fne8w2ahLG joins Sony and TCL in abandoning 8K TV market
actually true, there are people with above 20/20 vision and 8k tv would be like us going from 1080p to 4k to them. We should upgrade everyone’s vision to beyond 20/20 that would be a net benefit for everyone! Then we can all enjoy 8k tv. But honestly as a glasses wearer, the main benefit of 8k tvs are that you can go up to the tv to see way more details. It’s quite amazing and underrated, if you do the same to a same size 4k tv you can notice the pixels like a 1080p tv.
lumpenproletariatImagine what you could see with as 16K TV.
demonswordwhy stop there, let’s go 640k TV, that ought to be enough for anyone
NatakuNoxIt’s the next 3D.
They try to expand in all dimensions. Bigger panels. Higher res. Higher bit depth. Increased contrast ratios. Stereoscopics. Higher refresh rates.
Yet to find a real world use for anything over a 65" QHD at 60Hz 8bpp.
Look, you’re happy with a mid-range setup, good for you.
But sticking your head in the sand pretending that there aren’t affordable features that improve the experience is Fedora wearing nerd shit.
The fedora wearing nerds are ones with 244Hz ultrawide 4k HDR monitors.
What you’re describing is everyone who just wants to watch a TV show comfortably on their sofa. You could swap any TV for a base-model TCL the same size and they won’t notice.
The human eye can’t perceive beyond 60fps. Fackt.
I’ve never seen an 8k TV but ignorance is bliss as I’m still rocking 1080 and happy. I do see the difference at 4k when at friends houses but 1080 still looks good in my living room.
2k is nice. 4k is pushing the limit of utility, even if you can get content for it (or play games with that resolution if gaming). 8k is beyond any need for any normal person. Maybe if you have a private movie studio you could use it, but I don’t think that’s what this is discussing.
2k is the best. For pc games it’s thr gold standard for me. I can hardly see the difference from between 2k and 4k and my GPU is grateful.
rogssonThe majority of ppl watching a streaming service with shitty res and crappy compression would do fine on 1080p
joelfromausI agree. My Plex server is majority 720p with decent bitrate with a lot of 1080p with decent bitrate and a tiny amount of 4K with subpar bitrate (otherwise it’s too large). The 720p is noticeable on the big screen but good luck spotting between 1080p and 4K. It might be different with full 4K Blueray rips but I’m not using 50-80Gb per movie.
I’ve downloaded some 4k content to do side-by-side with 1080p and it’s a struggle to notice the difference.
Not on desktop use. Which is a market segment that is under served.
Would love to replace my 4x 1440p monitor setup with a 50 inch 8k TV setup.
8k gaming? In this economy? That’s a niche that less than 0.1% of people can even afford
Gaming would be done at 4k. It’s 8k for productivity.
Presuming you mean 4x 2560x1440 there, you can have close enough to that pixel count today; one of the things Dell released at CES this year was a 52" 6144x2560 display (U5226KW).
Since it's intended to be a monitor, you get a USB hub, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, and other things you wouldn't get on a TV, too.
I've been looking at it longingly, but I can't quite justify that pricetag right now.
Its a step in the right direction.
Not quite the aspect ratio I am looking for and the price is too eye watering.
What I want is an 8k 16:9 or 16:10 display for around double the price of a 4k display at the same price as a high end 4k TV (OLED or mini led)
That would be nice for CAD work, but it would have to be an actual PC monitor, not a TV. 42 inch would be just about right for my desk. The only ones I’ve seen are 32 inch, which is too small to replace four monitors.
I think 50 inch is about the upper end for what can fit on a desk, but a 42 inch is the upper limit for most. I used to have a 42inch 4k monitor, but it broke and got discontinued.
I still miss that display.
I’ve got a 43" 4k Gigabyte Aorus display. 144hz+freesync, dual hdmi+usb-c+DP with a hub and all that. It’s IPS, they had an OLED but it was 48" and more money than I could justify at the time.
