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

[IPD]

4 hours ago, GillyBond said:

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?

 

Mostly agree...but again, depends on how close you intend to use it from.

[Home Theater Dummy]

1 minute ago, IPD said:

Mostly agree...but again, depends on how close you intend to use it from.

at if you are sitting more than 2.5 feet away. 8K makes no sense. And that's REALLY short viewing distance IMO.

Even if you were you'd probably get a better featured 4K TV.  Plus OP stated its for movies & games in living room. 
Which usually involves much farther back viewing distances, and less likely to have 8k content.

[IPD]

Sure.  I think that the display industry has kind of lost its way on these resolutions.  Like why did we skip everything 3k and go straight to 4k--regardless of display size?  And I like how 5k is 4x 1440p--but there's very few displays offering 5k.  And why did we jump straight from 4k to 8k without ever stopping to explore the likes of 6k--which probably still has visible benefit in some situations (which I alluded to earlier)?

[dalekphalm]

14 hours ago, IPD said:

Sure.  I think that the display industry has kind of lost its way on these resolutions.  Like why did we skip everything 3k and go straight to 4k--regardless of display size?  And I like how 5k is 4x 1440p--but there's very few displays offering 5k.  And why did we jump straight from 4k to 8k without ever stopping to explore the likes of 6k--which probably still has visible benefit in some situations (which I alluded to earlier)?

The reason why they skipped all the other resolutions was due to industry standardization on HD resolutions for Media. Basically Blu-Ray and the HD broadcast standards.

 

No disc has a 3K movie on it. It's either 1080p or 4K. 4K simply because it's a linear and simple upgrade from 1080p, and it also makes up (and down) sampling easier.

 

Computer Monitors have a much higher variety of resolutions, but TV's do not.

[IPD]

Yep.  And I'm good and GD tired of PC displays being dictated to by the movie/tv industry.  Bring back 16:10

[Stagea]

23 hours ago, IPD said:

Sure.  I think that the display industry has kind of lost its way on these resolutions.  Like why did we skip everything 3k and go straight to 4k--regardless of display size?  And I like how 5k is 4x 1440p--but there's very few displays offering 5k.  And why did we jump straight from 4k to 8k without ever stopping to explore the likes of 6k--which probably still has visible benefit in some situations (which I alluded to earlier)?

The reason is because they can. It's cheaper for the manufacturers to stretch 4K production until 8K is viable than to make interim products that will just keep on making their parts inventory obsolete. They can still use the tooling that made 4K TV panels in 2013 today. Granted, the flagship-level part designs then may be the ones going to entry level 4K TVs today.

 

If they were to make smaller resolution jumps, it'd cause a lot of fragmentation in their processes (plus it'd be crazy to distribute material in a myriad of different resolutions). Imagine having so many types of BluRay discs; it'd just confuse the regular customer.

 

That being said, the jump from 8K to 16K may be more difficult. I wonder if they'd stretch 8K tech for as long as they did 1080 (~15 years) or 4K (~7 years), or if they'd market an interim resolution like 12K before 16K gets ready.

[IPD]

I get the cost aspect.  But there's also the fact that you can push a higher refresh rate through lower resolution (with any given cabling standard).  Which seems like it would allow for more upward flexibility.

 

In any event, that does not explain the fetish with 1440p.  If the industry is purely following suit to the entertainment industry--1440p would not exist.  There's some kind of justification for 1440p becoming so widespread, and I'd assert that it's due to it being a visibly better resolution--while simultaneously offering a better refresh rate potential than going all the way to 4k.

 

And I maintain that the same applies to the jump from 4k to 8k as it did from 2k to 4k (1080p > 2160p); namely, there's got to be some interim resolution that will deliver a bit of both resolution increase and higher refresh rates.

[dalekphalm]

15 hours ago, IPD said:

I get the cost aspect.  But there's also the fact that you can push a higher refresh rate through lower resolution (with any given cabling standard).  Which seems like it would allow for more upward flexibility.

 

In any event, that does not explain the fetish with 1440p.  If the industry is purely following suit to the entertainment industry--1440p would not exist.  There's some kind of justification for 1440p becoming so widespread, and I'd assert that it's due to it being a visibly better resolution--while simultaneously offering a better refresh rate potential than going all the way to 4k.

The reason why 1440p became popular with Monitors (to differentiate from TV's), is because it's the same aspect ratio as 1080p and 4K: 16:9.

 

That means it can more easily scale content produced for either, onto the display. The bigger issue with monitors is that 16:9 has become more popular than 16:10, for whatever reason. On the PC side of things, having a monitor that scales isn't a big deal. On a TV, it makes little sense when there's no native 1440p content.

