• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

When Will 8K TVs Catch On?

H

Hulk

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
6,279
In how many years do you think we will see 8k movies?

I'm asking because right now I have a 42" Panasonic 1080p TV and it's like 12 years old. Nothing wrong with it, besides the size, I love the black colors. Anyways, after doing some research I'm going to get the Sony X93L, either in 75" or 85" size. I sit about 12 feet away.

There is a $1,000 difference between the two Tvs, with the 75" already $2,500. I don't want to spend $3,500 on the 85" version and then it become obsolete in a couple of years when Big TV starts rolling out 8k. And I do think that Big TV will try to roll out 8K quickly because it will cut down on piracy. Can you imagine how many GB (TB?) you would need to RIP a 8K movie?

Thoughts?
 
4K is nice and all, but 1080p still works. 8K will be nicer maybe, but 1080p and 4K will still work.

Early 8K products and streaming are gonna be rough cause it's 4x the pixels and all that. If you want live tv in 8k, you probably need to be in Japan. I doubt anywhere else will get around to broadcasting 8k before broadcasting is over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hulk
like this
I wouldn't worry about 8k. The jump from 1080p to 4k is massive compared to the jump from 4k to 8k. We're at the point of diminishing returns for resolution. Other things like contrast and peak brightness make a much, much bigger difference than resolution does at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haste
like this
I honestly still use a 1080p TV in my living room. Don't see the need for anything more until I want a bigger TV. I love the idea of 8K for PC gaming on a massive screen in-my-face so I can get the pixel density of a small screen but the awe-inspiring field of view of a big screen, but I also don't like the idea that even in 5 years the only GPUs worth running that resolution will be $2000+

So big 4K it is for my PC.
 
quiktake said:
There is almost no 8k content and due to streaming taking over there is unlikely to be any for a long time.

The human eye is more sensitive to contrast than resolution so getting an 4k OLED will be a better plan than getting an 8K lesser panel.

Get this TV and enjoy:
https://hardforum.com/threads/samsu...99-99-best-buy.2033163/page-2#post-1045834321
Click to expand...

There's nothing about streaming that would prevent 8k video streams.

Bitrate, sure. But 8k? That's just resolution. I can encode Avatar to a 500MB 8k stream in minutes. It would be soooo easy to stream a 500MB movie.
 
ZodaEX said:
There's nothing about streaming that would prevent 8k video streams.

Bitrate, sure. But 8k? That's just resolution. I can encode Avatar to a 500MB 8k stream in minutes. It would be soooo easy to stream a 500MB movie.
Click to expand...
Where are you finding Avatar in 8k? It kinda proves my point.
 
quiktake said:
Where are you finding Avatar in 8k? It kinda proves my point.
Click to expand...

Me. Hence why I specifically said "my encode". You'd have to get it from me since I would be the once in sole possession of it.

If it makes my point easier for you to understand, substitute my 8k wedding videos as an example instead.
 
8K is a waste ATM. Look how long we have been on 4K and its really just starting to matter. Even 1080p at a nice bitrate is fine.
 
It will never catch on in Europe since peasants are already not allowed anymore to waste energy that way.

Even the EU 4K TVs come with a ridiculous low power default setting and every friggin time i turn on HDR or any other power consuming picture quality setting i have to "confirm" that i am aware that the setting uses more power.
What a waste of time just to circumvent a law. Maybe if the 8k power consumption gets lower in the future?

And 4K does not hinder the replication of reality, the brightness does.
For total immersion you would need around 10 to 15.000 nits.

So we are going to sacrifice true blacks for higher brightness the next years since this is what we can still improve upon. In many many small and expensive steps.
Funny how that route makes Sony go for non-OLED brighter displays that also will be cheaper, huh?

And since "bigger" always wins against "better" 100+ inch 4K TVs that are "just good enough" is what is going to be sold in bulk.

8K cameras and the post production are another costly nightmare.

But
Give it 4-10 years and you will get your 8K if you pay for it since most Films are going to be made by AI. So upscaling will be very very easy

Don´t believe a strangers text?

