Slashdot Mirror
8K TVs Are Coming, But Don't Buy the Hype (engadget.com)
If the 8,294,400 pixels of resolution on an Ultra High Definition television just don't seem to convey enough detail, fear not: The electronics industry has heard your cry. From a report: Even as UHD TVs, often called 4K TVs for their nearly 4,000 pixels of horizontal resolution, approach half of display shipments in the U.S., set manufacturers have been stepping up their demos of 8K sets that, with their 7680-by-4320 resolution, pack in a full 33,177,600 pixels. And Sharp is now expanding its distribution of one such set, the 70-inch LV-70X500E. Following its October debut in China and subsequent arrivals in Japan and Taiwan, this 8K display will go on sale across Europe at the end of April for about $13,800 at current exchange rates. That, apparently, is supposed to be a reasonable price for a set that supports a video format that offers next to nothing to watch, that can't be streamed on most broadband connections or fit onto Blu-ray discs and which can't even be properly appreciated unless you get a set too big to fit in many living rooms.
[...] The highlights reel playing on a demo unit of Sharp's 8K set required 300 megabits per second of bandwidth to stream, said Adrian Wysocki, group product manager at UMC, the Sharp-owned firm that builds TVs in Poland for the company. He suggested in a conversation Friday that more efficient formats could cut that to 100 Mbps. Only 23.2% of U.S. fixed-broadband connections hit that speed at the end of 2016, according to to the Federal Communications Commission's latest report on internet access services.
[...] The highlights reel playing on a demo unit of Sharp's 8K set required 300 megabits per second of bandwidth to stream, said Adrian Wysocki, group product manager at UMC, the Sharp-owned firm that builds TVs in Poland for the company. He suggested in a conversation Friday that more efficient formats could cut that to 100 Mbps. Only 23.2% of U.S. fixed-broadband connections hit that speed at the end of 2016, according to to the Federal Communications Commission's latest report on internet access services.
The people who think anyone needs an explanation about not buying a $14,000 television will never stop being funny to me.
There's no hype if it's not really available.
"I'll be your huckleberry" - Doc Holliday - Tombstone
Sure it's going to be a while before you see much 8k VIDEO content...
But what the naysayers are ignore is how awesome these will be for images.
Also a nice side effect of putting on 8K displays, is it drives the cots of 4k displays even cheaper in the meantime.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The sad part about these new 8K TVs is they cost more than some small cars or a used car and there's virtually no content that could drive something this powerful short of a very powerful computer. Better than 1080p is a rare find in most digital TV broadcasts, 1080i or 720p is more typical. Definately not there yet.
The highlights reel playing on a demo unit of Sharp's 8K set required 300 megabits per second of bandwidth to stream, said Adrian Wysocki, group product manager at UMC, the Sharp-owned firm that builds TVs in Poland for the company. He suggested in a conversation Friday that more efficient formats could cut that to 100 Mbps.
I'd love to hear how they're going to cut stream bandwidth by 2/3 without nullifying whatever incremental visual experience 8k is supposed to give you.
11 years ago we had a 24k TV!!
https://www.cnet.com/news/what...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK76j8sdVaw
I have a 1080p dumb 50" TV... does the job. Only cost 225EUR.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
8K TVs are what is needed for glasses free 3D to become a reality. I've read about people demoing them on AVS forums and they says that they were shocked at what the prototypes were doing.
I won't get into links and proving it. Just do an internet search for glasses free TV and you'll see articles and reviews that discuss this topic.
As for content availability. Don't worry about it. It's a chicken and egg issue. Early adopters will buy 8K TVs and then content providers will provide content. And eventually the technology will trickle down into lower price points. Don't believe me? If you told people that you could buy a 75" plasma in 10 years for $1400 they'd laugh at you. Well, it's here today. It's not plasma but it's here. And it's 4K and is wider color gamut capable (UHD).
As for bandwidth requirements, ignore it. Bandwidth tech will catch up.
These are all temporary problems — including even the living room sizes.
But the human eye has its limits too. What's the actual N, beyond which we, the humans — even those with the sharpest eyes — can no longer distinguish between N and 2N pixels per inch?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Maybe its because you're too busy telling kids to get off your lawn instead of watching TV.
Maybe because I am outside, and not spending the day watching TV that I don't care.
I actually don't tell the kids to get off the lawn, just try not to leave anything in the grass that will get shot out the lawnmower :)
I tell my kids to go outside and play in the yard all the time.
