What about 12K?
The TV industry finally concedes that the future may not be in 8K
Submitted 1 month ago by TheImpressiveX@lemmy.today to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Silly goose, after 8K is 16K!
garretble@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yeahhhhh 8K is going to be pretty far off considering we still get 1080p “enhanced” trash with YoutubeTV for sports games. It looks like ass on my good, 4K TV. I can’t imagine that on an 8K display.
Though some sports - like the Unrivaled games on HBO - are of a higher quality, you just don’t get that everywhere.
And that’s just sports. Couple that with the fact that some people still have data caps, and I just don’t see widespread adoption any time soon.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Also, we haven’t even got HDR figured out.
I’m still struggling to export some of my older RAWs to HDR. Heck, Lemmy doesn’t support JPEG XL, AVIF, TIFF, HEIF, nothing, so I couldn’t even post them here anyway.
ShortFuse@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If you’re talking browsers it’s poor. But HDR on displays is very much figured out and none of the randomness that you get with SDR with user varied gamma, colorspace, and brightness. (That doesn’t stop manufacturers still borking things with Vivid Mode though).
You can pack HDR in JPG/PNG/WebP or anything that supports a ICC and Chrome will display it. The actual formats that support HDR directly are PNG (with cICP) and AVIF and JpegXL.
Your best bet is use avifenc and translate your HDR file. But note that servers may take your image and break it when rescaling.
Best single source for this info is probably: gregbenzphotography.com/hdr/
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Awesome, thanks for the info and source.
Yeah, most of my frustration came from JXL/AVIF/HEIF and how linux/Windows browsers, KDE, and Windows 11 don’t seem to support them well. Not a fan of packing HDR into 8-bits with WebP/JPG, especially with their artifacts, though I haven’t messed with PNG yet.
OhioComrade@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Next big technological innovation will be good looking and fast working e- ink TVs.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I doubt this. I use an e-ink android tablet as an e-reader. I like that it’s easy on the eyes. For using it to scroll Lemmy or even a web page, it’s fine. But the refresh rate (even on the best settings) makes watching a video or gif on it painful.
I don’t think anyone really wants an e-ink TV unless they want something that’s a hybrid. The things you’d use a tv for are just not e-ink things.
Jeffool@lemmy.world 1 month ago
This makes sense to me. A hybrid would be nice. Have a calendar or some art while it’s “off”. But then, that’s probably pretty expensive. (Not that I’ve looked, I’m just assuming.)
OhioComrade@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
There’s some e-ink monitors now that have a refresh rate matching that of normal screens. Although if you want color you need to spend a few thousand. So it’s not too far off that in 5-10 years when the price comes down that we start seeing some kind of e-ink TV.
thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
I remember the horrendous response times of the original GameBoy’s LCD panel, and when I mentally compare it to modern COLOUR panels…
…all I can think is, never say never!
Rooster326@programming.dev 1 month ago
Hmm I have considered this, and I think it is ads beamed straight to the eyeball
- The TV industry… Probably
Tempus_Fugit@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I don’t even have 4K. My main TV is still 1080P and my monitors are 2K.
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Isn’t 2K the same as 1080p essentially?
ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
No, not really. “2K” is 2560x1440 resolution, it’s almost twice the pixel density.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 month ago
2k is 1440p.
720 doubles to 1080.
1080 doubles to 1140
1140 double to 4k.
Companies all skipped 2k for the most part because all consumers cared about was resolution. That’s why the jump to 4k took so fucking long, for the most part we skipped an entire resolution generation. So even with 4k, all the other stuff wasn’t caught up.
Pretty much the same thing happened with 4g, the telecom corps agreed on a set of requirements to say they’d reached a new generation, but the numbers needed to go up before the tech was ready, so they all agreed to just claim 4g arrived, that’s why there was so many different flavors of 4g.
xep@discuss.online 1 month ago
Make a TV that can accurately reproduce really high contrast ratios and don’t put any pointless software on it. Display the image from the source with as much fidelity as possible, supporting all modern display technology like VRR.
That’s all I want from a display.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Honestly, we have way more work to do when it comes to brightness, contrast, and colour.
I’d rather a 1080p screen that has OLED infinite contrast and over 1000 nits of sustained brightness to be fully viewable during the day, over a resolution bump.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
I’m fine with 100 nits and good contrast, better yet a e-paper alternative. Who wants to stare in a lightbulb all day?
masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Someone who wants to be able to see the screen during the day when there’s sunlight in the room.
beemikeoak@lemmynsfw.com 1 month ago
My old projector doesn’t even have anyone knitting in it but it smells like grandma.
BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
My vision is failing faster than resolutions are improving and most of the time I can’t even tell the difference between 4k and 1080p. More interested in higher FPS content becoming more commonplace.
Inucune@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Well, when NFL broadcasts on 720 or 1080i, an 8k tv isn’t going to make that look better. Even a prime subscription only gets you 4k.
GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world 1 month ago
There’s no difference between 4k broadcast on 4k tv vs. 8k broadcast on 8k tv.
network_switch@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
For movies, look up what Alexa Mini’s can do. The very recent past dominant Mini had a 3424x2202 resolution. So movies took a 16x9 or cinemascope crop on that. Most movies shot digitally (most in the last like 20 years) were shot at below 4k. Many had special effects done at 1080p. When movie theaters switched to digital projection, most used 2048x1080 projectors and the shift towards 4k projectors wasn’t that long ago.
The Alexa Mini LF can do 4448x3096. Just a tad bit over 4k once it’s cropped. The Sony Venice 8k camera is a few years old only. There’s a huge amount of loyalty to Arri, particularly the lenses. Panasonic and Z-Cam have 8k cameras. But like Arri, I’d bet most filmmakers would choose the 4k/6k cameras
Even the ones that opt for the 8k cameras, they’re very likely would be lower resolution cameras in use as well like the Alexa Mini or a 4k/6k Z-Cam or like a Sony FX3. Including most nature documentaries. Unless it’s just wide canvasrs, you’re not going to be mounting the 8k cinema cameras all over the place like you would cheaper small cameras like an FX3. Plus stuff like shooting at 240fps 12bit color for slow motion playback. I’m betting that none of the cinema cameras support that. So back down to probably 1080p. Don’t know the status of 4k120 out there. That’s a lot of bandwidth, storage, processing power, and cooling needed
Then there’s 70mm filming. The vast majority of productions cannot do that. There’s a lot of unused footage that goes into filmmaking. If you look at the size of a roll of 70mm film used for projecting a feature length film, it’s huge. It’s boutique equipment. There’s not a ton of cinema 70mm cameras and lenses to rent. Camera operators. Labs to get them scanned for digital editing. 70mm will always be limited in adoption especially now that digital is the dominant form of cinematography
So 8k will for many many years be the land of upscaling and for native, old video games. Videos, I guess two 8k60 cameras rigged together for VR will lead the way along with an occasional movie/documentary. No guarantees that the movie theater will show it in 8k though let alone. It’s taken a very long time for 4k projection to become standard for theaters
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 month ago
No shit, we literally can’t see it.
Inb4 the 144 Hz acolytes get their panties in a twist
quips@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
Increased refreshrates are like 10x more noticeable than post 4k gains. Especially on tvs with any normal viewing distance
jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I bought one on the premise of both PS5 and Xbox Series X releasing 8K content.
We got:
The Touryst - Not a bad game, but not needing 8K either.
Ori and the Will of the Wisps supported 6K, GREAT game.
On the PS5 Pro (through PSSR upscaling)
F1 24 (at 60 FPS)
Gran Turismo 7 (at 60 FPS)
No Man’s Sky (at 30 FPS)
Pure Pool Pro (at 30 FPS with ray tracing)
[REDACTED] (at 60 FPS)
The Callisto Protocol (at 30 FPS with ray tracing)
And that’s it…
ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 1 month ago
You have an 8k screen? Honestly the first person I’ve seen in the wild. How big is it and can you see the resolution difference?
jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 month ago
65" and it’s impressive with ONE drawback… Samsungs HDR implementation SUCKS. Suuuuuuuucks.
Without HDR, everything is bright, crisp, and clean.
With HDR, it’s dark, muddy, and unwatchable.
I’ve done all the firmware updates, RTINGS calibrations, NOTHING works.
Well, nothing except disabling HDR on every device attached to it.
cogitase@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
I could use an 8k 42” OLED monitor for work. I’d need a 130” TV for 8k to be noticeable given the distance I sit from the TV.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You want those 130" tho
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I had an upgrade plan for my PC that involved a step up to a 4k monitor, but when the time came, it was hard enough just finding a 4k monitor with decent specs that I stopped to really think about whether I would really benefit from it. I already knew I didn’t need it, but I realized that I wouldn’t even really gain anything from it. I already used the UI scaling with the one 4k monitor I had at work, so that was a wash. And for games, I didn’t really have any times when I wished the resolution was higher than the 1440p I was already using, but I did have times when I wished it would generate the frames faster or more consistently.
Part of the change was a new GPU to handle 4k better (they were supposed to justify each other), but I ended up just getting an ultrawide 1440p monitor instead.
I don’t think I’ll ever bother with higher than 4k for TV or 1440p for PC.
MetalSlugX@piefed.social 1 month ago
How close are we to the games industry finally giving up the ghost and walking away from VR?
kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 1 month ago
Innovate only when it’s necessary. In the meantime, perfect what exists.
Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Yeah, we’ve gone as far as we need to in the flashy boom boom section of entertainment. Good character, good writing, and fun gameplay were always the cornerstones of good movies and video games.
dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
I have bad eye sight, but also 8k probably never need to be a thing on a tv, more impressive for stuff thats closer to our eyes like VR headsets probably.
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
I can’t stand watching things in 4k. It looks so fake to me.
ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
It was the same when movies started getting released in 1080p back in the day, it just looked weird
realitista@lemmus.org 1 month ago
I mean at least not until we all have 150" TV’s
DirtyAnCom@discuss.online 1 month ago
What’s interesting to me is that film is roughly, perceptually around 8K. However, very very few people have cinema-sized screens in their home, so what’s the point if it’s “only” even 80 inches?
I think giant 8K monitors are still useful for productivity, but only for a small number of people. I personally like having multiple monitors over one big one.
ccunix@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I cannot fathom why, but people do not seem to capable of understanding resolution, screen size and viewing distance as important factors that interplay with each other.
8k is absolutely pointless on a 49" TV that is several metres away. However, I will take 4k over 1080 on even a 24" computer screen every time.
That is just me though, your preferences and vision may be different to mine. Same with the monitors. You like multiple screens, I prefer a single larger screen.
TheOakTree@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
4K vs 8K on a 49" screen across the room is going to have much less of a noticeable difference than 4K vs 1080p on a 24" screen a foot or two away (dancing around the boundary of retina).
I think an 8K 42" would make a great single monitor for productivity, I just can’t imagine driving 8K at idle is very efficient if there aren’t software/firmware solutions to recognize non-moving screens.