Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 79 posts

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

#21

Post by bluescrn »

Aardwolf wrote: 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

We can’t render modern games at decent frame rates at 4k without going down the path of faking it with AI upscaling and frame generation.

There was no hope of actual 8k gaming any time soon even before the AI bubble wrecked the PC hardware market.

Attempting to render 33 million pixels per frame seems like utter madness, when 1080p is a mere 2 million, and Doom/Quake were great with just 64000. Lets have more frames instead?

(Such a huge pixel count for movies while stuck at a ‘cinematic’ 24fps, an extremely low temporal resolution, is even sillier)

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

#22

Post by scratcheee »

tokyobreakfast wrote: post #15
Aardwolf wrote: 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…

I know the thread is about tvs, but since gaming has come up, worth noting that at computer viewing distances the differences between 1080p/1440p and 4k really are very visible (though in my case I have a 4k monitor for media and a 1440p monitor for gaming since there’s 0 chance I can run at 4k anyway)

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

#23

Post by elliotec »

ttoinou wrote: post #18
Kon5ole wrote: 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

If you're sitting about a meter away, that's probably fine. Most desks aren't deep enough, and any closer would be a real problem for head movement.

But if you have it wall mounted at eye level or a deep desk you're likely okay.

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

#24

Post by DharmaPolice »

Doublon wrote: post #8
Aardwolf wrote: 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.

The person was referring to gaming where most PC players are sitting closer than 3 metres from their screen.

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

#25

Post by ksynwa »

Aardwolf wrote: 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

AAA games have been having really bad performance issues for the last few years while not looking much better. If you wanna game in 8K you are gonna need something like a NASA supercomputer.

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

#26

Post by tombert »

Aardwolf wrote: 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

I usually still play at 1080p on my Steam box because my TV is like nine feet away and I cannot tell a difference between 1080p and 4k for gaming, and I would rather have the frames.

I doubt I’m unique.

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

#27

Post by alex43578 »

matsemann wrote: post #16
alex43578 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For reasonable bitrate/resolution pairs, both matter. Clean 1080P will beat bitrate starved 4K, especially with modern upscaling techniques, but even reasonable-compression 4K will beat good 1080P because there's just more detail there. Unfortunately, many platforms try to mess with this relationship, like YouTube forcing 4K uploads to get better bitrates, when for many devices a higher rate 1080P would be fine.

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

#28

Post by tokyobreakfast »

JasonADrury wrote: post #17
alex43578 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Try comparing a 4K vs 1080p that were created from the same master, like a modern Criterion restoration.

Without HDR the differences are negligible or imperceptible at a standard 10' viewing distance.

I'll take it one step further: a well-mastered 1080p Blu-Ray beats 4K streaming hands down every time.

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

#29

Post by FeepingCreature »

tokyobreakfast wrote: post #15
Aardwolf wrote: 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…

I can confirm that on a pc monitor, 1080p and 4k is very easy to tell apart.

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

#30

Post by xxs »

ttoinou wrote: post #18
Kon5ole wrote: 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

Monitor - I prefer higher refresh rate. The other part is that you should have the entire picture in your eyesight w/o moving the neck.

Personally, I'd consider that large of a screen, a bad working area.

Post reply on HN