• olympicyes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Even if they were priced the same as 4K they would still be a bad value. Computers and consoles struggle with 4K 120Hz so 4 times the resolution is too much to ask.

      • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I wouldn’t dream of gaming on one at native res, idk if that was even a selling point but obviously something wasn’t working

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      and a lot of movies aren’t even sharper in 4k. Since for a long time movies used a 2k intermediary format for post production, even if the movie was shot with a 4k camera.

      • b34k@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Early 2000s to mid 2010s movies shot digitally? Sure. Film shot movies, especially on 35mm or larger, absolutely look better in 4k. Especially when they’ve been restored from the negative and converted to HDR for a 4k release.

        There’s a lot of older movies out there where the UHD Blu Ray is the definitive version to own, looking significantly better than any prior version (and will likely never look better).

    • thehatfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      16 hours ago

      For a lot of people most of their content isn’t even 1080p. Plenty of people watching DVDs and many TV channels only broadcast in SD.

      Display technology has long outpaced content delivery.

      • khannie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        Yeah, surprisingly DVD is still heavily outselling 4K bluray. Seems weird to me but I guess the players are ubiquitous.

        • b34k@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          When 4K players cost $500 to get something considered “good but not great”… yeah no wonder no ones buying

          • khannie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            That is not what they cost. Mine was 180 euro. It has HDR support and plays everything I throw at it.

      • PhoenixDog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I still watch most streaming like YouTube and twitch on 720p because I really don’t see nor care about the difference to 1080p.

        • iLStrix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          12 hours ago

          It’s crazy how different people experience things. I find it annoying and less pleasant to watch YouTube at 1080p since they downgraded the bitrate and locked it behind premium. I actually almost always watch at 4k or 1440p60 even on a phone screen just because of the bitrate.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            I watch YouTube on a HP pavilion CRT, weirdly enough it almost requires me to watch with the improved bitrate due to weird artifacting. But I have premium regardless due to shitty work reasons, I drive for work so yeah.

    • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Not on desktop use. Which is a market segment that is under served.

      Would love to replace my 4x 1440p monitor setup with a 50 inch 8k TV setup.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    16 hours ago

    The only market for 8k is movie theaters and megatrons. It’s absolutely not necessary to have it in your tv in your house. And it’s also insanely expensive to get the proper hardware to drive it at full resolution.

      • 6nk06@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        IMAX has a laser thing that renders in 4K, but the point still stands. 1080p is good enough for me, and cinema once a year to have fun with friends.

        The automatic HDR on my TV was a revolution because it changed the picture. 4K changes nothing.

        It’s not like we went from black-and-white to color TV, it’s like “here are way more pixels but most people don’t care because they talk and drink during the movie.” Movie nerds may care and it’s fine, but I can’t justify buying a new TV for that.

  • assembly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I’ve never seen an 8k TV but ignorance is bliss as I’m still rocking 1080 and happy. I do see the difference at 4k when at friends houses but 1080 still looks good in my living room.

    • arin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      actually true, there are people with above 20/20 vision and 8k tv would be like us going from 1080p to 4k to them. We should upgrade everyone’s vision to beyond 20/20 that would be a net benefit for everyone! Then we can all enjoy 8k tv. But honestly as a glasses wearer, the main benefit of 8k tvs are that you can go up to the tv to see way more details. It’s quite amazing and underrated, if you do the same to a same size 4k tv you can notice the pixels like a 1080p tv.

  • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    18 hours ago

    It’s the next 3D.

    They try to expand in all dimensions. Bigger panels. Higher res. Higher bit depth. Increased contrast ratios. Stereoscopics. Higher refresh rates.

    Yet to find a real world use for anything over a 65" QHD at 60Hz 8bpp.

    • CallMeAnAI@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Look, you’re happy with a mid-range setup, good for you.

      But sticking your head in the sand pretending that there aren’t affordable features that improve the experience is Fedora wearing nerd shit.

      • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        The fedora-wearing nerds are ones with 244Hz ultrawide 4k HDR monitors.

        What you’re describing is everyone who just wants to watch a TV show comfortably on their sofa. You could swap any TV for a base-model TCL the same size and they won’t notice.

        Even the gamers won’t want 8K. You’d notice the drop on FPS more than the increase in quality.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      17 hours ago

      It’s very different. 3D TVs actually had a difference in viewing experience

  • CallMeAnAI@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    14 hours ago

    ITT: Poors acting like there is no in-between 720@59 and 8k@240.

    Guyuyyyzzzz achktually 1080p is all you need 🙄