, because it makes it sound like the consumers’ fault that the industry isn’t delivering on something they promised. It’s like marketing a fusion-powered sex robot that’s missing the power core, and turning around and saying “nobody wants fusion-powered sex robots”.
Side note, I’d like for people to stop insisting that 60fps looks “cheap”, so that we can start getting good 60fps content. Heck, at this stage I’d be willing to compromise at 48fps if it gets more directors on board. We’ve got the camera sensor technology in 2025 for this to work in the same lighting that we used to need for 24fps, so that excuse has flown.
ftbd@feddit.org 7 months ago
The only complaints I’ve ever heard about 60fps are from gamers who prefer higher refresh rates. Does anyone advocate for framerates to be lower than 60??
Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
Yes, movie people complain that more than 24 fps looks like soap operas (because digital TV studio cameras moved to 60 fps first).
DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Even 4K is not yet easily available . I mean except from AppleTV plus that all content is 4K and it’s part of basic subscription, every other streaming charges much more for 4K content, most people don’t want to pay more every month for 4K
So 8K is just a distant reality that content makers are not really wanting to happen
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 7 months ago
4k is really cheap now.
having said that, I have a4k TV and practically only use 1080p for everything.
videogames? performance mode
movies/tv/YouTube? 1080p for better buffering.
MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
We’re still limited by what the HDMI and DP cables can throughput so it’s not like 8k tvs are even ready. Nobody wants an 8k tv if the cables can’t even transmit full fat uncompressed signal.
DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Wait HDMI 2.1 does not support uncompressed 8K? How much data rate you need for 8K?
goatinspace@feddit.org 7 months ago
Open Source 10K TV please
n1ck_n4m3@lemmy.world 7 months ago
As someone who stupidly spent the last 20 or so years chasing the bleeding edge of TVs and A/V equipment, GOOD.
High end A/V is an absolute shitshow. No matter how much you spend on a TV, receiver, or projector, it will always have some stupid gotcha, terrible software, ad-laden interface, HDMI handshaking issue, HDR color problem, HFR sync problem or CEC fight. Every new standard (HDR10 vs HDR10+, Dolby Vision vs Dolby Vision 2) inherently comes with its own set of problems and issues and its own set of “time to get a new HDMI cable that looks exactly like the old one but works differently, if it works as advertised at all”.
I miss the 90s when the answer was “buy big chonky square CRT, plug in with component cables, be happy”.
Now you can buy a $15,000 4k VRR/HFR HDR TV, an $8,000 4k VRR/HFR/HDR receiver, and still somehow have them fight with each other all the fucking time and never work.
8K was a solution in search of a problem. Even when I was 20 and still had good eyesight, sitting 6 inches from a 90 inch TV I’m certain the difference between 4k and 8k would be barely noticeable.
Kinokoloko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
Bro I honest to God can’t see the difference between 1080 and 4k, you could put them both next to me and I’d struggle to point out which is which. We don’t need 8k. Enough is enough
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 7 months ago
You could probably see the difference on a big enough TV. The kind of thing you only see in home theaters. I’m not sure you could make a big enough TV for 8k to matter.
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 7 months ago
Like watching a movie in 720p vs 1080p in the notebook, you don’t see the difference. Once you try the same in a TV you notice how the 720p looks like shit.
Oderus@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Not just size of TV but quality of TV. Not all 4k panels are the same. Spend lots of money on a kickass OLED TV and you’ll see the difference between 1080p and 4k. Assuming both sources are of high quality of course. Comparing a high quality 1080p vs a low quality 4k isn’t enough.
BlackVenom@lemmy.world 7 months ago
For what content? Video gaming (GPUs) has barely gotten to 4k. Movies? 4k streaming is a joke; better off with 1080 BD. If you care about quality go physical… UHD BD is hard to find and you have to wait and hunt to get them at reasonable prices… And these days there are only a couple UHD BD Player mfg left.
BanMe@lemmy.world 7 months ago
It’s because for the Average Joe, having a TV box at the end of your driveway that has the latest big number on it is important. It’s how they gain their identity. Do not upset them for obvious reasons.
oatscoop@midwest.social 7 months ago
Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 7 months ago
That’s the dumbest part of it all is that pirates seriously get the best movie/TV experience of anyone. I mean, maybe if you spend a shitton on DVD and BluRays to rip you can match that experience, but even that can be legally dubious depending on the jurisdiction
BlackVenom@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Is there a player other than the shield that can play them and be simple? Roku Ultra can’t handle most 4k HQ streams .
