'Don't Buy an 8K TV' (inputmag.com) 224
Anyone paying attention to the news coming out of CES this week has probably noticed that 8K TVs seem to be the next big thing. The science says your mortal eyes can barely tell the difference between 4K, however. From a report: Samsung announced one that's almost bezel-less. LG boasted a total of eight new 8K TVs. Meanwhile, there are two dueling standards bodies debating exactly how to define 8K. Given all this, you'd be forgiven if you thought 8K is the new high water mark for premium home entertainment and that your perfectly fine 4K panel is now no longer perfectly fine. Don't worry, it is. The coverage of 8K has really irked me. Nearly every article I've read that covers these newly announced 8K TVs seem to center around one criticism of the 8K trend: that no native content exists. This, while true, misses the point. Even if we had a surplus of available 8K content -- as we do 4K content from services like Disney+ and Netflix -- it wouldn't make that much of a difference. Why? Because whatever benefits might come from 8K probably aren't worth the added costs of getting it in the first place.
Without getting too bogged down in the science, let's touch on how the human eye sees detail. We have cells in our eyes called cones that are less sensitive to light but more sensitive to detail and color. Each of your eyes has about six to seven million cones that mostly provide data on the center of your vision, or focal point. Guessing the "resolution" of the human eye is complicated, but Roger N. Clark, an expert in digital imaging, has calculated the approximate resolution of the human field of view to be around 576 megapixels, or nearly 72 times the resolution of 4K. However, that's not the whole story. In Clark's view, the biggest factor that helps TVs make a more accurate image isn't necessarily their resolution, but their dynamic range capability, or the ability of current 4K HDR TVs to display greater contrast in the dark and bright parts of an image.
Without getting too bogged down in the science, let's touch on how the human eye sees detail. We have cells in our eyes called cones that are less sensitive to light but more sensitive to detail and color. Each of your eyes has about six to seven million cones that mostly provide data on the center of your vision, or focal point. Guessing the "resolution" of the human eye is complicated, but Roger N. Clark, an expert in digital imaging, has calculated the approximate resolution of the human field of view to be around 576 megapixels, or nearly 72 times the resolution of 4K. However, that's not the whole story. In Clark's view, the biggest factor that helps TVs make a more accurate image isn't necessarily their resolution, but their dynamic range capability, or the ability of current 4K HDR TVs to display greater contrast in the dark and bright parts of an image.
Whole field of vision (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be 576 megapixels in your whole field of vision. If you can see anything other than the TV, the resolution in your eyes of the TV is less.
You'll also probably have some trouble seeing perfect detail when things are moving.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen an 8K TV (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it was small screen. I can't see pixels on my 2k phone.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See this page [nde-ed.org]
I calculated 1920 at 4" is 480 pixels per inch. The visual acuity of a 20/20 eye for this resolution at 12" is about 1.67 pixels. So, if you can tell pixels apart, either your eyes are much better than 20/20, or you're looking at it at 4".
Re:I've seen an 8K TV (Score:5, Insightful)
What's hilarious is that back when 4k was just coming out we had like 9 months of these same posts. Bunch of asshats swearing that they have superhuman vision and they totally can see the difference, and whole lot of math that says they can't.
I'll be swapping out this 1080p TV sometime in the next 5-10 years, I'm sure. Then I'll just buy whatever is cheapest, because the resolution war was over 5-10 years ago.
Y'all can keep on pretending that your dad was superman and your mom was an eagle and you can see the DNA in cells with your superior vision. The handful of us sane folks will just buy whatever is cheap and has a decent true black.
Re:I've seen an 8K TV (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. If you had any clue about technology, you would know that it very much depends on distance and area these pixels are distributed over.
Wait and see (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait and see (Score:5, Interesting)
There are few devices that output at 8k and virtually no content and no eyeballs that can tell a difference at typical viewing distances. Makes it really easy to wait forever.
FTFY
You suggest waiting and seeing, but I'd ask: for what? Even if you have perfect vision today, your eyes would need to become at least 4x better before an 8K TV would even possibly confer any sort of benefit to you on the basis of its enhanced ppi.
This situation is no different than the printer dpi wars a few decades ago. Eventually everyone reached a point where the dpi became meaningless as they passed the point that consumers, even eagle-eyed ones, could tell a difference. They reached the limits of human perception. Likewise, a 20/20 (a.k.a. 6/6) human eye viewing a 1080p display at recommended TV viewing distances is already right on the cusp (depending on whose recommended viewing distances you follow) of being incapable of distinguishing between individual pixels, so anything above that pushes beyond the human eye's ability to distinguish. Even for people using their displays at typical desktop monitor viewing distances, we crossed the threshold of human capability when we made the transition to 4K, which means that 8K and beyond is utterly and completely pointless unless you're going to be using your display at distances far less than what is recommended.
Maybe if you're a theater operator and you want to make sure that the kids craning their necks up from the front row that no one likes to sit in can watch Toy Story 16 without seeing individual pixels? But for the rest of us mere mortals, it's a hammer in search of a nail that doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Because nobody could possibly have better than 20/20 vision.
Re: (Score:2)
irrelevant and, frankly, ignorant
Re: (Score:3)
I just responded to the guy earlier in this thread who raised the point about vision better than 20/20, but even at 20/8 you wouldn't be capable of distinguishing between individual pixels at the recommended viewing distances (let alone typical viewing distances, which are much further away) for a 4K TV. You'd need 20/5 vision to do so, and there's only one recorded human in history with vision that good, so the point is altogether irrelevant.
My eyes aren't good enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My eyes aren't good enough (Score:5, Funny)
Because it might be cheaper to buy a single 8K TV, cut it into four 2K TVs and split the cost difference with three of your friends.
Re:My eyes aren't good enough (Score:5, Funny)
I did that with my last TV, but I'm tired of only seeing the bottom right part of my TV shows. That bastard who got the upper left gets all the good scenes!
8K TVs are great. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They will push 4K TVs faster than they are already moving into the commodity mainstream market.
Most of the current bottom-end 4K TVs aren't even really 4K. They use 6-bit panels, which use dithering to reproduce the colors the panel isn't natively capable of. The dithering ends up reducing the effective resolution of the display.
IMHO, the majority of cheap TVs these days are engineered to a price point, rather than being yesterday's high-end models with marked down prices. Even with 8K TVs on the market, a cheap 4K TV will probably still be a cheap 4K TV. Look at 1080P TVs today. The only ones s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Go look at them in a store. The cheap 4k TVs (Hisense, TCL, the "house" brands sold at Walmart and Best Buy) all have 6-bit panels. I have one of the crappy Hisense 55" 4k TVs and it looks exactly like this photos in this post [slickdeals.net].
The fake HDR is another beast, entirely. It is absolutely horrid on these cheap TVs, and the first thing to do (besides strongly considering returning the TV) is going into the hidden menu and permanently disabling HDR.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much this. I'm still on a standard 60" HDTV, and don't have a problem with the resolution so far, and haven't been that impressed with the 4k TVs I've seen at friends' houses. (But then, I got a pretty high-end HDTV, so if the dynamic range is as important as the article states, that may be the reason - high quality 1080p vs. shitty 4k.)
When my current TV dies, I'll just spring for another high-quality set that's within my price range, rather than the one with the biggest numbers on the label.
Re: (Score:2)
They will push 4K TVs faster than they are already moving
Yep I am pretty excited about being able to get a good true 4k projector for a decent price pretty soon as 8K pushes on...
Luddite article (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Digital IMAX is only 2k.
Some of us were here when 4k was introduced at CES, some were here when 720 was introduced) and the consensus was correct: only larger screens would benefit and it wasn't worth the early-adopter prices. With 8k only Jumbotron-size screens will benefit and NOBODY has bandwidth to stream 8k and that's the future. Few can even stream 4k without compression levels that negate the quality of 4k resolution. Forget streaming, only a full hard drive could hold a native 8k file.
Re: (Score:2)
Larger screens, and people who sit close to them.
If you enjoy a home theater experience, gaming, or using a TV as a computer monitor, then you're likely to be sitting close enough that pixels are clearly visible in 4K. Even 8K has visible room for improvement when it covers most of your field of view.
