Why 8K TV is a non-starter for PC users

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by erek, Dec 3, 2019.

  1. Gideon

    Gideon 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,361
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Unless your inches away from the screen most wouldn't be able to tell if it's 4K or 8K. You have to get to massive size screens to even tell the difference and then you need actual non upscaled content to really appreciate it.
     
    jeffj7 and Red Falcon like this.
  2. Bowman15

    Bowman15 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,250
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2015
    It's not the resolution that is the problem, its the equipment and bandwidth needed to push it at acceptable refresh rates and fps. And forget streaming...

    More isn't always better.
     
    jfreund likes this.
  3. NeoNemesis

    NeoNemesis 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,392
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    If 8k does become standard, it'll be the last increase in resolution for anything but niche applications like VR.
     
  4. dgz

    dgz [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,460
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    AA algorithms do not make aliasing go away. It's still there but blurrier. Even without 8k monitors, rendering stuff at higher res, then down-sampling the image to match the screen resolution produces better results than AA algorithms
     
    Wine, Revdarian, N4CR and 2 others like this.
  5. Arcygenical

    Arcygenical Will Watercool for Crack

    Messages:
    24,806
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005

    Most people think airpods offer an amazing sound experience...
     
    T4rd, N4CR, Armenius and 4 others like this.
  6. dgz

    dgz [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,460
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    See my reply to [Z]
     
  7. defaultluser

    defaultluser [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,709
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006

    No, you've already proven that, for your viewing distance, 1080p is already satisfactory. Are you seriously going to view your giant light bulb of a 75" TV from 5 feet away just to prove a point?

    From normal viewing distances 1080p video/gaming is indistinguishable from 4k on a TV. Even though you view your monitor at about half the distance you view a TV (from size vs viewing distance), there is still a finite resolution at which going beyond you will not notice a difference. That resolution is gong to be around 4k for most users.

    You may be able to highlight some corner cases, but for 95% of content consumer's use cases, it's not noticeable. To the market, that makes 8k worthless.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  8. Todd Walter

    Todd Walter Gawd

    Messages:
    611
    Joined:
    May 10, 2016
    Considering how much of the source material is upscaled over-compressed crap, that's understandable. With stuff mastered for it, on my OLED 4k HDR panel, you can instantly spot the difference between 2k & 4k from 30' away.
     
  9. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    19,414
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    That's because most people are watching streaming content typically at 1080p or worse on their 4K TV. I've established many times that the bandwidth currently common in "4K" streaming is barely enough for an acceptable 1080p stream. If you watch cable TV it's an even worse comparison because most "HD" channels still broadcast at 720p "half HD." Then there are those who buy an upscaling DVD player, watch their old DVD movies, and complain there is no difference.

    I guess that kind of proves your point, but not for the reason you were probably thinking. Most people can't tell a difference because they are ignorant about their content consumption, simply eating up what is advertised and what the sales person tells them.
     
    clockdogg, GoldenTiger, N4CR and 2 others like this.
  10. ochadd

    ochadd Gawd

    Messages:
    910
    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    The content I consume comes from Dish and streaming services. Maybe that's the problem but I pay $27 a month for all my TV and $3-6 per new movie. Personally there's no way I'm paying $30 for every movie to get a better 4k picture. Maybe my absolute favorites but ignorance is bliss. I don't think my Blueray player has been turned on in years.
     
  11. sleepeeg3

    sleepeeg3 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,868
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    I agree. 1080p is fine for most desktop monitors for gaming. You lose 3x the processing power on making lines less jaggy, when other visual improvements would have a much bigger impact, as others have said.
     
  12. mnewxcv

    mnewxcv [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,498
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Are these your words or are you just posting what the link says?
     
  13. erek

    erek 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,463
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    i'll start using quotation marks more often going forward
     
  14. Ricky T

    Ricky T Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    159
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2019
    The race just to have more pixels is a bit silly especially at typical monitor sizes.

     
  15. TheSlySyl

    TheSlySyl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    205
    Joined:
    May 30, 2018
    I normally love Digital Foundry but everything about that video annoyed the fuck out of me. I remember gaming on CRTs, I GREATLY prefer my high res flatscreens and especially my 4k ones.

    I do not miss CRTs at all. I remember back in the LAN days, lugging my 50LB+ 1280x1024 18inch 75hz CRT around.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  16. Nebell

    Nebell [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,594
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    I think 4k resolution is enough for even big (40"+) screens on your computer desk. I've used 55" 4k TV which was sitting very close to me and had no problems with pixels.

    VR however, I'm sceptical that it will look good even with 8k.
    Index does a good job with the screen door effect (depending a lot on the game), but the visual quality is miles behind my 4k TV.
     
  17. Revdarian

    Revdarian 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,478
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Heh, if you want to read about a technology killed by greed fuckery that would have been a best of both worlds alternate reality you should read about SED TV. Imagine if your crt could be thin and low power like a lcd with all the benefits of CRT* picture quality /motion resolution.

    Chances are that it would lose against quantum dots but it would have been way better in the meantime :-p

    EDIT :* sorry I initially wrote lcd in automatic, it's way too early.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019 at 4:16 AM
    Armenius and GhostCow like this.
  18. Revdarian

    Revdarian 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,478
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    I forgot to share this link to provide the basis for my "it is a waste" statement :

    https://michaelbach.de/ot/lum-hyperacuity/index.html

    You can read it and try the interactive test to see for yourself how hyperacuity is indeed a 5-10x higher level of visual acuity in very specific spots/situations VS regular acuity which is why a smart resolution is my proposed solution since 5x-10x higher resolution on the full screen is a massive increase in required everything.

