8K or not 8K? – that is the question. - article discussion

Most of my viewing is either HD TV Channels upscaled to 4K or Netflix Films. I also view a lot of 4K and 8K video's on YouTube. In my experience, having owned several 4K TV's the difference 4K makes in comparison to standard 1080p is amazing. There is far more detail in the picture which makes for more enjoyable viewing. It's horses for courses but for me I am more than happy with 4K viewed either on my LG 55 B8 OLED or on my 65" Philips 7304. The addition of Ambilight on the Philips improves the viewing experience considerably.
 
I'm a bit late to this 'is it worth bothering with 8k tv' debate going on within this thread.

My take on it is this:

i) In theory 8k tvs will be barely discernably any better than a 4k tv in a Uk living room - this is down to the human eye performance (eg. diffraction limits of pupil diameter). BUT the caveat here is that some eyes are better than others so the goalposts are not the same for each person. Still, 8k, in theory, will be a minor update unlike SD to HD and to a lesser extent HD to 4k.

ii) Given i) it could be that consumers will behave in a similar manner to the audio market. Compressed audio of lower quality is very popular, and much moreso than uncompressed audio - this is because the vast majority do not perceive the need for the last few percent of audio performance. The analogy here is that consumers realise 8k is giving marginal benefits and simply don't bother buying it.

iii) If 8k comes for the same price as 4k then people will buy it; simple as that. These sets will also most likely have the best/latest OS interface and most up-to-date Apps/features.

iv) I'd rather the manufacturer's improved motion response rather than resolution (most reviewers state no modern tvs, including £5k OLEDS, are as good as Plasma TVs in this respect - we have made backwards progress) and transmit bit-rates/bandwidth kept high enough to track said motion faithfully.
 
A good/scientific article about 8k nonsense in television at tftcentral
From conclusion:
To really profit from 4K you’d need an extremely large screen, or sit extremely close. And 8K is just plain ridiculous. For a 250 cm viewing distance you’d need a 595 x 335 cm screen. There aren’t that many people with a wall that big in their house and even if you had, you’d need a pretty impressive beamer and a very large projection screen (they obviously don’t make TV’s that big).
For 4k resolution anyoane can use a 4k grid pattern (1pixel black/white alternate) like this
If you don't see distinct lines at 100% area you are sitting too far (or your screen is too small).
 
A well encoded bluray still looks absolutely fine on my 4K 65" TV. 4K is nice, but it's not enough better to justify me ever replacing my bluray collection.

That's why after 2 years I only own around 40 4K films on disc. A mixture of not double dipping and only buying films I know will get multiple viewings, well except for Prometheus. Don't know why I double dipped that one! Any I have bought blindly have been moved on if I know I am unlikely to watch them again. I still buy standard Blu-rays too.
 
I still buy standard Blu-rays too.
I watched three standard blu rays over the weekend, one even had an Atmos soundtrack and they all looked brilliant on my 65'' OLED. I'm certainly not going to double dip to 4K unless there is an Atmos soundtrack only on the 4K version. If Atmos is available to the standard BR then that's what gets purchased. 8K for me with a screen under 77'' is going to be a complete non starter.
 
I watched three standard blu rays over the weekend, one even had an Atmos soundtrack and they all looked brilliant on my 65'' OLED. I'm certainly not going to double dip to 4K unless there is an Atmos soundtrack only on the 4K version. If Atmos is available to the standard BR then that's what gets purchased. 8K for me with a screen under 77'' is going to be a complete non starter.

I've opted for a few standard Blu-rays myself where it has Atmos, A Quiet Place springs to mind. At least not all of the studios are forcing people to buy the 4K version. I watched my old reference Blu-ray with the toddler the other day, Monsters Inc, and it still looks stunning. I'd love to see what HDR adds to it and would definitely double dip that one if it gets a release.
 
I've opted for a few standard Blu-rays myself where it has Atmos, A Quiet Place springs to mind. At least not all of the studios are forcing people to buy the 4K version. I watched my old reference Blu-ray with the toddler the other day, Monsters Inc, and it still looks stunning. I'd love to see what HDR adds to it and would definitely double dip that one if it gets a release.
I have A Quiet Place and 13 Hours The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, both Atmos titles. 13 Hours is a real tester of black levels because of the night scenes for the TV.
 
8K will be nice for 200" + screens, but higher framerate will give more to image resolution than anything you can add with extra pixels, if people see a difference between 4K and 8K its most likely related to calibration and settings, and nobody can stream good 4K quality, so why bother thinking about 8K.
 
And it mirrors exactly my experience with 4K material on my 11’ screen that I sit 9-10’ from. As I have described in my previous post, if I edge closer, I see more detail, which means any resolution over 4K would be wasted even on that massive screen. I have 2020 vision.

I'll start by saying i have no "horse in this race" so to speak. So my comment is just a light hearted take.
So really, what your saying is you need to go bigger with your screen or sit closer to get the full benefit of your projector.
To me though that says there is a better picture present, you just can't see it in your current setup.
All depends what you would call "comfortable viewing distance" i sometimes sit about 3' away from my 55" 4k tv but i do plan on getting a 75" next. especially now the partner that was putting a block on larger tvs is gone 😄.
It does baffle me though why some of these tv manufacturers don't include all codecs for Youtube at its native resolution as that would surely be one of the 1st places the general public would see content from. It was so annoying to me when i 1st bought into 4k and the built in Youtube app was only playing 1080p.
 
Somewhere I read (can't remember where) about a simple test to determine if bumping up to a native resolution 8k TV, with native 8k material played on it, would provide a significant increase in appreciable detail for a particular viewer. Supposedly that person can accomplish the test while needing nothing more than a recently minted, or like new condition, penny, placed on the floor of a well lit room. The penny is then put on its edge, leaning it back against a wall at enough of an angle, so that's its face with the date of minting on it, is facing up enough so that the tester's eyes are looking directly at the face of the penny, as the tester is standing 9 feet from the coin. And if that test subject can clearly read the date on the penny at that 9 foot distance, then he's good to go for appreciating the detail advantage provided by 8k. (BTW, I almost neglected to mention that the penny to be used in that test, is the modern American penny.)
 
Last edited:
I'll start by saying i have no "horse in this race" so to speak. So my comment is just a light hearted take.
So really, what your saying is you need to go bigger with your screen or sit closer to get the full benefit of your projector.
To me though that says there is a better picture present, you just can't see it in your current setup.
All depends what you would call "comfortable viewing distance" i sometimes sit about 3' away from my 55" 4k tv but i do plan on getting a 75" next. especially now the partner that was putting a block on larger tvs is gone 😄.
It does baffle me though why some of these tv manufacturers don't include all codecs for Youtube at its native resolution as that would surely be one of the 1st places the general public would see content from. It was so annoying to me when i 1st bought into 4k and the built in Youtube app was only playing 1080p.

Congrats on losing the technology hating partner, bloody fascists!
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
I think that this thread simply comes down to two questions:

(1) Is there any real value in 8k over 4k? Not really.

(2) Are manufacturers going to force us down the 8k route if we want a high end TV? Absolutely.

Personally, I see no value to the consumer in 8k TVs but I do see value to TV producers.
A higher number is always seen as "better" by marketing departments and most consumers are not informed enough to see why higher resolution isn't inherently better.

So in essence arguing here over the pros and cons of 8k is somewhat irrelevant. We are going to get it anyway.

In a way it reminds me of the megapixel race in cameras some years ago. At that time a lot of digital sensors required a lot of light to get a decent picture. However, the more pixels you had on a sensor the smaller each pixel is so the less light it received. So in many ways extra pixels reduced image quality unless you were in bright sunlight. However, if a consumer had a choice between an 8 megapixel camera and a 10 megapixel one they would go for the one with 10. It is easy to explain to most people why more pixels is better but harder for most people to understand the down sides. Also it is much easier to make a sale if you go with a simple story e.g. more pixels is good, than a nuanced story "more pixels have positives and negatives".
 
Whilst we live in hope that broadcasters will eventually catch up as regards 4K (and eventually 8K), there is something else to consider. I'm not sure as to the level of improvement (I have yet to arrange a demo), but I understand that 8K TVs do a very good job of upscaling high quality HD and 4K content.
 


I thought this video was very interesting and didn't seem to have an angle. It leaves lots of questions in my mind. I cannot help but feel some reviewers are not being completely straight regarding their early 8k reviews.
 
