8K 120Hz TV finally- Hisense’s 75-inch 8K TV launches with 120Hz refresh rate, ability to upscale content, more

[avg123]

 

Summary

 

Several months ago, Hisense held a press event where it unveiled several new products. One of the items mentioned was an 8K TV. Today we’ve spotted an official Amazon listing, and it surprisingly costs less than the company had originally planned. This Hisense 8K TV sports several notable features: a 74.5-inch panel, native 120Hz refresh rate, 7680 by 4320 resolution, and a peak brightness of 1,000 nits. There are also 180 local dimming zones, which should play a vital role in the visual accuracy when viewing dark scenes and content. Continue reading to learn more.

 

When announced back in May, this Hisense 8K TV had an MSRP of $3,200, but surprisingly the first Amazon listing has appeared and undercuts this with a price that is more than $302 off. While the original price remains competitive with TCL and others, an even lower launch cost of $2,897.43 via Amazon makes this release even more compelling.

 

Quotes

Quote

Hisense has opted to use the Roku platform for this television, which paves the way for AirPlay 2 support while also squashing the need for an 8K streaming media player. Both Dolby Vision and Atmos are supported, and a native 120Hz refresh rate aims to make gaming on Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5 as smooth as possible.

 

 

My thoughts

I think 8k 120hz will be the next standard in television. 4k 120hz felt like a stop gap till 8k 120hz arrived. this should make 4k tvs and 4k 120hz tvs much more affordable as 8k is available now.

 

now some people may say 4k is enough, there is no need for 8k but at 75 inch or greater size, 4k resolution is not enough. with modern tvs getting bigger and bigger, 8k is really needed. no longer do we have to choose between 8k 60hz and 4k 120hz.

 

Sources

New Hisense 8K TV upscales content 'to near-8K quality,' more - 9to5Toys

[emosun]

the perfect display for a global multiyear gpu shortage

 

[porina]

I'll rarely say no to technological improvements but I do think 8k isn't going to add value over 4k for most people. It's been done many times and I don't know how the numbers stack, but at a "normal" viewing distance there comes a point where more pixels don't add value any more. Sure, you can put your head next to the display you can examine every exquisite pixel in all its glory, but that's not a normal use case.

 

That's putting aside getting content for it, either in traditional media or gaming. 8k was going to happen anyway, it is a matter of time, but outside of the largest sets it doesn't really make much sense. 

[tikker]

4 hours ago, avg123 said:

4k 120hz felt like a stop gap till 8k 120hz arrived.

Not to be a downer, but how else would we arrive at 8k 120 Hz? Jumping from 1080p60/120 to 4320p120 is rather unrealistic.

 

I don't really see 8k becoming the standard anytime soon for consumer TVs. 4k is only just mainstream, there is hardly any 8k content and 8k gaming is a lost cause without DLSS. For larger screens it makes sense though. I imagine it'd yield a agreat field of view filling display. I don't know many people that would get a 74" TV, let alone bigger, however, so for the near future I see this as a very niche market.

 

4 hours ago, avg123 said:

native 120Hz refresh rate <snip> no longer do we have to choose between 8k 60hz and 4k 120hz.

Except I don't think we have a single port or cable that supports 8k 120 Hz do we? Looking at e.g. the local display cable page even HDMI 2.1 tops out at  4320p50, DP at  4320p85. The best would then be 4k 120 Hz upscaled to 8k (as the article says), which in my opinion defeats the point of 8k unless it's a good upscaling algorithm, like DLSS and the likes can do for 4k gaming.

[Fasterthannothing]

I'm happy 8k is going mainstream. It means that higher end 4k 120hz TV's will be coming down in price.

[Npiet1]

7 minutes ago, tikker said:

Not to be a downer, but how else would we arrive at 8k 120 Hz? Jumping from 1080p60/120 to 4320p120 is rather unrealistic.

 

I don't really see 8k becoming the standard anytime soon for consumer TVs. 4k is only just mainstream, there is hardly any 8k content and 8k gaming is a lost cause without DLSS. For larger screens it makes sense though. I imagine it'd yield a agreat field of view filling display. I don't know many people that would get a 74" TV, let alone bigger, however, so for the near future I see this as a very niche market.

 

Except I don't think we have a single port or cable that supports 8k 120 Hz do we? Looking at e.g. the local display cable page even HDMI 2.1 tops out at  4320p50, DP at  4320p@85. The best would then be 4k 120 Hz upscaled to 8k (as the article says), which in my opinion defeats the point of 8k unless it's a good upscaling algorithm, like DLSS and the likes can do for 4k gaming.

It's probably a marketing thing to say look at we can do. 

[avg123]

54 minutes ago, tikker said:

I don't know many people that would get a 74" TV, let alone bigger, however, so for the near future I see this as a very niche market.

Big TVs are getting quite cheap. even this 8K 120hz TV is less than $3000. 

It will only get cheaper. 75 inch will be the standard TV size in the next couple of years. You can get 4K 75 inch TVs for less than $800 now.

I firmly believe size matters more than any other parameter when it comes to TV.

[tikker]

1 hour ago, avg123 said:

Big TVs are getting quite cheap. even this 8K 120hz TV is less than $3000. 

It will only get cheaper. 75 inch will be the standard TV size in the next couple of years. You can get 4K 75 inch TVs for less than $800 now.

I'm not only talking about money. I'm talking about the sheer size of the thing. My 55" C9 is a perfect fit for my viewing area. I sometimes think a 65" would've been a nice extra, but anything above that is way too large for the room (plus a 55" OLED is the biggest I dare handle on my own :P).

1 hour ago, avg123 said:

I firmly believe size matters more than any other parameter when it comes to TV.

To me it matters in the way that it should make sense for the room/setup. I'll take a 55" 4k OLED with inky blacks and beautiful HDR over a 75" 8k with local dimming any day of the week. Proper sound is also as important as proper image quality in my opinion. I'd rather split that budget between a smaller 4k TV and a proper sound system than a single large 8k screen.

 

It's still great to see these things coming and I do think they have their place. For example I've read that film photo's have enough detail for a sort of equivalent resolution between 5k and 6k. Camera's and screens at 8k would be great for archiving and viewing those without loss of detail, plus you tend to also view photo's up close so the resolution makes total sense.

 

Side-track why I don't think 8k makes a lot of sense for normal TV use:

Spoiler

At these resolutions you start running into "issues" regarding proper viewing distance to fill some field of view and viewing distance to exploit all the possible detail of said resolution. If we use the formula on Wikipedia a 75" 4320p screen has an optimal distance of closer than 74 cm regarding "critical detail" (i.e. the approximately 1 arcmin resolution of the human eye). That's less than half the distance THX recommends based on their 40 degree field of view standpoint and THX is among those recommending the largest FoV (=smallest distances).

 

[CTR640]

I've seen the LG 77" OLED 8K and the picture is simply perfect, way too beautiful! Love the high ppi. And since this is not OLED, they can just cram it back up their ass. Currently waiting for 42" OLED.

 

And what is it with all the nonsense about 8K/60 and now 8K/120? Why can;t they just focus on MicroLED?? My Lord, when will LCD completely die??

[Curufinwe_wins]

7 minutes ago, CTR640 said:

I've seen the LG 77" OLED 8K and the picture is simply perfect, way too beautiful! Love the high ppi. And since this is not OLED, they can just cram it back up their ass. Currently waiting for 42" OLED.

 

And what is it with all the nonsense about 8K/60 and now 8K/120? Why can;t they just focus on MicroLED?? My Lord, when will LCD completely die??

 

7 hours ago, avg123 said:

 

This Hisense 8K TV sports several notable features: a 74.5-inch panel, native 120Hz refresh rate, 7680 by 4320 resolution, and a peak brightness of 1,000 nits. There are also 180 local dimming zones, which should play a vital role in the visual accuracy when viewing dark scenes and content. Continue reading to learn more.

 

My thoughts

I think 8k 120hz will be the next standard in television. 4k 120hz felt like a stop gap till 8k 120hz arrived. this should make 4k tvs and 4k 120hz tvs much more affordable as 8k is available now.

 

now some people may say 4k is enough, there is no need for 8k but at 75 inch or greater size, 4k resolution is not enough. with modern tvs getting bigger and bigger, 8k is really needed. no longer do we have to choose between 8k 60hz and 4k 120hz.

 

 

I picked up a 77" OLED 4K C1 for 2700 USD last week, super happy with it. I'd rather have oled over 8k every day of the week and twice on sundays.

 

I'm hoping microled will finally make real competition for OLED, 180 local zones is a complete joke at 77 inches. That is each zone larger than an inch on both sides. Going to look absolutely awful

[CTR640]

9 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

 

I picked up a 77" OLED 4K C1 for 2700 USD last week, super happy with it. I'd rather have oled over 8k every day of the week and twice on sundays.

 

I'm hoping microled will finally make real competition for OLED, 180 local zones is a complete joke at 77 inches. That is each zone larger than an inch on both sides. Going to look absolutely awful

Exactly. All that LCD LED milking to death is getting very out of hand and instead, they literally focus on marketing bullshit, nothing more. And Samsung with their so called Quantum Dot LED or something. And 180 local zones at 77"??? For real?! Joke of the Age!

[Sorenson]

There are several 8k TVs that have 120hz panels. Unless it has DP 2.0 I believe it’s limited to 4K 120hz or 8k 60hz.

 

 

[AnonymousGuy]

 

1 hour ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

 

I picked up a 77" OLED 4K C1 for 2700 USD last week, super happy with it. I'd rather have oled over 8k every day of the week and twice on sundays.

 

I'm hoping microled will finally make real competition for OLED, 180 local zones is a complete joke at 77 inches. That is each zone larger than an inch on both sides. Going to look absolutely awful

I think I did the math on it and there's basically no scenario where 8K makes sense.  You would have to sit so close the panel would be too large in your field of view.

 

We're reaching the edge of what humans can work with.  Like audio cables: sure there's theoretically a difference between copper and silver but humans aren't oscilloscopes that can detect it.

[avg123]

....

[Doobeedoo]

What connecting would this use, I'd expect it's at 60Hz with HDR and some heavy chroma subsampling at 120Hz or something.

Still it's LCD and using absurdly bad FALD, even for a laptop size that'd be bad. 

I'm way more interested to see DP 2.0 monitors.

[Dedayog]

You honestly thought 4K was a stopgap for 8K?  So when 4K came out you just waved your hand and dismissed it?  Think you're revising history at this point.

 

8K is a bit dense for most people, as many can't tell 1080p from 4K on their couch.  

 

4K was nice for clarity, 8k is here just cuz you have to keep the train moving.  

[avg123]

10 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

You honestly thought 4K was a stopgap for 8K?  So when 4K came out you just waved your hand and dismissed it?  Think you're revising history at this point.

how about you actually read what i typed before making brain dead replies?

[Dedayog]

12 minutes ago, avg123 said:

how about you actually read what i typed before making brain dead replies?

Yeah, I read this...  And I still have to say that "no longer having to choose between 4k 120Hz and 8K 60hz" is ridiculous.  

 

So while you may think it's a brain dead reply, I replied directly to what you said, do not agree, and think you're silly for saying so.  

 

Then again, you probably thought Porsche hitting sub-3's was a stop gap for Tesla hitting sub-2's.  Cuz we needed 2 second 0-60 times

 

See.... silly.  My opinion of your opinion.  Nothing more.  I'm aware mine is just as silly as yours depending on the side of the fence you're on.  *shrug*

 

My thoughts

I think 8k 120hz will be the next standard in television. 4k 120hz felt like a stop gap till 8k 120hz arrived. this should make 4k tvs and 4k 120hz tvs much more affordable as 8k is available now.

 

now some people may say 4k is enough, there is no need for 8k but at 75 inch or greater size, 4k resolution is not enough. with modern tvs getting bigger and bigger, 8k is really needed. no longer do we have to choose between 8k 60hz and 4k 120hz.

 

 

[avg123]

9 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

Yeah, I read this...  And I still have to say that "no longer having to choose between 4k 120Hz and 8K 60hz" is ridiculous.   while you may think it's a brain dead reply, I replied directly to what you said, do not agree, and think you're silly for saying so.  

 

38 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

You honestly thought 4K was a stopgap for 8K? So when 4K came out you just waved your hand and dismissed it?  Think you're revising history at this point.

 

nice try but you clearly said that I said 4k was a stop gap for 8k which I didnt. I said 4K120hz is a stop gap for 8k120hz. 

you clearly did not read what I said before replying

[KaitouX]

Until media compression, transmission and storage get better I see no benefit for another resolution increase. Netflix and similar services often look like shit because they have low bitrate with many compression artifacts, increasing resolution will only make that worse without bringing any visible benefit unless you're sitting 1,5 meters away from a 75" TV which most people don't do, usually quite the opposite, I often see people sitting 3~4 meters away from 55" TVs which at that point might as well be 720p. And most people aren't willing to get a 85"+ TVs to have some benefit from 4K either due to price or lack of space/interest, and to benefit from 8K those people would need 200" TVs, which at that point is a huge logistics issue if the panel doesn't roll or is made from multiple smaller panels that can be mounted at the persons home and naturally many wouldn't even want such huge TV or wouldn't have the space for it, for example my ceiling is lower than a 200" panel height.

I personally think 4k 240Hz would be more beneficial than 8K 120Hz, and 4k 240hz would already be barely beneficial due to lack of support for high refresh rate in common media. The only place 8K and higher makes sense currently is at commercial applications, at stadiums and other places that use huge panels that can benefit from higher pixel density.

 

31 minutes ago, avg123 said:

nice try but you clearly said that I said 4k was a stop gap for 8k which I didnt. I said 4K120hz is a stop gap for 8k120hz. 

you clearly did not read what I said before replying

That doesn't really make sense, why is 4k 120hz a stop gap for 8k 120hz? If HDMI 2.1 was released earlier, it would already be standard for quite some time and it was the target for years. Plus lower resolutions benefit more from higher refresh rates, as it's easier to achieve higher refresh rates at lower resolutions due to lower bandwidth, storage and/or GPU power requirements.

[Spindel]

And here I’m sittning and thinking that 4K is a waste for normal viewing distances on TVs. 
 

1080p is enough on TVs. 

[tikker]

1 hour ago, avg123 said:

nice try but you clearly said that I said 4k was a stop gap for 8k which I didnt. I said 4K120hz is a stop gap for 8k120hz. 

you clearly did not read what I said before replying

4k 120Hz is as much a stop gap for 8k 120 Hz as 1080p was just a stop-gap between 720p and 4k. Just like we slowly progress from 1080p 60 to 120,144,240,360 we'll also steadily progress 4k from 30 to 60 to 120 Hz and then move to 8k. I forgot the exact model and show, I think it was CES, but let's not forget that in the early days when e.g. Dell showed off a 4k monitor it required 2 DP cables and had two separate halves for the display to actually deal with the bandwidth properly. We don't even have the horsepower to game at 8k60 properly, let alon 120 Hz, or the specs to do 8k120. Only DP 2.0 can do 8k120 and I haven't seen that implemented anywhere yet. You don't just jump to 8k120.

 

I'm excited to see this happening, but by next year we'll say 8k120 was just a stop gap for 16k360.

[KaitouX]

1 hour ago, Spindel said:

And here I’m sittning and thinking that 4K is a waste for normal viewing distances on TVs. 
 

1080p is enough on TVs. 

Depends on what you mean by normal viewing distances.

For the average person that is likely between 3~4m for a 55" TV, but an enthusiast often will sit closer and/or have a bigger TV. One probably doesn't even benefit from 1080p over 720p, the other likely benefits from 4K.

I wouldn't say 1080p is enough for TVs, but I do think it would be nice to have the option of cheaper TVs with lower resolutions but higher refresh rate, HDR and other things that would benefit more those people over just higher resolution.

[Ramon Triton]

A bandwidth of 152.88 Gbps is required to drive 8k 120fps 8 bpc and HDMI 2.1 is 48 Gbps... So yeah, you'll need some exotic combination of cables or a new revision of HDMI to drive this.

[Shimejii]

4k Is Already a woopy do for TVS. Unless you have a 4k Blue ray player or a PC hooked up to stream movies in 4k and such, Its pretty meh. TV Does not have 4k streaming for the vast majority, 8k just seems like its just not viable. Im sure in a nice theatre room with a good quality TV and a Super Blue ray with 8k movie it  would look amazing, but 99.9% of people will not have that.

 

Im more interested in Better quality 1440p and 4k screens, Lets get them to the next level.