6 ms·
The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K
- magicalhippo 8mo agoGee, 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.
- VerifiedReports 8mo agoAnd, most of all, HIGHER BITRATE.
- steinvakt2 8mo agoI 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?
- magicalhippo 8mo agoHmm 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.
- ChrisArchitect 8mo agoPreviously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46841265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46841265
- WithinReason 8mo agoNot enough content for it
- Aardwolf 8mo ago> 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
- Doublon 8mo ago> 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.
- yieldcrv 8mo agothere are so many tricks you can do as well, resolution was never really the issue, sharpness and fidelity isn't the same as charming and aesthetically pleasing
- alex43578 8mo agoIf 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.
- matsemann 8mo agoWhich is a point in itself: bitrate can matter more than resolution.
- alex43578 8mo agoFor 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.
- LeoPanthera 8mo agoI 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?
- squibonpig 8mo agoAnother guy in this thread probably knows https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46896964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46896964
- jl6 8mo ago640K ought to be enough.
- Underqualified 8mo agoWe 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.
- zihotki 8mo agoOne 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-relationship 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..
- account42 8mo agoThese calculators never made much sense to me. The whole point of getting a bigger screen is to cover a larger portion of your field of view. Sitting close to a giant TV is like being in your own cinema.
- zihotki 8mo agoThe point they use is that our vision angles are fixed and if you sit too close you won't see the whole screen at once. What's the point of having bigger screen in that case? Also the angles of viewing won't let you see that juicy colorful picture at the sides even if you turn your head. As for the cinema, there are a limited amount of seats where you can get the best immersion and they are in the sweet spot of screen size/distance
- account42 8mo agoThose calculations are way too conservative for the screen to cover your field of view. Unless you mean your fovea but then that's much smaller. Also depending on the display tech you can see colors at angles just fine.
- Kon5ole 8mo ago55 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.
- ttoinou 8mo agoDo 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
- elliotec 8mo agoIf 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.
- xxs 8mo agoMonitor - 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.
- Kon5ole 8mo ago>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! ;-)
- padjo 8mo agoYep 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
- VerifiedReports 8mo agoNot 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.
- realusername 8mo agoAnd 8K to watch what content exactly? It's already hard for the movie industry to provide a consistent 4K...
- wosined 8mo agoPretty easy to achieve 8K when you make the TV twice the size. I wish they improved pixel density more instead.
- kasabali 8mo agoyields dip when you have to have 4x size panel with no defects, though.
- klausa 8mo agoDiscussions 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.
- ksec 8mo agoJust 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 increasing every year. 40" used to be big, then it became entry level, now all top of the line TV dont even offer anything before 50", and the median is moving closer to 65". 80"+ price will come down in the next 5 years as LCD takes over again from OLED. I dont understand why but also wont be surprised if median size move pass 70". In 2015 I wrote on AVSforum how 8K makes zero sense from Codec, computation, network, transport and TV. However I would never imagine median TV size moved up so quickly, and also I cant see how we could afford 100"+ TV at the time. Turns out I am dead wrong. TCL / CSOT will produce its first 130" TV in 2 years time. For those ultra wealthy they could afford 160" to 220" MicroLED made out of many panels. There will be 10% of population who could afford ultra large screen size. And I am sure there is a market for premium 4K + content. There is definitely a future with 4K+ content and panel. I just hope we dont give up too early.
- kranke155 8mo agoThe entire pipeline to provide for this is prohibitive. At what distance do you actually need to be from your TV for the resolution to max out for the retina? 4k was already a dubious proposition for most TVs people actually own.
- OJFord 8mo agoYou mention AVSforum, I'm sure you're watching BluRays (or, err, via a home backup/local streaming solution), of course it makes sense to you. The median (and roughly 99th percentile for that matter) TV as well as being 65" is being used with Netflix et al. though, and that content already looks worse than you can buy on disc. 8k doesn't need to wait for TV sizes any more, right, but now it needs to wait for home internet speeds (and streaming provider infrastructure/egress costs) for it to make sense.
- kleiba 8mo ago> 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.
- Animats 8mo agoCinema theater projectors are rarely more than 4K. Many are still 2K. IMAX is sometimes 8K. The industry just doesn't see the need for content with more resolution.
- garyclarke27 8mo agoWhat 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.
- realusername 8mo agoAnd then Netflix streams in 720p because they don't like your HDMI connector or their client is broken that day.
- pezezin 8mo agoYou think that is bad? Some of the major promoters of 8k TV are Japanese broadcasters like the NHK. If you have ever watched Japanese TV, you will notice how they love covering half the screen in bright text. So what do they need 8k for, so the kanji look sharper?
- zihotki 8mo agoIt 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.
- account42 8mo agoA 77 inch tv is very comfortable to watch at ~2m distance. The main concern with space constraints is the size of the TV itself.
- account42 8mo agoI have a big 4K screen and while I'm glad that I got it I have to admit that the increase in effective resolution compared to 1080p is already small for most film content - and when there is a difference is more from the encoder being allowed to use more bandwidth than the nominal number of pixels.
- xnx 8mo agoLack of imagination. A 100" 8K screen makes an excellent virtual window. Unfortunately, I haven't found any high visual quality 8K streams.