Really interesting video. The big question came right at the end. We are not comparing like with like. I would love to see a comparison of 4K OLED v 8K OLED.
 
I have an LG55E6 4K OLED TV. It is wall mounted above an unused fireplace, has been professionally calibrated and is angled so that it is absolutely cross talk free for 3D from the sofa viewing position. The 3D experience on my TV is better than >90% of 3D I've seen in the cinema tbh. Watching good quality UHD the 2x2 uptick in resolution over bluray provides a visible but not massive difference to my eyes. Reference material like the recent UHD David Attenborough documentaries do look much sharper than their bluray equivalent but as most UHD's are upscaled 2K DI sourced the difference is usually marginal. The problem is the TV is just such a good upscaler for 1080p bluray. The HDR improvement over 2D bluray is far more noticeable and is in my opinion the really important benefit of 4K over 1080p. I sit about 8-9 feet from the screen. I find the idea of upgrading to 8K absolutely laughable. The only real benefit of 8K that I can see is if you have a truly massive display and you are sitting close enough to be effectively emulating your own home version of IMAX! The only other benefit I can think of is that if 8K TV's are being pushed by manufacturers you would think that this would force down the price of properly useful 4K TV's as they should be much easier to make if they've properly nailed 8K display production. An 8K SuperUHD disk format with support for a new 3D format that does 4K per eye in the same way that my LG does 1080p per eye would get me interested in an 8K upgrade but honestly I think the resolution race is won for me at 4K and chasing higher resolutions is pointless as the image quality I am getting right now is absolutely satisfying.
 
A lot of the recent David Attenborough stuff has been filmed in 4k or higher with a 4k DI. I know there are less than 4k DI content around but you can find the ones that are 4k but the added payload of HDR does better it. The recent BBC Severn worlds was in part 8k I read and 8k filming has a few benefits (picked up in industry news). That is not to say you get 8k content, the 4k derived from 8k can give a wider set of options to an editor than a 4k, as I understand it (not an expert in editing, have to take the articles I read as they are).

Personally I go for the definition. Looking forward to affordable 8k to see what they can do IF it can get some material worth chasing in the UK. One demo looked superb to me. Good enough I want to see it affordable and with content.

If the manufacturers decide that the cost per unit is achievable would we have a choice? Much as 4k seems about the main in many panels, 8k with a good upscaler, the customer has no choice.
 
Just something that occurred to me. At the moment we can stream 4K HDR content and the rough guide is that 20 mps broadband is required for this. What kind of speed would be required to stream 8K HDR?
 
4k to the home, 25+ for apple and BT, BBC claim 30+ I think? Factor in other usage over heads in the family home and you need 45+ for a no worry feed I suspect. Mine is 67mb/s
I think I read that one of the Italian stations tested 8k with a 72mb/s (??tbc) feed over satellite. That would be the whole package, audio as well. Don't know what the vbr would be. Not sure what the back haul would be but the new Versatile Video Codec (VVC) due out could shine some light.

NHK is also feeding over the bird. Higher bit rate.
nhk-to-broadcast-8k-terrestrially
If VVC can drop the rate required for 8K enough, game changer?
Certainly a good help with improving 4k. Not sure how that would all fit into the backhaul.
 
With so many manufacturers jumping on the 8K bandwagon, it makes me wonder if they've done any market research? Who is going to buy these things? There's literally nothing to watch available in 8K.

Can't help feeling they're going to have a load of stock left on their hands....
 
With so many manufacturers jumping on the 8K bandwagon, it makes me wonder if they've done any market research? Who is going to buy these things? There's literally nothing to watch available in 8K.

Can't help feeling they're going to have a load of stock left on their hands....

I can't remember, but I would guess the same situation existed when 4K TVs were first available. 4K content is still minimal on regular TV channels, yet 4K TVs are selling well.
 
I think that the tech is now the driver rather than the need? If a manufacturer can get a process down in cost and ability to bang out 8k panels but with a good upscaler, and make a profit doing it, I don't think "but so mush SD etc." arguments will move the drive for the bottom line and competition. They will always try to better it.

I am now thinking that my 4k is a stop gap. Even though DVD is still a big seller.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom