this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2025
537 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

74831 readers
3017 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Photuris@lemmy.ml 126 points 3 days ago (23 children)

I don’t care about 8k.

I just want an affordable dumb TV. No on-board apps whatsoever. No smart anything. No Ethernet port, no WiFi. I have my own stuff to plug into HDMI already.

I’m aware of commercial displays. It just sucks that I have to pay way more to have fewer features now.

[–] KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The settings app on my smart TV sometimes won't launch. I can't fucking believe it. It's a $1000 TV.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 160 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (14 children)

article took forever to get to the bottom line. content. 8k content essentially does not exist. TV manufacturers were putting the cart before the horse.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 108 points 3 days ago (10 children)

4k tvs existed before the content existed. I think the larger issue is that the difference between what is and what could be is not worth the additional expense, especially at a time when most people struggle to pay rent, food, and medicine. More people watch videos on their phones than watch broadcast television. 8k is a solution looking for a problem.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Kinokoloko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Bro I honest to God can't see the difference between 1080 and 4k, you could put them both next to me and I'd struggle to point out which is which. We don't need 8k. Enough is enough

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You could probably see the difference on a big enough TV. The kind of thing you only see in home theaters. I'm not sure you could make a big enough TV for 8k to matter.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 6 points 2 days ago

Like watching a movie in 720p vs 1080p in the notebook, you don't see the difference. Once you try the same in a TV you notice how the 720p looks like shit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago

Another possibility for why consumers don't seem to care about 8k is the common practice by content owners and streaming services charging more for access to 4k over 1080p.

Normalizing that practice invites the consumer to more closely scrutinize the probable cost of something better than 4k compared to the probable return.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 16 points 2 days ago

If we had the 90's economy there would be a bunch of folks looking to get 8k tvs.

[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (10 children)

Not exactly surprising, considering the TV’s and monitors are outpacing the contemt creators and gaming development.

A lot of gamers don’t even have GPU’s that can crank out 4K at the frame rates most monitors are capable of. So 8K won’t do much for you. And movies and regular TV? Man, I’m happy there’s 4K available.

A 4K screen will be more than most folks need right now, so buying an 8K at the moment is just wasted money. Like buying a Ferrari and only ever driving 25 mph.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 15 points 2 days ago

Also to add to this. 8k sounds 2x as large as 4k. But that isn't true. 8k is four times the pixels of 4k, so can you imagine what kind of GPU or content stream you will need to make sense...

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 35 points 2 days ago

I watch torrented shows with VLC on my laptop. Why would I want a giant smarphone that spies on me?

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 36 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So many things have reached not only diminishing returns, but no returns whatsoever. I don't have a single problem that more technology will solve.

I just don't care about any of this technical shit anymore. I only have two eyes, and there's only 24 hours in a day. I already have enough entertainment in perfectly acceptable quality, with my nearly 15 year old setup.

I've tapped out from the tech scene.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 65 points 3 days ago (6 children)

I would much rather have 1080p content at a high enough bitrate that compression artifacts are not noticeable.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 100 points 3 days ago (8 children)

I don't want 8K. I want my current 4K streaming to have less pixilation. I want my sound to be less compressed. Make them closer to Ultra BluRay disc quality before forcing 8K down our throats... unless doing that gives us better 4K overall.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Solitaire20X6@sh.itjust.works 35 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Most Americans are out of money and can't find good jobs. We are clinging to our old TVs and cars and computers and etc. for dear life, as we hope for better days.

And what can you even watch in true 8K right now? Some YouTube videos?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 26 points 2 days ago (7 children)

I don't even want 4K. 1080p is more than good enough.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] derry@midwest.social 12 points 2 days ago (8 children)

4k ought to be enough for anybody

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago (6 children)

It creates more problems than it solves. You would need an order of magnitude more processing power to play a game on it. Personally I would prefer 4K at a higher framerate. Even 1080 if it improves response.

Video in 8K are massive. You need better codecs to handle them, and they aren't that widely supported. Storage is more expensive than it was a decade ago.

Also, there is no content. Nobody wants to store and transmit such massive amounts of data over the internet.

HDMI cables will fail sooner at higher resolutions. That 5 year old cable will begin dropping out when you try it at 8k.

4K is barely worth the tradeoffs.

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 16 points 2 days ago

A couple things - every jump like that in resolution is about a 10% increase in size at the source level. So 2K is ~250GB, 4K is ~275GB. Haven't had to deal with 8K myself, yet, but it would be at ~300GB. And then you compress all that for placea like netflix and the size goes down drastically. Add to that codec improvements over time (like x264 -> x265) and you might actually end up with an identical size compressed while carrying 4x more pixels.

HDMI is digital. It doesn't start failing because of increased bandwidth; there's nothing consumable. It either works or it doesn't.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (12 children)

i can't tell the difference between 1080 and 4k at the distance i use it. let alone 8k.

we already have nice enough tvs. what about you guys focus on healthcare and shit now?

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (16 children)

I think 8k has a use, just not in consumer televisions for things like Netflix or gaming. 8k's real use is most likely in the medical field where high high high high detail is extremely important.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] fading_person@lemmy.zip 25 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Fun fact; Here in Brazil, the cheaper tv models being sold are 720p, and a lot of people buy them and don't even know what video resolution is, neither they feel like missing something lol

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] afk_strats@lemmy.world 39 points 3 days ago (14 children)

I haven't seen this mentioned but apart from 8K being expensive, requiring new production pipelines, unweildley for storage and bandwidth, unneeded, and not fixing g existing problems with 4K, it requires MASSIVE screens to reap benefits.

There are several similar posts, but suffice to say, 8K content is only perceived by average eyesight at living room distances when screens are OVER 100 inches in diameter at the bare minimum. That's 7 feet wide.

1000009671

Source: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Peffse@lemmy.world 49 points 3 days ago (9 children)

I don't know if it changed, but when I started looking around to replace my set about 2 years ago, it was a nightmare of marketing "gotcha"s.

Some TVs were advertising 240fps, but only had 60fps panels with special tricks to double framerate twice or something silly. Other TVs offered 120fps, but only on one HDMI port. More TVs wouldn't work without internet. Even more had shoddy UIs that were confusing to navigate and did stuff like default to their own proprietary software showing Fox News on every boot (Samsung). I gave up when I found out that most of them had abysmal latency since they all had crappy software running that messed with color values for no reason. So I just went and bought the cheapest TV at a bargain overstock store. Days of shopping time wasted, and a customer lost.

If I were shown something that advertised with 8K at that point, I'd have laughed and said it was obviously a marketing lie like everything else I encountered.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›