alanm:

Whaa? How the hell is anyone going to see a difference unless they are on 8k to begin with.

Because 1080p videos most of the time aren't best possible quality but a trade off between bitrate, encoding complexity(time/power) and image quality. When I switch from 1080p to 2160p/4k on my 1080p screen I see considerable added detail. I haven't been able to find any footage that looked visibly sharper on an 4k monitor. Main cause of the sharp footage is the recording device. Most 1080p footage isn't recorded with top of the line video gear or made from time lapse photographs taken with a good lens and 20/50/100 megapixel. So IMO the content is still busy getting up to top quality 1080p standards. btw When I select 4320p/8k the videos stops playing and goes below 1fps, like 1 fps every 10 or twenty seconds.

The Reeferman:

Because 1080p videos most of the time aren't best possible quality but a trade off between bitrate, encoding complexity(time/power) and image quality. When I switch from 1080p to 2160p/4k on my 1080p screen I see considerable added detail. I haven't been able to find any footage that looked visibly sharper on an 4k monitor. Main cause of the sharp footage is the recording device. Most 1080p footage isn't recorded with top of the line video gear or made from time lapse photographs taken with a good lens and 20/50/100 megapixel. So IMO the content is still busy getting up to top quality 1080p standards. btw When I select 4320p/8k the videos stops playing and goes below 1fps, like 1 fps every 10 or twenty seconds.

Fine. So video quality varies according to recording device and quality, encoding, etc. And you are only basing that on the premise that the higher the res, the higher the quality of the recording devices and image processing. Fair assumption. But you cannot provide 8k level of detail on 4k screens, nor 4k detail on 1080p screens. You are only seeing better recording processes, not added detail beyond what lower res screens can provide. Which makes it pointless to demonstrate 8k on lower res screens (or 4k on 1080p screens).

@The Reeferman if your screen is 1080p, it might "look" sharper, but it really isn't. the "more" detail that you see, is coming from the higher res, not because it plays in 4K. especially since your running non-native res, it will actually be a little blurrier (than it could be). 1080p tops out at 50 Mbit, that wont change, so image quality will neither. unless talking about hardware, but that doesn't change the resolution/bitrate limitations. there is no need for high MP, unless your looking to "zoom" in on it. most pro dslr were 12MP a few years ago and still keep up with newer ones. Even for UHD, 8-12MP are enough. e.g., a brand new pocket cam with 24 MP will never do better shots than a 10y old a700 (sony) with 12MP APS-C sensor (cmos). and about 50% of the UHD screens (i sold), was because the 1080p movie i played (FHD and UHD side by side, split signal), was looking much better on the UHD tv. but as said before, thats because of the difference in panel/processor/software etc, that the UHD usually have (vs FHD tvs). @ladcrooks and you will never see (1080) p as a broadcast signal. i can have 2-3 times the channels (dont remember the exact number) when running 720p/1080i, vs 1080p. no company will say: hey get my service and pay 100$/month for only 50 channels but they are in FHD, when the competition offers 100-150 channels (@720p).

one step closer for the 4k resolution to achieve peasantry ! :P , 1080p used to be high end and "demanding" how long till 4k becomes the new 1080p ? 5 ~10 years ?

Eh, no thanks, I'll stick with my 40" 1080P TV....

@Venix those cycles get shorter, like with pc perf-gains. till 1960 b/w, 20y later color. 20y later HD, another 10y till FHD, UHD 7y later, and now looking at 8K already... @sykozis sure, if its a good one, but lots of companies dont do high end in FHD anymore, so getting a new one that supports stuff like HDR/10-12 bit color, higher gamut, will all make a difference beyond just the gain in detail. switching from 27" ips (6/8 bit), to a 32" amva panel with 10 bit color (12 bit LUT; comes calibrated), i didnt gain much in detail/sharpness (FHD vs QHD), but i keep the nice saturation/"pop" of the colors (without skin tones getting orange on the ips), not even talking about banding.. so if i would have to replace a screen, i would think twice getting FHD

alanm:

You are only seeing better recording processes, not added detail beyond what lower res screens can provide. Which makes it pointless to demonstrate 8k on lower res screens (or 4k on 1080p screens).

I agree, that's why I wasn't demonstrating the advantage of higher resolution material but I was demonstrating the image quality gains that still can be made at 1080p resolution. I have jet to see footage of small consumer video hardware(like in phones and drones) that is better that good 1080p footage. Although I do have to admit it looks better then the previous small 1080p recording devices. But most of the time you hear about higher megapixels and only occasionally about sensor size and lens improvement. Which isn't that strange of course because of the limits the small and cheap hardware is subject to. And on the other side easy numbers are more usable for marketing purposes. And if anyone can point me to a video at 2160p that will be visually sharper on a 4k display as on a 1080p please do.

fry178:

and about 50% of the UHD screens (i sold), was because the 1080p movie i played (FHD and UHD side by side, split signal), was looking much better on the UHD tv.

I have the screens connected to a PC and most TV's turn off most image processing options when connected to a PC. I guess the way you played the video allowed the image processing options of the UHD TVs to be enabled? And maybe just the up-scaling alone is resulting in a better result. The biggest advantage I noticed with the 4k screen is that moving/panning images aren't looking blurred like the older 1080p generation hardware did. IMO that alone makes the 4k screen I used for comparison FAR superior to the older stuff. But that doesn't seem to be related to the higher resolution but rather response time of the pixels. Ever since the flat screens pushed the CRTs out of the market I have been irritated by this blurring effect.

@The Reeferman anytime there is a mismatch between screen and video (non-native playback), there will be a reduction in sharpness/detail and the picture will look "blurrier" than it could. thats one reason why some ppl (without the newest gpu) are able to play older games with decent fps at a lower res (than the native), while the difference in res will act like appling AA without taking another performance hit. so anytime i play UHD on UHD screen, it will look better than UHD on FHD. same with FHD running on FHD screen vs on a HD screen. the pixels dont match 1:1 ratio, so its impossible to get the same detail on a lower res screen (compared to the video), if settings and rest of the hardware is the same. i threw all my demo/training pics and files out after a year or i would have linked some, but im not gonna waste my time to look up stuff, to "proof" something 😉 tvs always process the image, even in pc mode, maybe less, but still. only tvs that list a game mode (or similar) are usually bypassing the processor completely. look at measurements for input lag on tvs, and will see only the ones with a game mode getting sub 30-50ms (depending on brand/model etc.) Of course i turn on processing/adjust settings for watching tv/movies etc, but a tv that has a wider color gamut etc, will not just look "better" because of upscaling.