LG joins the rest of the world, accepts that people don’t want 8K TVs
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
It sounds like you haven't really sat and watched 8k content for very long or at all, because it's a lot more than just 8k resolution. 60 or 120 fps, and better colour rendering than even 4k.
The real problem is that few broadcasters and few TVs are capable of taking advantage of it. Some TVs can manage 8k and higher frame rates, but getting the most from the improved colour is beyond even current high end OLEDs. And that assuming that the video was mastered well, which is far from a given.
Many Bluray releases in 4k can't get the colour right, for example. For live TV, it's hard enough to keep everything in focus at 8k, let alone deal with the colour processing needed.
Upvote
-12
(4
/
-16)
Conference rooms have historically used terrible protectors; you can certainly get 4K panels designed for conference rooms (and I've seen tiled displays for that) but you also have to consider connectivity. For many conference rooms you want the display to be driven by whoever turned up with a laptop, or maybe the probably-not-great teleconference system is badly streaming.
The ability to drive an 8K screen from a laptop isn't that rare, especially over HDMI, but it's far from universal. (To be fair, when 4K conference room screens appeared not many laptops could use them.) I think we're some way from it being justified - and a lot of actual conference projectors are only FHD, and the image is ruined more by contrast, weird colour settings, and people sitting in front of you.
Better to design your conference/presentation content not to need 4K, let alone 8K. I've had pushback from presenters saying "but what if I'm trying to show how much better my technique looks at 4K?" - it's really hard to persuade people that they're just giving people a 1GB slide deck to download for no reason and that nobody will see what they're selling.
(Sorry, pet peeve. I help to run a graphics conference.)
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
I'm bitter about this one because Dell have sold a perfectly good 6K monitor for a while (except for it weirdly having a slightly different 6K resolution from Apple's). The "exciting" new one is bigger, but from a resolution point of view it's lost some vertical pixels.
Fine, at that size and full height it would be a TV and you'd hurt your neck at typical viewing angles, but from a resolution perspective the old one was "better". And you can buy 8k4k ultrawide monitors anyway.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
What's "decent size"? The Dell UP3218K is 32", which is a reasonable desktop panel (get it while you can, unless you want HDR).
Bigger and you admittedly need a TV, unless you really want a bicurved screen, but I'm pretty sure they're rare and hard to make without a projector. (I'm convinced curved TVs only originally appeared because only some panel technologies could do it - it's much easier in an OLED and really tricky for a CFL backlight. I vaguely buy some people may like them for monitors though.)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Houses are not large enough for watching giant screens at a comfortable distane. And in the very few palaces for the ultrarich where that would be possible, I doubt any but the most megalomaniac would find that experience palatable.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
Michael Dell is warm in bed and cozy with the Trumps. My XPS15 will not be replaced, and hope his company crashes and burns.
Upvote
4
(7
/
-3)
It's been a lot more than two times. Managers keep trying a demo in a controlled environment and being blown away, and ignore the "nobody wants to wear glasses or a headset all the time" argument. (VR is great at a novelty, I'm prepared to wear specs at a cinema or a headset at a friend's house, but generally? Nope.) And then people try putting lenticular covers on high res panels for "glasses free" and ignore the image quality trade off - someone just tried it on the Dell UP3218K panel, and I remember the T220/T221 launch where someone tried to use it as a multi-view VGA display - and HTC did a 3D phone in between. Different kinds of 3D have gone back longer - I remember the old Terminator 2 3D experience at Universal Studios (I think I saw it soon after it was installed and, coincidentally, just before they closed it), I've used the multi-colour glasses, VR headsets go back decades (even ignoring Nintendo) - I first used one in 1992.
Technology of the future. Always has been, always will be. Possibly unless we have so much spare performance that actual (interferometry) holographic displays become cheap and universal, but I think we've got a few decades for that one.
(Also, good user name. I was blown away that they managed to port VU-3D to the ZX81, even with a ram pack. So long as you used blu-tack to stop it falling out, obviously.)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I think AI is what will finally make 8K TV's usable -- by "smart" upsampling of 1080 and 4K content to 8K. (and yes, many people will complain about AI artifacts, but mainstream users will be satisfied)
Though I wonder if laser projector displays will be the display of the future so you don't have to hang a huge black square on your wall to get the 100"+ display that you need to utilize the 8K resolution. You can either have a white wall, or a hidden screen that retracts when you're not using it. My wife wouldn't be happy if I said we had to clear a 90" x 50" space on our livingroom wall to hang a huge display (which would probably cover some windows), but installing a ceiling mount projector and retractable screen that comes down when we want to watch TV is more tenable (and could have a smaller 50" screen for everyday watching with the big screen reserved for movie night)
Last edited:
Upvote
-17
(2
/
-19)
That's simply not true, at least in my case. As I said in a previous post, I have some pixel level discernment at 72 inches when viewing a 4k 55 inch display.
I don't have golden eyes. I'm in my 40s and I wear contact lenses and have some minor astigmatism. I doubt my eyes are nearly twice as good as the median.