    While we get to something like that a mix of AA will always be better.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  19. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,492
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    And that's only 60% more than a 24" 1200p monitor, which I bought 12 years ago.
     
  20. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,492
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    I can see them on my 65" monitor if I'm within 5', so I'm not so sure 8K is unneeded, but we'll see in a few years.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  21. Dark12

    Dark12 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,512
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    !remindme 10 years
    I think some peoples attitudes will be a lot different then.
    Makes me think of Bill Gates saying 640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  22. Shoganai

    Shoganai Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    401
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Someday 8K will be normal. A lot of things we can't even imagine right now will be normal. That's how technology works.
     
  23. AceGoober

    AceGoober Live! Laug[H]! Overclock!

    Messages:
    21,989
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    At current time, 8K is a blip on the distant horizon. Current hardware is, in my opinion, inadequate to support 8K for gaming purposes. Professional graphics artists, office productivity? Sure, for those who feel thg hey need to have it.

    For me, 4k or 3440 x 1440 is plenty enough resolution for my purposes. 8K would be a want, not a need and even then I really don't see, at this time, any need I may ever have which would require 8K.
     
    Ranger101 likes this.
  24. Stoly

    Stoly [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,416
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    At one point I thought 1280x1024 was the highest resolution I'd ever need. Today I won't go back from 4k.
     
  25. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    19,414
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    I thought the same, only I used a normal 4:3 1280x960 monitor. Then I got a 1600x1200 monitor for a steal and realized how wrong I was. I say bring on the pixel invasion.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  26. Youn

    Youn [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,525
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    omg this is so low res, needs 512k at least

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDyR8cXxRr1XmS9WSzKl1toSgEhJgfiVLH4yGnlhoul6SdmaoR&s.jpg
     
  27. DanNeely

    DanNeely 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,506
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    For gaming we really need whatever comes after HDMI 2.1 so we can have 8k @120hz or faster.
     
    TheSlySyl likes this.
  28. bonehead123

    bonehead123 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,049
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2011
    The REAL question is:

    How much higher can we go before it all becomes just a bunch of useless hogwash.... whether in k's of resolution, GHZ of speed, TFlops of bandwidth, etc etc....

    We should just go ahead and turn ourselves into machines with infinite capabilities & be done with it...
     
  29. Aix.

    Aix. [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,781
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Yeah but:

    741556.jpg
     
    Ranger101, GoldenTiger and Armenius like this.
  30. Youn

    Youn [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,525
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    I'mnot sure, but I think the race for printer DPI has kinda settled now, so something similar might happen with screen size/res... it's why folks bring up AR/VR, because of course that simplifies things in terms of predicting where it'll end as it's more of a fixed screen size and known retinal-resolution target.
     
    defaultluser and IdiotInCharge like this.
  31. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,408
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    The bigger issue is that we're approaching the cusp of 'resolutionless' display output.

    That is, the resolution of the display and the resolution of output rendering are no longer tightly coupled, with pixels smaller than human eyes can distinguish and seamless scaling implemented all around.

    While desktop operating systems are pretty behind here, we're already seeing it fairly well implemented in mobile devices and to different extents in consoles, with the seeds on desktops in games with dynamic resolution scaling and variable shader technology.
     
  32. Westwood Arrakis

    Westwood Arrakis [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,332
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
  33. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,408
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    You pretty much need to define viewing distance for any particular display device, and normalize that to your common extreme cases (a 55" TV used as a desktop monitor, a phone used 6" away from the users face...) in conjunction with human vision. Get to the point where the utility of increasing resolution no longer advances.
     
    GoldenTiger, Revdarian, Youn and 2 others like this.
  34. Todd Walter

    Todd Walter Gawd

    Messages:
    611
    Joined:
    May 10, 2016
    My first monitor (excluding the TV for my VIC20) had a dot pitch of .43. I don't often miss those days but when I do, I use a VT220 type font! :oldman: http://sensi.org/~svo/glasstty/
     
    Armenius and IdiotInCharge like this.
  35. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,408
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    For most desktop applications, this is actually a decent stopping point. While I've farmed them out to family members, I did have a double-stack of 24" IPS panels that at normal viewing distances had great text sharpness, color, and viewing angles.

    I'd have taken higher refresh rates for quality of life if I could, but that's about it, unless they were say 4k with 200% scaling.
     
  36. dvsman

    dvsman 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,879
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    I remember talking to some camera guys and one of them said the human eyes resolved about 50 megapixels at the sharpest point (or something like that, I can't remember exactly).

    4K is about 8 megapixels ... so it looks like we still have a helluva way to go before we hit the "No more improvements" ceiling.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  37. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    19,414
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    At what size are we talking about, though? 9600x5400 (50MP in 16:9) at 138" is still 80 PPI. On a 55' movie screen it would be 17 PPI.
     
  38. That_Sound_Guy

    That_Sound_Guy 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,331
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Hey! Don't drug us into your visual argument! :mad:

    :LOL:
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  39. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,408
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    That 'sharpest point' qualifier is going to come with a stack of caveats I think. Being somewhat into photography myself... actually getting your eyes to that point isn't something you do a lot, and it depends significantly on the content itself, as your brain doesn't interpret what individual rods and cones sense the same way that camera pixels do, or even the way photosensitive crystals do with film.

    8K is 32MP, and since that's available in the consumer space now, we already have examples that are 'close'.

    Now, to provide a bit more context to the discussion: we should really be talking about pixels per degree, which is a function of both pixel size and viewing distance.
     
    GoldenTiger and Armenius like this.
  40. Ranger101

    Ranger101 [H]Lite

    Messages:
    114
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    download.jpg

    Sure we don't have the processing power but if we ever do it'll be SWEET.
     
    zehoo, Armenius and Dark12 like this.