8K not the future?

I really don't see the point in TVs, outside a few niche cases. More resolution wouldn't make my 55" 4k TV any better, just couldn't resolve any more pixels at normal viewing distance.

Monitors though? I do love my 6k 32" display.....makes a real difference having 200+ dpi when you're sat close to it.
 
Minstadave said:
Would much rather see 4k streaming quality improved rather than push 8k as a standard.
Click to expand...

That's the biggest issue I find at 4K, if you want genuinely good video (and audio) you need to buy physical media as is. 4K blurays and competent players aren't cheap, and it feels like most companies are hell bent on phasing them out anyway.

I've seen 1080P blurays that look notably better than 4K streams from major platforms.
 
Last edited:
mid_gen said:
I really don't see the point in TVs, outside a few niche cases. More resolution wouldn't make my 55" 4k TV any better, just couldn't resolve any more pixels at normal viewing distance.

Monitors though? I do love my 6k 32" display.....makes a real difference having 200+ dpi when you're sat close to it.
Click to expand...
it does make a difference in larger sized TV 100" and above, not only are they brighter but the resolution and picture clarity is very noticeable.
 
Grim5 said:
Human eye can't see more than 30fps anyway
Click to expand...

That's absolute horse ****.

I reckon after about 80, maybe... I'll struggle to tell the difference. I reckon more..

Whatever that human eye can't see above 30 fps thing was sponsored by people who made **** TVs and found a bunch of coke bottle glasses wearing window lickers.
 
hornetstinger said:
You mean sound quality.
Click to expand...

Yes sound but I think there are image quality things being improved over time other than resolution.

Sound is a big deal though, I have a 2024 mid range mini led TV that was quite expensive and the sound is worse than a much cheaper 2017 TV it replaced.
 
BUDFORCE said:
That's absolute horse ****.

I reckon after about 80, maybe... I'll struggle to tell the difference. I reckon more..

Whatever that human eye can't see above 30 fps thing was sponsored by people who made **** TVs and found a bunch of coke bottle glasses wearing window lickers.
Click to expand...

I was giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming sarcasm. Otherwise definite idiocy.
 
BUDFORCE said:
That's absolute horse ****.

I reckon after about 80, maybe... I'll struggle to tell the difference. I reckon more..

Whatever that human eye can't see above 30 fps thing was sponsored by people who made **** TVs and found a bunch of coke bottle glasses wearing window lickers.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he was taking the proverbial.

Our eyes don't see in "frames per second" either so a hard FPS limit is hard to judge, and it'll vary from person to person. The perceived smoothness is absolutely noticeable however, I tend to see diminishing returns after 100-120 or so and a harder drop off after the 165-200. I'm also 41, I'm sure a teen or simply someone with better eyesight in general would have higher windows. That said, panel technology and latency also helps, OLED at 120fps feels a lot smoother to me than say a VA or IPS running 200fps.
 
tom_nieto said:
Maybe curved TVs are poised to make a comeback instead?!
Click to expand...

Doubt it, there is a reason they disappeared - off axis viewing was awful, which means a curved TV is a single viewer experience, not a friends and family experience, at least in traditional TV sizes anyway - the bigger the screen the less impact the curve has on multiple viewers, a giant curved screen in a cinema might work better than a curved TV

I'd be happy if 3D came back though. One of my TVs still supports 3D but there is no content anymore and I lost the glasses as well
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom