We’ve reached the point where FPS is far more impactful to feel than pixel count imo. The difference of looks between 4k and 8k isn’t as high as the decrease in performance is.
We’re past that point as well. 4k @ 240 Hz is so good, most people won’t be able to tell the difference to an 8k, 480 Hz monitor. Even if they pay special attention to it. Probably not even in A/B testing.
There is still room for improvement in the area of HDR, but monitors are almost as good as they will ever get.
It’s because we’re at the limits of the human visual system. The difference in pixel pitch between 4k and 8k at the distances we watch TV is literally imperceptible.
It also doesn’t help that there’s not much content authored and distributed for higher resolutions. It’s exponentially more expensive to produce, store, and deliver.
Home Internet connections on average aren’t any better than they were ten years ago, either, at least not in the US. I doubt a lot of them can even support 8k streaming, let alone with anyone else using it at the same time.
Yeah but we’re talking diminishing returns here. Doubling the resolution to 8k makes about as much sense as doubling refresh rates to 480hz. At that point it’s going to be mostly dependent on the individual, and likely heavily subject to the placebo effect.
By my math, a 55" 8k screen has pixels that are 0.056" (56 thou) wide.
At ten feet, that subtends an angle of 0.268 degrees or 1.6 arcminutes.
There’s obviously a lot of variation and it depends on exactly what you’re measuring, but normal human visual acuity struggles to distinguish details less than about 5 arcminutes, maybe 1-2 arcminutes depending on the test.
To add… It would only matter in large format displays anyway. Pixel density is only going to matter so much.
I remember when Sharp put out their Aquos 70" FHD TV and I thought, “eww, so grainy”! But now I’ve got a 85" UHD with the same density as a ~42" FHD which helps with clarity since my viewing distance hadn’t really changed (~10ft).
FPS is great and all, but not when most content is 24fps-60fps. 120 is an awesome sweet spot for 24fps content since its 5hz per frame.
IMO UHD still has room for growth and adoption before another tech hits. Not to mention the financial strains everyone’s in due to the fucking billionaire squeeze… And they wonder why people are tight on money?! Fucking idiots!
I doubt the streaming model is going to support 8k content anytime soon. Actual 4k is already more data than anyone wants to be pushing around every time they watch something, to the point that what most people actually watch as “4k” in streaming is at bitrates that make it almost indistinguishable from 1080p.
Well, yes and no. h.265 (HEVC) made it far better for UHD streaming to an extent. Around half the bandwidth of h.264 but 4x more pixels, so you only go up 2x bandwidth.
Now we have .AV1 and h.266 (VCC) formats which need adoption first before we can really push 8K/UHD content. Again, not 100% accurate, but around 3-5x bandwidth of h.264 but is ~15x pixels.
That’s kind of what I’m getting at. Once you hit a certain size, it only makes sense to have a certain resolution. I know jumping from 65" to 85" made all my Plex content “blurry” bc it wasn’t good enough quality/bitrate. Reripping BD and 4K BD used h.265 and 12-15GB/hr per UHD file was way better!
Idk what 8K looks like, but for those new 98"+ displays, I wouldn’t go any bigger unless 8K. 42-50" Max FHD, I would say 85" Max UHD. You can’t really sit any further in a LR, so being that close I’d want it that way. Plus, it’d require the faster refresh rate to not look so bad moving over that much surface area.
I’m just excited for PeLED or PeNC (Perovskite LED / Nano Crystal). 😎🤯 sorry, off topic…
We’ve reached the point where FPS is far more impactful to feel than pixel count imo. The difference of looks between 4k and 8k isn’t as high as the decrease in performance is.
We’re past that point as well. 4k @ 240 Hz is so good, most people won’t be able to tell the difference to an 8k, 480 Hz monitor. Even if they pay special attention to it. Probably not even in A/B testing.
There is still room for improvement in the area of HDR, but monitors are almost as good as they will ever get.
That’s what everyone always thinks
It’s because we’re at the limits of the human visual system. The difference in pixel pitch between 4k and 8k at the distances we watch TV is literally imperceptible.
It also doesn’t help that there’s not much content authored and distributed for higher resolutions. It’s exponentially more expensive to produce, store, and deliver.
Home Internet connections on average aren’t any better than they were ten years ago, either, at least not in the US. I doubt a lot of them can even support 8k streaming, let alone with anyone else using it at the same time.
Most of them can’t really even support 4k streaming at a bitrate that is significantly better than 1080p.
They have been saying that since 30hz and they still say that with 240hz
Yeah but we’re talking diminishing returns here. Doubling the resolution to 8k makes about as much sense as doubling refresh rates to 480hz. At that point it’s going to be mostly dependent on the individual, and likely heavily subject to the placebo effect.
By my math, a 55" 8k screen has pixels that are 0.056" (56 thou) wide.
At ten feet, that subtends an angle of 0.268 degrees or 1.6 arcminutes.
There’s obviously a lot of variation and it depends on exactly what you’re measuring, but normal human visual acuity struggles to distinguish details less than about 5 arcminutes, maybe 1-2 arcminutes depending on the test.
To add… It would only matter in large format displays anyway. Pixel density is only going to matter so much.
I remember when Sharp put out their Aquos 70" FHD TV and I thought, “eww, so grainy”! But now I’ve got a 85" UHD with the same density as a ~42" FHD which helps with clarity since my viewing distance hadn’t really changed (~10ft).
FPS is great and all, but not when most content is 24fps-60fps. 120 is an awesome sweet spot for 24fps content since its 5hz per frame.
IMO UHD still has room for growth and adoption before another tech hits. Not to mention the financial strains everyone’s in due to the fucking billionaire squeeze… And they wonder why people are tight on money?! Fucking idiots!
I doubt the streaming model is going to support 8k content anytime soon. Actual 4k is already more data than anyone wants to be pushing around every time they watch something, to the point that what most people actually watch as “4k” in streaming is at bitrates that make it almost indistinguishable from 1080p.
Well, yes and no. h.265 (HEVC) made it far better for UHD streaming to an extent. Around half the bandwidth of h.264 but 4x more pixels, so you only go up 2x bandwidth.
Now we have .AV1 and h.266 (VCC) formats which need adoption first before we can really push 8K/UHD content. Again, not 100% accurate, but around 3-5x bandwidth of h.264 but is ~15x pixels.
We’ve come a long way!
The screen size needed for 8K to make a difference doesn’t fit in a typical living room.
That’s kind of what I’m getting at. Once you hit a certain size, it only makes sense to have a certain resolution. I know jumping from 65" to 85" made all my Plex content “blurry” bc it wasn’t good enough quality/bitrate. Reripping BD and 4K BD used h.265 and 12-15GB/hr per UHD file was way better!
Idk what 8K looks like, but for those new 98"+ displays, I wouldn’t go any bigger unless 8K. 42-50" Max FHD, I would say 85" Max UHD. You can’t really sit any further in a LR, so being that close I’d want it that way. Plus, it’d require the faster refresh rate to not look so bad moving over that much surface area.
I’m just excited for PeLED or PeNC (Perovskite LED / Nano Crystal). 😎🤯 sorry, off topic…