549
Big Surprise—Nobody Wants 8K TVs (www.howtogeek.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
369 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I find that it really depends on the content on the size of the display.

The larger the display, the more you'd benefit from having a higher resolution.

For instance, a good quality 1080p stream vs a highly compressed 4k stream probably won't look much different. But a "raw" 4k stream looks incredible... think of the demos you see in stores showing off 4k TVs... that quality is noticeable.

Put the same content on a 50"+ screen, and you'll see the difference.

When I had Netflix, watching in 4k was great, but to me, having HDR is "better".

On a computer monitor, there's a case for high-resolution displays because they allow you to fit more on the screen without making the content look blurry. But on a TV, 4k + HDR is pretty much peak viewing for most people.

That's not to say that if you create content, 8k is useless. It can be really handy when cropping or re-framing if needed, assuming the desired output is less than 8k.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    think of the demos you see in stores showing off 4k TVs… that quality is noticeable.

    Sure. But remember that much of the time, the content is tuned for what the display is good at, which won't necessarily reflect what you want to watch on it (i.e. they're often bright colors with frequent color changes, whereas many movies are dark with many slow parts). At least at the start, many 4k TVs had a worse picture than higher end 1080p TVs, and that's before HDR was really a thing.

    So yeah, it highly depends on the content. As you mentioned, in many cases, 1080p HDR will be better than 4k non-HDR. Obviously 4k HDR on a good display is better than 1080p HDR on a good display, but the difference is much less than many people claim it to be, especially at a typical TV viewing distance (in our case, 10-15 ft/3-5m).

    computer monitor

    I find the sweet spot to be 1440p. 4k is nicer, but the improvement over 1440p is much less than 1440p vs 1080p. My desktop monitor is a 27" 1440p monitor w/ approx 109 ppi, and my work laptop is a Macbook Pro w/ 3024x1964 resolution w/ approx 254 ppi, more than double. And honestly, they're comparable. Text and whatnot is certainly sharper on the nicer display, but there are certainly diminishing returns.

    That said, if I were to watch movies frequently on my computer, I'd prefer a larger 4k monitor so 1080p content upscales better. But for games and normal computer stuff, 1440p is plenty.

    Given that I don't find a ton of value in 4k over 1080p, 8k will be even more underwhelming.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    think of the demos you see in stores showing off 4k TVs… that quality is noticeable.

    Because stores use a high quality feed and force you to stand withing 4ft of the display. There is a whole science to how Best Buy manipulates TV sales. They will not let you adjust TV picture settings on lower margin TVs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Because stores use a high quality feed

    Yes, obviously, and consumers who are buying such high-end displays should do their best to provide the highest quality source to play back on those displays.

    Distance from the display is important, too. On a small TV, you'll be close to it, but resolution won't matter as much.

    But from across the room, you want a higher resolution display up to a certain point, or else you'll see large pixels, and that looks terrible.

    Personally, going with a 4k TV was a big leap, but the addition of HDR and an OLED display (for black blacks) had the most impact.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent