First time going for an 8K TV, bad choice?

[MultiGamerClub]

Currently looking at LG 55NANO95 800€ 55Inch.

Its from 2020.

 

Is this a bad choice for a first 8K TV?

Will mainly be used for movies/games in my living room.

 

Its that or another 65inch at 1000€ but it doesnt support HDR.

[BobVonBob]

If you sit less than 4 feet from that 55 inch TV you might notice a slight difference. If you sit any farther stick with 4K. There's just no visible difference beyond that point. Not to mention basically no 8K content exists, and what does exist is all landscape photography on YouTube.

[MultiGamerClub]

28 minutes ago, BobVonBob said:

If you sit less than 4 feet from that 55 inch TV you might notice a slight difference. If you sit any farther stick with 4K. There's just no visible difference beyond that point. Not to mention basically no 8K content exists, and what does exist is all landscape photography on YouTube.

Will sit 2-3 meters from the TV so it should be good then, it doesnt support DP but it has HDMI 2.1, not sure if DSC compression will have anything to say in 8K but im sure its supported i think.

[Edmond Dantes]

On 8/19/2021 at 2:51 PM, BobVonBob said:

If you sit less than 4 feet from that 55 inch TV you might notice a slight difference. If you sit any farther stick with 4K. There's just no visible difference beyond that point. Not to mention basically no 8K content exists, and what does exist is all landscape photography on YouTube.

too much K can also make things look so real that it looks fake.

[MultiGamerClub]

1 hour ago, Edmond Dantes said:

too much K can also make things look so real that it looks fake.

Too much what?

[Edmond Dantes]

16 minutes ago, MultiGamerClub said:

Too much what?

K..... like 4K 8K you know

[MultiGamerClub]

6 minutes ago, Edmond Dantes said:

K..... like 4K 8K you know

Haha, never had a 4K tv or an 8K so i wouldnt know if it can get too real.

 

I doubt my console's can run on these resolutions but i doubt 8K will do much different than 4K other than "cool to have" resolution.

Dont think ive noticed how things look real or fake when watching movies on a 4k tv from friends and family too.

 

Is this an effect from too big resolution?

[Edmond Dantes]

35 minutes ago, MultiGamerClub said:

Haha, never had a 4K tv or an 8K so i wouldnt know if it can get too real.

 

I doubt my console's can run on these resolutions but i doubt 8K will do much different than 4K other than "cool to have" resolution.

Dont think ive noticed how things look real or fake when watching movies on a 4k tv from friends and family too.

 

Is this an effect from too big resolution?

when there is such high detail, you start to notice the slightest camera movement, you can tell its being recorded and you see details that are so clean it looks fake because it is fake. its a movie. unless its a high budget movie or something like that but usually u can tell its like someone recorded it with a iphone but it had a real good camera on it. its takes away from the experience of watching a movie. i saw some tv shows on high res and it looked wack but i saw the revenet with leonardo decaprio and that looked sweet. i don't have much exp myself with high rez just what ive seen at friends and family house. its like audio files. it all starts from the file. it cant be up sampled it has to be shot at 8 k or 12 k. thats when you really notice.

[Commodus]

As someone who has a 55-inch 4K TV (LG's C7)... don't bother with an 8K set at that size. You either want to go very big (think 75 inches and up) or focus on a higher-quality 4K set. You won't notice the difference, and it's going to be a very long time before there's enough 8K-native content to justify the resolution.

[MultiGamerClub]

37 minutes ago, Commodus said:

As someone who has a 55-inch 4K TV (LG's C7)... don't bother with an 8K set at that size. You either want to go very big (think 75 inches and up) or focus on a higher-quality 4K set. You won't notice the difference, and it's going to be a very long time before there's enough 8K-native content to justify the resolution.

I mean.. Currently i have a 42 inch electra doing doing 1080p poo and barely pushing 4k is lagging the poor thing.. Not sure if its just shit quality from the factory or i got scammed 240$ out of my wallet when i bought it on sale right before 52 and 55 inch tv's were at their most expensive price in norway..

 

Kinda just wanna test how my 3080 ti will do in 8K through HDMI with DSC compression without going 1500$ overboard..

 

Just went from low price to highest and found the LG one, doesnt have DP but i can accept that.

*Knowing according to wikipedia that the latest hdmi can output 8K, or atleast it says so*

 

If it doesnt i'll be sure to return it.

[Blue4130]

On 8/30/2021 at 12:44 AM, MultiGamerClub said:

I mean.. Currently i have a 42 inch electra doing doing 1080p poo and barely pushing 4k is lagging the poor thing.. Not sure if its just shit quality from the factory or i got scammed 240$ out of my wallet when i bought it on sale right before 52 and 55 inch tv's were at their most expensive price in norway..

 

Kinda just wanna test how my 3080 ti will do in 8K through HDMI with DSC compression without going 1500$ overboard..

