this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2025
549 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

75263 readers
4644 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 163 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

article took forever to get to the bottom line. content. 8k content essentially does not exist. TV manufacturers were putting the cart before the horse.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 112 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

4k tvs existed before the content existed. I think the larger issue is that the difference between what is and what could be is not worth the additional expense, especially at a time when most people struggle to pay rent, food, and medicine. More people watch videos on their phones than watch broadcast television. 8k is a solution looking for a problem.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 38 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hell I still don't own a 4k tv and don't plan to go out of my way to buy one unless the need arises. Which I don't see why I need that when a normal flat-screen looks fine to me.

I actually have some tube tvs and be thinking of just hooking my vcr back up and watching old tapes. I don't need fancy resolutions in my shows or movies.

Only time I even think of those things is with video games.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 24 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

4K hardly even makes sense unless your tv is over 70" and your watching it from less than 4 feet away. I do think VR could benefit from ultra-high resolution, though.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

Extensive write up on this whole issue, even includes a calculator tool.

But, basically:

Yeah, going by angular resolution, even leaving the 8K content drought aside....

8K might make sense for a computer monitor you sit about 2 feet / 0.6m away from, if the diagonal size is 35 inches / ~89cm, or greater.

Take your viewing distance up to 8 feet / 2.4m away?

Your screen diagonal now has to be about 125 inches / ~318cm, or larger, for you to be able to maybe notice a difference with a jump from 4K to 8K.

........

The largest 8K TV that I can see available for purchase anywhere near myself... that costs ~$5,000 USD... is 85 inches.

I see a single one of 98 inches that is listed for $35,000. That's the largest one I can see, but its... uh, wildly more expensive.

So with a $5,000, 85 inch TV, that works out to...

You would have to be sitting closer than about 5 feet / ~1.5 meters to notice a difference.

And that's assuming you have 20/20 vision.

........

So yeah, VR goggle displays... seem to me to be the only really possibly practical use case for 8K ... other than basically being the kind of person who owns a home with a dedicated theater room.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] jqubed@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

I think it’s NHK, or one of the Japanese broadcasters anyways, that has actually been pressing for 8K since the 1990s. They didn’t have content back then and I doubt they have much today, but that’s what they wanted HD to be.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Photuris@lemmy.ml 127 points 2 weeks ago (23 children)

I don’t care about 8k.

I just want an affordable dumb TV. No on-board apps whatsoever. No smart anything. No Ethernet port, no WiFi. I have my own stuff to plug into HDMI already.

I’m aware of commercial displays. It just sucks that I have to pay way more to have fewer features now.

[–] KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone 37 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The settings app on my smart TV sometimes won't launch. I can't fucking believe it. It's a $1000 TV.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 101 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I don't want 8K. I want my current 4K streaming to have less pixilation. I want my sound to be less compressed. Make them closer to Ultra BluRay disc quality before forcing 8K down our throats... unless doing that gives us better 4K overall.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 38 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah 4K means jack if it’s compressed to hell, if you end up with pixels being repeated 4x to save on storage and bandwidth, you’ve effectively just recreated 1080p without upscaling.

Just like internet. I’d rather have guaranteed latency than 5Gbps.

[–] Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz 25 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yep, just imagine how bad the compression artefacts will be if they double the resolution but keep storage/network costs the same.

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Doubling the dimensions make it 4x the data.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 65 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I would much rather have 1080p content at a high enough bitrate that compression artifacts are not noticeable.

[–] happydoors@lemmy.world 59 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

I am a filmmaker and have shot in 6k+ resolution since 2018. The extra pixels are great for the filmmaking side. Pixel binning when stepping down resolutions allows for better noise, color reproduction, sharpened details, and great for re-framing/cropping. 99% of my clients want their stuff in 1080p still! I barely even feel the urge to jump up to 4k unless the quality of the project somehow justifies it. Images have gotten to a good place. Detail won’t provide much more for human enjoyment. I hope they continue to focus on dynamic range, HDR, color accuracy, motion clarity, efficiency, etc. I won’t say no when we step up to 8k as an industry but computing as a whole is not close yet.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 20 points 2 weeks ago

The same argument goes for audio too.

6K and 8K is great for editing, just like how 96 KHz 32+ bit and above is great for editing. But it's meaningless for watching and listening (especially for audio, you can't hear the difference above 44khz 16 bit). When editing you'll often stack up small artifacts, which can be audible or visible if editing at the final resolution but easy to smooth over if you're editing at higher resolutions.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] kylian0087@lemmy.dbzer0.com 59 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I do want a dumb 8K TV. I do not want all the so called smart features of a TV. Small Linux device with kodi works way better.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Peffse@lemmy.world 49 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

I don't know if it changed, but when I started looking around to replace my set about 2 years ago, it was a nightmare of marketing "gotcha"s.

Some TVs were advertising 240fps, but only had 60fps panels with special tricks to double framerate twice or something silly. Other TVs offered 120fps, but only on one HDMI port. More TVs wouldn't work without internet. Even more had shoddy UIs that were confusing to navigate and did stuff like default to their own proprietary software showing Fox News on every boot (Samsung). I gave up when I found out that most of them had abysmal latency since they all had crappy software running that messed with color values for no reason. So I just went and bought the cheapest TV at a bargain overstock store. Days of shopping time wasted, and a customer lost.

If I were shown something that advertised with 8K at that point, I'd have laughed and said it was obviously a marketing lie like everything else I encountered.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] BlackVenom@lemmy.world 47 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

For what content? Video gaming (GPUs) has barely gotten to 4k. Movies? 4k streaming is a joke; better off with 1080 BD. If you care about quality go physical... UHD BD is hard to find and you have to wait and hunt to get them at reasonable prices... And these days there are only a couple UHD BD Player mfg left.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] n1ck_n4m3@lemmy.world 44 points 2 weeks ago

As someone who stupidly spent the last 20 or so years chasing the bleeding edge of TVs and A/V equipment, GOOD.

High end A/V is an absolute shitshow. No matter how much you spend on a TV, receiver, or projector, it will always have some stupid gotcha, terrible software, ad-laden interface, HDMI handshaking issue, HDR color problem, HFR sync problem or CEC fight. Every new standard (HDR10 vs HDR10+, Dolby Vision vs Dolby Vision 2) inherently comes with its own set of problems and issues and its own set of "time to get a new HDMI cable that looks exactly like the old one but works differently, if it works as advertised at all".

I miss the 90s when the answer was "buy big chonky square CRT, plug in with component cables, be happy".

Now you can buy a $15,000 4k VRR/HFR HDR TV, an $8,000 4k VRR/HFR/HDR receiver, and still somehow have them fight with each other all the fucking time and never work.

8K was a solution in search of a problem. Even when I was 20 and still had good eyesight, sitting 6 inches from a 90 inch TV I'm certain the difference between 4k and 8k would be barely noticeable.

[–] afk_strats@lemmy.world 39 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

I haven't seen this mentioned but apart from 8K being expensive, requiring new production pipelines, unweildley for storage and bandwidth, unneeded, and not fixing g existing problems with 4K, it requires MASSIVE screens to reap benefits.

There are several similar posts, but suffice to say, 8K content is only perceived by average eyesight at living room distances when screens are OVER 100 inches in diameter at the bare minimum. That's 7 feet wide.

1000009671

Source: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

[–] Thorry@feddit.org 18 points 2 weeks ago

Tell me Legolas, what do your elven eyes see?

Fucking pixels Aragorn, it makes me want to puke. And what the fuck is up with these compression artifacts? What tier of Netflix do you have?

Sorry Legolas, could we just enjoy the movie?

Maybe if the dwarf stops stinking up the place. And don't think I didn't see him take that last chicken wing, fucking dwarves.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 36 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So many things have reached not only diminishing returns, but no returns whatsoever. I don't have a single problem that more technology will solve.

I just don't care about any of this technical shit anymore. I only have two eyes, and there's only 24 hours in a day. I already have enough entertainment in perfectly acceptable quality, with my nearly 15 year old setup.

I've tapped out from the tech scene.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Solitaire20X6@sh.itjust.works 35 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Most Americans are out of money and can't find good jobs. We are clinging to our old TVs and cars and computers and etc. for dear life, as we hope for better days.