Definitely recommend, but 8k would be so much better. I know this article is primarily “no 8k TVs” but the panels are used across many segments and I fear they will no longer have manufacturering setup for 8k for desktop use either at this rate.
thehatfoxFor a lot of people most of their content isn’t even 1080p. Plenty of people watching DVDs and many TV channels only broadcast in SD.
Display technology has long outpaced content delivery.
khannieYeah, surprisingly DVD is still heavily outselling 4K bluray. Seems weird to my but I guess the players are ubiquitous.
New blurays are 30-50 each. New DVDs are 5 or less, each. Libraries usually have bigger dvd collections than bluray collections. People use what they can afford, not what is best.
vaultdweller013Also there’s nearly 30 years worth of DVD content available, it’s basically for the same reason why VHS still has a present following.
When 4K players cost $500 to get something considered “good but not great”… yeah no wonder no ones buying
HDR, or Dolby Vision? From my research, anything less than the Panasonic UB820 either has missing features, or longevity issues.
Even still, 180 euro is well above the under $40 you can lots of DVD and even Standard Blu Ray
Personally, I grabbed a MakeMKV compatible UHD optical drive from eBay for $150, and just remux my discs to Plex… and then use CoreELEC on the Ugoos AM6B+ to ensure proper Dolby Vision and Lossless Audio support…. but I know that’s not exactly a mainstream option.
I still watch most streaming like YouTube and twitch on 720p because I really don’t see nor care about the difference to 1080p.
It’s crazy how different people experience things. I find it annoying and less pleasant to watch YouTube at 1080p since they downgraded the bitrate and locked it behind premium. I actually almost always watch at 4k or 1440p60 even on a phone screen just because of the bitrate.
I watch YouTube on a HP pavilion CRT, weirdly enough it almost requires me to watch with the improved bitrate due to weird artifacting. But I have premium regardless due to shitty work reasons, I drive for work so yeah.
SkunkWorkzand a lot of movies aren’t even sharper in 4k. Since for a long time movies used a 2k intermediary format for post production, even if the movie was shot with a 4k camera.
Early 2000s to mid 2010s movies shot digitally? Sure. Film shot movies, especially on 35mm or larger, absolutely look better in 4k. Especially when they’ve been restored from the negative and converted to HDR for a 4k release.
There’s a lot of older movies out there where the UHD Blu Ray is the definitive version to own, looking significantly better than any prior version (and will likely never look better).
I got a 1440p monitor, it’s 32 inches, and predominately use the bigger area for coding
The only market for 8k is movie theaters and megatrons. It’s absolutely not necessary to have it in your tv in your house. And it’s also insanely expensive to get the proper hardware to drive it at full resolution.
MalReynoldsAnd it’s also insanely expensive to get the proper hardware to drive it at full resolution.
The shame being 8K (as 2x4K or even more) is awesome for VR headsets, but the only things capable of really driving them are stupidly expensive (thanks NVIDIA) or dual card setups (thanks Mobo producers for making that bad, and CPU manufacturers who insist consumers only need 20-24 PCIe lanes to artificially segment the market, sigh).
Most cinemas are 2k as well I think
IMAX has a laser thing that renders in 4K, but the point still stands. 1080p is good enough for me, and cinema once a year to have fun with friends.
The automatic HDR on my TV was a revolution because it changed the picture. 4K changes nothing.
It’s not like we went from black-and-white to color TV, it’s like “here are way more pixels but most people don’t care because they talk and drink during the movie.” Movie nerds may care and it’s fine, but I can’t justify buying a new TV for that.
Even your 4k Netflix is mastered in 2k and uprezed. Often shot in 6k to allow for zooming in in the edit
Paranoid FactoidThese days 12k at 14-16 bit is the norm.
megatrons
Fair lol
Even there it’s wasted. There is just no place between pixel density, size and distance for anythng much over 4k. Except maybe video walls, where you don’t see the whole image at once.
That’s what I meant re: megatrons (the giant video replay screens they have in a lot of big sports arenas)