LiveLM@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Those rips are still coming from physical. If those go extinct too, bye bye BD Rips…
Hackworth@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
It’s such a shame that UHD isn’t easier to find. Even the ones you can find are poorly mastered half the time. But a good UHD on an OLED is chef’s kiss just about the closest you can get to having a 35mm reel/projector at home.
You are absolutely on point with 4k streaming being a joke. Most 4k streams are 8-20 Mbps. A UHD runs at 128 Mbps.
GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Most 4k streams are 8-20 Mbps. A UHD runs at 128 Mbps.
Bitrate is only one variable in overall perceived quality. There are all sorts of tricks that can significantly reduce file size (and thus bitrate of a stream) without a perceptible loss of quality. And somewhat counterintuitively, the compression tricks work a lot better on higher resolution source video, which is why each quadrupling in pixels (doubling height and width) doesn’t quadruple file size.
The codec matters (h.264 vs h.265/HEVC vs VP9 vs AV1), and so do the settings actually used to encode. Netflix famously is willing to spend a lot more computational power on encoding, because they have a relatively small number of videos and many, many users watching the same videos. In contrast, YouTube and Facebook don’t even bother re-encoding into a more efficient codec like AV1 until a video gets enough views that they think they can make up the cost of additional processing with the savings of lower bandwidth.
Video encoding is a very complex topic, and simple bitrate comparisons only barely scratch the surface in perceived quality.
tatterdemalion@programming.dev 7 months ago
Pretty sure my eyes max out at 4K. I can barely tell the difference between 4K and 1080P from my couch.
sobchak@programming.dev 7 months ago
HDR is more noticeable, but yeah, I don’t care if it’s 1080p or 4k.
BlackVenom@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Try BD vs UHD BD on a modern movie. No Country for Old Men for example. Hugely noticeable.
skisnow@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Yeah. Another one for me was Deadpool, because the texture of his outfit actually feels real on the 4K disc in a way that it doesn’t in HD.
Whenever I see people point at math equations “proving” that it’s impossible to tell the difference from a comfortable viewing distance, I think of Deadpool’s contours.
Can I identify the individual pixels in HD? Nope. Does it make a difference? Yes definitely.
Evotech@lemmy.world 7 months ago
If you can’t notice it when you’re not comparing side by side it doesn’t count
Ileftreddit@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Well the good thing is info storage cost and processing power tends to increase over time, so that’s one side of their argument handled; and things tend to keep progressing technologically over time, so I’d assume 8k would eventually replace 4k, and so on and so on; but the human eye does have a limit to what it can resolve- so at some point 2d images will probably just be as good as we need them to be
Inucune@lemmy.world 7 months ago
8k is going to be for things like billboards, movies, and jumbotron-scale applications.
HubertManne@piefed.social 7 months ago
If we had the 90's economy there would be a bunch of folks looking to get 8k tvs.
happydoors@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I am a filmmaker and have shot in 6k+ resolution since 2018. The extra pixels are great for the filmmaking side. Pixel binning when stepping down resolutions allows for better noise, color reproduction, sharpened details, and great for re-framing/cropping. 99% of my clients want their stuff in 1080p still! I barely even feel the urge to jump up to 4k unless the quality of the project somehow justifies it. Images have gotten to a good place. Detail won’t provide much more for human enjoyment. I hope they continue to focus on dynamic range, HDR, color accuracy, motion clarity, efficiency, etc. I won’t say no when we step up to 8k as an industry but computing as a whole is not close yet.
Hupf@feddit.org 7 months ago
The extra pixels are great for the filmmaking side.
obsoleteacct@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Imagine you’re finishing in 8k, so you want to shoot higher resolution to give yourself some options in reframing and cropping? I don’t think Red, Arri, or Panavision even makes a cinema camera with a resolution over 8k. I think Arri is still 4k max. You’d pretty much be limited to Blackmagic cameras for 12k production today.
Plus the storage requirements for keeping raw footage in redundancy. Easy enough for a studio, but we’re YEARS from 8k being a practical resolution for most filmmakers.
My guess is most of the early consumer 8k content will be really shoddy AI upscaled content that can be rushed to market from film scans.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 7 months ago
film scanning at 4k res already reveals the granular structure of film, at 8k it’s going to become hard to ignore. And you’re spot on - they’ll do crappy 8k upres garbage for ages before the storage and streaming become practical.
happydoors@lemmy.world 7 months ago
There is also a 17k blackmagic coming out! The high resolution sensors they use aren’t a standard RGB pixel layout though so it’s not a great direct comparison. Like you said though, there’s no pipeline or good workflow for 8k in the slightest. Will take years if the industry decides to push for it
Natanael@infosec.pub 7 months ago
The same argument goes for audio too.
6K and 8K is great for editing, just like how 96 KHz 32+ bit and above is great for editing. But it’s meaningless for watching and listening (especially for audio, you can’t hear the difference above 44khz 16 bit). When editing you’ll often stack up small artifacts, which can be audible or visible if editing at the final resolution but easy to smooth over if you’re editing at higher resolutions.
arararagi@ani.social 7 months ago
2tb drives aren’t as cheap as I would hope
Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Nobody will ever need an 8K TV, but 8K content would be nice on a (purely theoretical atm) pleasant to use head mounted display, one day
Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
The difference between 1080 and 4K is pretty visible, but the difference between 4K and 8K, especially from across a room, is so negligible that it might as well be placebo.
Also the fact that 8K content takes up a fuckload more storage space. So, there’s that, too.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
solution: 16K 3D TV. buy now.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 7 months ago
if it’s a 16’ x 9’ screen, I’m in.
ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 7 months ago
I only want the curved IMAX version, though
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Even 1080p isn’t hugely different from 4k in many cases. Yeah, you can probably notice it, but both are fantastic resolutions. I’ve had a 4k TV for years, and I can count the number of times I’ve actually watched 4k content on it on two hands because it generally isn’t worth the storage space or extra cost.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
depends how far you are from the screen.
Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
I find that it really depends on the content on the size of the display.
The larger the display, the more you’d benefit from having a higher resolution.
For instance, a good quality 1080p stream vs a highly compressed 4k stream probably won’t look much different. But a “raw” 4k stream looks incredible… think of the demos you see in stores showing off 4k TVs… that quality is noticeable.
Put the same content on a 50"+ screen, and you’ll see the difference.
When I had Netflix, watching in 4k was great, but to me, having HDR is “better”.
On a computer monitor, there’s a case for high-resolution displays because they allow you to fit more on the screen without making the content look blurry. But on a TV, 4k + HDR is pretty much peak viewing for most people.
That’s not to say that if you create content, 8k is useless. It can be really handy when cropping or re-framing if needed, assuming the desired output is less than 8k.
derry@midwest.social 7 months ago
4k ought to be enough for anybody
flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Another possibility for why consumers don’t seem to care about 8k is the common practice by content owners and streaming services charging more for access to 4k over 1080p.
Normalizing that practice invites the consumer to more closely scrutinize the probable cost of something better than 4k compared to the probable return.
Sunflier@lemmy.world 7 months ago
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.
Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months ago
I hear anything at or above 8k resolution negates the need for anti aliasing entirely… But I feel that my pc would would be running at or around 10-15 fps for most games I would care about anti aliasing on.
Nice in theory, definitely can’t handle that many pixels in reality.
FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Not exactly surprising, considering the TV’s and monitors are outpacing the contemt creators and gaming development.
A lot of gamers don’t even have GPU’s that can crank out 4K at the frame rates most monitors are capable of. So 8K won’t do much for you. And movies and regular TV? Man, I’m happy there’s 4K available.
A 4K screen will be more than most folks need right now, so buying an 8K at the moment is just wasted money. Like buying a Ferrari and only ever driving 25 mph.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 months ago
Yeah, no shit. The only possible use is gaming, and even PC owners have been upscaling for some time now.
The only case where you might even notice a difference by going to 8K resolution is high end VR, but that’s no reason to have 8K in a TV.
Even 4K is overkill for most movies. The HDR is the selling point there, which I’ll admit looks nice.
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
Who is out here filming at that resolution anyway? Cannot fathom the file sizes of anything made for these TVs
cynar@piefed.social 7 months ago
Uncompressed 1080 is already approaching the eyes resolution limit, when viewing it in a living room environment. 4K is close to the monitor usage limit.
The reason that 4K seems better is often down to bandwidth and colour depth.
There's zero benefit to an 8K TV. An 8K monitor might be useful, but is still well into the diminishing returns curve.
There's still some ground to be made up with colours and frame rates, but resolution is effectively maxed out already.