And what can you even watch in true 8K right now? Some YouTube videos?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 35 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

The difference between 1080 and 4K is pretty visible, but the difference between 4K and 8K, especially from across a room, is so negligible that it might as well be placebo.

Also the fact that 8K content takes up a fuckload more storage space. So, there's that, too.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 35 points 2 weeks ago

I watch torrented shows with VLC on my laptop. Why would I want a giant smarphone that spies on me?

[–] sixty@sh.itjust.works 32 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 29 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

It creates more problems than it solves. You would need an order of magnitude more processing power to play a game on it. Personally I would prefer 4K at a higher framerate. Even 1080 if it improves response.

Video in 8K are massive. You need better codecs to handle them, and they aren't that widely supported. Storage is more expensive than it was a decade ago.

Also, there is no content. Nobody wants to store and transmit such massive amounts of data over the internet.

HDMI cables will fail sooner at higher resolutions. That 5 year old cable will begin dropping out when you try it at 8k.

4K is barely worth the tradeoffs.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] handsoffmydata@lemmy.zip 29 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Will it make the 480x720 videos I watch on my 4K tv look twice as good?

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Four times worse, actually!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] suicidaleggroll@lemmy.world 28 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

What's the point? Even if you pay extra for "4K" streaming, it's compressed to hell and the quality is no better than 1080p. What are you going to even watch on an 8K TV?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 26 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

I don't even want 4K. 1080p is more than good enough.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] fading_person@lemmy.zip 25 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Fun fact; Here in Brazil, the cheaper tv models being sold are 720p, and a lot of people buy them and don't even know what video resolution is, neither they feel like missing something lol

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

Not exactly surprising, considering the TV’s and monitors are outpacing the contemt creators and gaming development.

A lot of gamers don’t even have GPU’s that can crank out 4K at the frame rates most monitors are capable of. So 8K won’t do much for you. And movies and regular TV? Man, I’m happy there’s 4K available.

A 4K screen will be more than most folks need right now, so buying an 8K at the moment is just wasted money. Like buying a Ferrari and only ever driving 25 mph.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 16 points 2 weeks ago

Also to add to this. 8k sounds 2x as large as 4k. But that isn't true. 8k is four times the pixels of 4k, so can you imagine what kind of GPU or content stream you will need to make sense...

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The consumer has spoken and they don't care, not even for 4K. Same as happened with 3D and curved TVs, 8K is a solution looking for a problem so that more TVs get sold.

In terms of physical media - at stores in Australia the 4K section for Blurays takes up a single rack of shelves. Standard Blurays and DVDs take up about 20.

Even DVDs still sell well because many consumers don't see a big difference in quality, and certainly not enough to justify the added cost of Bluray, let alone 4K editions. A current example, Superman is $20 on DVD, $30 on Bluray (50% cost increase) or $40 on 4K (100%) cost increase. Streaming services have similar pricing curves for increased fidelity.

It sucks for fans of high res, but it's the reality of the market. 4K will be more popular in the future if and when it becomes cheaper, and until then nobody (figuratively) will give a hoot about 8K.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 23 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Pretty sure my eyes max out at 4K. I can barely tell the difference between 4K and 1080P from my couch.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 20 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I work off metered data. I’m happy with 360p.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I would be fine with an 8k TV if there was 8k content and they were affordable. I haven’t purchased a TV in over a decade however and my TVs all work fine so I’m not even in the market

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

Another possibility for why consumers don't seem to care about 8k is the common practice by content owners and streaming services charging more for access to 4k over 1080p.

Normalizing that practice invites the consumer to more closely scrutinize the probable cost of something better than 4k compared to the probable return.

[–] Samuelwankenobi@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Nothing is released in 8k so why would someone want something nothing is in?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Resplendent606@piefed.social 18 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm happy with 1080p content. I have a 4k TV and from the couch I can't see a difference. I would be perfectly happy with a bargain 4k TV, bigger the better.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Maybe if they add 3D, people will buy them!

/s

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 16 points 2 weeks ago

If we had the 90's economy there would be a bunch of folks looking to get 8k tvs.

load more comments
view more: next ›