And before you dismiss computer concerns, keep in mind the tyranny of mass production - (affordable) computer monitor resolutions stopped improving for over a decade as TV resolutions dictated the production
Re:Luddite article (Score:5, Informative)
This summary is all about pretending that because the application doesn't apply to them that no one needs 8K. If you are happy with your 50 inch screen and you sit far enough away from it that it doesn't make a difference then good for you, but for others we CAN tell the difference, do sit closer, and do use larger screens in our homes.
Basic math says otherwise. 8k requires you to stand 1 foot from a 65" display to see the resolution within limits of human vision. Or three feet from a 165" display for roughly the same result.
It's completely worthless and unrealistic.
I remember people complaining almost verbatim about the upgrade from 1080p to 4K screens.
For most all viewers they were right. The limiting factor for all users currently is combined result of codec efficiency vs allocated bandwidth not resolution.
also remember people saying "you can't see more than 30 fps"... not just nobodies but directors of films were saying that. Now if my monitor doesn't have 144 hz for a game then it feels choppy like going back to playing 3D games on a Super Nintendo again.
Displays running at higher rates primarily exist to better down match native content rates to avoid motion artifacts. The idea with gaming monitors is to avoid rate matching issues stemming from dynamic frame rate changes of underlying content. It's less about seeing more than 30 fps and more about mitigating artifacts stemming from modalities of underlying technology.
While people can certainly notice higher rates the choppy feels are not because 30fps is insufficient. It's because the display is not running at an integer multiple of the content.
8K is the future and it is needed. Movie theaters have huge screens and are far behind your home TV in the distance to size ratio.
Theatre resolution matters even less than home viewing due to distances involved. Only those sitting in the first two rows 9 - 12 ft from a large three story high theatre screen would be physically capable of viewing 8k.
Where 8k matters are in non-standard displays that fill more of the visual field. Planetariums, immersive projections / simulators and VR.
Re: (Score:2)
Basic math says otherwise. 8k requires you to stand 1 foot from a 65" display to see the resolution within limits of human vision.
Absolute, total, and utter bullshit.
An 8k display (meaning 7680x4320 pixels) with 65" diagonal measurement is a resolution of 135.5 pixels per inch.
At a 1-foot viewing distance, you can easily see individual pixels if you have normal vision.
Re: (Score:3)
8k requires you to stand 1 foot from a 65" display to see the resolution within limits of human vision.
Absolute, total, and utter bullshit.
An 8k display (meaning 7680x4320 pixels) with 65" diagonal measurement is a resolution of 135.5 pixels per inch.
At a 1-foot viewing distance, you can easily see individual pixels if you have normal vision.
1 ft viewing distance works out to a little over 57 PPD which is just within the range of those with perfect vision.
2 ft distance works out to 77 PPD requiring better than perfect vision.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
4k isn't enough for a computer monitor on my desk at maybe 1m distance. I can see the pixels. My vision is not perfect.
Re: (Score:3)
If the only problem with 30fps is mismatched frame rates, then I shouldn't be weirded out by "the soap opera effect" from higher interpolated frame rates in movies.
Movies most of them anyway run at 24 fps not 30 fps. To avoid problems the display needs to update at an integer multiple cadence relative to content. This requires a panel that runs at an even integer multiple... 24hz... 144hz... 240hz...etc. Most TVs the display runs at a fixed frequency previously 60 or 120hz.
Going forward in modern sets 240hz native is winning out because it allows for 24/30/60 integer multiples without any interpolation. Only 50hz content requires processing.
. Game makers should also be able to force their games to output exactly 30 fps and simply idle while waiting to process in between frames, resulting in perfect gaming motion.
But they don't, despite the fact that it would allow them to run higher resolutions on cheaper hardware with zero sacrifice? They aren't idiots. Optimization is HUGE in the gaming industry. The evidence shows that 30 fps is absolutely not an upper limit on human perception
I never said or implied
Re: (Score:2)
Bull.... (Score:2)
If you're sitting so close to the TV that you're finding 4K looks too grainy to you, and you welcome 8K resolution, you're #1, not even using the TV as intended (there are recommended viewing distances and none of them are sitting that close to the screen), and #2, you're probably using it as a monitor for a gaming console instead of to watch actual movies or television content. For gaming, the huge additional performance hit the video card takes to push around that many pixels is the far bigger downside t
Re: (Score:2)
For gaming, the huge additional performance hit the video card takes to push around that many pixels is the far bigger downside than some slight improvement you can see in the picture quality.
For twitch shooters, sure. But RDR2 looks pretty glorious in 4K, now my 1080 Ti only gets about 40 fps so if I was into competitive shootouts maybe still no. They also added a bunch of other things that aren't technically related to resolution like HDR, 10 bit color, Rec.2020 etc. so a 4K BluRay is pretty clearly superior to a HD BluRay.
I have a Plex media server here and I find I'd rather have my movies and shows saved on it in a lower resolution format anyway to save disk space and more importantly, bandwidth when streaming them. It seems crazy to have a bunch of content stored in BluRay disc quality file format, occupying 10's of gigabytes for each movie or TV episode, and half the time, people wanting to watch them on an iPad or something, where the CPU on the server has to do major crunching to try to scale it down to a resolution the device can handle as it streams it.
Well professional streaming services don't do it that way, they have multiple pre-processed streams they choose from. So it's really just for home storage and I've found tha
Re: (Score:2)
Rule of thumb for TV purchase (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Wait two years from announcement before buying.
2. Buy in January or February the last years model.
3. Remember that power usage is dramatically higher as your screen increases, but with little return, so if 32 inches feels right, don't bother with a 48 inch set. If you have a sportsball party, rent one or have a friend bring theirs while you provide food and drinks. Announce that friend as the bestest friend ever to the group, they'll feel good and you'll save a bundle. Put your smaller TV in the bathroom or spare room for people who want to watch something else, or use it for PiP as a second screen.
4. Get your eyes checked if you can't see your TV - chances are you need a new prescription, as your eyes change as you age.
I'm waiting for 640k TV (Score:5, Funny)
That ought to be enough for anybody.
Televisions Are Getting Larger (Score:3)
Televisions have been increasing in size at a rapid rate, and we're now at a point were you can get a 75 inch television for next to nothing. Much larger screens are available if you have the money, such as the 219 inch Samsung Wall. As television increase in size, the resolution required to avoid pixels becoming visible increases. On large televisions the benefits of 8K would definitely be discernable. The same is true on displays that you sit close to, such as computer monitors. I would like a monitor with the same pixel density as my smartphone, but that would require at least an 8K resolution.
We've seen articles like this for every resolution, claiming you don't need 720p/1080p/4K/8K. It reminds me of all the people who used to say, "the human eye can't perceive about 24fps." I don't understand why some people are so against technological progress.
Re: (Score:3)
The author of the article makes excellent points, IMO. I don't believe he's saying "never buy an 8k TV for all time" - he's saying "don't buy one right now", and he makes valid arguments as to why not to buy one now. Lack of 8k content, bandwidth usage, negligible difference in picture quality at smaller screen sizes (less than 65-70 inches), price - these are all valid points in January 2020.
As these factors disappear (8k content starts to become available, bandwidth available to the average consumer goes
Re: (Score:2)
On large televisions the benefits of 8K would definitely be discernable.
We've seen articles like this for every resolution, claiming you don't need 720p/1080p/4K/8K. It reminds me of all the people who used to say, "the human eye can't perceive about 24fps." I don't understand why some people are so against technological progress.
I want better quality TV. Is the way for me to get it to cheerlead for shit that basic math and facts about human vision says won't help me or virtually anyone else or should I spend my time and money cheerleading for shit that will actually help such as industry adoption of compression related content quality metrics, higher complexity video codecs and increased provision of bandwidth? Compression is by far the limiting factor not resolution. The more the spotlight continues to shine on the wrong metric
Still not enough. (Score:2)
I trust Bill Gates.
"640K is more [..] than anyone will ever need".
7K covers is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So what? That detailed area of view is constantly moving, while your brain stitches together a continuous picture of the world from thousands of discrete snapshots . Unless your display technology can reliably deliver high-quality display only in the tiny high-resolution spot your eyes are currently focused on, you need to deliver high quality to the entire field of view.
To match the average fovea resolution of one cone cell at per 31.5 arc-seconds, on a screen that completely spans the average human 210
Unless you need a gaming monitor (Score:2)
Obviously these are marketed in the wrong segment, 8k would be great for games, or a 100" monitor right in front of your face.
