LG joins the rest of the world, accepts that people don’t want 8K TVs
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
No big deal, it'll get there eventually. It's great to shoot stuff in 6k-8k, so much room to maneuver. You can crop and zoom and reframe and have so much detail to fuck with. It's fine that consumers aren't messing with it yet, just as long as we can keep filming stuff in it. A little bit of wiggle room, like when productions started future proofing and framing in 16 x 9 years early for HD.
Where I would really want 8k would be VR, once we have GPUs that can drive such beasts. Then I want 16k. Diminishing returns? Fuck you, it's glorious. Flight sims and racers will really benefit when things in the distance have more than a few pixels.
Where I would really want 8k would be VR, once we have GPUs that can drive such beasts. Then I want 16k. Diminishing returns? Fuck you, it's glorious. Flight sims and racers will really benefit when things in the distance have more than a few pixels.
Upvote
6
(16
/
-10)
I have a 4k and a 1080p TV and honestly I can't tell the difference. 8k makes no sense for the majority of people outside of some very niche uses. I'm not even sure 4k does for most people, especially at the increased data and storage rates needed.
Upvote
-3
(8
/
-11)
I feel like TV is getting ruined by over compression. Heck at this point it wouldn't matter if it was 720P vs 4K because you've never notice the difference due to all the compression.
I'm also getting older so the weakest link is soon going to my eyes and my ears.
I give it 20 years before 1 dot resolution is enough.
.. .... ....
I'm also getting older so the weakest link is soon going to my eyes and my ears.
I give it 20 years before 1 dot resolution is enough.
.. .... ....
Upvote
18
(20
/
-2)
At the end of the day, I sit about seven or eight pedes from the 49" 4K telly, the Switch 2 is held somewhere between one palmus maior and one pes, and the laptop is usually one palmipes or so away from my retinas. Probably my age but they all look much of a muchness to me, i.e. very good indeed. They also appear to be woughly the same size from these distances. I'm guessing the pixels per degree / inch vary, but I still don't want or need any of this widiculous 8K jiggewy pokewy, thank you vewy much.
Upvote
-5
(4
/
-9)
Seem obvious that 8K and beyond is great as tech for jumbo trons perhaps, but 4K seems the sweet spot for domestic use.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
That hasn't stopped the networks or the streamers from forcing every producer and camera person to go out and buy much more expensive 8K cameras.
Upvote
-16
(1
/
-17)
And, critically, TVs that dont try to track my activity and sell it to ad companies.
Upvote
39
(40
/
-1)
So much this. It was never about 8K video. 8K screens are for desktop, 3D and upscaled gaming.
This assumes the narrow view angle cinema and tv content was built for in the 20th century. 8K screens are for full immersion content made for a >110 degrees field of view. Think IMAX immersion (or VR HMD, just without mounting them to your head and thus no head tracking. Not as immersive as a VR HMD, but way more comfortable and social).
Upvote
-7
(1
/
-8)
The US still has abysmal isp service for 95% of the country. Making 4k, game streaming, pc as a service, etc completely nonviable. Companies still treat 4k content as some sort of golden goose you pay way too much for. So of course 8K would fail.
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
You'll never see the difference between, say, streaming content at 1080p and 4k on that size at a normal viewing distance, but you'll definitely see the difference in video games. How much the resolution matters totally depends on what you're watching. TV and streaming films? Doesn't matter much. blurays? Matters a bit. Games? Matters a lot. There's definitely a reason to seek out HD if you're really into film or even casually into gaming.
I only ever saw the utility of 8k for professional monitors and for theatre / high end home theatre projectors. More than 4k is silly for televisions. I sit 2.5metres / 8 feet from my 65" 4k TV and it looks phenomenal, and even in video games, there's no aliasing or visible pixels. Give me deep colour, high dynamic range, and 120Hz+ refresh rates 100 times out of 100 over increasing resolution over 4k.
Upvote
-1
(5
/
-6)
Can you really not see 4k vs lousy 1080p? The details and texture are much crisper. 8k? Oled mostly meets cobtrast needs, but brightness and motion handling are still need work.
I can't even get good 4k content for tv, but I definitely want higher than 4k for computer monitors. 4k on 32" is pretty good, but a single gently curved monitor equivalent to two side by side 32" would be ideal. I could handle 25-50% more vertical height.
I can't even get good 4k content for tv, but I definitely want higher than 4k for computer monitors. 4k on 32" is pretty good, but a single gently curved monitor equivalent to two side by side 32" would be ideal. I could handle 25-50% more vertical height.
Upvote
-9
(7
/
-16)
Your math is wrong though. 75" to 150" is not a 2x jump. It's basically 4 75" TVs. Like your 65 is 4 32s. Area matters so every step from 32 to 46 to 55 to 65 to 77 is significant imo. 85 is not a big jump so next is 98 but that requires a very large wall.