15 hours ago, IPD said:

And I maintain that the same applies to the jump from 4k to 8k as it did from 2k to 4k (1080p > 2160p); namely, there's got to be some interim resolution that will deliver a bit of both resolution increase and higher refresh rates.

There would be no point to do a 2K (1080p) to 2.5K (1440p) jump, on the TV side of things. It's a minimal increase, and there wouldn't be any native content for it.

 

Unless you're saying the industry should have went 2K then 2.5K then 4K, with re-releasing content in each of these resolutions? That seems frankly worse than what actually happened. It would cause even more confusion and fragmentation, especially among disc standards.

 

Besides that, they already have cable standards that facilitate higher refresh rates for both 1080p and 4K. And it only recently became a thing where a TV would even need a non-60hz refresh rate (consoles getting VRR and high RR capabilities).

 

On the computer side of things, that's never been an issue. Computer Monitors have have high refresh rate, multi resolution options for well over a decade now.

 

TV's simply didn't need it. What benefit would there be to the end user? Yes there's the niche selection of users who use a TV as a monitor - but they're always going to be compromising to make their setup work.

[Stagea]

To add, 1080 -> 4K -> 8K only require integer scaling. That ensures that the new TV is at least as sharp as the previous kind when playing legacy formats.

 

It'd be hard to sell a 6K TV that looks worse than a 4K TV when playing 4K content. That's because 4K -> 6K would need 1.5X scaling... that'd result in image softness, even when done correctly. An 8K TV will perform 2.0X scaling on 4K content and will perform at least on par with a 4K TV when playing 4K videos (oftentimes it'd do slightly better, thanks to intelligent scaling techniques).

[tikker]

19 hours ago, IPD said:

In any event, that does not explain the fetish with 1440p.  If the industry is purely following suit to the entertainment industry--1440p would not exist.  There's some kind of justification for 1440p becoming so widespread, and I'd assert that it's due to it being a visibly better resolution--while simultaneously offering a better refresh rate potential than going all the way to 4k.

2160p is and was way too hard to run until recently. 2160p is 2.25 times more pixels than 1440p and 1440p is 1.8 times more than 1080p. I'd say the justification is most likely the fact that 1440p is neatly four times HD and thus falls nicely in the "middle" between 1080p and 2160p. 4k still isn't trivial to run in the latest games. For games framerate also matters more than for e.g. movies, so higher resolutions simply made no sense for monitors.

51 minutes ago, Stagea said:

To add, 1080 -> 4K -> 8K only require integer scaling. That ensures that the new TV is at least as sharp as the previous kind when playing legacy formats.

Yeah 7680x4320 is pretty neat when it comes to scaling: 640x480, 1280x720, 1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160 all scale neatly by a factor 12, 6, 4, 3 and 2 on each side. It's close to the ultimate scaling resolution for a lot of the common ones that are around nowadays. No imperfect 1080p upscaling on a 1440p display or 1440p upscaling on a 2160p display.

 

[IPD]

I wasn't referring to TV's.  I'm saying that in the world of monitors, 6k should very much be a thing; just like 4k is a thing.  Rationally, if 2560x1440 is 4x of 1280x720, we should also have 5120x2880 displays (5k); of which there are probably 0 or a number I can count on 1 hand.

 

Instead, the entire industry just wants to jump directly from 4k to 8k.

[Blue4130]

33 minutes ago, IPD said:

I wasn't referring to TV's.  I'm saying that in the world of monitors, 6k should very much be a thing; just like 4k is a thing.  Rationally, if 2560x1440 is 4x of 1280x720, we should also have 5120x2880 displays (5k); of which there are probably 0 or a number I can count on 1 hand.

 

Instead, the entire industry just wants to jump directly from 4k to 8k.

I don't see any computer company jumping to 8k,only TV companies. Have any 8k computer screens been announced? 

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, IPD said:

I wasn't referring to TV's.  I'm saying that in the world of monitors, 6k should very much be a thing; just like 4k is a thing.  Rationally, if 2560x1440 is 4x of 1280x720, we should also have 5120x2880 displays (5k); of which there are probably 0 or a number I can count on 1 hand.

 

Instead, the entire industry just wants to jump directly from 4k to 8k.

Please use the quote feature when replying to specific people - it can become very confusing very quickly who you're talking to, and the context of your reply.

 

In the context of Monitors, there are 5K options and I wouldn't be shocked if there was a 6K option as well.

 

There's not many of them, because most consumers don't care about a 5K display, and therefore it's a niche product.

 

Monitor manufacturers make what sells.

 

There are a number of 5K options to choose from already.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

I don't see any computer company jumping to 8k,only TV companies. Have any 8k computer screens been announced? 

There are actually some 8K monitors now. Not many. 5K is probably more readily available with more model choices.

[tikker]

5 hours ago, IPD said:

I wasn't referring to TV's.  I'm saying that in the world of monitors, 6k should very much be a thing; just like 4k is a thing.  Rationally, if 2560x1440 is 4x of 1280x720, we should also have 5120x2880 displays (5k); of which there are probably 0 or a number I can count on 1 hand.

 

Instead, the entire industry just wants to jump directly from 4k to 8k.

They are around, e.g. https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HMUB2LL/A/lg-ultrafine-5k-display, but few and far between because there simply is very little to no demand for them. It's not really an interesting resolution. 5k would be even harder to run than 4k, so for gaming it make no sense. Film-wise, although actual film film would benefit from it, is for the vast majority centred around either FHD or 4k, so for TVs it is also not that interesting. Basically they exist to comfortably edit 4k or other sorts of high-resolution footage on, making them extremely niche.

 

Unfortunately not many things exist because they can, resolutions being one of them. There's no monetary interest in offering every 16:9 resolution imaginable, for example.

[Blue4130]

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

There are actually some 8K monitors now. Not many. 5K is probably more readily available with more model choices.

Yea, i did some digging. I found a dell. hardly an entire industry jumping to it as @IPDclaims. 

[IPD]

The point I'm driving at is that people are stopping off at the 1440p bandwagon because they want that 144hz.  2160p hasn't been really up to that challenge up until recently (and GPU's would still struggle to achieve it in most games)--so an "intermediate" resolution that doesn't really have much corresponding anything in the entertainment sector...is now mainstream.

 

So why would it be any different for people go want to get off the train at the 6k mark so they can get a resolution bump over 4k, but still have 144hz (or whatever) that 8k would be struggling with--and for very marginal visible improvements?

 

p.s.

Keep in mind, those "5k" displays aren't a bump over 2160.  They're a different aspect ratio than 2160, usually 21:9.  And I believe that between 2160 and 4320 (~3240) is a good stopping point for a 16:9 resolution.

[tikker]

50 minutes ago, IPD said:

The point I'm driving at is that people are stopping off at the 1440p bandwagon because they want that 144hz.  2160p hasn't been really up to that challenge up until recently (and GPU's would still struggle to achieve it in most games)--so an "intermediate" resolution that doesn't really have much corresponding anything in the entertainment sector...is now mainstream.

Games can usually render at almost any resolution you like, so there is room for an "odd" resolution such as 1440p that'll give substantially increased visual fidelity while still being able to yield >60 FPS frame rates. Turns out there were even CRTs with a 1440 resolution. The Sony GDM-FW900 was 16:10 2304x1440 so it's not even really a "modern" resolution.

 

In the end it just caught on. Some trends just catch on and some don't. 1440p happened to be one that did.

50 minutes ago, IPD said:

So why would it be any different for people go want to get off the train at the 6k mark so they can get a resolution bump over 4k, but still have 144hz (or whatever) that 8k would be struggling with--and for very marginal visible improvements?

There is very little point in making a monitor for every resolution or increasing by a few % every year. We should be glad honestly, otherwise we would have the same new-but-nothing-new every year crap phones suffer from.

50 minutes ago, IPD said:

 

p.s.

Keep in mind, those "5k" displays aren't a bump over 2160.  They're a different aspect ratio than 2160, usually 21:9.  And I believe that between 2160 and 4320 (~3240) is a good stopping point for a 16:9 resolution.

The LG I linked is 16:9, not sure if it's actually still being sold. Other than that, they seem to have all died out which tells you the reason you don't see them: they tried and it turns out there is no market for them or at best an extremely niche one.

[IPD]

11 hours ago, tikker said:

Games can usually render at almost any resolution you like, so there is room for an "odd" resolution such as 1440p that'll give substantially increased visual fidelity while still being able to yield >60 FPS frame rates. Turns out there were even CRTs with a 1440 resolution. The Sony GDM-FW900 was 16:10 2304x1440 so it's not even really a "modern" resolution.

 

In the end it just caught on. Some trends just catch on and some don't. 1440p happened to be one that did.

There is very little point in making a monitor for every resolution or increasing by a few % every year. We should be glad honestly, otherwise we would have the same new-but-nothing-new every year crap phones suffer from.