Or if your a stock trader, maybe 4 8k monitors, that ought to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... 8k would be great for fast moving game type content. Not.
4K vs 8K (Score:2)
Most estimates I have seen say that 8K begins to matter at screen sizes 90" and above. Maybe a bit less if you want to walk right up to the TV and see no pixelation but for practical viewing distances it seems to be 90" and above.
Now what is an affordable TV? I think for most people in the USA it is a TV priced below $500. Right now, the cheapest 75" TV can be had for $600 or so, so it is very likely that 75" TVs will become affordable this year. It is also very likely that 85" TVs (which are now slowly app
Re: (Score:2)
I watch movies from 12 feet away on a projected 2k screen (yes, 2k) that is about equivalent to a 100 inch tv. Some of it is even upscaled 720p content.
I can *barely* tell the difference, and certainly cannot see any pixels from that distance, although they're clearly visibly when I go close to the screen.
I'm thinking *maybe* an upgrade to 4k might be interesting. 8k would be completely pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
I am using a 55" 4K TV as a monitor. From 2 feet away I can see pixelation (especially with fonts). From 3 feet away I cannot see it. OSHA recommends eye to monitor distance of 20-40 inches. I usually sit 20" (~1.5 feet) away from the screen so for me 4K is nominally not enough... except that the level of pixelation is small enough to not bother me.
Bottom line is that there is definitely room for more resolution even on tiny TVs like mine. But in terms of mass market, the tech is about a decade removed from
2012 called .. they want their graph back (Score:4, Informative)
If only there was a graph [avsforum.com] showing resolution and viewing distance. /s
To bad no one started a thread [avsforum.com] back in 2012 to address viewing distance(s) for 4K and beyond. /s
--
When did the shenanigans of vertical 2160p getting hijacked into a horizontal 4K start?
Re:2012 called .. they want their graph back (Score:5, Insightful)
You fail to mention that those plots are calculated considering a 20/6.3 vision. That's superhuman vision: yoy can clearly see at 20 feet what an average person is expected to see at only 6.3 feet. That is simply not realistic, and probably done with a hidden agenda (to sell larger or higher-resolution screens).
For a realistic plot, please use this other one [carltonbale.com] which considers 20/20 vision (often considered "perfect" vision or "pilot" vision, but not "superhuman" vision). Note that, for a 5 feet distance, you would need a ~78" screen to notice a difference between 4K and 8K. Would you really feel comfortable watching a 78" at 5 feet?
Re:2012 called .. they want their graph back (Score:4, Insightful)
That graph is for someone with practically superhuman vision. An alternate graph is offered in the thread, which is more reasonable for average folk: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.png/ [carltonbale.com]
Let me know when most 1080p is uncompressed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let me know when most 1080p is uncompressed (Score:4, Interesting)
Two years ago I would have said the same. However I needed a new TV as the old one had given up the ghost. It just so happened that the one that had all the features I wanted (Freeview and Freesat tuners and a full range of catchup apps plus Plex, Netflix, Amazon and NowTV; I live in the UK) at the given screen size was a 4K one.
I don't have any 4K content even now, but after having had the TV for a day there is no way I would have gone back to a 1080p screen.
The thing is that all the menus and the like are *SO* much better on a 4K TV it is really really noticeable. Heck even my mother who does not see the point of any sort of HD has commented on how much clearer things are. Scrolling through the movies on Plex and instead of blurry thumbnails you can actually make out the movie posters. Nice crisp text that is easy to read etc.
Now I have not rushed around replacing all my TV sets with 4K ones, but at the moment large 4K TV's are stupidly cheap to the point where you can't even buy a 40" 1080p display from a decent brand anymore let alone a 50" or 60" model and given the added benefits outlined above why not?
Re: (Score:3)
woohoo! 8k netflix streaming! (Score:5, Insightful)
knock knock.. Hi, this is comcast, you just went through your generous 1TB data cap in a day and now owe us an additional $50 overage fee!
The difference between 4K (Score:2)
"The science says your mortal eyes can barely tell the difference between 4K, however."
The difference between 4K and... what?
Who says you don't need it. (Score:5, Funny)
You don't buy an 8K TV for better video. You buy it for bragging rights in the neighborhood.
Things 8K video content will be good for:
* You can see Brad Pitt's nostril hairs.
* You can spot the wristwatch on some extra in Lord Of The Rings.
* Every movie set has flaws worthy of Ed Wood. Find them.
* Snot and drool flying off from NFL linemen. Who wouldn't pay extra to see that.
* Prove once and for all that Ump is blind.
* Jennifer Aniston has gingivitis? Say it ain't so!
So.... enjoy.
This is what 8k is for (Score:2)
"The Wall at 292 inches is a TV horse of a different color. Samsung This story is part of CES 2020, our complete coverage of the showroom floor and the hottest new tech gadgets around."
https://www.cnet.com/news/sams... [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I welcome the 8K TVs (Score:2)
Baloney (Score:2)
I've been waiting for an 8K 40" monitor since the early 90's. I thought we'd have it this year based on Moore's Law, at the time. Looks like I probably have to survive two more years to buy my last monitor.
I can't tell 1080P from 4K (Score:3)
Screen size (Score:2)
It seems rather like screen size and viewing distance would have a huge impact on whether "8k" would be better or not. I mean, if you're going to put a picture up on a wall sized screen intended for viewing at a distance of a few feet, then higher resolution might make sense. But viewed from a reasonable distance on a screen the size of a reasonable television, it probably doesn't make all that much difference. Especially once you consider that it's going to be compressed into oblivion to fit it down the da
Do a study (Score:2)
mortal? (Score:2)
Don't assume the mortal nature of my eyes you insensitive clod!
Buyer beware (Score:2)
Same exact Things were said when 4K came around. (Score:2)
Can''t see the difference...... no content.... and yet here we are with great 4K TV's that look spectacular!
Personally, I experience a very big difference on my new 4K LG OLED from my previous 1080P LG.
Obviously technology from various facets moves the ball to greater viewing pleasure.
I expect that there will be intangibles that will make 8K TV's superior by quite a bit from todays 4K TV's at the same size screen as well.
So sally forth into 8K by all means!!!!
In 10 years I might buy another 8K TV and move m
Monitor (Score:2)
My 43" 4k monitor is frigging awesome. My next monitor purchase might just be an 8k. Playing Doom, Quake, Carmageddon, or other games on the thing is pretty cool actually :) And from a coding perspective, having lots of real-estate is surprisingly helpful and productive.
[John]
8K!=Plasma display (Score:2)
LEDtv suck so I'll stay with 90's 1080p PlasmaTV until new technology gets cinematic tearing, jitter and color intensity smoothed out.
The brain simply can't watch cheap $600USD LED, OLED and HDR content longer than 30min.
Re: (Score:2)
I use my plasma in low light, so I turned down the light cell to 0 and adjust a few other factors. Once it warmed up it eliminated any screen burns.
But I recall 1080p screens coming out about 10 to 15 years ago. In the 90s the pl
No problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They are correct, you probably don't need an 8K TV. 8K will be useful above 65" or if you have a smaller screen and sit far too close to the TV. At 65" and above the pixels of 4k are apparent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, if you use your TV to sit around and watch a static grid of black and white alternating pixels. Then for sure you can probably pick out the pixels if you sit close enough.
Moving actual content? Nope. You'll have to be very absurdly close or have a very absurdly large screen.
Re: "Yet". (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: "Yet". (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm inclined to agree that 4K is sufficient for most TV watching. Even 1k for most things. I use a 40" 4K TV as a computer monitor though, and from 2 to 6 feet away you can clearly see the pixels on text, and it's a *huge* improvement over the 1080P TV I used previously. And if you're in it for the home theater experience then you're gong to want to sit similarly close enough that the TV mostly fills your field of view.
Oh, and 1080P would be 2K - the xK nomenclature switched to horizontal pixel count rather than the 1080 or 720 vertical pixel count. The 1080p image size is 1920x1080, or roughly 2,000 pixels across (2K). Just as 4K is roughly 4,000 pixels across (3,840 for a standard TV, though there's several formats that use the 4K name)
Re: (Score:2)
I use a 40" 4K TV as a computer monitor though, and from 2 to 6 feet away you can clearly see the pixels on text,
That probably because it's a TV. I sit 3-4 feet from a 43" Dell Ultrasharp and I can't tell the pixels apart. Of course there's also the possibility that my eyes suck.
Re: The only difference between a TV and a monitor (Score:3)
Re: "Yet". (Score:2)
At that distance, you probably canâ(TM)t tell the difference between 720p and 4K. Youâ(TM)d need to be closer than about 4 feet to benefit from 8K, if your screen could do it! Handy table with viewing distances here (no 8K because it was written in 2013): https://referencehometheater.c... [referencehometheater.com]
Re: "Yet". (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: "Yet". (Score:5, Funny)
My vision clearly sucks - but so does a majority of people...
Not to mention their vision.
Re: "Yet". (Score:5, Funny)
You can probably hear the difference between gold plated and non-gold plated HDMI cables as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Yet". (Score:4, Informative)
You can *absolutely* make out individual 4K pixels if you adhere to THX's recommended minimum view distance relative to screen size, and if your vision doesn't fucking suck.
Very few people are willing to sit so close to a TV. You literally have to stand right in front of it.
We have a 75", people watch from 10 feet away on the couch. This requires better than 20/20 vision to maximally benefit from 1080. 4k requires four feet distance with perfect vision and 8k a bit over 1 foot. All way too close, nobody wants to do it although I'm sure someone in the world really cares that much.
Re: (Score:3)
That 65" 8K monitor on the desk 3 feet in front of me would be sweet.
Re: "Yet". (Score:3, Informative)
What's the Resolution of 35mm motion picture film? 70mm? You know that until recently, they shot films onto film. The old stuff, shot on 35mm will be WAY lower than 8K resolution, and 70mm Films will still be lower resolution than even 4K. Until they field 8K digital recording equipment and we actually get material produced using it, 8K is a pipe dream.
There are a lot of factors to take into account when trying to compare film to digital. Obviously there are different types of film. there was poorer quality film stock that was used for low budget films or grainy film used in low light etc. But in general 35mm film translates to 4k, 35mm Imax is equivalent to 6k and 70mm is around 12k. So no, there could be plenty of content. But having a large enough screen and room to take advantage of it is a different story. From what I've seen most content is consumed
Re:"Yet". (Score:5, Insightful)
"Nothing to see here" Including any noticeable difference in quality.
480 to 1080 you can tell a difference. 1080 to 4k you may be able to see a difference side by side.
Anything past that is just a waste of bandwidth and money.
Re:"Yet". (Score:4, Insightful)
But autism is a thing. People read specs.
Reminds me of a video card that came out probably a few decades ago (I forget the brand and some of the details). It was one of the first to offer 75Hz refresh rates. All the gamers were going nuts over it. Complaining that the older cards were giving them migraines and whatnot. After a few months, it came out that the Windows drivers provided with the card would only set the 45Hz refresh rate. Even though the screen configuration tool offered the higher rate. Now all of a sudden people who thought that this card was the best thing since sliced bread started complaining about "Muh headaches".
Just print up a sticker that says 8K and paste it on an older tech monitor. No, wait. Don't do that. Because autism is going to drive a few people to bring their new TV into a testing lab. And then complain that the screen is causing them nausea. Whatever did they do throughout the last decade? Sit and throw up while gaming on a 4K screen?
Re: (Score:3)
But autism is a thing. People read specs.
This ^^^^ Very insightful post.
Even if the spec doesn't amount to a hill of beans, someone will still want it for the l33t factor and can brag to their friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Yet". (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I have always hated this BS. Monster is such a scam. I even had an argument with a former IT supervisor that high quality signal does not mean jack fucking shit as long as the TV gets the signal.
a low quality stream of 1's and 0's will show the exact same fucking crystal clear image that a super high fidelity ultra amplified stream of 1's and 0's will show.
As long as the stream is quality enough to receive the 1's and 0's you are golden. They are using peoples idea of analog signalling and old fashion sn
Re:"Yet". (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try a 43" 4k. The text is just the right size at 4k. And I checked out an 8k monitor (ahem: TV) at Best Buy a month or so back. At 82" it would fit on my desk and I could get rid of the additional 4 monitors that bring my desktop to 6k :)
[John]