This is just the beginning.. Watch for 128K
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'll hold out until TVs have Smell-o-vision®
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
My desktop monitor is 21:9 (actually 64:27) ultra-widescreen. So there are poorer choices for desktop displays in active use.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Comment removed based on user account deletion
True, it is all digital. And the cheap 3$ HDMI cable from Alibaba might suffice for the "High" def content. But to handle the 8K steam you need a gold plated, silver core 10 gauge wire HDMI cable from Monster. The zeros would be a perfect circles and the ones would be perfectly straight and vertical no matter how twisty your cable is. You definitely need it for 8k.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
At these resolutions you have to be within about 2 feet of the screen to resolve a pixel according to my very quick calculations. (Check my calculations someone.)
That is extra resolution you probably do not need.
When 4k came out at five digit prices how much content was available for that? Obviously no one is going to run out to spend $13,000 on a 70" 8k screen. This is for the future, when 100mbit broadband is more common. Remember the cheapest, smallest 4K screens from budget brands like Westinghouse and Hisense were a whopping $4,000-$5,000 in 2013. Those same tvs sell for $300 today. http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/1...
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
A hologram works by using photographic film capable of photographing the actual light waves. Once we have resolutions better than light's wavelength, we can have holographic TV.
No, I will not work for your startup
Manufacturers could just go back to the tried-and-true business model: planned obsolescence. I.e. they could go back to shitty quality so things naturally only last a few years (just past the end of the warranty, ideally) so you're forced to buy a new one. As is they're relying on the 'poor shaming' sales strategy, where you're made to feel bad because you aren't being an early adopter.
They'll just redefine K, and say that we were referring to Ki all along.
You know, a moderately sized 4k tv is now under $400. that's pretty reasonable, if you're going to be buying a new TV, why not?
That's the value proposition 8k and beyond will have to meet. BUT before the prices drop that level, manufacturing techniques and process need to improve -- and the only way to do that is.. making obscenely expensive panels that not many people want to buy.
But, you're right, people aren't going to (for the most part) chuck out a perfectly fine 1080p tv for 8k just because of the newness factor.
hairs on her ... thing.
8K broadcast standards use Rec 2020, which has a much wider gamut and can therefor show colors that most TVs these days can't. Rec 2020 is even wider than the DCI-P3 that many high-end monitors benchmark against these days.
Rec 2020 also defines a larger bit depth: 10 or 12 bits per component rather than 8. This is partly to support the wider gamut, but it'll also help everything else by allowing much better gradients.
Even if you don't have an 8K TV, ones that use HDR10 and Dolby Vision will benefit: both of these standards use the Rec 2020 gamut. So... bring on the 8K revolution. I want better browns.
I have a zillion more channels than back in the Cro-Magnon days but lately there hasn't been much programs that make me compelling to watch them. I don't know if it's me (i.e. they say when you are old you have seen all the old movies and all the old reruns). IEEE Broadcast Techology Society had article mentioning a three-legged stool. Equipment to send TV, equipment to receive it, content that is delivered. Eliminate any one of these three, the stool collapses. I jumped over to the BTS website, some interesting mentions but my first impression all this latest technology is mostly for the people in the business for them to show off to others in the business their latest toys. People that receive content i.e. consumers, they're just there to consume. That is no real reason to produce critically acclaimed programming, entertaining, and or thought provoking programs.
from https://bts.ieee.org/news/142-...
“Consumers, quick to adopt new media and ways to tap into it, have come to expect the ability to access sight-and-sound content from any source on any device, anywhere, anytime – whether that content is broadcast over-the-air, delivered via cable, satellite, phone lines or stored at home.”
“Digital TV was a start in this direction, but the past dozen years have witnessed technology revolutions in nearly every related field and consumer expectations have risen accordingly.”
mfwright@batnet.com
I can now display images that are close to 100% zoom from my DSLR (36MP) or similar effective resolution of 35mm film scans.
8k (7680x432) resolution is still slightly below that at 33.2 megapixels, and because these would be widescreen probably a bit less as the image would either have dead space to either side or be cropped to fill, meaning not nearly 100%. For a higher end 50MP camera you are even further from 100% viewing.
Also not factoring in things like panoramic and the like even from smartphones which can make good use of that resolution.
There are still millions and millions of DSLR users that could probably take advantage of 8K resolution for slideshows, so there is some latent demand if the price is reasonable.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm not certain if I can tell 4K from 1080p, but I can definitely tell UHD from HD. I only mention this because the two seem to frequently be paired together.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Now we need grids on desktops. As a TV 8k is just a pissing contest, you'd have to be within a few feet to notice any difference. But as a computer monitor having an 8k monitor would be like have 8 1080p monitors in a 2x4 grid. I worked for years with my desktop setup with 4 1080p's setup with one center, one left, one right, and one above; like the tetris piece. It worked very well.
The problem is that every window would be free floating and that would be time consuming to manage. I'd be nice to be able to define grids that you can "snap" windows to. I remember a linux distro I was playing with years ago, based on xfce I think, that put everything in a grid like that. XOrg saw my four monitors as one screen because that was the only way I could get it use all four screens, using xinerama. It was useful for splitting things up into the four quadrants but now I can't remember what the distro was? Anyone?
Heck, it'd make for an awesome computer screen too. Might be a bit much for most current gaming hardware to drive, but by the time it becomes mainstream I doubt that'll be a problem. In the meantime, it means smoother fonts and crisper images. I'm right at the cusp of upgrading to 4k - they're finally making affordable 40" 4k TVs (about the largest screen I'd want at arm's length), I'm just waiting for the improvements to slow enough that I don't get buyer's remorse right away as next month's models significantly improves quality at the same price point.
But even a "small" 40" screen has visible pixels at arm's length, another doubling in dpi should push detail down below the obvious perceptual threshold.
And of course if you're getting a bigger screen, which are increasingly popular, then you'll notice that 8k improvement even at larger distances.
Heck, even video will improve - you don't need higher resolution *content* to appreciate a higher resolution *screen* - all you need is a decent upscaling algorithm. I mean sure, even excellent upscaling isn't going to make a DVD look as good as Blue-Ray, but it can make it look a lot better than it did on a CRT.
Of course, even 4k is more detail than you really need for a movie unless you have a rather obscenely large TV, or like sitting quite close to it - but hey, video buffs need love too! And hey, it's not even like audio enthusiasts don't get anything for their money with those oxygen-free gold-plated audio cables. Sure, the sound is physically indistinguishable, but the placebo effect improves the subjective experience anyway.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
doesn't deserve to own one. Turn in your man card immediately.
Anyone who doesn't understand why you shouldn't buy an 8K TV at this time should turn in their brain immediately. Seriously, some broadcast TV signals are not even in 1080p much less 4K. UltraHD Blurays only get up to 4K and you can't get it for every title. Eventually people might get 8K but only after there is considerable content and broadband that can handle it is ubiquitous. I'm going to guess maybe 10 years from now would 8K be worth it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Most movie theaters now use digital projectors, and those are typically either 2K or 4K. Even IMAX digital is 2K or 4K. I don't usually hear people complaining about the resolution in theaters, so I have trouble seeing how going to 8K will improve the home experience.
There's the other Procrustean solution. Samsung makes a 110 inch TV that is 1.8 meters high and 2.6 meters across. It's built to order and will set you back 15 million won.
Even at UHD resolution with middle-aged vision, you should be able to dissatisfying yourself from at least arm's length.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I have a 1080 tv and a 2160 set, the 2160 looks a lot better but it's also 10 years newer. These anecdotes are useless.
I had a CRT like that. It worked. It was also fuzzy as hell--they degrade over time. The cheap 32-diagonal HDTV I bought is almost as old, and still quite clear--also, doesn't get fuzzy if line power is unconditioned (which had an impact on an old CRT, hence why I always had TV on UPS).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
All those extra pixels will go to waste on such a tiny little "big" screen TV...... On the other hand, imagine how cool 8K
would look projected onto a 400-inch wide x 300-inch high rectangle on the wall.
At that bitrate it will take me a week to download a weekly show :(
It used to be true that people would purchase a television and keep it until it broke down 10, 15, 20 years later - then they'd buy another one.
Now these companies are trying to get us to buy new TVs as often as we buy new phones.
I've got a 1080P LG television we bought 2012-ish. I don't care if the new TVs are somehow "better" than the one I've got - mine works fine and the display looks good. I'm likely keeping it for as long as it continues to function.
Now, kindly remove yourself from my lawn.
#DeleteChrome
This is for early adopters and content creators. Compression formats are not linear. You can get some extra contrast from existing films on such a display. If your a content creator then you want to see how a particular compression format and it's options will display on future TV's. You want to be able to see artifacts. You might not be able to detect the difference between two sets of options unless you see compare them at a higher resolution. Furthermore displays like this are very useful for medical imaging right now.
If you sit at the right distance you can. I sit abour 5 feet from a 65" 4k TV and I can see the pixels.
Beyond resolution I expect the UHD TV look better, just because of newer displaying technologies. Brigher OLED, better angles on LCD.
The color contrast on a 1080 OLED can give an over all better experience then a LCD 4k monitor.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Unless you're purchasing an extremely large TV and viewing it from a pretty close distance, 8K TVs will never be worth it, because you won't even see the difference.
It might eventually become mainstream simply due to manufacturing ease of only supporting a single resolution, similar to how almost all new TVs are 4K, even small ones. But I'm still not certain 8K will really ever take hold. I think 4K may end up becoming that ubiquitous "good enough" point beyond which remains only niche products.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
There will be those who say what is the point, you can't see the pixels anyway? This is only partially true. Yes, even if you sat at the closest comfortable distance, I would agree the pixels would be difficult to detect. Where an 8k display would shine is reducing jagged edges(aliasing) from straight lines that are still visible at 4k. Also 8k will do for 4k what 4k did for 1080p content with improved appearance from upscaling. It doesn't matter that native 8k content might not be practical to deliver for several years. For home theater entusiast, this will improve their viewing experience.
Hopefully we can get away from these stupid spinning disks. They waste electricity, are slow, get scratched and smudged... give me a solid state movie!
Maybe if the resolutions keep running away from bandwidth rates we could have one or hopefully two changes in the market.
The first is do away with streaming only. Fine keep your copy protect nonsense, but let me download the content or at least buffer it to watch at my leisure on any device. I get tired of not being able to watch anything if the network is being flaky.
The obvious second item is no more excuses, but GB connections should be basic service not something we might get in another decade or two. Same goes for wireless bring the 5G online already.
No doubt, if you press your nose to the screen you can see the difference. 8K is really a theater projector standard: in order to see the difference between 4K and 8K, the screen will more than fill your field of color vision. If you're sitting closer than most people find comfortable, such as the front row of a movie theater, or 5 feet from a screen with a diagonal larger than that, then you'll see the difference.
At a common viewing distance for a given screen size, you can't see the difference, but that's not all use cases.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
8K hits the value curve around the 65" display size @ 12 ft. Most people view their TV 10-12 ft away, and 65" TV are becoming increasingly more common. You can get quality name brand 4K 65" shipped to your house for $999 online these days.
8K (or maybe settle for 6K?) will certainly be worth it, but 16K is actually ludicrous mode. 8K is probably the upper limit, whereas 4K is merely "really good".
moox. for a new generation.
Its not just the screen being high resolution that is interesting, but the push in the video cards to be able to display those resolutions.
I'm holding out for wall sized touch screen monitors where 8K would be very handy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
More is better. You may not appreciate it but your grandkids will love that 400" 8K "cheep" wall display you get them for Christmas in 2028 to play their games on.
Relevant Futurama:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There's also the one with the tattoo that we can't see because of our low resolution.
I'm pretty much the same, except that my 4K OLED kicks the shit out of my 1080p IPS for all other aspects of image quality, not just resolution. So even when I'm half asleep at the back of the room lying on the couch without glasses, the 4K OLED is miles better.
Unless you're purchasing an extremely large TV and viewing it from a pretty close distance, 4K TVs will never be worth it, because you won't even see the difference.
It might eventually become mainstream simply due to manufacturing ease of only supporting a single resolution, similar to how almost all new TVs are 1080p, even small ones. But I'm still not certain 4K will really ever take hold. I think 1080p may end up becoming that ubiquitous "good enough" point beyond which remains only niche products.
You were saying?
OLED displays have fantastic color reproduction. Too bad they also have durability issues.
Circumcision is child abuse.
8K TVs are 100% marketing bullshit.
Your eyes and your brain will not allow you to tell the difference between that and 1080 when the picture is moving.
The TV industry needs something to sell to suckers. 3D TV is dead, Smart TVs are dead, Curved screens are dead, roll out the next marketing wankfest.