How about a British voice then:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joWYUoeO6QM
 
Last edited:
I doubt we will get native 8k content in the next ten years. But upscaling is getting much better. Sony TVs do a great job. I can imagine upscaling improving quite a bit in the next ten years to provide the image quality need to show off 8k.
 
I wouldn't worry about an 8K anything. When you get into how the human eye actually works and the retina receptor cones and stuff your eye can't will be aggregating the pixels anyway. There are some interesting presentations about it...
 
I feel streaming in many way would make a transition easier not harder, the chicken and egg of physical media-player and regular tv seem bigger.

OTT streaming can easily have the 720p-1080p-2160p-8k (4000p ?) content and just send you which you want and it does not need to have any actual advantage for the content to be 8K instead of the same new higher bitrate but at 4k for it to make sense marketing-sales wise, can be easier to surcharge for 8k instead of 4k than for 70mbs instead of 35 mbs at 4k.

Upscaling tech also make this easier than ever to catch on, no need for 8k content or console to even exist (it is not like 4k made much sense with the compression tech and bandwidth used for it), just have fancy tv really good at upscaling 4k to 8k and up you go.

It could take a very long time, it is a lot of pixel and quality per pixels-bittrate-better graphic at lower resolution from console and so on will continue to have priority would be my guess.
 

The TV industry finally concedes that the future may not be in 8K​

With virtually no content and limited benefits, 8K TVs were doomed.
LG joins the rest of the world, accepts that people don’t want 8K TVs


You can still buy an 8K TV from Samsung, which has 8K TVs with MSRPs starting at $2,500 (for 65 inches), and LG (until stock runs out). With manufacturers refraining from completely ruling out a return to 8K, it’s possible that 8K TVs will become relevant for enthusiasts or niche use cases for many years. And there are uses for high-resolution displays outside of TVs, like in head-mounted displays.

However, 8K TV options are shrinking. We’re far from the days when companies argued over which had the most “real 8K” TVs.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...dia_url>&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
 
I'm not surprised 8K is struggling, as we've seen this play out before with 3D.

TV manufacuring is largely commoditized — it's very, very hard to stand out when you're really just selling a display with some processing power. You'll see practical advances like Micro RGB, but for the most part it amounts to splitting hairs over image quality and smart home features.

That's the main reason why TV makers went all-in with 3D about 15 years ago; like now, they were hitting a plateau and needed something to make higher-end TVs more compelling. 8K isn't as gimmicky, but it's still mainly there to sell pricey extra-large sets.

The real question is where the industry goes next. If there's no point to going beyond 4K for most people, then it either becomes iterative (Micro RGB for more people, for instance) or requires breakthroughs beyond the visual output. And no, AI isn't it (not yet, at least).
 
Aurelius said:
8K isn't as gimmicky
Click to expand...
could be more gimmicky specially to watch compressed content on it, 4k has barely any actual use already, Warner Brothers did test 8k in blind test and did find it to be extremely gimmicky even on raw uncompressed (rendered animated movies in native 8k on giant files and 8k scans of Nolan movie videos:
https://www.techhive.com/article/578376/8k-vs-4k-tvs-most-consumers-cannot-tell-the-difference.html
https://hpaonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/TR2020-2-19-415-4K8K-Perceptual-Difference.pdf

88 inch, people with 20/20 or better vision, Dunkirk 70mm high quality native 8k scan used, with 4 hdmi cable to not used any compression there, barely any difference, 20/10 vision people sitting at the very first row to a movie theater size screen on some type content (judged to be slightly better) can be worth it but for most content, not really.

At least 3d is an actual different experience and not a placebo effect one (or made up because the industry uses an higher bitrate for 8k content than 4k just to make it look better that way and sells 8k hardwares/remaster).

at 3 meters of a tv, under 100inch, 4k should be perfect even if we would have perfect uncompressed signal:
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/rainbow/projects/display_calc/

On 50mbps or less it would not be surprising if 1080p is better than 8k.
 
Last edited:
I still use a 720p plasma as my main tv. I don't ever feel like I am missing anything except when streams get down graded and gross from time to time. 🤷 4k wouldn't fix that. It'd probably make it worse. Ha
 
LukeTbk said:
could be more gimmicky specially to watch compressed content on it, 4k has barely any actual use already, Warner Brothers did test 8k in blind test and did find it to be extremely gimmicky even on raw uncompressed (rendered animated movies in native 8k on giant files and 8k scans of Nolan movie videos:
https://www.techhive.com/article/578376/8k-vs-4k-tvs-most-consumers-cannot-tell-the-difference.html
https://hpaonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/TR2020-2-19-415-4K8K-Perceptual-Difference.pdf

88 inch, people with 20/20 or better vision, Dunkirk 70mm high quality native 8k scan used, with 4 hdmi cable to not used any compression there, barely any difference, 20/10 vision people sitting at the very first row to a movie theater size screen on some type content (judged to be slightly better) can be worth it but for most content, not really.

At least 3d is an actual different experience and not a placebo effect one (or made up because the industry uses an higher bitrate for 8k content than 4k just to make it look better that way and sells 8k hardwares/remaster).

at 3 meters of a tv, under 100inch, 4k should be perfect even if we would have perfect uncompressed signal:
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/rainbow/projects/display_calc/

On 50mbps or less it would not be surprising if 1080p is better than 8k.
Click to expand...

The main issue with that test is the content they used. All the scanned film they used didn't actually have any more detail to show by scanning at 8k instead of 4k. But when they used an 8k render of A Bug's Life some people could actually tell the difference.

Sharp did an experiment years berfore that one with still images and nearly everyone (even people with worse than 20-20 vision) could tell the difference beyond 4k where they disproved Apple's retina display claim.

Also a big problem is just LCD technology itself. People have done tests where they show people an 8k LCD and a 4k OLED and people thought the 4k OLED was higher resolution.

This is because LCD specs and measurements are extremely misleading. When reviewers measure the accuracy and brightness levels of a television they're measuring large chunks of a static image. For example a large white block, or large green block and pointing their sensor at the middle of it. They aren't measuring a single pure green full brightness pixel next to a completely black pixel. On an LCD the color accuracy of these border pixels are no where near the measurements you're given. And it gets much, much worse in motion with how slow the crystals transition.
So if you're trying to get the most out of resolution LCD just does not give it to you in a motion picture.

The calculations people use to base viewing distance and "retina" resolution are all based on the calculation of using a single stationary eye. This isn't how people see in real life. They have 2 eyes looking from 2 slightly different angles, and their head does not stay perfectly still which means we can gather much, much more detail than that oversimplified calculation.

But either way like I said in an earlier post. 4k is already at the point of diminishing returns. We can get way more impact using that bandwidth for higher frame rates, and for TVs that are capapble, better HDR.
 
sharknice said:
The main issue with that test is the content they used. All the scanned film they used didn't actually have any more detail to show by scanning at 8k instead of 4k. But when they used an 8k render of A Bug's Life some people could actually tell the difference.
Click to expand...
they did native 8k scan of 70mm films and raw 8k reds camera footage, which seems like the perfect way to do it.

still images with text would be different from moving one., would like to see the study (because a phone up close can be quite a large screen versus even a very large TV at 11 feet), a lot of study make the mistake of not using the exact same monitors (with a 4k->8k dump linear upscaling to do the comp) because they are trying to sell hardware to people.

sharknice said:
This is because LCD specs and measurements are extremely misleading
Click to expand...
Those test are from a movie studio with the best movie theater and tv of the time, I doubt that what going on.
 
LukeTbk said:
could be more gimmicky specially to watch compressed content on it, 4k has barely any actual use already, Warner Brothers did test 8k in blind test and did find it to be extremely gimmicky even on raw uncompressed (rendered animated movies in native 8k on giant files and 8k scans of Nolan movie videos:
https://www.techhive.com/article/578376/8k-vs-4k-tvs-most-consumers-cannot-tell-the-difference.html
https://hpaonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/TR2020-2-19-415-4K8K-Perceptual-Difference.pdf

88 inch, people with 20/20 or better vision, Dunkirk 70mm high quality native 8k scan used, with 4 hdmi cable to not used any compression there, barely any difference, 20/10 vision people sitting at the very first row to a movie theater size screen on some type content (judged to be slightly better) can be worth it but for most content, not really.

