8k TV

[Neil]

So 8K broadcasts are now beginning... Surely unless you have a massive TV it's pointless? I have trouble seeing any difference between 4K and HD on my 55" TV. I'm sure on maybe 65+" you might be able to tell if you're close enough, but 4k -> 8k?

[shootemindehead]

It's getting stupid now. 4K is pointless enough and not that much of an upgrade to 2K.

[MinionZombie]

Yeah, unless it's for a ma-hoo-sive telly, how are you going to see the difference? I recall reading somewhere that 2K is about as much as the human eye can recognise anyway. Now, for big-ass display screens (e.g. at a rock concert or sporting event) then yeah, this might have some point, although even then you're quite a distance away from those jumbo screens that it'd probably not need to be 8k anyway, right? Blu-Ray and a 1080p telly is plenty for me, thanks, I'm not getting into this UHD/4K gubbins.

[Neil]

Yeah, unless it's for a ma-hoo-sive telly, how are you going to see the difference? I recall reading somewhere that 2K is about as much as the human eye can recognise anyway. Now, for big-ass display screens (e.g. at a rock concert or sporting event) then yeah, this might have some point, although even then you're quite a distance away from those jumbo screens that it'd probably not need to be 8k anyway, right? Blu-Ray and a 1080p telly is plenty for me, thanks, I'm not getting into this UHD/4K gubbins. Well, I must admit I have a UHD / HDR tv and at times I find it hard to see much improvement over a good 1080p feed.

[shootemindehead]

Blu-Ray and a 1080p telly is plenty for me, thanks, I'm not getting into this UHD/4K gubbins. It depends on how close to the TV you're sitting. Then you'll see a difference between 2k and 4k. BUT...who the fuck sits 2 feet away from a 60in tele? You'd need you head examined, never mind your eyes. When people are watching a 2k 1080p MOVING image at normal viewing distances, there's more than enough visuals for the human brain to process and the truth is, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 2k and 4k. Sure, for the vast, vast, majority of people, they wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between a DVD and Blu Ray when the picture is in motion. All this "k" stuff is just tech wanking. Pissing contests between clowns that think their equipment defines them. You'd wonder if they even bother actually watching a film.

[EvilNed]

Absurd. 4k is more than enough. Myself, I'm sticking with 1080.

[bassman]

Like the rest of you, I don’t see much reason to go further than we are now. If they come up with something revolutionary, sure, but I don’t see there being much demand for it anytime in the near future. Coincidentally, recently I was listening to one of Kevin’s Smith’s podcasts(Fatman Beyond or Hollywood Babble-on), where he mentioned being at the late Stan Lee’s house while Lee was having some strange filming/scanning done, and apparently it’s some crazy high resolution(used for holograms, maybe?) that is so advanced that there’s no way to even view it yet. No screens in the world are capable of playback, yet they were filming it just to save. I can’t remember the number, but I want to say he called it 12k?? Probably an indication that even after his passing, we’ll still be seeing Lee’s cameos well into the future of the MCU...

[kidgloves]

I treated myself to a new 55" OLED tv about 6 weeks ago and the jump from a calibrated full HD TV to an OLED is very noticeable to me. As always, it depends on the source you're using. HDR alone is another level of "pop" to the image. 60 fps gaming on an xbox x gives more depth. Forza Horizon 4 is about as photo realistic as I've ever seen in a game. 8k seems overkill though. Pointless technology.