this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2025
446 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

74767 readers
2912 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 135 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

article took forever to get to the bottom line. content. 8k content essentially does not exist. TV manufacturers were putting the cart before the horse.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 97 points 1 day ago (1 children)

4k tvs existed before the content existed. I think the larger issue is that the difference between what is and what could be is not worth the additional expense, especially at a time when most people struggle to pay rent, food, and medicine. More people watch videos on their phones than watch broadcast television. 8k is a solution looking for a problem.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago

Hell I still don't own a 4k tv and don't plan to go out of my way to buy one unless the need arises. Which I don't see why I need that when a normal flat-screen looks fine to me.

I actually have some tube tvs and be thinking of just hooking my vcr back up and watching old tapes. I don't need fancy resolutions in my shows or movies.

Only time I even think of those things is with video games.

[–] jqubed@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think it’s NHK, or one of the Japanese broadcasters anyways, that has actually been pressing for 8K since the 1990s. They didn’t have content back then and I doubt they have much today, but that’s what they wanted HD to be.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Not familiar with NHK specifically (or, to be clear, I think I am but not with enough certainty), but it really makes a lot of sense for news networks to push for 8k or even 16k at this point.

Because it is a chicken and egg thing. Nobody is going to buy an 8k TV if all the things they watch are 1440p. But, similarly, there aren't going to be widespread 8k releases if everyone is watching on 1440p screens and so forth.

But what that ALSO means is that there is no reason to justify using 8k cameras if the best you can hope for is a premium 4k stream of a sporting event. And news outlets are fairly regularly the only source of video evidence of literally historic events.

From a much more banal perspective, it is why there is a gap in TV/film where you go from 1080p or even 4k re-releases to increasingly shady upscaling of 720 or even 480 content back to everything being natively 4k. Over simplifying, it is because we were using MUCH higher quality cameras than we really should have been for so long before switching to cheaper film and outright digital sensors because "there is no point". Obviously this ALSO is dependent on saving the high resolution originals but... yeah.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

it’s not exactly “there is no point”. It’s more like “the incremental benefit of filming and broadcasting in 8k does jot justify the large cost difference”.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] bobo1900@startrek.website 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Not only the content doesn't exist yet, it's just not practical. Even now 4k broadcasting is rare and 4k streaming is now a premium (and not always with a good bitstream, which matters a lot more) when once was offered as a cost-free future, imagine 8k that would roughly quadruple the amount of data required to transmit it (and transmit speee is not linear, 4x the speed would probably be at least 8x the cost).

And I seriously think noone except the nerdiest of nerds would notice a difference between 4k and 8k.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 95 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I don't want 8K. I want my current 4K streaming to have less pixilation. I want my sound to be less compressed. Make them closer to Ultra BluRay disc quality before forcing 8K down our throats... unless doing that gives us better 4K overall.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 34 points 1 day ago

Yeah 4K means jack if it’s compressed to hell, if you end up with pixels being repeated 4x to save on storage and bandwidth, you’ve effectively just recreated 1080p without upscaling.

Just like internet. I’d rather have guaranteed latency than 5Gbps.

[–] Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yep, just imagine how bad the compression artefacts will be if they double the resolution but keep storage/network costs the same.

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Doubling the dimensions make it 4x the data.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 59 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I would much rather have 1080p content at a high enough bitrate that compression artifacts are not noticeable.

[–] kylian0087@lemmy.dbzer0.com 54 points 22 hours ago (6 children)

I do want a dumb 8K TV. I do not want all the so called smart features of a TV. Small Linux device with kodi works way better.

[–] AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk 20 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

hmm, I wish there was some open source TV OS that I could put into my tv to kind of jailbreak it. Remove all the tracking and ads bs but still allow me to use Netflix and Plex and jellyfin. I don't think such a thing exists though.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] glitch1985@lemmy.world 16 points 22 hours ago

As far as my TV is concerned I don't have an internet connection.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Peffse@lemmy.world 48 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't know if it changed, but when I started looking around to replace my set about 2 years ago, it was a nightmare of marketing "gotcha"s.

Some TVs were advertising 240fps, but only had 60fps panels with special tricks to double framerate twice or something silly. Other TVs offered 120fps, but only on one HDMI port. More TVs wouldn't work without internet. Even more had shoddy UIs that were confusing to navigate and did stuff like default to their own proprietary software showing Fox News on every boot (Samsung). I gave up when I found out that most of them had abysmal latency since they all had crappy software running that messed with color values for no reason. So I just went and bought the cheapest TV at a bargain overstock store. Days of shopping time wasted, and a customer lost.

If I were shown something that advertised with 8K at that point, I'd have laughed and said it was obviously a marketing lie like everything else I encountered.

[–] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Asus makes their version of a 4k OLED LG panel with no shitty 'smart' software.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] happydoors@lemmy.world 46 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

I am a filmmaker and have shot in 6k+ resolution since 2018. The extra pixels are great for the filmmaking side. Pixel binning when stepping down resolutions allows for better noise, color reproduction, sharpened details, and great for re-framing/cropping. 99% of my clients want their stuff in 1080p still! I barely even feel the urge to jump up to 4k unless the quality of the project somehow justifies it. Images have gotten to a good place. Detail won’t provide much more for human enjoyment. I hope they continue to focus on dynamic range, HDR, color accuracy, motion clarity, efficiency, etc. I won’t say no when we step up to 8k as an industry but computing as a whole is not close yet.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 11 points 12 hours ago

The same argument goes for audio too.

6K and 8K is great for editing, just like how 96 KHz 32+ bit and above is great for editing. But it's meaningless for watching and listening (especially for audio, you can't hear the difference above 44khz 16 bit). When editing you'll often stack up small artifacts, which can be audible or visible if editing at the final resolution but easy to smooth over if you're editing at higher resolutions.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] afk_strats@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I haven't seen this mentioned but apart from 8K being expensive, requiring new production pipelines, unweildley for storage and bandwidth, unneeded, and not fixing g existing problems with 4K, it requires MASSIVE screens to reap benefits.

There are several similar posts, but suffice to say, 8K content is only perceived by average eyesight at living room distances when screens are OVER 100 inches in diameter at the bare minimum. That's 7 feet wide.

collapsed inline media1000009671

Source: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

[–] Thorry@feddit.org 15 points 1 day ago

Tell me Legolas, what do your elven eyes see?

Fucking pixels Aragorn, it makes me want to puke. And what the fuck is up with these compression artifacts? What tier of Netflix do you have?

Sorry Legolas, could we just enjoy the movie?

Maybe if the dwarf stops stinking up the place. And don't think I didn't see him take that last chicken wing, fucking dwarves.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] BlackVenom@lemmy.world 33 points 11 hours ago (5 children)

For what content? Video gaming (GPUs) has barely gotten to 4k. Movies? 4k streaming is a joke; better off with 1080 BD. If you care about quality go physical... UHD BD is hard to find and you have to wait and hunt to get them at reasonable prices... And these days there are only a couple UHD BD Player mfg left.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)

So many things have reached not only diminishing returns, but no returns whatsoever. I don't have a single problem that more technology will solve.

I just don't care about any of this technical shit anymore. I only have two eyes, and there's only 24 hours in a day. I already have enough entertainment in perfectly acceptable quality, with my nearly 15 year old setup.

I've tapped out from the tech scene.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 32 points 15 hours ago (11 children)

The difference between 1080 and 4K is pretty visible, but the difference between 4K and 8K, especially from across a room, is so negligible that it might as well be placebo.

Also the fact that 8K content takes up a fuckload more storage space. So, there's that, too.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Solitaire20X6@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Most Americans are out of money and can't find good jobs. We are clinging to our old TVs and cars and computers and etc. for dear life, as we hope for better days.

And what can you even watch in true 8K right now? Some YouTube videos?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 31 points 23 hours ago

I watch torrented shows with VLC on my laptop. Why would I want a giant smarphone that spies on me?

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (6 children)

It creates more problems than it solves. You would need an order of magnitude more processing power to play a game on it. Personally I would prefer 4K at a higher framerate. Even 1080 if it improves response.

Video in 8K are massive. You need better codecs to handle them, and they aren't that widely supported. Storage is more expensive than it was a decade ago.

Also, there is no content. Nobody wants to store and transmit such massive amounts of data over the internet.

HDMI cables will fail sooner at higher resolutions. That 5 year old cable will begin dropping out when you try it at 8k.

4K is barely worth the tradeoffs.

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 16 points 21 hours ago

A couple things - every jump like that in resolution is about a 10% increase in size at the source level. So 2K is ~250GB, 4K is ~275GB. Haven't had to deal with 8K myself, yet, but it would be at ~300GB. And then you compress all that for placea like netflix and the size goes down drastically. Add to that codec improvements over time (like x264 -> x265) and you might actually end up with an identical size compressed while carrying 4x more pixels.