At least 3d is an actual different experience and not a placebo effect one (or made up because the industry uses an higher bitrate for 8k content than 4k just to make it look better that way and sells 8k hardwares/remaster).

at 3 meters of a tv, under 100inch, 4k should be perfect even if we would have perfect uncompressed signal:
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/rainbow/projects/display_calc/

On 50mbps or less it would not be surprising if 1080p is better than 8k.
Click to expand...
I'd say 8K is less gimmicky because it'ss more universally viewable and doesn't require much effort from video producers (many shoot in 8K even if they're never going to release in that format). 3D either requires glasses or a gfasses-free display that may come with its own tradeoffs (limited viewing angles, for instance). You can put anyone in front of a large-enough 8K TV; you can usually put only a few people in front of a 3D TV.

Haivng said all that, I'll certainly agree that there are diminishing returns for 8K, and it's not the same as the leap from 1080p to 4K. It's hard to pixel-peep in a fast-moving action scene no matter how good the raw footage might be.
 
SticKx911 said:
I still use a 720p plasma as my main tv. I don't ever feel like I am missing anything except when streams get down graded and gross from time to time. 🤷 4k wouldn't fix that. It'd probably make it worse. Ha
Click to expand...
No rush in your case, but I look at it this way: I can recognize the difference between 1080p and 4K in my own sets, and I sit at comfortably far distances. You might notice if you upgrade, at least so long as you get a good 4K set and feed it quality streams. Apple TV and Disney+ are known for better-than-average bitrates.
 
Aurelius said:
Haivng said all that, I'll certainly agree that there are diminishing returns for 8K, and it's not the same as the leap from 1080p to 4K. It's hard to pixel-peep in a fast-moving action scene no matter how good the raw footage might be.
Click to expand...
which was none (1080p->4k) for most content below 50mbs for a long time (which was almost all of it), it is just very hard for people to have the chance to do the comp
 
LukeTbk said:
they did native 8k scan of 70mm films and raw 8k reds camera footage, which seems like the perfect way to do it.

still images with text would be different from moving one., would like to see the study (because a phone up close can be quite a large screen versus even a very large TV at 11 feet), a lot of study make the mistake of not using the exact same monitors (with a 4k->8k dump linear upscaling to do the comp) because they are trying to sell hardware to people.


Those test are from a movie studio with the best movie theater and tv of the time, I doubt that what going on.
Click to expand...

The Sharp test used actual pictures, not text. They basically had people sit in a dentist chair with a monitor arm attached so they were at a set distance from the screen. If you search around you can probably find the PDF. It was posted here in the forums, at least a link to it at some point. It's from a long time ago, just after Apple started using the term "retina display" with iphones. Text would actually be easier to tell with the super sharp lines and contrast. With actual photography you get natural aliasing.

What I said about the limits off LCDs wasn't directly related to the Warner Bros test, just a general point about resolution and LCDs not actually taking full advantage of it.

The WB test actually used an 8k LG OLED.
The problem with that test is they're also testing the limits of the camera sensors and content they were using. Which is why The Bug's Life which is a 3D render, was the only one some people could actually tell was 8k.
If all they wanted to do was prove that it wasn't worth making 8k movies with current year (2020) cameras then they were successful. But it doesn't prove 8k isn't noticable for all content. Sharp's test showed higher resolution content is distinguishable.

Also another issue even OLED has while showing video is sample and hold motion blur. So until we get to super high frame rates or ultra low persistence even OLEDs aren't taking full advantage of 8k resolution for video.
 
sharknice said:
The problem with that test is they're also testing the limits of the camera sensors and content they were using. Which is why The Bug's Life which is a 3D render, was the only one some people could actually tell was 8k.
If all they wanted to do was prove that it wasn't worth making 8k movies with current year (2020) cameras then they were successful.
Click to expand...
the 70mm film used will be really hard to beat (it capture a giant amount of light and you can make 16k scan of that has you want), i think one reason bug life did show it is a bit like why video game (or text which benefit way more easily from high resolution than anything else as you mention) can use more anti aliasing than real world footage, real world capture do it naturally already.

to note, if that was this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64679-2, they seem to say that:
Our results demonstrate that the resolution limit is higher than what was previously believed, reaching 94 pixels per degree (ppd) for foveal achromatic vision, 89 ppd for red-green patterns, and 53 ppd for yellow-violet patterns.

While more than 66 ppd, at 12 feet, a 65inch tv @ 4k is ~173 ppd I think, at 10 feet a 88 inch TV is 108 ppd, i.e. not really showing there is much gain to make (outside very close image like computer monitor-phone or VR kit).
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
the 70mm film used will be really hard to beat (it capture a giant amount of light and you can make 16k scan of that has you want), i think one reason bug life did show it is a bit like why video game (or text which benefit way more easily from high resolution than anything else as you mention) can use more anti aliasing than real world footage, real world capture do it naturally already.

to note, if that was this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64679-2, they seem to say that:
Our results demonstrate that the resolution limit is higher than what was previously believed, reaching 94 pixels per degree (ppd) for foveal achromatic vision, 89 ppd for red-green patterns, and 53 ppd for yellow-violet patterns.

While more than 66 ppd, at 12 feet, a 65inch tv @ 4k is ~173 ppd I think, at 10 feet a 88 inch TV is 108 ppd, i.e. not really showing there is much gain to make (outside very close image like computer monitor-phone or VR kit).
Click to expand...


I think people make the mistake of thinking "can't perceive higher resolutions" is the same as "cant see a benefit to higher resolutions"

A single star in the sky can occupy WAY less than 1/100th of a degree... yet we can see it. And track it, and differentiate it from others.

Just like super-sampling can make a fixed resolution look better because a single pixel can average multiple values and thus be more data-rich than a raw, unaveraged pixel:

a single rod or cone cell can average many thousands of data points to provide a single data-rich point of vision. You may not be able to perceive a single person from miles away, but at night, if that person was aiming a flashlight at you, you could EASILY point them out: and a display could not simulate that sensation if it "Only" had retinal resolution.

Raw resolution isn't everything.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Bluray discs are the answer... :D.
Click to expand...
2 hours of just 4k images at 24 fps would be nearly 6 TB, they fit them on 100GB with giant audio files, menus, extra contents and so on (movie file are 50-80gb for an ~100:1 compression ratio up to ~200:1 in some scene), they are extremely compressed on an bluray, worse sometime that some streaming service that can use the latest compression technic more easily (they can keep many version and ask that the player support at the other end).

Lot of movies cinematographer prefer what their movie look like with a 1080p signal using a 25:1 compression instead of going 4k at 100:1 (i..e both keeping the same bitrate), maybe it changed with the latest AV1 but under 25/35mbs often worse to go 4k and useless under 50/60mbs.

Even movie theater 500GB harddrive files are quite compressed using DCP, but way less than home bluray (they have 300GB file for big movies, with a single audio track and no extra), the big difference with that much more bitrate is that it allow for zero temporal compression (and 12 bits color depth) and no blocks. That why movies look so much better (in term of perceived details-clarity not necessarily overall with black level to hdr that some good tv can do) even on old 2K projectors on a giant screen, resolution past that point is not that important of a variable, specially when it mean just so much more compression being used.

On a bluray you have only certain frames and the mathematical interpretation of how they change between each others level of compression, using motion-vector, it was always an extremelly strange urban myth that 4k bluray are somewhat uncompressed videos file (or lossless compression or I am not sure what people could mean by that, there is no uncompressed movie-length video people can watch if they are digital around)
 
Last edited:
KazeoHin said:
I think people make the mistake of thinking "can't perceive higher resolutions" is the same as "cant see a benefit to higher resolutions"

A single star in the sky can occupy WAY less than 1/100th of a degree... yet we can see it. And track it, and differentiate it from others.
Click to expand...
And if an other stars that 10 time bigger sending the same amount of light/energy to use, it will appear exactly the same, i.e. there would be no benefit to use smaller pixels for the smaller star, detection and resolution are different.

we can detect stars but we cannot distinguish their size (energy reaching a cone is what will matter) and a display can easily reproduce with its much larger ppd pixel that subjective impression of a flashlight as the light appear big to us despite being really small in ppd (and only the subjective experience matter with media).

a 0.0001 degree wide light source in the middle of the night appear to us subjectively much bigger than that
 
Last edited:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...e-world-accepts-that-people-dont-want-8k-tvs/

The TV industry finally concedes that the future may not be in 8K​

Technology companies spent part of the 2010s trying to convince us that we would want an 8K display one day.
In 2012, Sharp brought the first 8K TV prototype to the CES trade show in Las Vegas. In 2015, the first 8K TVs started selling in Japan for 16 million yen (about $133,034 at the time), and in 2018, Samsung released the first 8K TVs in the US, starting at a more reasonable $3,500. By 2016, the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) had a specification for supporting 8K (Display Port1.4), and the HDMI Forum followed suit (with HDMI 2.1). By 2017, Dell had an 8K computer monitor. In 2019, LG released the first 8K OLED TV, further pushing the industry’s claim that 8K TVs were “the future.”

However, 8K never proved its necessity or practicality.

TV companies are quitting 8K​

LG Display is no longer making 8K LCD or OLED panels, FlatpanelsHD reported today. Earlier this month, an LG Display representative told FlatpanelsHD that the panel supplier is “taking a comprehensive view of current display market trends and the trends within the 8K content ecosystem.”
“As our technical readiness is already complete, LG Display is fully prepared to respond immediately whenever the market and customers determine that the timing is right,” LG Display’s representative said.
LG Electronics was the first and only company to sell 8K OLED TVs, starting with the 88-inch Z9 in 2019. In 2022, it lowered the price of entry for an 8K OLED TV by $7,000 by charging $13,000 for a 76.7-inch TV.
FlatpanelsHD cited anonymous sources who said that LG Electronics would no longer restock the 2024 QNED99T, which is the last LCD 8K TV that it released.
LG’s 8K abandonment follows other brands distancing themselves from 8K. TCL, which released its last 8K TV in 2021, said in 2023 that it wasn’t making more 8K TVs due to low demand. Sony discontinued its last 8K TVs in April and is unlikely to return to the market, as it plans to sell the majority ownership of its Bravia TVs to TCL.

The tech industry tried to convince people that the 8K living room was coming soon. But since the 2010s, people have mostly adopted 4K. In September 2024, research firm Omdia reported that there were “nearly 1 billion 4K TVs currently in use.” In comparison, 1.6 million 8K TVs had been sold since 2015, Paul Gray, Omdia’s TV and video technology analyst, said, noting that 8K TV sales peaked in 2022.
Click to expand...
 
Agree...

Heck, my dumb LG 42" TV in the bedroom, looks great when playing high quality content that is 4k as the source, crystal clear... Sure, no HDR or DV, but for a $300 TV going on 9 years old, they did something right with it..lol

Give me a solid panel, great jitter/judder control, no bad blooming (my Song X950G is starting to get bad, but also getting bloom, spots in set places on the panel....) and not charge $2-$3k for it at the 55" range :D, and not a bloated OS to manage the TV..
 
I'm much more interested in an 8k monitor than a TV. I use a 43" 4k screen for work, and 43" is big enough to run it with scaling turned off. 200% scaling on a ~43" 8k monitor would look nicer. Catch is I'm not going to pay through the nose for it. It'd be one of those "when it's cheap enough and I get around to it" upgrades. For 8k TV I'd need 8k content to become common, not too expensive, and streamed at a high enough bitrate to actually look noticeably better than 4k stuff. I'm a little dubious about it looking noticeably better at TV distance.
 
At original post.

8 k tvs will catch on when everyone and their grandma is playing call of duty 9 and meme craft 3 on wireless 4 k 60 inch tvs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top