The other big problem with 8K TVs (aside from the lack of content)

[What Hi-Fi?]

Will the picture actually be worse than a 4K TV?

The other big problem with 8K TVs (aside from the lack of content) : Read more

 

[Deleted member 2457]

Will the picture actually be worse than a 4K TV?

The other big problem with 8K TVs (aside from the lack of content) : Read more

I don’t quite know what to think here, all other reviews of the Samsung Qled Q950r 8K TV are saying it’s the best HDR picture they have seen apart from you guys. I asked the Samsung guys in John Lewis and they say easy the 8K TV, I could‘ve bought either because my parents bought my 55-inch of me and I decided upon a 65-inch and it was between the Q90r and the Q950r TV, I liked the idea of the 10 year screen burn warranty of the Q90r but everyone was saying the 8K was better.

Anyway I really like the Samsung Q950r so much so we bought 2 of them. Clearly to us it’s better than OLED so I guess the Q90r according to you guys is one special TV!

 

[Deleted member 2457]

And some people say Samsung TVs are too bright and look false, but I find the Q950r to be a really natural picture whereas the Q90r did look a bit false even to me and I like bright TVs.

 

[fazalmajid]

This reminds me of the incredibly short-sighted articles 3-4 years ago about how you didn't need 4K TVs and there would never be 4K content. A 4K TV has 8 megapixels, and most people's digital cameras produce 24MP or more these days. TVs are not just about about displaying whatever glop Hollywood sees fit to ram down our throats, but also displaying your own content like photos, and you want your TV to do the best possible job there.

 

[Friesiansam]

Even notwithstanding their potential for displaying digital camera pictures, there is still no point in paying through the nose to be an early adopter of 8K tvs, except for bragging rights.

 

[fazalmajid]

Even notwithstanding their potential for displaying digital camera pictures, there is still no point in paying through the nose to be an early adopter of 8K tvs, except for bragging rights.

Certainly, but the article doesn't just say "wait until the 8K price premium dwindles", just a blanket statement there won't be any 8K content (quite likely) and 8K is pointless, which is just as luddite as those who claimed 4K was pointless 3-4 years ago. It didn't take very long for 4K to take over the market, 5 years IIRC.

I don't know if 8K will follow the same trajectory, but what other innovation do TV makers have to convince people to upgrade? MicroLED, perhaps, but that is going to take a lot more effort to bring down in price than simply doubling the resolution of the masks used for etching transistors onto glass panels for 8K screens. I'd guess 2022 is when choosing a 8K TV will be a no-brainer.

 

[d2erima]

Isn't the real problem with 8K TVs that biology and physics makes it pointless at the screen sizes most people have in their living room? Sure, it's great to be able to watch the olympics in 8K in a movie theatre, but at 65" or 75"?

Better to spend the required bandwidth on higher frame rates and lower compression (resulting in fewer artifacts) at 4K resolution.

 

[fazalmajid]

Isn't the real problem with 8K TVs that biology and physics makes it pointless at the screen sizes most people have in their living room?

A 4K 48" TV is 90dpi, hardly Retina resolution viewed up close, as you would if it's displaying photos and artwork on a wall. A 8K TV would be 180, still not gallery grade 300dpi but more tolerable.

 

[Atomic Flip]

Yeah sadly the facts of the technology and it’s limitations evade most people. Even those who might be considered technically knowledgeable.

The singular fact this article covered, which will be a matter of truth for the foreseeable future is:

1. The video processors/scalers (which are absolutely necessary for any digital television to display aligned and perspective correct images at all) are simply not powerful enough at a remotely appealing price point to drive all the individual transistors on such a large matrix as 8K.

This has been a truth for ever in the digital video world, long before the consumer availability of digital television but these limitations were overcome by a comfortable margin by the early 2000’s and considering we’re had well over a decade of blissful and steady pace adoption of 1080p (up from 480p) we hadn’t really had to content with such enormous leaps in processing or intelligence with those video scalars to really need to worry about quality issues moving from a 480i (original analogue broadcast standard) display to a 720 or 1080p, let alone 480p display.

In any case, the authors of the article are spot on with this cautionary warning and indeed it is uncertain to what degree one can say they will notice or care. I however will keep my expectations in check on such a move and won’t adopt 8K for at least a few generations. If only for the matter of processing performance for that scaling and mapping of images.