The laugh is we have 4k screens and yet content rarely ever reaches the true capabilities of this resolution. For example, 2k intermediates seem to dominate with Ultra HD blu ray discs. Streamed services seem so bit starved that it is easy to see artefacts. If you cannot even maximise what is possible with 4K, why would you move onto another technology with even greater demands? As now, the TV manufacturers will produce their short videos with high production values showing amazing clarity and colours while real content (which people actually want to watch and which has to be delivered via broadband or satellite) will lag behind dramatically.
mark800, I'm in full agreement with every word you've said. Because here in the U.S. consumers go into stores, like Best Buy, and see 82 or 85 inch UHD 4k TVs displaying these stunning looking 1 or 2 minute long clips of genuine native 4k material, and folks are blown away by how pristine the images look, even if viewers stand only several feet from the screens. But what sales people don't tell potential TV customers is that apart from the video clips having 4k resolution, what plays just as big a role in accounting for why the images look so amazing is the fact that those brief video clips were shot and produced at extremely high data rates which even exceed the maximum data rate capability of UHD Blu-ray. So the customers who buy TVs like Samsung 82" or Sony 85" UHD flat panels, are often shocked to find that the video material available to them does not approach the image quality of the brief clips they saw in the stores, especially if depending on streaming services to get their 4k fix. And since video upscaling that tries to create extra resolution that was never present in the original signal, can't work magic, folks depending on cable TV as their video source may be very disappointed to see that the upscaling a salesman boasted about, won't make their new TVs look as good as those pristine, native 4k clips used for in-store demos.
And here in the U.S. about 2 of 3 TV viewers depend on cable TV for most of their viewing. But most cable systems, as yet, provide NO 4k channels. In our home, my wife and I have Spectrum Cable, one of the largest cable systems in the country. 3 years ago, DirecTV's satellite service still provided somewhat more pristine picture quality than cable did here, especially in dark scenes where compression artifacts were much more visible on cable. But last March, we were offered a particularly good deal in bundling services, so we dropped DirecTV, and went back to Spectrum. I figured that having some picture artifacts with cable would be acceptable, since our collection of 987 movies on Blu-ray (many recently bought & not yet seen) basically makes up all of the material that we watch on our 2 largest screens, anyway. But what surprised me in returning to cable is that those picture artifacts which used to be common, are basically gone. BUT Spectrum, even with improved quality (over what it offered when it called itself Time-Warner Cable) is a cable system that still offers NO 4k channels or 4k presentations!
Also, I read that the HBO series "Game of Thrones", in 2018-19 was TV's most popular programming among a large demographic of Americans. But at least 90% of those people who had become hooked on that series, watched it on either a cable or a satellite service. BUT, in either case, HBO only telecasts it in good old 1080i resolution on those platforms.
Long story short, America is a long, long way from widespread adoption of 4k, when we consider that the "Big 3" U.S. TV networks CBS, NBC, and ABC, have NO 4k presentations of their primetime lineups of hit TV shows. Apparently, network executives feel that so few people would notice much difference between 1080i and 4k (especially on screens of moderate size), that to spend large sums of money on expensive new equipment and production techniques, would make a decent return on such an investment seem quite unlikely. But I realize that even with modest sized TVs of 40 to 50 inches, HDR really is something that TV audiences COULD notice much more easily than the resolution advantage of 4k. However, even if the Big 3 TV networks started processing shows in HDR, the improvement would only make a major difference to the minority of people that buy the fairly high-end TVs that are close to being the top of the line that each TV manufacturer offers, because the lower priced TVs that MOST people buy, don't provide HDR performance that makes much visual difference.
Sorry to be so long winded, folks, but I just see lots of reasons to conclude why mark800 is absolutely correct in stating that 8k is pretty absurd, especially if considering that most folks still find that an awful lot of their favorite movies and shows are so difficult (if not impossible) to view in quality 4k versions.