Live data from Hacker News

The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

arstechnica.com

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#11
55 inch 8k tvs make for great monitors. Basically your whole field of view is a retina canvas for apps, equivalent to a 2x2 grid of 4k monitors.

The last ones I saw for sale were below 600 usd in physical stores from name brands (LG). Mine was just under 1000 when I got it.

Why we can’t buy the same panels as monitors is a mystery to me.

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#12
post #8
post #5

> Gaming was supposed to be one of the best drivers for 8K adoption. While the step from 1080p 1440p to 4K is a visible difference, I don't think going from 4K to 8K would be a visible since the pixels are already invisible at 4K. However the framerate drop would be very noticeable... OTOH, afaik for VR headsets you may want higher resolutions still due to the much larger field of vision

> While the step from 1080p 1440p to 4K is a visible difference I even doubt that. My experience is, on a 65" TV, 4K pixels become indistinguishable from 1080p beyond 3 meters. I even tested that with friends on the Mandalorian show, we couldn't tell 4K or 1080p apart. So I just don't bother with 4K anymore. Of course YMMV if you have a bigger screen, or a smaller room.

If your Mandalorian test was via streaming, that's also a huge factor. 4K streaming has very poor quality compared to 4K Blu-ray, for instance.

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#13
post #5

> Gaming was supposed to be one of the best drivers for 8K adoption. While the step from 1080p 1440p to 4K is a visible difference, I don't think going from 4K to 8K would be a visible since the pixels are already invisible at 4K. However the framerate drop would be very noticeable... OTOH, afaik for VR headsets you may want higher resolutions still due to the much larger field of vision

VR headsets won't use the same panels that a TV would use. Any growth in the XR headset space won't help the TV industry.

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#14

I had just recently been thinking of buying an 8K television to mount on the wall of my office to use as a huge monitor. Has anyone done this? Any recommended models?

Another guy in this thread probably knows https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46896964

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#15
post #5

> Gaming was supposed to be one of the best drivers for 8K adoption. While the step from 1080p 1440p to 4K is a visible difference, I don't think going from 4K to 8K would be a visible since the pixels are already invisible at 4K. However the framerate drop would be very noticeable... OTOH, afaik for VR headsets you may want higher resolutions still due to the much larger field of vision

> While the step from 1080p 1440p to 4K is a visible difference

It really isn't.

What you are likely seeing is HDR which is on most (but not all!) 4K content. The HDR is a separate layer and unrelated to the resolution.

4K versions of films are usually newly restored with modern film scanning - as opposed to the aging masters created for the DVD era that were used to churn out 1st generation Blu-Rays.

The difference between a 4K UHD without HDR and a 1080p Blu-Ray that was recently remastered in 4K from the same source is basically imperceptible from any reasonable viewing distance.

The "visible difference" is mostly better source material, and HDR.

Of course people will convince themselves what they are seeing justifies the cost of the upgrade, just like the $200 audiophile outlet and $350 gold-plated videophile Ethernet cable makes the audio and video really "pop".

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#16
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While the step from 1080p 1440p to 4K is a visible difference I even doubt that. My experience is, on a 65" TV, 4K pixels become indistinguishable from 1080p beyond 3 meters. I even tested that with friends on the Mandalorian show, we couldn't tell 4K or 1080p apart. So I just don't bother with 4K anymore. Of course YMMV if you have a bigger screen, or a smaller room.

If your Mandalorian test was via streaming, that's also a huge factor. 4K streaming has very poor quality compared to 4K Blu-ray, for instance.

Which is a point in itself: bitrate can matter more than resolution.

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#17
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While the step from 1080p 1440p to 4K is a visible difference I even doubt that. My experience is, on a 65" TV, 4K pixels become indistinguishable from 1080p beyond 3 meters. I even tested that with friends on the Mandalorian show, we couldn't tell 4K or 1080p apart. So I just don't bother with 4K anymore. Of course YMMV if you have a bigger screen, or a smaller room.

If your Mandalorian test was via streaming, that's also a huge factor. 4K streaming has very poor quality compared to 4K Blu-ray, for instance.

Yeah, I have a hard time believing that someone with normal eyesight wouldn't be able to tell 1080p and 4k blu-rays apart. I just tested this on my tv, I have to get ridiculously far before the difference isn't immediately obvious. This is without the HDR/DV layer FWIW.

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#18
post #11

55 inch 8k tvs make for great monitors. Basically your whole field of view is a retina canvas for apps, equivalent to a 2x2 grid of 4k monitors. The last ones I saw for sale were below 600 usd in physical stores from name brands (LG). Mine was just under 1000 when I got it. Why we can’t buy the same panels as monitors is a mystery to me.

Do you think 65 inch would still be OK for a monitor usage ? I've been pondering about doing that for years but 65 inch is often easier to find for me in Europe

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#19
post #5

> Gaming was supposed to be one of the best drivers for 8K adoption. While the step from 1080p 1440p to 4K is a visible difference, I don't think going from 4K to 8K would be a visible since the pixels are already invisible at 4K. However the framerate drop would be very noticeable... OTOH, afaik for VR headsets you may want higher resolutions still due to the much larger field of vision

> While the step from 1080p 1440p to 4K is a visible difference It really isn't. What you are likely seeing is HDR which is on most (but not all!) 4K content. The HDR is a separate layer and unrelated to the resolution. 4K versions of films are usually newly restored with modern film scanning - as opposed to the aging masters created for the DVD era that were used to churn out 1st generation Blu-Rays. The difference…

For tv maybe, but you're replying to gaming, and it's definitely on a monitor, laptop or handheld
Post reply on HN