Yep we probably reached "CD quality" at 1080p to be honest. i.e. a level beyond which the vast majority of people won't be able to perceive a quality difference. We definitely reached it at 4k at a size/distance of most TVs
The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K
31–40 of 79 posts
Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K
#32> 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…
I don't see a future in which we play at 4K at top settings either without AI upscaling/interpolation. Even if it were theoretically possible to do so, the performance budget the developers have going forward will be assuming that frame generation and upscaling is used.
So anyone who wants only "real frames" (Non upscaled, non generated) will need to lower their settings or only play games a few years old. But I think this will be something that becomes so natural that no one even thinks about it. Disabling it will belike someone lowering AA settings or whatever. Something only done by very niche players, like the CS community does today where some are playing 4:3 screens, lowering AA settings for maximum visibility not fidelity and so on.
Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K
#3355 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.
I am jealous that you were even able to find a 55 inch 8k monitor. I couldn’t find one.
For my computer monitor, I ended up going with a cartoonishly large 85 inch 8k. It was somewhat of an adventure getting it into my house, but once it was set up I absolutely love it.
I don’t really see the point of 8k for anything but computer monitors but it’s absolutely great for that.
Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K
#34Yep we probably reached "CD quality" at 1080p to be honest. i.e. a level beyond which the vast majority of people won't be able to perceive a quality difference. We definitely reached it at 4k at a size/distance of most TVs
Not to mention that we don't even get GOOD 1080p at streamers' current bitrates, let alone "4K." Any talk of 8K is an absurd joke.
Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
A lot of gaming is done on a TV in the living room
Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K
#36> 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.
Even with a super computer it'd be difficulty to render the frames in time with low latency.
Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K
#37Yep we probably reached "CD quality" at 1080p to be honest. i.e. a level beyond which the vast majority of people won't be able to perceive a quality difference. We definitely reached it at 4k at a size/distance of most TVs
And 8K to watch what content exactly? It's already hard for the movie industry to provide a consistent 4K...
Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K
#38Gee, who could have foreseen that? I mean my local cable TV is sending crap that's way worse than 720p YouTube videos and most people don't care at all. I guess the primary benefit of an 8k display is that stuck or dead pixels are much less annoying than on a 4k panel of the same size. I'm fine with 4k for my living room. Give me more HDR, less chroma subsampling and less banding.
And, most of all, HIGHER BITRATE.
Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K
#39Discussions about this are very tedious, because people have hard time making distinction between "being able to see the difference between 1080/4k/8k content" and "being able to see the difference between 1080/4k/8k panels".
I'm sure there's plenty of content (especially streaming content in mediocre bitrate) where people would be hard-pressed to tell the difference.
But I think if people went back to 1080p _panels_; they'd actually rather quickly notice how much worse the text-rendering is, and that the UI looks off for them.
Moving up to 8k would definitely be a smaller step-change in clarity than 1080p->4K and many people wouldn't feel it's worth spending extra; but I don't think it would be literally indistinguishable.
Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
10 feet is pretty far back for all but the biggest screens, and at closer distances, you certainly should be able to see a difference between 4K and 1080P.