Upvote
6
(9
/
-3)
1. huh. It's 4k all over again.
2. There is NOT low demand for 8k TVs. There is low demand for over priced 8k tvs.
2. There is NOT low demand for 8k TVs. There is low demand for over priced 8k tvs.
Upvote
-19
(6
/
-25)
TVs at 120+" are getting pretty cheap though. I'll probably buy a 97" tv this year and a bigger one 5 years from now. According to the chart with my <2 meter sofa placement 8k is a good choice for even the 97.
Upvote
-7
(3
/
-10)
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)
Gnafu the Great
Ars Centurion
It's insane. I remember very clearly when 100" flat panel TVs were $150,000, and now I see some 98" TVs for under $1,000. We're livin' in the future. I used to be all about projectors for big screens, but if I had the space and the budget today I think I would go with a mid range 100"-class flat panel.
Upvote
4
(10
/
-6)
This is my experience. I had a 65" backlit TCL that I could just barely discern high bitrate HD from high bitrate 4k, both of which are relatively rare. I upgraded to a 77" B4 and 4k is a little sharper but the HDR is much better. Which is why I roll my eyes when people complain about Fox Sports not being "true 4k". Id wager less than 1% of people can see the difference between upscaled and native 4k at home. It's actually hard to beat a good film scan at 2k with some of the post processing TV's do. Adding HDR to old movies isn't always a win either.
Upvote
-1
(3
/
-4)
Plus, in the US, our broadband situation is still sucky, expensive, if not exploitative. The videophiles will tell you that what 4K content we have streaming is of reduced bitrate by no trivial amount. I can't imagine streamers would want to deal with the costs of 8K, let alone improving the 4K situation and catalog.
This describes my video gaming situation as well... when I was in the market for a new PC, I realized how much money I'd save by shooting for a gaming rig that could do 1080p, 60 fps, at "medium" graphic level settings. This as opposed to 4K, 120 fps, at "high/ultra-high" graphic level settings. Also save on the monitor (I already have a 1440p one). For console, I play on a Switch (1), so even more used to lower performance there! (I know it caps at 720p or 1080p, and 30 to 60 fps. Some games like Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night ended up taking a hit in # and details of textures.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
On what planet was gaming going to lead the charge on 8K? I just spent $2000 on a new gaming PC with a RTX 5070 Ti and I'm only expecting to game at 2560x1440/120. There are games like Black Myth: Wukong that can barely do 60 fps @ 4K with something crazy like a RTX 5090 and that's $2000+ for the graphics card ALONE.
Good riddance. You'd need a rig that costs as much as a used car to game comfortably at 8K.
Good riddance. You'd need a rig that costs as much as a used car to game comfortably at 8K.
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
Considering how many people are watching videos on their phone, and many of those videos are just simple things recorded by phones, 4k was already a premium. People are still watching things on DVD. Not everything has to be a bigger number. The industry needs to be okay with making things that are just, well, okay.
Upvote
9
(11
/
-2)
But you haven't lived until you've heard the Wilhelm Scream™ in DTS: Surround! /s
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
chaos215bar2
Ars Praefectus
Reality is a little more complicated than the charts people tend to reference for this suggests. When vision degrades, it's not a perfect gaussian blur, so some information about details is preserved. And the brain is remarkably good at correcting and recovering what information is there.
Sure, if your vision is sufficiently bad or the TV is far enough, it won't make a difference. But it is in general possible to see the difference between a screen which resolves fine detail and one that doesn't at greater distances than the pure baseline result of a visual acuity test would suggest, especially one capable of very high contrast.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Gnafu the Great
Ars Centurion
As a total aside: my Sony UHD Blu-ray player does an amazing job upscaling DVDs. If it was good for a DVD, it will look great upscaled to UHD by the X800. Sony has really perfected UHD upscaling of DVD (and regular Blu-ray) content. I'm not saying it becomes UHD--more like solid 720p or mediocre 1080p--but it definitely gives new life to my older discs.
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
This might be a weird take but, I really wish we had settled on 2k as the standard instead of 4K. I used to watch YouTube on my iPad (not a tv, I know); 2K, 60hz, HDR content is chefs kiss. Great balance of resolution and bitrate.
I imagine many of the problems broadcasters have with 4K could be resolved by switching to 2k. It’s like a quarter of the size of a 4K stream right?
Upvote
-11
(8
/
-19)
I'm happy with my 4K. The only reason I would ever upgrade is if a Holodeck becomes available.
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
ISPs in the US, on the whole, are shit. But suggesting 95% of the country can't get internet service capable of streaming the god awful over-compressed 4k streams from Netflix and Amazon is ridiculous.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
"2k" is just 1080p. We had that. It's still there if you want it.
Upvote
17
(19
/
-2)
I think 8K could still be a thing someday, but the biggest issue was they moved too fast. They tried to make 8K a thing before 4K was even firmly established.
Upvote
5
(7
/
-2)
Ignoring that it is only useful close up or at huge sizes, home 8k was doomed by streaming. Streaming is not even fully UHD BluRay quality.
Combine that with movie cameras, post processing and SFX working often in 2K and at times in 4K max and why get 8K?
8K needs theater content at 8K. Perfect for 70' screens, it would revive movie going which acted like a sales pitch with 4K. You would see it at the theater and want it in the house.
That needs to happen again. Upgrade the content and people will buy it.
Combine that with movie cameras, post processing and SFX working often in 2K and at times in 4K max and why get 8K?
8K needs theater content at 8K. Perfect for 70' screens, it would revive movie going which acted like a sales pitch with 4K. You would see it at the theater and want it in the house.
That needs to happen again. Upgrade the content and people will buy it.
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
Let's say you have a 90 inch 4K TV.
At a viewing distance of only 70 inches (= 5.8 feet), that's a retina display, i.e., 60 pixels per visual degree. Sit further away and higher resolution is pointless.
And if you're sitting that close to your 90 inch TV, it's occupying ~60 visual degrees in your field of view. Which is way beyond a giant movie screen. It's at the very upper limit of what anybody might find comfortable, in terms of e.g. how much you'd have to move your head to follow what's going on. The recommendation for movie theaters is 40 visual degrees.
And that's 4K.
I'm really struggling to imagine a scenario where 8K would be useful to anybody, unless you're talking about something filmed specifically for those hemispherical IMAX dome screens where viewers aren't meant to see the entire picture all at the same time.
Upvote
-2
(7
/
-9)
8K will be the norm eventually, whether you like it or not. Probably 10 years from now, once codecs like VVC and AV2 become dominant.
Upvote
-14
(4
/
-18)
If you’re producing raw footage for editing, higher resolution is a major win. It lets you frame a bit looser, remove some forms of shake, and then you can scale down for the final product. Sure, you want to get things as correct as possible when shooting, but higher resolution can be the difference between needing to reshoot, and being able to salvage a take that is almost right.
All my monitors are 4K. When I’m gaming, if I need more performance, I’ll just drop the display resolution down to 1080p. Doubling pixel size (quadrupling, if you’re talking area rather than linear dimensions) is remarkably effective at maintaining a good level of visual fidelity while also reducing the burden on the GPU.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
Indoor digital signage. Think long hallways between airport concourses. 90-foot displays, potentially less than a foot from your face.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
Curved computer monitors are useful. Around 32 inches, with how close you typically sit, content at the far reaches of the screen can be challenging, for example, the viewing angle may be bad enough for some displays that you observe colour shift or even glare from ambient light sources.
A curved monitor helps maintain the "perspective" with respect to your sitting position. I couldn't imagine using an ultrawide monitor that wasn't curved. My next set of computer monitors will certainly be curved. I have found myself wanting it since I went with dual side-by side displays.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
"Physical reality" pretty much doomed this from the start. When you're starting to bump up against the limits of human eyes in normal sized living rooms, it's just gonna be a waste of bandwidth and money to do 8k.
Only people with enornous houses would want screens this big anyway, as most people don't want their TVs to dominate the living room as if they were movie theatres.
The world is however moving towards people living more and more in or near cities, which for most people mean smaller homes. It would be increasingly difficult to find the economies of scale for these products.
Only people with enornous houses would want screens this big anyway, as most people don't want their TVs to dominate the living room as if they were movie theatres.
The world is however moving towards people living more and more in or near cities, which for most people mean smaller homes. It would be increasingly difficult to find the economies of scale for these products.
Upvote
12
(13
/
-1)
I've had ultrawides from flat to extremely curved (800R). You definitely need some curve on monitors that wide.
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
Arguably that's exactly what they don't preserve (if you're playing a game with a typical perspective projection onto a ghost plane, which is pretty much all of them). A normal curved monitor with a fixed pixel density is great for general use (if you sit in the right place), but for a typical game it's arguably doing the wrong thing. What it does do is keep the panel the same distance from your head, which avoids your eyes needing to refocus as you look around. And the panel can be smaller than a flat one with the same field of view.
If you want this benefit of acting like a larger flat screen, the pixel density of the curved screen should change across the display (increasing at the edges, if I'm doing maths the right way round). I've never met a panel that does that. Or you could waste a bit of resolution and performance and apply that transform in software; I've never seen that setting, but I imagine it's possible.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)