I asume prices for 4k screen will go down when 8k panels hit the market

I think right now 8k will be more of a attention getter, a publicity stunt if you will, to allow the companies to "show their stuff" and cause a buzz of the companies with 8k sets. Supposedly you will be able to watch from one inch away, at 32 megapixels per frame, and not see any pixilation. The picture on screen at any size will have the appearance of a photograph moving on your screen. Yes there is no content for it now, and only rich snobs will have them at $15000 a pop for snob bragging rights. But it will be good for us peons say 6-8 years down the road when Movies and t.v. catch up to the technology and put out 8k content. For now though 4k makes sense, 8k not so much.

[youtube=FJbmB9k2Y88]

4k will do for me for the next few years, then we shall see.

BlueRay:

What is the purpose of 8K when there is no content to take advantage?

That's a chicken and egg problem. If there's no 8K content then nobody will buy 8K displays. If there's no 8K displays, nobody will make 8K content.

I would say they should first push 4K on everything and then we talk about something larger.

Considering how quickly technology is advancing and how slow 4K seems to be adopted, part of me wonders if maybe 4K should just be skipped entirely and only focus on 8K. It's better to take a higher resolution and downscale it than it is to take a low resolution and upscale. Generally speaking, if you don't have hardware capable of playing 8K videos (even if downscaled to 4K), you probably don't have hardware capable of playing 4K content either (I do understand this statement isn't unanimously true). Anyway, despite everything I just said, I have no interest in 8K whatsoever. For the average large-format display in a livingroom, I'd argue 5K is already reaching a point of diminishing returns, and I find 4K unnecessary for the average PC monitor (I'm not saying you can't tell the difference, but rather the differences aren't worth the elevated expense). 8K would be ok for something like a home theater, where you have a 3m+ display, but that's incredibly niche. As far as I'm concerned, 8K is one of those things where people say "it's better because it's a bigger number and therefore I should have it in order to flex my status". It doesn't matter how unnecessary or even wasteful it may be, people will buy it anyway.

Most TV stations haven't migrated from 720p on air but have 1080p on cable. I think movies are already available at 4K too. Allot of youtube creators are carrying RED cameras capturing 8K, and most moderate to big ones have 4k already. I think the problem is hardware and ISP speeds, not content. My 2500k barely has the power to play 4k, anything higher it can't display. Then there's the problem of ISP speed and buffering. When 4k came it was stupid expensive and everyone said it wasn't needed, but it pushed 1/2k really cheap. 8k will push 4k down in price eventually and it's a win win for consumers.

Silva:

Allot of youtube creators are carrying RED cameras capturing 8K, and most moderate to big ones have 4k already.

I was thinking of mentioning this myself. I find it kinda funny how Youtubers seem to have better quality videos than Hollywood. Even if they don't have RED cameras, there are a LOT of Youtubers with some sort of legit 4K-capable camera and 1080p@60FPS is also becoming pretty common too. A lot of people might not like the "soap opera effect" but 60FPS is enjoyable if you watch it long enough.

I think the problem is hardware and ISP speeds, not content. My 2500k barely has the power to play 4k, anything higher it can't display. Then there's the problem of ISP speed and buffering.

Thank you. Last time I made this point, I was told such things are a non-issue.

When 4k came it was stupid expensive and everyone said it wasn't needed, but it pushed 1/2k really cheap. 8k will push 4k down in price eventually and it's a win win for consumers.

That's a good point, though I'd say 4K is no longer all that expensive. It obviously costs more than 1080p, but I'd say prices for 4K displays have been pretty reasonable for a little bit over a year now. What makes 4K especially expensive is hardware capable of playing 4K@60FPS content for it (whether that be games or videos; you can play 4K@30FPS videos on a budget).

And what for? Lots of channels are not even FHD yet... Bring OLED or mLED to PC gaming with 120Hz and we can talk...

and here we have badly compressed video feeds from most cable/satellite providers that barely pass as 720p of a uncompressed feed, there 1080p dont even come close to uncompressed, they have next to no 4k content and when they do is even more compressed but when they do it can be compared to 1080p of bluray. Most channels on Fios/Dish/etc etc all look horrible imo, from PC stand point and gaming forget it GPU cant even handle 4k proper without a super expensive gpu never mind 8k, and consoles will be the same stuff 300-400$ console cant even do 4 k proper yet. and I dont think the nextgen of consoles will either, not with out there base cost being 1.5x what they are now which i would not be surpised if it happens. For most part I think Netflix and other such service have better PQ then most cable/satellite service, there 1080p for most part come close bluray pq for most part. Either way I just got 4k i not geting 8k any time soon, GPU and cable/satellites service and everything else need to be able to give 4k properly before. Like I said I still waiting for proper 1080p and they switching to 4k only tv 1080p and lower tv are rare now. maybe we get proper 1080p from that stuff when we start to have 4k as normal which would make 1080p the min which could be years off and by that i mean 5 more years atlest

schmidtbag:

I was thinking of mentioning this myself. I find it kinda funny how Youtubers seem to have better quality videos than Hollywood. Even if they don't have RED cameras, there are a LOT of Youtubers with some sort of legit 4K-capable camera and 1080p@60FPS is also becoming pretty common too. A lot of people might not like the "soap opera effect" but 60FPS is enjoyable if you watch it long enough. Thank you. Last time I made this point, I was told such things are a non-issue. That's a good point, though I'd say 4K is no longer all that expensive. It obviously costs more than 1080p, but I'd say prices for 4K displays have been pretty reasonable for a little bit over a year now. What makes 4K especially expensive is hardware capable of playing 4K@60FPS content for it (whether that be games or videos; you can play 4K@30FPS videos on a budget).

debatable I think 1080p on youtube is bad like most cable/satellites and there 4k is equal to 1080p bluray, but you right it better then most long as you dont compared to proper 1080p/4k feed. I still despise soap effect I had it on for 6+ months with this tv and just couldnt take it anymore and turned it off, rather have proper 60fps content then the fake stuff.

BlueRay:

What is the purpose of 8K when there is no content to take advantage?

Even if there were content and unlimited bandwidth available, still no point in 8k from a consumer perspective. Due to screen size required to appreciate the ultra high res. Meaning, you will not be able to tell the difference, even from 6' away for 65" 4k vs 65" 8k TVs. Where 8k may be of use is movies or facilities with much larger screens. Basically, its all a marketing ploy to fool consumers with the 'moar is better' principle.

Here we go again with the "but there is no feed.." crap. proper upscaling was displaying 480 when we had HD (tvs), 480/720 got upscaled to run on FHD screens, the same way all non 4k content is upscaled today. and outside stuff like YT, most streaming companies are only using a 4K profile, and aren't really streaming @4K res. they just use the higher allowed bitrate/color range etc but usually stick with 1080p for res. but going by ppi, 8K would only make sense for larger screens, i would say at least 75 or 85, to make sense. as long as its not being used as moni. and im selling 3-4000$ tvs broadcasting 1080 signals (BD/streaming), so i know its lower (than native) res isn't an issue. and 60hz doesnt produce soap opera effect. its the tvs setting (to counter motion blur). 120HZ on a tv is to remove motion blur since it allows for "more" processing (by inserting black frames etc), and NOT to remove input lag like its done with monitors (even with all processing turned off, input lag is still higher than most crappy monis). one reason why almost everyone that works in tv/movie industrie would like to see BDs running 50/60p, not 24/25p, which only makes sense for projectors, not tvs. and the bit of detail you lose, you will reduce judder/stutter when camera is panning etc, by a lot more. and oleds arent designed for gaming, and if your stupid enough to play games on a screen like that, dont whine. but i guess no surprise when i see ppl driving jacked up 4x4s in place where it usually doesn't snow. how many of you have a car that can go faster than your countries/states speed limit? applying the same thinking (from some ppl here), it wouldnt make sense to buy/own a car like that, as there is no way to use it to its full capacity (top speed).

tsunami231:

debatable I think 1080p on youtube is bad like most cable/satellites and there 4k is equal to 1080p bluray, but you right it better then most long as you dont compared to proper 1080p/4k feed.

That's due to Youtube's compression method; that isn't the fault of the content creators. My point was more that content creators seem to be more up-to-date with their recording hardware than a lot of major studios.

I still despise soap effect I had it on for 6+ months with this tv and just couldnt take it anymore and turned it off, rather have proper 60fps content then the fake stuff.

You're right - the motion interpolation (the feature you're talking about) is pretty terrible. SOE was the wrong term for me to use.

I don't want the hassle of driving that many pixels given that nvidia and amd can't possibly do it any time in the next 5 years. Gamers drove uptake of 4k panels before sky and virgin and netflix/prime hopped on board and this time there are no gpus capable of 8k/60 even possible on the horizon. 4k/60 is still a dream for the Titan RTX in some games.

bemaniac:

I don't want the hassle of driving that many pixels given that nvidia and amd can't possibly do it any time in the next 5 years. Gamers drove uptake of 4k panels before sky and virgin and netflix/prime hopped on board and this time there are no gpus capable of 8k/60 even possible on the horizon. 4k/60 is still a dream for the Titan RTX in some games.

dont forget that titan RTX is what 2500$

schmidtbag:

That's due to Youtube's compression method; that isn't the fault of the content creators. My point was more that content creators seem to be more up-to-date with their recording hardware than a lot of major studios. You're right - the motion interpolation (the feature you're talking about) is pretty terrible. SOE was the wrong term for me to use.

Im sure the fact the most people upgrade there "smart" phone every year which all pretty much 1080p 60fps and good portions 4k now helps those content creators. my iphone 6 can do 1080p 60fps and even 4k and that how old now, though tot sure I buy that it does it proper. think about it 480 was supposed to die off but it STILL used dish/dtv/cable/fios they all have quite few 480i channels still even off air still has it.

@bemaniac and? who says you cant run everything in UHD/QHD? especially when running a larger screen/tv it will still look much better than having the same screen with FHD res. my next upgrade will be around 40-43in (already using 32), and will either run out of vram of horsepower for most newer games i have do to HW limits (3770k and 1080), and have no prob to run it at 1440p or even 1080p, as i will still enjoy the larger screen and more detail i get from the screen. some ppl seem to forget: this is about TVs, not monitors... there are ppl doing stuff on large screens that isnt related to gaming (or stuff that needs similar (gpu) power). so if some company/ppl need a screen that can show all the detail while being larger than 65, 8K makes sense. doesnt mean YOU need it, or that it was designed for you.

fry178:

@bemaniac and? who says you cant run everything in UHD/QHD? especially when running a larger screen/tv it will still look much better than having the same screen with FHD res. my next upgrade will be around 40-43in (already using 32), and will either run out of vram of horsepower for most newer games i have do to HW limits (3770k and 1080), and have no prob to run it at 1440p or even 1080p, as i will still enjoy the larger screen and more detail i get from the screen. some ppl seem to forget: this is about TVs, not monitors... there are ppl doing stuff on large screens that isnt related to gaming (or stuff that needs similar (gpu) power). so if some company/ppl need a screen that can show all the detail while being larger than 65, 8K makes sense. doesnt mean YOU need it, or that it was designed for you.

doesnt change fact that there is barelly any proper 4k content out side uhd blurays and almost no other service has proper 4k content either? 4K tv are still for most part braging rights for people still cause there is no content, we are still waiting on proper 1080p content, and they want to push 8k? unless they gona some how make 4/8k content madatory going foward whats the point? dont get me wrong I all for higher resolutions, but if there no content or actual being able to do those resolutions make it all moot. it like have mclaren f1 and driving it around town or city.

@tsunami231 so your trying to tell me you didnt buy any FHD tvs until now? cause there was/is no signal that can match a 1080p tv, except when watching a BD. there will always be a mismatch, thats why proper upscaling is important. and when companies like sony upscale content to 4K in almost every theater (US), and ppl dont complain about image quality on a +20ft screen when paying money, i doubt it will look worse on a screen measured in inches. and for the car: it will still smell/feel/handle/accelerate faster than a car that cant go past speed limit. I always enjoyed going from "0-traffic speed" more than just going fast in any car my father had and when you have the money to not just buy but own and maintain a car for +100K, you should have the money to be able to take it to a track. but even if no, just to "see" all detail a 1080p signal can have (and match it natively), you need around 90+ ppi. that means FHD for a 24 in, as soon as i go 55@4k that is down to 80ppi, at 65 it drops down to 67, at 75in its down to 58ppi. this means i will already bottleneck on the (4K) screen with a 1080p signal, as soon as i go beyond 49in. yeah, 8k makes no sense at all.

In 2019 i'll likely switch from 1440p to a 4K monitor coz we now have hardware that can handle 4K res @ +60fps. As for 8K, yeah i'll maybe give it a go in 5 years when A) there's hardware that can run it at a decent amount of frames and B) when there's actual content for it.

The 8K Panels are for big TVs, 65inch and higher, the reason is simple, even with 4K when you go that big you start to easily notice pixels. SO you dont need 8K content, the panels are made to make pixels smaller and since its exact ratio, upscaling 1080p and 4K wont be an issue.

8K has always been part of the plan. I say this every time this topic arises as people forget, never looked up or just ignore. 4k is like 720P, just 1st step in UHD and 8K is "full" UHD.