This is no better than an "Eat all you want" restaurant saying you can now "Eat Twice as much"
"...a video format that offers next to nothing to watch, that can't be streamed on most broadband connections or fit onto ... discs and which can't even be properly appreciated unless you get a set too big to fit in many living rooms."
I'm pretty sure we said the exact same things about 4k and 1080p screens...
0 1 - just my two bits
I need a cheaper 8k curved monitor and if the suckers don't buy them I won't be able to buy them!
Think about it-- a curved 40" would make a great computer display. under 50" but over 40" - with more curve than the TVs currently have.
Actually, the ideal would be curved in both directions...
I'll probably just end up with 2 vertical displays with 4k each. it won't be good for some things (games/movies) but for work it will be great. curved probably needed... because at that height it's a bit of a problem.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Unless you're purchasing an extremely large TV and viewing it from a pretty close distance, 8K TVs will never be worth it, because you won't even see the difference.
Is no one using these for monitors?
I need to replace a 30" 2160x1600 monitor (and maybe my seconds screen as well, a 20" 1600x1200 which, when rotated, lines up perfectly with the 30"). A single 4k screen is not enough to replace both of those (and I do make full use of both), but it also makes little sense to get 2x 4k's... if I get them big enough for the 4k to be worth it, then total display width is too big; if I get them smaller, then I lose physical display size. A single large 8k screen could be perfect, especially if it's curved.
I know we're not there on price yet for the 8k's, but I haven't seen one person mention using them as a monitor, and multiple people have said they'll never be worth it, and that seems awfully short sighted.
My god, are you from the 18th century?
The day had come, when 1080p is denounced as "jaggy" and "aliased" :)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
it's probably already out there because of rule 34
My 1080 TV is an LG that I still use and was purchased in 2008, so you get off of my lawn.
I'm going to hold out for 640K...that should be enough for anybody.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
I don't know how you came up with that question. Resolution is independent of physical size, but you're mixing the two into an incomprehensible question.
We still have a good number of networks broadcasting in 720P and they think I'm going to buy an 8K TV? ABC, Big 10 Network, ESPN (and all their channels), Fox, Fox Sports, MLB network, SEC Network, National Geo, FX and Disney are all still broadcasting in 720P. Most Blu Rays people own aren't even 4K yet and many people can't even reliably stream 4K videos due to either speed or data caps. Maybe I'm just getting old (I am, I'm pushing 35 now). What is the point though? The industry still hasn't even fully caught up to 1080, little yet 4K. Now they think we should go to 8K.
I am on TV number 4 since 2000. 2 of those are in use today, a 1080P plasma and a 4K UHD OLED. The 4K UHD OLED is absolutely awesome for 1 main reason: passive 3D. Other than that, for anything 1080P, it's a pretty rough draw between the sets. True 4K UHD content does look amazing.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Unless you're purchasing an extremely large TV and viewing it from a pretty close distance, 8K TVs will never be worth it, because you won't even see the difference.
Personally I think TVs the size of walls might be cool as they could display high resolution landscape scenes.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
That's my metric. I'm finally buying the dream monitor I've wanted since 1990. I figured 30 years and darned if it won't be close to that.
I've always waited for cheaper units because they were always going to be upgraded but with an 8K this size I honestly cannot imagine a use I would have for more.
Maybe direct retinal projection some day, but no more screens. Yay.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Haven't bought in to the 4k hype.
Your sig here!
I saw a prototype recently at the Yodobashi-Akiba Tokyo "nerd mall", and it was quite cool from a technical standpoint, but the cool-ness may not carry over to the practical side.
I have lousy eyesight even with glasses, don't want to pay significantly more for extra resolution, and seeing every mole, zit, and crevice on faces creeps me out. Further, super-hi-res content is currently sparse.
I don't see a real need for this, other than bragging rights. Maybe normal consumers have a different take? Or maybe they figure there are enough rich consumers who buy high-end out of habit.
Table-ized A.I.
Whoosh.
That's already a problem. I wondered why acne on porn girls is so much worse than I see in real life, without professional makeup artists working on them. I figured it's either drugs, or maybe the California/Florida sun?
I'm going to wait for the 16K screens to come out. I calculate that will finally be enough pixels to make "The Emoji Movie" watchable.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Monitors and TVs have very different use cases. I don't think you should infer that if someone claims that 8K TVs are pointless for most people that they also believe 8K monitors are also pointless.
Clearly not everyone needs an 8K monitor, but there are certainly many people for whom it would be very useful. Like you said, you can increase the size and replace multiple monitors, which seems pretty handy.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
not looking forward to removing old TV, I think I am now too old to lift it, lol
Oh, man, bad memories.
Going backwards, our TV purchases have been
2012, 47” LG 1080p flatscreen
2005, 32” Sony 720p flatscreen
~1990, 27” Zenith “picture tube” (not 100% sure of the brand)
When we got the Sony, the Zenith went out to the spare room. When we got the LG, the Sony went to the spare room and the Zenith got shifted to a neglected corner. That beast weighed something like 80-90 pounds, and its shape was awkward as all get out! I kept it for a long while simply because I didn’t want to carry it more than a few feet.
Finally, I loaded up on Advil and hauled the beast away to the electronics recycler.
#DeleteChrome
I for one can't wait until they get Plank length resolution. So realistic, you'd swear it was real life.
Nothing to see here, move along please.
There's never going to be TVs big enough *and* cheap enough for the home to actually make good use of 4k, and 8k TV will never be useful in the home, period. You'll need way too big of a TV, and that'll never happen.
https://blogs-images.forbes.co...
I agree that oled is a lot better than lcd. Unfortunately they are also a lot more expensive.
I recently bought a new 65" with "full-array local-dimming LED LCDs", which allows for a HUGE difference in lighting. Something oled and plasma have always done better than backlit lcd. They still do it better, they can light one pixel while lcd cannot. An example where it shows would be a scene in outer space where it should be either black or stars/planets/moons (extreme contrast). But most TV's have light pollution surrounding everything.
My other TV is only 6 years old and the difference is amazing. Whenever flashlights or other high contrast light sources are used it jumps out of the screen in comparison. If oled comes down in price, that might be my next upgrade down the line
I live in Arkansas (not exactly Times Square) and I have a 1 GBps synchronous FTTH connection for $80 a month. Next year we have been told 10 GBps will be available, I probably wonâ(TM)t upgrade because I can rarely find many sites that can saturate my current connection. Fast connections ARE available, just not everywhere.
8K? I laugh at this. 4K was already enough BS. I just bought two new HD TVs, no need to 4K ever in my home, just like it was with 3D TVs. Such BS companies do trying to sell you things you don't need. Just steer away from those and you'll be fine.
The 2020 olympics will be broadcast in 8k in japan, so it'll probably be available as a stream in some other countries.
Yes but in different countries, the resolution is up to the licensee when it comes to broadcast TV. So NBC in the US has to broadcast in 8K which is not yet part of any broadcast standard. In the US and Canada, the implemented ATSC standard does not support resolutions above 1080p. While the FCC has approved newer versions of ATSC, they have not been implemented yet. Certainly NBC could show the Olympics in 2020 on cable at 8K and restrict broadcast to 1080p but I doubt that they would put in the time and expense to do that because the issue there is that the cable companies have to support 8K cable boxes. Considering those cheap bastards won't upgrade my 10+ year old cable box, I don't see it happening.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Does your cable company broadcast in 4k? Most of mine are in SD with the major ones in HD.
I can't watch sports in HD due to licensing issues of my regional cable company.
Why buy a 4K or 8K tv when my 1080P is barely getting used to spec.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
The "article" is dismissive of this upgrade in resolution, the same as for 4k.
What the fuck people?!
I do not care if my eye can not distinguish individual pixels. I actually WANT that to be a feature. I have a 4k monitor for my computer and it is WAY better than 1080p. Ok. Nobody has eyes that can see the difference right?
So let me tell you a quick little story: A friend was bringing over his cat while he was going out of town for a bit. He walked in the door of my apartment and IMMEDIATELY commented on my computer monitor. He was roughly 10 meters away from the monitor and he already knew something was different about it. He couldn't tell what was different, but he wanted my monitor immediately. From 10 meters away. Where no difference can be seen. Right?
I do not watch "tv". I don't care if there is ANY content at 4k or 8k. I want my monitors to have the highest resolution possible. I will buy an 8k monitor as soon as reasonably possible.
If y'all are happy with fuzzy crap, be my guest, but please stop whining about "progress".
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
I think you are confused. UHD is 4k, and HD is (often) 1080p. I think you meant to say that you can tell the difference between SDR and HDR.
Yes, thanks for the correction - that is what I meant.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.