HDMI is digital. It doesn't start failing because of increased bandwidth; there's nothing consumable. It either works or it doesn't.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] suicidaleggroll@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (4 children)

What's the point? Even if you pay extra for "4K" streaming, it's compressed to hell and the quality is no better than 1080p. What are you going to even watch on an 8K TV?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] handsoffmydata@lemmy.zip 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Will it make the 480x720 videos I watch on my 4K tv look twice as good?

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Four times worse, actually!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] n1ck_n4m3@lemmy.world 23 points 10 hours ago

As someone who stupidly spent the last 20 or so years chasing the bleeding edge of TVs and A/V equipment, GOOD.

High end A/V is an absolute shitshow. No matter how much you spend on a TV, receiver, or projector, it will always have some stupid gotcha, terrible software, ad-laden interface, HDMI handshaking issue, HDR color problem, HFR sync problem or CEC fight. Every new standard (HDR10 vs HDR10+, Dolby Vision vs Dolby Vision 2) inherently comes with its own set of problems and issues and its own set of "time to get a new HDMI cable that looks exactly like the old one but works differently, if it works as advertised at all".

I miss the 90s when the answer was "buy big chonky square CRT, plug in with component cables, be happy".

Now you can buy a $15,000 4k VRR/HFR HDR TV, an $8,000 4k VRR/HFR/HDR receiver, and still somehow have them fight with each other all the fucking time and never work.

8K was a solution in search of a problem. Even when I was 20 and still had good eyesight, sitting 6 inches from a 90 inch TV I'm certain the difference between 4k and 8k would be barely noticeable.

[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 23 points 19 hours ago (7 children)

Not exactly surprising, considering the TV’s and monitors are outpacing the contemt creators and gaming development.

A lot of gamers don’t even have GPU’s that can crank out 4K at the frame rates most monitors are capable of. So 8K won’t do much for you. And movies and regular TV? Man, I’m happy there’s 4K available.

A 4K screen will be more than most folks need right now, so buying an 8K at the moment is just wasted money. Like buying a Ferrari and only ever driving 25 mph.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 15 points 18 hours ago

Also to add to this. 8k sounds 2x as large as 4k. But that isn't true. 8k is four times the pixels of 4k, so can you imagine what kind of GPU or content stream you will need to make sense...

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 22 points 23 hours ago (5 children)

I don't even want 4K. 1080p is more than good enough.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] fading_person@lemmy.zip 21 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

Fun fact; Here in Brazil, the cheaper tv models being sold are 720p, and a lot of people buy them and don't even know what video resolution is, neither they feel like missing something lol

[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 11 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

In any developing country with low incomes but heavy social media presence and smartphone usage, most people care more about the content and how much they're actually getting entertained than bothering about quality and size.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 20 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Pretty sure my eyes max out at 4K. I can barely tell the difference between 4K and 1080P from my couch.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I work off metered data. I’m happy with 360p.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I would be fine with an 8k TV if there was 8k content and they were affordable. I haven’t purchased a TV in over a decade however and my TVs all work fine so I’m not even in the market

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 18 points 15 hours ago

Another possibility for why consumers don't seem to care about 8k is the common practice by content owners and streaming services charging more for access to 4k over 1080p.

Normalizing that practice invites the consumer to more closely scrutinize the probable cost of something better than 4k compared to the probable return.

[–] Resplendent606@piefed.social 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm happy with 1080p content. I have a 4k TV and from the couch I can't see a difference. I would be perfectly happy with a bargain 4k TV, bigger the better.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Maybe if they add 3D, people will buy them!

/s

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Forget 3D, I want smellovision!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago (6 children)

8K content is too storage hungry. My pirate ship is already bursting at the seams with some 4K but mostly 1080. I have 130TB of media, if it was in 8K I would need a water cooled server farm.

That's the REAL reason for lack of 8K interest, the pirates are not demanding it. Not until 100TB drives are available for a reasonable price.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 13 points 16 hours ago (16 children)

I think 8k has a use, just not in consumer televisions for things like Netflix or gaming. 8k's real use is most likely in the medical field where high high high high detail is extremely important.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 13 points 14 hours ago

If we had the 90's economy there would be a bunch of folks looking to get 8k tvs.

[–] derry@midwest.social 11 points 15 hours ago (5 children)

4k ought to be enough for anybody

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 11 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, no shit. The only possible use is gaming, and even PC owners have been upscaling for some time now.

The only case where you might even notice a difference by going to 8K resolution is high end VR, but that's no reason to have 8K in a TV.

Even 4K is overkill for most movies. The HDR is the selling point there, which I'll admit looks nice.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›