The LG I linked is 16:9, not sure if it's actually still being sold. Other than that, they seem to have all died out which tells you the reason you don't see them: they tried and it turns out there is no market for them or at best an extremely niche one.

I agree.  But still doesn't explain 1440p.  1920x1440 i gamed on BITD doesn't even remotely translate to 2560x1440.

 

And you're right.  There isn't a market.  Because there actually would be a market, except that consumers keep buying into FUD spread from panel charlatans who keep hailing refresh rates over everything else.  And the average unwashed consumer only has "recommendations" to go on--as the days of being able to window shop every potential alternative are long gone.  So the market creeps along at a snail's pace, held back by luddites.  And we're in for yet another decade of "as good as you can get" panels--just like the living hell of 1080p laptop days.

[Commodus]

13 hours ago, IPD said:

The point I'm driving at is that people are stopping off at the 1440p bandwagon because they want that 144hz.  2160p hasn't been really up to that challenge up until recently (and GPU's would still struggle to achieve it in most games)--so an "intermediate" resolution that doesn't really have much corresponding anything in the entertainment sector...is now mainstream.

 

So why would it be any different for people go want to get off the train at the 6k mark so they can get a resolution bump over 4k, but still have 144hz (or whatever) that 8k would be struggling with--and for very marginal visible improvements?

 

p.s.

Keep in mind, those "5k" displays aren't a bump over 2160.  They're a different aspect ratio than 2160, usually 21:9.  And I believe that between 2160 and 4320 (~3240) is a good stopping point for a 16:9 resolution.

The 5K display in the UltraFine 5K and 27-inch iMac is 5120 x 2880, or a 16:9 ratio. It's pretty great; I'm sitting in front of an iMac right now. It makes a ton of sense to me as it both scales well at a 27-inch size and lets you play native 4K with room left over for UI elements.

 

And there is at least one 6K computer monitor, Apple's Pro Display XDR... but if you've heard of it, you'll know it's very much aimed at high-end creatives with its $4,999 price tag. I'd be curious to see what Apple could do if it used iMac/UltraFine-level panel tech with a 6K resolution. It'd still be expensive for everyday use, I'm sure, but it might see tremendous uptake.

[tikker]

3 hours ago, IPD said:

I agree.  But still doesn't explain 1440p.  1920x1440 i gamed on BITD doesn't even remotely translate to 2560x1440.

1920x1440 is a 4:3 resolution. I'd see 2560x1440 as the 16:9 "equivalent" and it fits nicely 4x HD (1280x720), so I think it explains it. According to Wikipedia about 2560x1440:

Quote

This resolution was under consideration by the ATSC in the late 1980s to become the standard HDTV format, because it is exactly 4 times the width and 3 times the height of VGA, which has the same number of lines as NTSC signals at the SDTV 4:3 aspect ratio. Pragmatic technical constraints made them choose the now well-known 16:9 formats with twice (HD) and thrice (FHD) the VGA width instead.

so that may have played a role. Not everything needs a profound reason though. As I said sometimes it just sticks.

3 hours ago, IPD said:

And you're right.  There isn't a market.  Because there actually would be a market, except that consumers keep buying into FUD spread from panel charlatans who keep hailing refresh rates over everything else.  And the average unwashed consumer only has "recommendations" to go on--as the days of being able to window shop every potential alternative are long gone.  So the market creeps along at a snail's pace, held back by luddites.  And we're in for yet another decade of "as good as you can get" panels--just like the living hell of 1080p laptop days.

I don't think there would be a market. We've seen there isn't. They existed and they died out. People had the option to go buy them, but didn't do so enough.  If the market was there those displays would still be for sale. The majority of gamers won't have a GPU to comfortably drive native 4k, let alone 5k, in games, so they won't spend the money on something they cannot take advantage of. In my experience there hasn't been much window shopping opportunity either. Laptops and monitors were 1366x768, then 1600x900 and eventually settled at 1920x1080 as well. All the exotic resolutions slowly disappeared, although I do like 16:10 and likes for productivity, it's also been a major pain often in combination with equipment at "normal" resolutions. Unfortunately gamers and content consumers drive the monitor market.

[IPD]

2 hours ago, tikker said:

I don't think there would be a market. We've seen there isn't. They existed and they died out. People had the option to go buy them, but didn't do so enough.  If the market was there those displays would still be for sale. The majority of gamers won't have a GPU to comfortably drive native 4k, let alone 5k, in games, so they won't spend the money on something they cannot take advantage of. In my experience there hasn't been much window shopping opportunity either. Laptops and monitors were 1366x768, then 1600x900 and eventually settled at 1920x1080 as well. All the exotic resolutions slowly disappeared, although I do like 16:10 and likes for productivity, it's also been a major pain often in combination with equipment at "normal" resolutions. Unfortunately gamers and content consumers drive the monitor market.

