Nothing is released in 8k so why would someone want something nothing is in?
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
Computer monitor with multiple simultaneous 4k displays?
Grasping at straws here
Nothing is produced in 8K either.
PS3 has no games lmao
I'm so content with 1080p
I run a Plex server with really high quality 1080p and I'm completely satisfied with it. I don't see a reason to use the extra storage on 4k
TV and movies I'm totally good with 1080p. If I want a cinematic experience, that's what the cinema is for.
But since switching to PC and gaming in 4k everywhere I can, it feels like a night and day difference to play in 1080p. Granted that means I care about monitor resolution rather than TV resolution.
But as an aside, as a software engineer that works from home, crisp text, decent color spectrum support, good brightness in a bright room, all things that make your day a whole lot better when you stare at a computer screen for a large chunk of your day
The consumer has spoken and they don't care, not even for 4K. Same as happened with 3D and curved TVs, 8K is a solution looking for a problem so that more TVs get sold.
In terms of physical media - at stores in Australia the 4K section for Blurays takes up a single rack of shelves. Standard Blurays and DVDs take up about 20.
Even DVDs still sell well because many consumers don't see a big difference in quality, and certainly not enough to justify the added cost of Bluray, let alone 4K editions. A current example, Superman is $20 on DVD, $30 on Bluray (50% cost increase) or $40 on 4K (100%) cost increase. Streaming services have similar pricing curves for increased fidelity.
It sucks for fans of high res, but it's the reality of the market. 4K will be more popular in the future if and when it becomes cheaper, and until then nobody (figuratively) will give a hoot about 8K.
It's amazingly stupid having those prices. DVD should cost the same as Bluray and both should cost $25 max. After all, a DVD and a Bluray are two technologies far past their ROI date.
Some of the smaller 4k sets work as an XXL computer monitor
But for a living room tv, you seriously need space for a 120"+ set to actually see any benefit of 8k. Most people don't even have the physical space for that
I would love to have an 8K TV or monitor if I had an internet connection up to the task and enough content in 8K to make it worth it, or If I had a PC powerful enough to run games smoothly in that resolution.
I think it's silly to say 'nobody wants this' when the infrastructure for it isn't even close to adequate.
I will admit that there is diminishing returns now, going from 4K to 8K was less impressive than FHD to 4K and I imagine that 8K will probably be where it stops, at least for anything that can reasonably fit in a house.
How many homes have walls big enough for a screen big enough for 8k to matter
Well now see my cousin Skeeter got himself a 8k TV with that settlement money he got from when he got run over by that bmw downtown tryin to get his kids back ya know? At the courthouse? Anyway he was sposed to use that money to pay fer his doctors and whatnot but he got himself that TV and the dang thing wouldn't fit through the door! Got her in to the trailer but couldn't go no where so he put that sucker up right outside has movie nights the whole park can come n see. Course ol Skeet likes them naughty flicks you know with the blood and gore and titties n stuff, talkin bout like Dusk Till Dawn, talkin bout some Striptease, uh you know what's the other one the one where the girl takes off her bathing suit Fast Times that's the one. Anyway the boys in the neighborhood LOVE ol skeets movie nights but I think some o them parents are gonna set his trailer on fire for too long here now.
You'd basically need to be sat less than the screen size away from it in order to see any difference at all. And that's if your vision is perfect.
Chances are you wouldn't be able to tell for video content even then. I can only really tell on gaming when the anti aliasing is shit.
I hate the wording of the headline, because it makes it sound like the consumers' fault that the industry isn't delivering on something they promised. It's like marketing a fusion-powered sex robot that's missing the power core, and turning around and saying "nobody wants fusion-powered sex robots".
Side note, I'd like for people to stop insisting that 60fps looks "cheap", so that we can start getting good 60fps content. Heck, at this stage I'd be willing to compromise at 48fps if it gets more directors on board. We've got the camera sensor technology in 2025 for this to work in the same lighting that we used to need for 24fps, so that excuse has flown.
The only complaints I've ever heard about 60fps are from gamers who prefer higher refresh rates. Does anyone advocate for framerates to be lower than 60??
Yes, movie people complain that more than 24 fps looks like soap operas (because digital TV studio cameras moved to 60 fps first).
It's got that cinematic feel, bro.
Yeah, I love when the camera pans slowly and everything is a blurry mess. Pure cinematic excellence.
As someone who stupidly spent the last 20 or so years chasing the bleeding edge of TVs and A/V equipment, GOOD.
High end A/V is an absolute shitshow. No matter how much you spend on a TV, receiver, or projector, it will always have some stupid gotcha, terrible software, ad-laden interface, HDMI handshaking issue, HDR color problem, HFR sync problem or CEC fight. Every new standard (HDR10 vs HDR10+, Dolby Vision vs Dolby Vision 2) inherently comes with its own set of problems and issues and its own set of "time to get a new HDMI cable that looks exactly like the old one but works differently, if it works as advertised at all".
I miss the 90s when the answer was "buy big chonky square CRT, plug in with component cables, be happy".
Now you can buy a $15,000 4k VRR/HFR HDR TV, an $8,000 4k VRR/HFR/HDR receiver, and still somehow have them fight with each other all the fucking time and never work.
8K was a solution in search of a problem. Even when I was 20 and still had good eyesight, sitting 6 inches from a 90 inch TV I'm certain the difference between 4k and 8k would be barely noticeable.
For what content? Video gaming (GPUs) has barely gotten to 4k. Movies? 4k streaming is a joke; better off with 1080 BD. If you care about quality go physical... UHD BD is hard to find and you have to wait and hunt to get them at reasonable prices... And these days there are only a couple UHD BD Player mfg left.
I am a filmmaker and have shot in 6k+ resolution since 2018. The extra pixels are great for the filmmaking side. Pixel binning when stepping down resolutions allows for better noise, color reproduction, sharpened details, and great for re-framing/cropping. 99% of my clients want their stuff in 1080p still! I barely even feel the urge to jump up to 4k unless the quality of the project somehow justifies it. Images have gotten to a good place. Detail won’t provide much more for human enjoyment. I hope they continue to focus on dynamic range, HDR, color accuracy, motion clarity, efficiency, etc. I won’t say no when we step up to 8k as an industry but computing as a whole is not close yet.
The extra pixels are great for the filmmaking side.
The same argument goes for audio too.
6K and 8K is great for editing, just like how 96 KHz 32+ bit and above is great for editing. But it's meaningless for watching and listening (especially for audio, you can't hear the difference above 44khz 16 bit). When editing you'll often stack up small artifacts, which can be audible or visible if editing at the final resolution but easy to smooth over if you're editing at higher resolutions.
Even 4K the content is not yet easily available . I mean except from AppleTV plus that all content is 4K and it’s part of basic subscription, every other streaming charges much more for 4K content, most people don’t want to pay more every month for 4K
So 8K is just a distant reality that content makers are not really wanting to happen
The difference between 1080 and 4K is pretty visible, but the difference between 4K and 8K, especially from across a room, is so negligible that it might as well be placebo.
Also the fact that 8K content takes up a fuckload more storage space. So, there's that, too.
Pretty sure my eyes max out at 4K. I can barely tell the difference between 4K and 1080P from my couch.
I do want a dumb 8K TV. I do not want all the so called smart features of a TV. Small Linux device with kodi works way better.
I'd buy a 8k TV, provided that it has no smarts, no WiFi, no TV tuner and its price isn't over 5% than a 4k TV
So an 8K monitor.
Somehow when it's called a "monitor" it quadruples the price.
I can't really accept that a basic 4k 27" monitor without even speakers costs the same of a 4k 65" TV with HDR, deeper blacks, WiFi and it even comes bundled with dozens of spyware for added convenience