8K Is Dumb

With both next gen offerings from Sony and Microsoft promising 8K, is 8K really needed? No. 8K Is Dumb. Here's why.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
sprinterboy608d ago

With also a 240 refresh rate, 4k hdmi 2.1 and 120fps.

Kornholic608d ago

120fps is a waste of resources.

608d ago
Brave_Losers_Unite607d ago

Saying 120fps is a waste of resources but not 4k makes you sound super ignorant

Unspoken607d ago

120 fps is what? Lol

I remember when they said 4K was dumb, go back further and 640kb memory was enough.

PSNghost88607d ago

Agreed. People also said that 4K was dumb when it first came out, but here we are.

kneon607d ago


Except that with video we are dealing with the limits of human perception. Rather than going to 8k they should be working to extend color and contrast range as 4k is enough for normal sized Tvs.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 607d ago
Unspoken607d ago

The focus needs to shift on encoding and compression, optimizing rendering times, bandwidth and storage to be able to reach 8K efficiently.

iagainsti120607d ago

Exactly all these people are just fighting innovation in technology.

Kyizen607d ago

Being able to output at 8K is needed to get a high framerate at 4K, the author doesnt understand this.

607d ago
SyntheticForm607d ago

8K isn't dumb per se, but it 'would' be dumb for devs and console makers to focus on it now.

dolfa607d ago

If you play on peasant box then yes, you dont notice difference between 60 and 120. But if you move with mouse you will definetly know when you have low FPS. Any real FPS players knows that.

rockwhynot607d ago

I don't think fps should be allowed over 90 because that gives developers too much room to sacrifice quality and just talk up how high the fps in their game runs. Native 4k at max 90 fps to preserve quality.

iagainsti120607d ago

The only thing you need is 8k of ram... lol gtfo heard this for years. Saying that just means you are fighting innovation.

badz149607d ago

until manufacturers can start outputting 8K on a single HDMI, 8K is pretty pointless. 4 HDMI ports and cables - each limited at 4K output, just for a single 8K signal is indeed looking dumb! synchronization is a nightmare

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 607d ago
fonger08608d ago

I saw my first 8k video/demo at our local bestbuy about two weeks ago on a Samsung 65”. It looked good but outside of it looking a little brighter I probably would have never known it was 8k outside of seeing its $6k price tag.

sprinterboy608d ago

That Samsung you saw which which I believe is the same one I saw in pcworld (sorry if I'm wrong) claims its 8k but actually still has the hdmi 2.0c connection and not the hdmi 2.1 so it's actually false advertising.
That was explained to me by a Samsung member of staff in the shop that's its not true native 8k

admiralvic608d ago

"so it's actually false advertising."

But, it isn't. There are probably 33.2 million pixels on the screen, which is what makes it an 8K television, not the ability to play 8K content. This links to the whole point being able to get closer to a larger size without seeing pixels, not giving people extremely detailed content.

"claims its 8k but actually still has the hdmi 2.0c connection and not the hdmi 2.1 "

From there, the television supports an evolution kit through the One Connect box, which basically means the plan is to have a box you can swap out and gain these connections.

Don't get me wrong, it's a product that has a purpose that is on the cusp of hitting the limit for resolution for most homes and most people won't need it, but there is more to it than just that.

fonger08607d ago

Interesting, I didn’t really dig into it as it’s way out of price range and I don’t except to see any native 8k stuff anytime soon. But good to know!

kayoss607d ago

The Samsung member you spoke to, have no clue what he's talking about.

Unspoken607d ago (Edited 607d ago )

This may explain some reasons why your eyes did not see any benefit and how you may be able to in the future.

indysurfn606d ago

Long video for most people(they dont even read most articles). But yeah in the end your right.

DigitalHope607d ago (Edited 607d ago )

I’ve been selling TVs for 10 years now. A lot of time with Best Buy, 2 years with Samsung and I’m now a Rep for Sony.

The human eye can only see in about 3.4k with that changing from person to person a little bit. The human eye can only see so many pixels per square inch. But it’s also relative to how close or far away you sit from the TV. You perceive pixels bigger the closer you are and smaller the farther you are away from a TV. 8k realistically isn’t going to do anything for you in 55/65/75 unless you are inches from your TV which is not recommended. 85 inches is about the only size 8k makes sense because you can sit closer for a theatre experience while maintaining the quality. The only other thing 8k might do but I have yet to see it myself is that with more pixels we should be able to blend colour better as we have more pixels to make that colour.

If you don’t believe me, on YouTube Samsung has their 8k demos that you can play. Play them on your 4K TV and you will literally see no difference from the same demo done on an 8k TV in store. You’ll also see how all internal demos are computer generated and touched up to show a TVs strengths and hide weaknesses. That is the same for all major brands.

You’re better off buying a TV with a better lighting system, higher motion rates and better processing. Also HDMI 2.1 for VRR which I hate that Sony doesn’t support this year but I believe will next year.

sprinterboy607d ago (Edited 607d ago )

Well said, a samsung employer once said to me its called "pigeon hole effect"
Samsung take billions of photographs and then put them all together to make the demo display videos you see in store?
But Sony actually use there cameras to make there display store videos?

Edit: my friend was disappointed with his ps4 Pro and 4ktv (47" 🙄 I know) and played hzd to pretty much no difference lol, then he saw his brother over Xmas playing hzd on a ps4 pro on 65" Sony bravia High end all singing and dancing display.
He said I've bought the wrong TV as it looked breathtaking on his brothers. I said to him you do realise you bought the wrong TV don't you. He got £2000 tax rebate and spent £379 on a 47" 4ktv like pmsl (he could of at least got a 55" low/mid rktv for £499 at the time too (not great either but loads better than the 47"

DigitalHope607d ago

It comes down to the tv at the end of the day. If you buy an edge lot tv, the tv has no zone control and TVs will always maintain blacks over anything else so they tend to be very dark TVs. A high end Sony LED would be full array back lit with 60 zones of control, which mean the TV can actually control area on the TV meaning it can maximize HDR. Not all HDR is equal as it comes down to the lighting system and how well the processor controls the lighting system. Also you need wide colour to even do HDR properly, which is QLED, Nanocell, or Triluiminous. So a lot plays into what separates TVs at the end of the day.

As for Sony, yes we record everything with our professional cinema cameras, so a lot of our demo content is truer to what you actually see but we still have some content that is altered. As a rep I keep USB sticks on my with HD/4K trailers and clips, sports, gaming, Dolby vision/Dolby cinema content, etc. I always show people the stuff they are actually watching instead of internal demo stuff.

rainslacker607d ago (Edited 607d ago )

The image quality of the tv will have a more dramatic effect than the resolution. I've seen 1080 tvs that look better than 4k sets, and I'm talking about the mid range sets that the majority of 4k owners have.

A good quality 4k image is amazing though. Games in general havent hit that level of quality in their graphics yet however, and still use shading techniques which will obscure aspects of the image. Doesn't matter the console or gpu, it's just way games are made now. Some tech demos can show it off pretty well though

Zenbaby369607d ago

I'm going to quote a google search so, show me some source material if you want. But I'm pretty sure there is a difference between how many "pixels" a human eye can see and how many it takes before we can tell a difference. Like, fps for instance. So the quote is, "While human eyes are not rated in pixels an approximation of what we can see is 40 megapixels where 8K is 33 megapixels. But our eyes don't see everything in equal resolution. ... Anything above 8K is effectively better than our eyes can see".

indysurfn606d ago (Edited 606d ago )

The AVERAGE 50+ year old human eye.

This was "taught" to you by people trying to get you to convince people to NOT wait on 8k tv's. Because if the salesman does not believe what he is selling to the customer. It will slip through. Now they have moved on. This is the same lie they told back with 720p.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 606d ago
frostypants607d ago

And it only looked brighter because of the picture settings and HDR, not the 8K.

rainslacker607d ago

I think 8k is going to be a while before adoption makes it relevant. Even 4k hasn't reached half the number of displays out in the wild. Its picked up steam pretty fast due to prices dropping fast, especially in comparison to HDTV back in the day, but asking people to now jump to 8k with no relevant media to support it in the near future means it's going to be slow going.

8k is possible for next gen, I just have a feeling it's not going to be relevant for next gen. Maybe near the tail end, but by then, the next gen will be upon us again.

ssmilloy36607d ago

what's in 8k to utilize that tv? Fake news

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 606d ago
no_more_heroes608d ago

It's not dumb, its just pointless. It's absolutely gorgeous, but not even 4K is fully common for most content. 8K isn't gonna be relevant for another 5-ish years.

sprinterboy608d ago

It won't even be mainstream for ps6 imo until the ps6 pro.
You will get the world cup and Olympics in 8k moving fwd to watch on it but other than that you'd be wasting your money lol.

DigitalHope607d ago

There are a few movies being shot in 8k right now with the Sony Venice camera. Avatar 2,3,4,5 are being shot in full 8k and I believe some shots in the new top gun are 8k as well. But yes 8k mainstream is very far away.

indysurfn606d ago

I agree with your first sentence. But as one of the early adapters, spending thousands on 4k It was the best 4,000 dollars I have spent. I would do it again. In fact 4 months later I replaced my beroom 40" plasma with a 55 inch 4k.

Not sure if 8k is going to be as good a upgrade but each time there are improvements from 720p on the sales pitch is: "this is as good as the eye can see anyway".

XiNatsuDragnel608d ago

better optimized games, not 8k nuff said

alb3rt608d ago

8K TVs will be common, that day is not far away and the fidelity will be mindblowing

I_am_Batman608d ago (Edited 608d ago )

Don't buy into the hype. If you look into the physical and practical limitations of 8k resolution, it becomes clear that it's not worth it for the majority of use cases. Here are some key points:

1. Your visual acuity is the ultimate limit for how sharp an image can be. If you have 20/20 vision you can distinguish something that is one arcminute (1/60 of a degree) apart, for example a standard foorball (soccer) ball from ~775 meters (~850 yards). That means you can distinguish 60 pixels in 1 degree at the center of your FOV. So a 4k TV must exceed 64 degrees of your horizontal FOV for you to even begin to notice a difference between a 4k and an 8k resolution. Even if you have a display large enough, or you're sitting close enough to the display for 4k to be insufficient you are starting to run into other problems. The biggest being that you are starting to miss out on details towards the edges of the screen because they are drifting off into your peripheral vision where your visual acuity is much worse.

2. Too much data. Meaning storage and bandwidth become bigger problems than they already are.

3. Rendering time increases dramatically. Going from a 8 Megapixel framebuffer to a 33 Megapixel framebuffer will make video editing much more demanding, let alone real time graphics.

I've detailed storage space, bandwidth and render-time limitations in an older comment of mine, which I'm frankly to lazy to reiterate right now so I'm gonna drop a link if you're interested in a more detailed opinion on those topics:

BlaqMagiq1608d ago

It'll be common in like 2030.

sprinterboy608d ago (Edited 608d ago )

5/10 years away isn't "not far away"
Sky TV, virgin or cables boxes in general might have 1 or 2 premium channals in 8k say 3/5 years from now, Netflix and amazon probably a handful of content streaming in 3 years but 8 adverts, TV series, TV broadcasting on all channals not just a couple will take 10years.

It took the UK 10 years just to turn off analogue to free up bandwidth, it'll take another 10 years to turn of standard definition signals to free up bandwidth (my friend still watched SD 😔)
Trust me it will be 20 years from now when everybody's has 4k signal and TV programs is the norm and 8k is what 1080p is today.
Serious question and I know it's sad to say but I have loads of friends and family with full hd TVs but still watch SD, they use HD for Netflix or amazon but either refuse to pay the £10 extra for the HD channals, just watch the free ones bbc1-5 etc and watch everything else in SD.? Its madness.
I literally went round a friends house to watch the "grand national" horse race the other month to be amazed it was on ITV SD channal, I was like its in HD you know for free.
He bought a £2200 HD TV about 5 years ago and he's watched about 10% of HD channals in all those years like wtf (he earns £17 per hour but refuses to pay £10 for the HD channals?) he is eyeing up a 4k tv atm and he will literally never watch anything in 4k on it lol apart from games of course.