 

Just went from low price to highest and found the LG one, doesnt have DP but i can accept that.

*Knowing according to wikipedia that the latest hdmi can output 8K, or atleast it says so*

 

If it doesnt i'll be sure to return it.

You paid $240... I don't think you got scammed. I think your expectations were higher than your budget. 

[MultiGamerClub]

10 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

You paid $240... I don't think you got scammed. I think your expectations were higher than your budget. 

Expectations? I had no expectations when i got the 42 inch tv as it was my first tv.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, MultiGamerClub said:

Expectations? I had no expectations when i got the 42 inch tv as it was my first tv.

I think he's just saying that a $240 TV is utterly low end. My 50" Plasma TV was bought on-sale for $600 (about 8 years ago), and that was by no means the highest end Plasma (let alone other type of TV) you can buy.

[IPD]

55" 8k is going to be almost impossible to notice PPI improvement over 4k.  You probably need to go to at least 80"+ to get there.

[MultiGamerClub]

1 hour ago, IPD said:

55" 8k is going to be almost impossible to notice PPI improvement over 4k.  You probably need to go to at least 80"+ to get there.

Anything that beats my 42 inch electra at this point is a better choice

 

Now a month later, still havent gotten it lol.

Life has a way of saying a big "fuck you" when you want stuff and i will have to wait until a few months..

 

First on my list is not a tv to say the least.

[Colty]

Since most content will be 4k, an OLED 4k will look clearer than an 8k LED TV. This is just the nature of perceived clarity. The higher contrast ratio between the pixels (what OLED and plasma excel at), the better the perceived clarity will be.

I'm not sure what offerings there are in your area, but you can probably find a 48-55" OLED in your budget or near to it. 

[jre84]

nah burn in with oled...go for the 8k

 

they said the same thing about 4k....you wont see the diff but you do...8k will look alot sharper and be future proof...as for 16k yeah now thats well dumb...8k might be the peak for 10 years

[tikker]

On 10/26/2021 at 10:34 PM, jre84 said:

they said the same thing about 4k....you wont see the diff but you do...8k will look alot sharper and be future proof...as for 16k yeah now thats well dumb...8k might be the peak for 10 years

Oh the irony in this statement.

 

Personally I'd go 4k with proper HDR any day over 8k, even after having seen them side-by-side in stores. 8k didn't give me the same wow-factor as going from ok HDR to proper HDR or 1080p to 4k. Even between 4k and HDR the winner is HDR for me.

[jre84]

i personally went 4k qled...but yeah 8k is def more future proof...I don't know where I read this but at 8k the pixels are so small that its basically the climax of tvs hence the ironic contradictory statement..i dont agree but its most likely true as im no expert on tvs..all I know is you want good response times wide color gamut and great contrast 3000-1 or higher....I think I read it on www.rtings.com pretty good site, I think they cover just about every aspect and they recommend the Qled 8ks

[Stagea]

2 hours ago, jre84 said:

i personally went 4k qled...but yeah 8k is def more future proof...I don't know where I read this but at 8k the pixels are so small that its basically the climax of tvs hence the ironic contradictory statement..i dont agree but its most likely true as im no expert on tvs..all I know is you want good response times wide color gamut and great contrast 3000-1 or higher....I think I read it on www.rtings.com pretty good site, I think they cover just about every aspect and they recommend the Qled 8ks

16K (or something close to that) is supposedly something like the end-state in fixed TV display resolution as it offers enough resolution to saturate the eye's ability to distinguish detail if you are to fill your field of view. That being said, 4K is the sensible choice at the moment as most people aren't getting 100" or larger screens to fill the FOV from typical viewing distances. 

 

Gamut, contrast ratio, motion handling, etc. are definitely important considerations. 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Stagea

[IPD]

8k can't possibly be end-state.  I could probably bump to at least 5k+ and still see an image improvement on this 40" monitor...possibly even 6.  If this were a 50", 8k would be quite serviceable.  I can see 16k as being close to end state.  The technology required to push 120hz+ at 16k just isn't there.  Nor is the internet capable of handling the crushing amount of bandwidth that would be required to stream it.  For nutcases like me who would sit 6' from a 120" screen--yeah, 16k would still be an improvement...albeit probably at the end of what I can distinguish.

[tikker]

7 hours ago, jre84 said:

i personally went 4k qled...but yeah 8k is def more future proof...I don't know where I read this but at 8k the pixels are so small that its basically the climax of tvs hence the ironic contradictory statement..i dont agree but its most likely true as im no expert on tvs..all I know is you want good response times wide color gamut and great contrast 3000-1 or higher....I think I read it on www.rtings.com pretty good site, I think they cover just about every aspect and they recommend the Qled 8ks

With 8k or even 16k you're getting into the regime where it doesn't really matter what your screen size is anymore, so from that perspective it makes sense. A 70" 7680x4320 screen will have 125 PPI, which is in between say a 27" 2560x1440 monitor (108 PPI) and a 13" 1920x1080 laptop display (165 PPI). I also think 8k is the consumer end game for TVs. I will say I wasn't very impressed with the 8k models I got to see in store next to a 4k model. Maybe they weren't set up right or the backlight was having trouble penetrating the dense pixel grid, but the 8k was dimmer and didn't really wow me all that much over the 4k next to it.

