You must log in or # to comment.
Earn $300-$700/day with flexible full or part-time hours. This is a 100% remote role open to applicants in the USA , Canada, Australia, Demark ,Sweden and Switzerland.
No experience is needed ,we provide training. Enjoy daily pay and a supportive team environment.
To apply please message me directly or WhatsApp us at:
https://wa.me/+15392518982Maybe if they add 3D, people will buy them!
/s
Man, I would. I am 100% the target demographic, jumped in the 3D TV rabbit hole and loved it. Totally knew it was a gimmick, but didn’t care. Would have friends over for 3D movie parties.
But adding them to my Plex server sucked. TAB or SBS files were half-assed and the PlayStation I used took sooooooo damn long to freaking start the movie and skipping was an issue.
Tbf one if the use cases for display technologies with high pixel density is vr headsets.
Forget 3D, I want smellovision!
Well they say all new tech is driven by the porn industry, so, um…
Yes.
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.
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.
Not familiar with NHK specifically (or, to be clear, I think I am but not with enough certainty), but it really makes a lot of sense for news networks to push for 8k or even 16k at this point.
Because it is a chicken and egg thing. Nobody is going to buy an 8k TV if all the things they watch are 1440p. But, similarly, there aren’t going to be widespread 8k releases if everyone is watching on 1440p screens and so forth.
But what that ALSO means is that there is no reason to justify using 8k cameras if the best you can hope for is a premium 4k stream of a sporting event. And news outlets are fairly regularly the only source of video evidence of literally historic events.
From a much more banal perspective, it is why there is a gap in TV/film where you go from 1080p or even 4k re-releases to increasingly shady upscaling of 720 or even 480 content back to everything being natively 4k. Over simplifying, it is because we were using MUCH higher quality cameras than we really should have been for so long before switching to cheaper film and outright digital sensors because “there is no point”. Obviously this ALSO is dependent on saving the high resolution originals but… yeah.
it’s not exactly “there is no point”. It’s more like “the incremental benefit of filming and broadcasting in 8k does jot justify the large cost difference”.
Which, for all intents and purposes, means there is no point. Because no news network is going to respond to “Hey boss, I want us to buy a bunch of really expensive cameras that our audience will never notice because it will make our tape library more valuable. Oh, not to sell, but to donate to museums.” with anything other than laughter and MAYBE firing your ass.
the point is, the cost/benefit calculation will change over time as the price of everything goes down. It’s not a forever “no point”.
… Almost like it would be more viable to film in higher resolution if more consumers had higher resolution displays?
Filming in 8k does have advantages. You can crop without losing quality.
I’m sorry, but if we are talking about 8k viability in TVs, we are not talking about shooting in 8k for 4k delivery.
You should be pointing out that shooting in higher than 8k, so you have the freedom to crop in post, is part of the reason 8k is burdensome and expensive.
That’s usually the case
TV manufacturers are idiots.
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.
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.
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.
you’re*
It’s not hard, get it right.
Nobody likes a grammar-nazi. Due better mein fuhrer.
At 1.6 meter for the metric minded. If you really stretch out and can hit the tv with your toes it’s about the right distance.
You’re describing my bedroom tv.
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.
What this chart is missing is the impact of the quality of the screen and the source material being played on it.
A shit screen is a shit screen, just like a badly filmed TV show from the 80s will look like crap on anything other than an old CRT.
People buying a 4k screen from Wallmart for $200 then wondering why they cant tell its any better than their old 1080p screen.
The problem with pushing up resolution is the cost to get a good set right now is so much its a niche within a niche of people who actually want it. Even a good 4k set with proper HDR support and big enough to make a different is expensive. Even when 8k moves away from early adopter markups its still going to be expensive, especially when compared to the tat you can by at the supermarket.
Not only the content doesn’t exist yet, it’s just not practical. Even now 4k broadcasting is rare and 4k streaming is now a premium (and not always with a good bitstream, which matters a lot more) when once was offered as a cost-free future, imagine 8k that would roughly quadruple the amount of data required to transmit it (and transmit speee is not linear, 4x the speed would probably be at least 8x the cost).
And I seriously think noone except the nerdiest of nerds would notice a difference between 4k and 8k.
I’ll take one! Well, two really. One large one for TV/media viewing and one to replace my 43" 4k monitor. Quadrupling the resolution on that would be amazing.
The difference would be minimal on the media screen, TBH, but Ive seen them in person and can tell the difference. It’s just not a big enough difference to warrant replacing what I have.
I use a VR headset as my PC display and i can choose whatever size or resolution and i’ve been using it in 8K for about a year for work to have many smaller windows that all look pretty clear. My bottleneck is probably the quest pro resolution so i’m looking forward to better headsets soon.
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.
it depends on how big your tv is in your field of view, so a function of size and distance. and obviously how good your vision is.
My TV is also 4K but my amplifier which eats all the inputs can only do 1080p. 4k quality on that 65" is better, but not by that much that I’d throw 500+€ for a new amp since the current one works just fine and it fulfils all my needs on a TV/media set.
I work off metered data. I’m happy with 360p.
There was a while that I exclusively used apps where I could lower the bitrate of music I listened to. Because I’m not rocking crazy good headsets and such for when I needed it, and I really saw no reason to use up larger amounts of data when I was listening to music over the sound of a lawnmower walking around the yard for an hour. If I was going to leave music on and not have wifi, it just didn’t seem worth it.
Also if you had poor bandwidth in an area, it plays better
Yup - not a solution for everyone but there are typically Quality Of Service (QOS) services on routers that will do something similar - where it will target a certain threshold.
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.
Asus makes their version of a 4k OLED LG panel with no shitty ‘smart’ software.
in that situation, Asus are the shitty part, though it is nice to see more TV-sized monitors. Fuck HDMI.
Did I miss something with Asus recently? I’ve only had good experiences with their hardware.
I’ll consider you lucky. I’ve had many experiences with their hardware across different segments (phones, tablets, laptops, mainbaords, NICs, displays, GPUs).
They’re an atrocious vendor with extremely poor customer support (and shitty SW practicies for UMA systems and motherboards).
I don’t think many people have been as unfortunate as I have with them, the general consensus is they mark their products up considerably relative to competition (particularly mainboards & GPUs).
To be fair, their contemporaries arent much butter.
Dang.
I switched to ASRock for my AMD build for specific feature sets and reading ASUS AM5 stuff it looks like that was a good idea.
But ASRock 800 series AM5 boards are killing granite ridge 3D CPUs en masse. Funny enough, it happened to me.
I begrudgingly switched to Asus after my CPU was RMA’d as that was the only other vendor to offer ECC compact on a consumer platform.
How about 7800X3D?
ASUS used to be the goat brand. They have since enshittified, and the biggest hit was their customer service. It’s 100% ass now. The product itself is really hit or miss now too.
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.
Yep, just imagine how bad the compression artefacts will be if they double the resolution but keep storage/network costs the same.
Increasing resolution but keeping the same bitrate still improves the image quality, unless the bitrate was extremely low in the first place. Especially with modern codecs
20mbps 4k looks a lot better than 20mbps 1080p with AV1
Doubling the dimensions make it 4x the data.
Not if you only double it in one direction. Checkmate.
That’s not true for compressed video. It doubles the bitrate for the same quality on modern codecs (265, av1, etc.)
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.
Bingo, if I were still collecting DVDs/HD DVDs like I was in the 90’s, it might be an issue. Streaming services and other online media routed through the TV can hardly buffer to keep up with play speed at 720, so what the fuck would I want with a TV that can show a higher quality of picture which it can also not display without stutter-buffering the whole of a 1:30:00 movie?
Streaming services and other online media routed through the TV can hardly buffer to keep up with play speed at 720
This is a problem with your internet/network, not the TV.
It’s been observed that the porn industry is often one of the first adapters of new media tech before they become commonplace, but I’m not sure some things need to be shown in that high a resolution.
i read the same comment about 1080p and 4k porn but here we are.
Maybe people will be satisfied when they can put their TV under a microscope to determine the actor’s sperm count…
It’s not even really true; it’s a salacious fact that was passed around and everyone agreed. For example, there’s no real evidence that VHS won over Betamax because of porn. Everyone accepted that fact uncritically.
If porn industry had used Betamax, it would’ve been renamed to Chadmax. Except for cuck porn. 📠
I’d buy one if it came with every David Attenborough (or similar) nature documentary included. I don’t need 8k for games or movies or anything else but I’ll watch the shit out of whatever high budget nature documentaries are produced and put my nose against the screen to see the critter details.
I want one but my GPU can’t drive games at 8k and 100+ FPS. Also there’s no media for it.
games at 8k and 100+ FPS
You will never be able to game at 8k. Modern games run with 720p and 60 fps on the best GPUs, then “AI enhanced” to a vaseline coated 4k
I have a 3080 and have all frame gen tech turned off, and still, almost every game I play can hit 60+ fps and 2k resolution, a lot can do 144. I get your point, but it’s greatly exaggerated.
I run DOOM eternal at 4k with a stable 120 fps (not the AI enhanced interpolation garbage) with a 3080…
I couldn’t imagine going back to gaming at 60fps and is a big reason I hate console ports.
Doom is build different
Modern games run with 720p and 60 fps on the best GPUs
No they don’t. On PC you can run games at native resolution with zero “AI enhanced” stuff.
I still use a ten year old 1080p Sony TV, and I’ve yet to see a new <$1k TV with a nicer picture than what I have. Granted I don’t really consume any higher resolution content anyway 🤷♂️
I like how the article immediately tries placing the blame on the consumer. When in reality it’s the companies putting the cart before the horse and then being shocked when it doesn’t work out.
“How come they don’t fall for ‘bigger number better’ anymore?”
Hopefully, just all 4K panels get replaced with 8K panels and it doesn’t cost anything extra and in like 5 years when the rest of the technology catches up and especially video bitrates are increased then the transition can happen seamlessly but we’re not going to pay for it’s, it’s just going to have to be a free upgrade. This is really the last doubling we need for the human vision system and it is already pretty far into the diminishing returns aspects. Since we are going to need 8K for VR that doesn’t suck, might as well make that the standard for the next century and we won’t ever have to bother with 16K panels
8K content is too storage hungry. My pirate ship is already bursting at the seams with some 4K but mostly 1080. I have 130TB of media, if it was in 8K I would need a water cooled server farm.
That’s the REAL reason for lack of 8K interest, the pirates are not demanding it. Not until 100TB drives are available for a reasonable price.
Wait what? Are you implying that if there was demand for 8k content, then pirates would make it available? The content has to exist in order for pirates to release it.
I can download a remux of the 4K Lawrence of Arabia transfer because it was filmed in 70mm and the studio transferred it at 4K. It’s 70mm film, so it’s ~8-12K equivalent, but to actually get that resolution they would have to scan that film at that resolution, then go through the whole video workflow, color correction, whatever tf idk I’m not a video engineer, at that resolution, and render out the final version at that resolution.
Pirates aren’t doing that, they’re ripping physical or digital releases. And there’s no point in downloading an 8K upscale of a 4K release, just let your TV or your Shield or Infuse handle the upscaling.
I am saying that the ability to store the content is needed before people will be able to make the demand for it. So take streaming platforms for instance. They won’t want to build more server farms and instead just upgrade what they have. So once 100TB drives are readily available they will start upgrading and then influence the media companies to start scanning at 8k. The people scanning the damn movies will need to store it too. You know whoever is the first to start offering the content be it Netflix or Disney will start a chain reaction and then 8k will take off but I’m sure it will be a slower build up compared to 4k.
The real reason for lack of interest is streaming quality of 4k has been getting worse for years, and is still like 1/10th the quality of 4k BluRay, with enormous levels of compression and artifacts.
8k requires 4x the data. We all know that means every subscription would charge at least 2x more to maintain profit margins of unlimited growth for vulture capitalism, and they’d skimp on the extra data too; leaving users with nothing better than the current 4k.
That’s true, and to add to that, most mobile phone and many land Internet based connections are not unlimited and have caps. Nobody wants to stream a few 8k movies and use up their entire monthly cap in one shot.
-speaking as a US user, many countries offer unlimited as standard but not the evil empire.
How about uncompressed 4k before going to even more compression 8k. I have seen uncompressed 8k content on an 8k TV. I couldn’t tell the difference between it and a good quality 4k picture, and I’m admittedly a quality snob. I can tell the difference in 1080 vs 4k pretty easily even on cheap tvs, it’s just virtually non existent at 8k vs 4k in tv sizes up to 80 inch beyond viewing inches away from the screen.
That would be… (checks math)… about 5.972 Gbps of bandwidth, assuming just non-HDR content and 30 fps. Probably impossible for most people.
Less compression could make sense, but literally no compression would be a colossal waste of bandwidth and storage.
Maybe that’s the point I meant to make clearer. 8k, even compressed would take more bandwidth, or it’s going to be compressed so much that it totally defeats the purpose of 8k content.
No, I wanted to make a different point: that uncompressed video would be unreasonably huge. Nobody uses it. Regardless of the resolution, a good compressed video looks basically the same but it is hundreds of times smaller.
You should ask for less compressed video. Uncompressed is just not worth it.