This was never a thing before 1080p.  If you couldn't use a 1600x1200 resolution to game in, you still wanted a 1600x1200 resolution monitor--because it was just better.  Price wasn't a deterrent, as the cost--while higher--wasn't astronomically so.

 

It's a bald-face lie that people still think they can't take advantage of a higher resolution.  Virtually everyone I've ever met who has upgraded to a higher resolution panel is immediately struck by the improvement in image quality on everything; text included.  So yeah.  Again.  The market didn't fail because there wasn't demand.  That's a cart-before-the horse conclusion.  The market failed because luddites convinced people that such offerings were stupid.  And so now all of us are stuck in display purgatory and advancement is at a glacial pace.

 

Y'all took my WUXGA laptop screens away and pretended like it was no big deal--and forced me into a downgrade for years with no alternatives.  Now y'all are trying to do it again with curved displays and high resolutions.  ZERO sympathy for people who don't see it my way.  If you are a hz-purist, there's about 99999999 offerings that will suit your needs.  If you want 20" of vertical size, 3840x2160, and curved....you might as well commit seppuku.

 

STOP MAKING EXCUSES for holding the market back.

[tikker]

53 minutes ago, IPD said:

This was never a thing before 1080p.  If you couldn't use a 1600x1200 resolution to game in, you still wanted a 1600x1200 resolution monitor--because it was just better.  Price wasn't a deterrent, as the cost--while higher--wasn't astronomically so.

Nostalgia glasses. Maybe price didn't matter to you, but for the vast majority price has always been a deterrent. I'd love a 3090 because it's the best, but I'm not going to pay 3 large ones for it. I'm also not going to buy an 8k monitor/TV today, with nothing out there that can utilise it, only for it to be outdone in a couple of years when both technologies and content have probably improved and gotten cheaper.

53 minutes ago, IPD said:

It's a bald-face lie that people still think they can't take advantage of a higher resolution.  Virtually everyone I've ever met who has upgraded to a higher resolution panel is immediately struck by the improvement in image quality on everything; text included.  So yeah.  Again.  The market didn't fail because there wasn't demand.  That's a cart-before-the horse conclusion.  The market failed because luddites convinced people that such offerings were stupid.  And so now all of us are stuck in display purgatory and advancement is at a glacial pace.

That's not what I was saying. I was getting at the fact that e.g. the majority of gamers is on XX60 level hardware. Those cards are not going to drive games at even 4k, so gamers are not going to buy a >4k monitor... one of the reasons why DLSS is interesting. Fact of the matter is that a lot of devices are now content consumption-oriented. It makes sense that resolutions follow that. You weren't using a 1600x1200 CRT in the 2000s to watch a movie, now a lot of people are. Good luck trying to convince the average Joe that they're better off with a 5k screen to watch their 4k movie. Sure people are impressed comparing higher resolutions with 1080p, but the visual jump from 4k to 8k is much less than the perceived jump from 1080p to 2160p. Even though they both offer a 4x improvement. And yes I have seen 4k and 8k side by side.

53 minutes ago, IPD said:

ZERO sympathy for people who don't see it my way.

STOP MAKING EXCUSES for holding the market back.

And there the monkey comes out of the sleeve. 5k or whatever isn't on another planet compared to 4k. Sure higher resolutions have plusses, but not for the majority of people and they are not as life-changing as you imply. 4k and up is simply a point of diminishing returns for quite a few screen sizes.

 

[Stagea]

23 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

Yea, i did some digging. I found a dell. hardly an entire industry jumping to it as @IPDclaims. 

There are 8K reference monitors for professionals (used for making 8K content); they are expensive though. Canon, Sony, Samsung, Konvision, etc. sell them (not through retail channels). Dell and ViewSonic make the cheaper ones.

 

That being said, large 16K microled screens also exist (at a very high price).

 

[Blue4130]

1 hour ago, Stagea said:

There are 8K reference monitors for professionals (used for making 8K content); they are expensive though. Canon, Sony, Samsung, Konvision, etc. sell them (not through retail channels). Dell and ViewSonic make the cheaper ones.

 

That being said, large 16K microled screens also exist (at a very high price).

 

This whole topic was about consumer oriented products, not specialized products for production companies. And I'd say a 16k microled screen is a far cry from a computer monitor.