2 hours ago, IPD said:

8k can't possibly be end-state.  I could probably bump to at least 5k+ and still see an image improvement on this 40" monitor...possibly even 6.  If this were a 50", 8k would be quite serviceable.  I can see 16k as being close to end state.

A 40" 8k screen will have pixels that are smaller than the resolution of the human eye. From another topic where I did the math if we assume our eyes to be diffraction limited (I'm assuming a 4mm pupil here):

On 7/3/2021 at 12:57 PM, tikker said:

We do have an innate angular resolution due to pupil size, however, which is about 0.5 arcminutes (one arcminute = 1/60 degree). You can translate to a phyiscal size using trigonometry. For example at 30 cm away this corresponds to a resolution of ~44 micrometre. If you grab a 43" screen at 3840x2160 resolution those pixels will be ~247 micrometres in size, which means we can see them. I just tried it and can indeed make out individual pixels at 30 cm away from my 43" 4k TV.

So from a pixel point of view we are almost there. There may perhaps be merit in higher resolutions for properly sampling even the tiniest details in an image.

2 hours ago, IPD said:

For nutcases like me who would sit 6' from a 120" screen--yeah, 16k would still be an improvement...albeit probably at the end of what I can distinguish.

A 40" 7680x4320 display would have pixels of just 115 um, which is twice smaller than our optimistic diffraction limit which is estimated to be around 0.5-1 arcminute. At 6' away, however, a 0.5 arcminute resolution corresponds to ~ 265 um. A 120" version of said display would have pixel sizes of 345 um, in other words borderline at our limit and technically resolvable. All in all I think 8k being practically end game is quite realistic. 16k will have a place for gigantic (read not home use) screens where you'll be close up or for the mutants among us with excellent acuity.

[IPD]

I firmly maintain that ~>180 PPI is the lower threshold for when the human eye cannot break out individual pixels (discriminating eyeballs will require higher).  At 1080p, a 15.6" screen has 141 ppi.  I could see a visible improvement in resolution when I got a 15.6", 2880x1620 screen (MSI's "3k")--which has a PPI of 211.  Even a 1440p screen has a PPI on a 15.6" of 188.  I can't really see a difference all the way up to the 282 ppi of  4k screen in 15.6".

 

I haven't done a side by side with a 1440p vs 2160p (or vs. 1620p) in 15.6"--but if there's even a smidgen of improvement, that's justification imho.  To me, PPI is one of the best indicators of the necessary resolution of any given panel size--as it doesn't matter the distance a person sees it from.  The only thing that matters is that individual pixels are not discernible until the viewer is too close to comfortably see the entire display.  That's why even though raw physics/math says 300-338 ppi is the upper limit for the human eye, I'm willing to bet that it's somewhere ~180  ppi.  Maybe slightly higher.

 

On a 40", 2160p is only 110 PPI.  6k (5568x3132) would bump that to 159 ppi. 6k (6106x4008) would bump it to 182 ppi--which is pretty much on point with what I said earlier; namely that a 40" could go up to at least 6k and still have visible quality improvement.

 

---

 

I say all of this keeping in mind that I'm a videophile, and my eyes have always been sensitive to resolution improvements.

 

 

[tikker]

22 hours ago, IPD said:

That's why even though raw physics/math says 300-338 ppi is the upper limit for the human eye, I'm willing to bet that it's somewhere ~180  ppi.  Maybe slightly higher.

Well the neat thing about physics is that it doesn't matter what "you bet" it is. That "raw physics/math" also doesn't really say what the upper limit PPI for the human eye is. It can't, because that varies with distance. It tells you, given a distance, what size your eyes are phyiscally capable of distinguishing. A bigger distance means you can get away with a lower PPI, because your resolving power is a constant angle rather than a constant physical size.

 

There is still benefit of higher resolutions, because to properly sample a detail of a certain size you'd like to have multiple pixels covering that detail. That is why you may still see an improvement even though distinguishing pixels becomes harder if not impossible. In the end I was agreeing with the feeling of people that >8k has merit, but it becomes increasingly niche.

[Home Theater Dummy]

IMO 55 inches is way to small to take advantage of what 8K provides. (besides almost no content available in 8K) and prices being outrageos

You can do much better with a 4K TV that is larger.  like an OLED or if you can find it a Vizio P Series Quantum X

I can't find a 55" 8K TV that LG sells. could you link it here?