A higher resolution may not be worth the tradeoffs in cost or other factors, but it isn't as pointless as you say.
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
Ah, fair. I wonder how many tech CEOs will suddenly change their politics when they're not trying to appease a capricious administration, but it doesn't make them look good to customers, and politics is so toxic at the moment that it certainly factors into purchasing way more than it used to. (It's not just the US - see Dyson in the UK. Or sort of, had he not campaigned for Brexit and then left.)
I gather we're getting to the stage where someone other than Tesla may make a decent power wall, so at least that's something to look forward to...
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
They're looking at it, and frankly I've used frame interpolation for years. Errors in upscaling moving content are pretty subtle. Computers tend to have advantages where they can get motion vectors, depth and object IDs out of the content, where TVs really only have the pixels, but unless you want to compare with the desktop latest at pixel level it's probably going to look okay.
Letting the user decide on screen size has a lot of arguments for it, and laser projectors can do really wide gamuts - but unless you have a dedicated cinema room (and arguably even then) getting the contrast near OLED levels is a real problem, sadly.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
8K for a TV may be a poor trade off between quality, convenience and price. That may change, but for now I'm not shocked that the industry is struggling to sell premium 8K to customers with no content.
4K though? Clearly and visibly higher quality than FHD. Even with a TV that's smaller than "recommended" for my viewing distance, with cheaply steamed content, and with imperfect vision. If you can't tell, either get better content or see an optometrist.
Not caring enough to pay a premium for it, that's fine and on you. I get that gamers care more about frame rate than pixel count, too. But there's a real difference in 4K that plenty of people can see.
8K maybe less so.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
I agree with your general point, certainly when I was upgrading my gaming PC last summer I targeted good 1080p performance rather than 4k.
35mm film definitely is capable of far more useful resolution than 4k (which is approx. 8mp). Colour film (slide or negative) shot with a SLR and a decent lens usually gets to around 15mp worth of usefully resolved detail.
Naturally medium and large format film perform better still.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
As a devoted pixel peeper who “helped” the old family tv into early retirement back in the day because I so despised SD, 4K is… good enough. Both on the 27” PC monitor on my desk and the 55” in the living room.
I’d rather content I watch be at higher bit rate, use better codecs than h264 and support HDR in a way works properly than push past 4K resolution.
I’d rather content I watch be at higher bit rate, use better codecs than h264 and support HDR in a way works properly than push past 4K resolution.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
I have myopia and I really like my home 4k screen, because I do see pixels and antialiasing on 2k screen at work, but not on a 4k one. And they annoy me. But I think that big part here is psychological and not physiological. My guess is that most people do see it, but they don't mind. In CRT times, I was annoyed with text rendering, esp. when OSs change their rendering algorithms. I was also very picky with fonts; went to patching font rendering libs on Linux to enable font hinting... while my colleagues with the same equipment simply did not care.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
OMG, soooo many people never saw the stretching with 4:3 on widescreen!! Brains are odd things.
Also, back in the 2000s, it was almost impossible to get a DVD player that would display progressive scan content - they'd only display half the lines (i.e. assuming everything was interlaced!) So few people never even noticed that they were missing half the vertical resolution on their DVDs!
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Well that explains why Sony is selling 51% of it's consumer electronics business to TCL.
There won't be much of a high end without new tech in the TV industry and it seems we are at the point where what we have is more than good enough.
There won't be much of a high end without new tech in the TV industry and it seems we are at the point where what we have is more than good enough.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Some of you people sound like the type that never connect the speakers and are ok with the built in one behind the tv, and who leave the motion smoothing settings on. I HATE YOU
Upvote
-14
(5
/
-19)
UP3218K has a fantastic panel. I have one at work since ~8 years. Why? it was bought as a test screen, and after that was done I got it because no one else wanted to daily it. Win 7 hidpi was a bit of a mess. And it needs 2 dp cables to do 60hz, and that is not reliable. I make do with 8k 30hz.
32" 8k is great for desktop use, exquisite fonts. But you do need a bit of vram if you run windows (outlook, what exactly are you doing with 1GiB+ vram?).
Still sad 8k monitors (4k pixels tall, not these ultra wide things) never came down in price, and now they are disappearing. At this rate I'll never have one at home.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I remember seeing FTA demo/teaser for "4k Fashion TV" satellite channel and was impressed with quality. It was the first time when I thought that 4k really made the difference compared to good old FullHD. I am sure most of you already know where this is going. After switching channel back and forth I finally noticed in status bar that It was just HD. Well, at least the bitrate was higher than on PPV sports channels.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
That's who manufacturers are selling to. The enthusiast who really cares about sound/picture quality is a tiny portion of the market..
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
There are plenty of people who can't tell a DVD from a Blu-Ray out there. The caveat to that is that DVD is a "best case" for SD - SD television was vastly inferior to DVD quality, and it's indeed a huge difference there. But if they'd instead decided to clean up the signal and do a "best case" for broadcast television at SD resolutions, a lot of people would have been quite content with that.
Studio work is, and will continue to be done in 8k, of course. Perhaps the fact that absolutely no-one was promoting 16k for studio work should have told us that an 8k render target wasn't going to be a thing.
Last edited:
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
I used "perspective", in quotes for want of a better word. I think you get my point though
. I'm not particularly interested in the accuracy of the rendering, I just want to be able to see the things at the edge more easily, with minimal head swivel or body movement.When I'm gaming, I just move my chair to get a good central location on whatever monitor I chose to run the game fullscreen on, so it's less of an issue there.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
MilanKraft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Winning Post.
8K TV was never going to be anything other than a way for the industry to prod millions of people into replacing their already-excellent and perfect-for-living-room / movie room purposes 4K panels. Maybe not as absurd and poorly conceived an idea as 3DTV was — very large 8K sets could be fit for purpose in some college survey classes (the 100+ seat variety) or presentation spaces where you needed a large video screen / wall behind the speaker — but on balance very much a solution in search of a problem for typical home viewers.
The best analogy might be people who, already having a very high resolution, accurate colors pro camera from Nikon, Canon, or the like, and who only ever print 16x20 and smaller, drop $3-5 grand on the next model (and the next one after that, ad infinitum) with an extra 12MP (60 instead of 48 or whatever the case is these days). Even there though, you at least have the occasional "I took a badly framed photo but the resolution is so high that I can now crop away a large portion of the photo to make a new one, and still have enough pixel density left for a nice home print" scenario. No such utility with an 8K TV.
Last edited:
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
It was kind of obvious that nobody wanted to jump on the 8k content producing bandwagon, though it is out there on YT and other places. Still, Ima buying an 8K samsung this year (75" model) just because I can. And yes, aside from tech bragging rights, the viewing angle is going to justify it. And at a current price tag of £3100 brand new from Samsung direct, it's not THAT expensive.
Upvote
-8
(2
/
-10)
Vision degrades as we get older (ask me how I know) so I wonder if an aging population has had an impact here.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Years ago, when streaming first became a thing I had a 720p TV and was on a 3Mbit DSL connection. Netflix had setting to cap the resolution, but no 720p option so I went with the "DVD Quality" and forgot all about it. Many years later I had a newer TV and much faster internet and stumbled upon that setting again and removed the cap thinking I would see a big difference. Nope. Silver lining of having bad eyesight I guess, no need to splurge on expensive TVs.
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
The issue is not just that, to see or appreciate 8K, we have to sit closer to the screen. It’s also that visual acuity depends on where you’re looking, so those billions of pixels are only fully resolvable within a cone of a few degrees (roughly ~2–5° for highest acuity), versus roughly ~120°+ of usable binocular viewing angle.
So those extra pixels are effectively wasted on us, even though generating and transmitting them requires enormous compute power and bandwidth. This limitation/quirk of our eyesight can be addressed in AR/VR headsets, where eye tracking allows rendering at extreme resolution only where needed. But in a living-room setting, especially at night, that approach becomes essentially impossible.
So those extra pixels are effectively wasted on us, even though generating and transmitting them requires enormous compute power and bandwidth. This limitation/quirk of our eyesight can be addressed in AR/VR headsets, where eye tracking allows rendering at extreme resolution only where needed. But in a living-room setting, especially at night, that approach becomes essentially impossible.
Upvote
0
(3
/
-3)
A million times this. It's not that upgrading from my current 1080p wouldn't be nice, it's that you can no longer get a TV that isn't a 24/7/365 spy machine. No resolution is worth having that landfill in the house.
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
Is it connected using Wi-Fi?
the old 4K Apple TVs work smoother if you use ethernet,
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
And here I am just wanting decent 1080p panels with HDR for bedrooms. Oh and if YouTube TV could broadcast more in actual 1080p and not 1080i and 720p in this day and age that would be great.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
caan they do something about what's on tv?
why have high resolution for such a low resolution content.
why have high resolution for such a low resolution content.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
tech question - you driving this on a single input? What sort of GPU?
First thing I though of when I saw 8K was
a) better vizualizations (of simulations) and other large scale data
b) games.....
c) perhaps space views?
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
My 4090 struggles to handle gaming at 6k. I imagine at 8k it would only be possible with copious use of AI features like DLSS and frame gen.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Yeah, the resolution issue doesn't really affect me because I don't watch TV.
Upvote
-14
(0
/
-14)
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
55/72 and 70/90 are nearly the same ratio, so you're not actually in disagreement. You have a smaller TV yes, but you're sitting even closer, which is why you can see some benefit. No super vision required.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
Meanwhile the only 4K sports channel I get (TNT Ultimate) looks like shit colourwise on both my current and former TVs, and it's not a "me" problem, since there are loads of people with the same issue on all sorts of different TVs (plus the other 4K channel, a largely useless random "showcase" channel looks fine).
I always watch the HD TNT channel instead.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)