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

51–60 of 79 posts

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

#51

Post by steinvakt2 »

magicalhippo wrote: post #2

Gee, 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.

I thought it was the other way. That 8k is problematic because the chance of dead pixel is so much higher, driving up the cost because of the higher ratio of ruined batches?

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

#52

Post by kleiba »

ksec wrote: post #41

Just when 100"+ TV are coming out and gaining traction. To put this into perspective, an upcoming 130" LCD TV would 8K would have 68PPI, on 98" would have 90 PPI, and 80" would be 110". Depending on whether you want a TV experience sitting further back or Cinema is coming Home as Sony's tag line. I believe there is room for something greater than 4K. Especially when TV industry trend suggest TV purchase size is incre…

> In addition to being too expensive for many households, there has been virtually zero native 8K content available to make investing in an 8K display worthwhile.

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

#53

Post by cherioo »

ksec wrote: post #41

Just when 100"+ TV are coming out and gaining traction. To put this into perspective, an upcoming 130" LCD TV would 8K would have 68PPI, on 98" would have 90 PPI, and 80" would be 110". Depending on whether you want a TV experience sitting further back or Cinema is coming Home as Sony's tag line. I believe there is room for something greater than 4K. Especially when TV industry trend suggest TV purchase size is incre…

Yes larger format TV is getting more affordable, but I don’t think larger living room is catching up. Watching tv in general also feels like a dying trend. I would not be bullish on larger tv getting popular outside niche enthusiasts market (with money to buy a mansion)

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

#54

Post by bluescrn »

teamonkey wrote: post #48
bluescrn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, not only the huge required jump in raw fill rate, but to get the most out of a 4K TV you need higher detail models and textures and that means you also need a huge jump in VRAM, which never materialised.

The frame buffers/render targets alone for 8K are massive.

Basically 400MB for 12 bytes/pixel (64bit HDR RGBA + 32bit depth/stencil)

vs the 64000 bytes that Doom had to fill...

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

#55

Post by magicalhippo »

steinvakt2 wrote: post #51
magicalhippo wrote: post #2

Gee, 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.

I thought it was the other way. That 8k is problematic because the chance of dead pixel is so much higher, driving up the cost because of the higher ratio of ruined batches?

Hmm could very well be. With DRAM I know error rates are roughly constant, so actual per bit rate goes down as capacity increases. Perhaps its different for displays.

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

#56

Post by Kon5ole »

xxs wrote: post #30
ttoinou wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>The other part is that you should have the entire picture in your eyesight w/o moving the neck.

I agree, but that is still the case here. The difference is that the "full picture" no longer occupies the whole monitor.

The amount of windows and content you arrange on a normal office monitor is about one third of my available space. I can arrange my windows in that space and not have to move my neck.

But at a glance, I can also see the contents of 4 other code files in my project that are also visible, as well as my notes, the documentation, the team chat.

Or if I want, I can also see twice the amount of code in any file by having my editor take up the full height of the center third of this monitor.

Basically the monitor goes from being the "full picture" to a canvas where you are free to create any collection of a "full picture" you want, and you can have the leftover building blocks visible on the sides, optionally.

I am sure that if you let all knowledge workers in the world test this setup for a day, a vast majority of them would want to keep it. But since even 8k tv's are going away now, most will never know.

Curved gaming monitors costing more than my TV are being deployed everywhere lately, for productivity work. Most people are used to 27" or 24" low-res monitors and they are getting an upgrade, but i's not a very good one.

Had the panels from 8k tv's been used in monitors and marketed to corporations it would have been so much better!

Perfect for open offices too - no need for desk dividers if everyone is behind a huge screen! ;-)

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

#57

Post by garyclarke27 »

What baffles me is that TV manufacturers create amazing hi-definition home screens with glorious colour at incredibly cheap prices - then idiot Netflix directors completely waste 40% of the pixels for zero benefit with their stupid letterbox formats.

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

#58

Post by realusername »

garyclarke27 wrote: post #57

What baffles me is that TV manufacturers create amazing hi-definition home screens with glorious colour at incredibly cheap prices - then idiot Netflix directors completely waste 40% of the pixels for zero benefit with their stupid letterbox formats.

And then Netflix streams in 720p because they don't like your HDMI connector or their client is broken that day.

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

#59

Post by zihotki »

It baffles me that the 8K is discussed without taking the screen size into consideration. 8K in 77 inch TV is not that much different from 4k in 50 inch TV if you focus on PPI. Such big TVs also require certain distance to be able to watch them. Good luck finding an apartment or house in EU where you can fit 77 inch tv to comfortably watch it.

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

#60

Post by zihotki »

Underqualified wrote: post #9

We were talking about TVs recently in the office and pretty much everyone agreed that even 4K is overkill for most TVs at a reasonable viewing distance. I got a 65inch TV recently, and up close HD looks pretty bad, but at about 3m away it's fine.

One just need to get a big house so that the 8k 77 inch TV can be put like 6m+ away (/s). See the https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-r... for more accurate distance calculations.

For normal size apartments 55-65 inch is indeed the best size considering the distances. It's a pity that the manufactures don't make 8k 55 inch TVs..

Post reply on HN