8k is pointless. I even rarely use 4k on my 65".
They might look better but they’re too fucking expensive
Even if they were priced the same as 4K they would still be a bad value. Computers and consoles struggle with 4K 120Hz so 4 times the resolution is too much to ask.
My 55" 4K OLED LG is the single greatest TV panel I’ve ever looked at. I can’t determine any individual pixels, the blacks are black. I have no issues with it in the slightest. And I see absolutely no reason why any TV of that size should need 4x more pixel density (or whatever it is).
Not sure what the manufacturers were thinking, this chart has existed for a long time, you have to be sitting pretty close or looking at a rather large screen for 8K to make sense
What it feels like to look at a TV that’s close enough to justify 8K:
Where would 1440p lie on this?
1440p screens are all monitors you sit 2-4’ from. That close you can justify a higher resolution but people pick 1440p for other reasons like frame rate.
Yeah, most people aren’t within 6 feet of their TV, and most people aren’t buying 100" TVs either. 8K is relevant for virtually nobody.
A lot of companies are successfully working on larger panels (I saw something about a 165" TV recently), so 8K may have a good place in a theatre room one day, but that still leaves you a lot of problems to solve first, and is far from mainstream until all of that becomes a lot cheaper.
We bought a 60" LG LCD first. It was too big for our living room, so when the backlight went faulty and we were offered a refund we chopped it in for the 55" OLED, which is basically perfect for our room.
Turns out 5" really can make a difference.
I am sitting within 6 feet of mine, well lying in bed really. The 50 inches of my TV are huge from that distance and it’s still well within the 1080p zone of that graphic. And this 4k TV was already pretty cheap when I bought it almost a decade ago. I gave up watching 4k content years ago when I could not tell the difference to high quality 1080p content.
and then you have people like me who use 50inch TVs as computer monitors that sit on their desk.
Yea same. But I fucking DESPISE the LG remote. Holy shit whoever thought about putting a fucking trackpad as the main navigation element needs to burn in hell.
Yeah, it’s not great.
Luckily, we do 99% of our viewing through an Apple TV, and we have a soundbar, so the ATV remote covers basically everything we need.
Doesn’t the Apple TV remote also have a trackpad as it’s main control?
Not the current gen. Well, it can act as a trackpad, but that’s not the primary input method. The previous gen, however, did have a trackpad. Again, it could be clicked, but it was generally shittier. The current remote is actually pretty nice.
To be fair, Apple’s track pads are substantially better than the rest of the industries. Credit where credit is due.
8k is such a waste. Most content people watch isn’t even 4k
and 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).
For 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.
Yeah, surprisingly DVD is still heavily outselling 4K bluray. Seems weird to me but I guess the players are ubiquitous.
When 4K players cost $500 to get something considered “good but not great”… yeah no wonder no ones buying
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.
Amazon has 3 for $33 sales a couple times a year. I just got Wicked (2024), F1 and Sinners in 4k for $11 each.
Also there’s nearly 30 years worth of DVD content available, it’s basically for the same reason why VHS still has a present following.
Well, that, and vhs is one of those things that is fun to play with. It’s never going to be perfect, and that’s enough to keep people like me coming back to see what new improvements I can make to my vhs setup this time.
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.
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.
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’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.
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 ($400), but it broke and got discontinued. It was basically a 42inch IPS TV display.
I still miss that display.
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.
I highly doubt they were talking about gaming.
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.
megatrons
Fair lol
Even there it’s wasted. There is just no place between pixel density, size and distance for anythng much over 4k. Humans can only see that sharp. 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)
Viewers are so far from those that 8k is not helpful. Also the cameras in the arena would not be able to make 8k video.
And 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
Even your 4k Netflix is mastered in 2k and uprezed. Often shot in 6k to allow for zooming in in the edit
These days 12k at 14-16 bit is the norm.
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.
I’m more than content with 1080p @ 60Hz
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.
4k’s bump in resolution is nice, but the biggest benefit is the improvement in color (HDR or Dolby Vision).
The majority of ppl watching a streaming service with shitty res and crappy compression would do fine on 1080p
Obviously they should have worked on upgrading our eyes before doing that /s
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.
Imma need a citation on that one.
Imagine what you could see with as 16K TV.
why stop there, let’s go 640k TV, that ought to be enough for anyone
I bought my 1080p LED backlit 60" Vizio panel back in early 2015 and it’s still going strong!
We still have a 55” Vizio LED/LCD 1080p from 2012? Going strong as our living room tv.
Not upgrading till the panel literally dies.
You walk uphill both ways to work?
I’m still rocking the last good plasma panel, the Panasonic VT50 from 2009, it was good enough for 3d review of the first avatar film in meeting rooms and I’m just waiting for it to die so I can upgrade.
It’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.
It’s very different. 3D TVs actually had a difference in viewing experience
It actually made it worse.
I watched only one movie in home 3d, but I liked it.
60Hz ewwww
8bpp ewwww too
I got a 1440p monitor, it’s 32 inches, and predominately use the bigger area for coding
I got an 27" 4K screen at home and I wouldn’t want less pixel density for work. At work I got an 24" 1080p screen, which is OK, but not great.
To this day, I I never owned anything higher than 1080
ITT: Poors acting like there is no in-between 720@59 and 8k@240.
Guyuyyyzzzz achktually 1080p is all you need 🙄
