this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2025
541 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

74799 readers
3173 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
541
Big Surprise—Nobody Wants 8K TVs (www.howtogeek.com)
submitted 2 days ago by TheImpressiveX@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world
384 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 3 points 5 hours ago

I would love to have an 8K TV or monitor if I had an internet connection up to the task and enough content in 8K to make it worth it, or If I had a PC powerful enough to run games smoothly in that resolution.

I think it's silly to say 'nobody wants this' when the infrastructure for it isn't even close to adequate.

I will admit that there is diminishing returns now, going from 4K to 8K was less impressive than FHD to 4K and I imagine that 8K will probably be where it stops, at least for anything that can reasonably fit in a house.

[–] Samuelwankenobi@sh.itjust.works 19 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

Nothing is released in 8k so why would someone want something nothing is in?

[–] TeddE@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago

Computer monitor with multiple simultaneous 4k displays?

Grasping at straws here

[–] FosterMolasses@leminal.space 1 points 5 hours ago

PS3 has no games lmao

[–] simsalabim@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Nothing is produced in 8K either.

[–] fuzzywombat@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

What's your opinion on using 8K TV as a monitor?

https://daniel.lawrence.lu/blog/y2023m12d15/

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I'd buy a 8k TV, provided that it has no smarts, no WiFi, no TV tuner and its price isn't over 5% than a 4k TV

[–] bufalo1973@europe.pub 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

So an 8K monitor.

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Somehow when it's called a "monitor" it quadruples the price.

I can't really accept that a basic 4k 27" monitor without even speakers costs the same of a 4k 65" TV with HDR, deeper blacks, WiFi and it even comes bundled with dozens of spyware for added convenience

[–] sixty@sh.itjust.works 29 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

I'm so content with 1080p

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

TV and movies I'm totally good with 1080p. If I want a cinematic experience, that's what the cinema is for.

But since switching to PC and gaming in 4k everywhere I can, it feels like a night and day difference to play in 1080p. Granted that means I care about monitor resolution rather than TV resolution.

But as an aside, as a software engineer that works from home, crisp text, decent color spectrum support, good brightness in a bright room, all things that make your day a whole lot better when you stare at a computer screen for a large chunk of your day

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 hours ago

Tbh 720p is good enough

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I’m content with 480. High quality isn’t important for me. I still listen to mp3’s that I got 25+ years ago.

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 2 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Na, 4K, even 1080p upscaled to 4K is significantly better thsn FullHD with a video projector.

[–] sixty@sh.itjust.works 19 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I'm so content with 1080p

[–] Rcklsabndn@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 hours ago

Me too. I don't even need 60hz. I get motion sickness if a screen goes over 30hz. I guess I'm officially old.

[–] Routhinator@startrek.website 4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

I like 4k for documentaries and cinematic shows, but Ill never watch something like TNG or Jessica Jones on 4k again. Takes all the magic away, feels like you're standing next to the camera guy - suddenly I just see an actor in room and the immersion is broken.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 11 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like you have motion smoothing on.

Resolution alone isn't enough to fuck that up. I noticed it first when watching The Hobbit in cinemas at 48fps. It makes things that are real look very real, and unfortunately what was real was Martin Freeman wearing rubber feet.

[–] Routhinator@startrek.website 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

unfortunately what was real was Martin Freeman wearing rubber feet.

🤣🤣🤣

Ok, good tip. I'll try that out and see if I can enjoy it more.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 2 points 8 hours ago

I'll take a pair of rubber feet too!

[–] zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

How many homes have walls big enough for a screen big enough for 8k to matter

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 points 8 hours ago

You'd basically need to be sat less than the screen size away from it in order to see any difference at all. And that's if your vision is perfect.

Chances are you wouldn't be able to tell for video content even then. I can only really tell on gaming when the anti aliasing is shit.

[–] SippyCup@feddit.nl 4 points 11 hours ago

Well now see my cousin Skeeter got himself a 8k TV with that settlement money he got from when he got run over by that bmw downtown tryin to get his kids back ya know? At the courthouse? Anyway he was sposed to use that money to pay fer his doctors and whatnot but he got himself that TV and the dang thing wouldn't fit through the door! Got her in to the trailer but couldn't go no where so he put that sucker up right outside has movie nights the whole park can come n see. Course ol Skeet likes them naughty flicks you know with the blood and gore and titties n stuff, talkin bout like Dusk Till Dawn, talkin bout some Striptease, uh you know what's the other one the one where the girl takes off her bathing suit Fast Times that's the one. Anyway the boys in the neighborhood LOVE ol skeets movie nights but I think some o them parents are gonna set his trailer on fire for too long here now.

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 2 points 13 hours ago

You can use a pull-down screen attached to ceiling and a ceiling-mounted video projector. 4K is fine for that. I would not be able to tell the difference between 4K and 8K in such a setup.

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 22 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

The consumer has spoken and they don't care, not even for 4K. Same as happened with 3D and curved TVs, 8K is a solution looking for a problem so that more TVs get sold.

In terms of physical media - at stores in Australia the 4K section for Blurays takes up a single rack of shelves. Standard Blurays and DVDs take up about 20.

Even DVDs still sell well because many consumers don't see a big difference in quality, and certainly not enough to justify the added cost of Bluray, let alone 4K editions. A current example, Superman is $20 on DVD, $30 on Bluray (50% cost increase) or $40 on 4K (100%) cost increase. Streaming services have similar pricing curves for increased fidelity.

It sucks for fans of high res, but it's the reality of the market. 4K will be more popular in the future if and when it becomes cheaper, and until then nobody (figuratively) will give a hoot about 8K.

[–] bufalo1973@europe.pub 1 points 3 hours ago

It's amazingly stupid having those prices. DVD should cost the same as Bluray and both should cost $25 max. After all, a DVD and a Bluray are two technologies far past their ROI date.

[–] weew@lemmy.ca 5 points 17 hours ago

Some of the smaller 4k sets work as an XXL computer monitor

But for a living room tv, you seriously need space for a 120"+ set to actually see any benefit of 8k. Most people don't even have the physical space for that

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 12 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I hate the wording of the headline, because it makes it sound like the consumers' fault that the industry isn't delivering on something they promised. It's like marketing a fusion-powered sex robot that's missing the power core, and turning around and saying "nobody wants fusion-powered sex robots".

Side note, I'd like for people to stop insisting that 60fps looks "cheap", so that we can start getting good 60fps content. Heck, at this stage I'd be willing to compromise at 48fps if it gets more directors on board. We've got the camera sensor technology in 2025 for this to work in the same lighting that we used to need for 24fps, so that excuse has flown.

[–] ftbd@feddit.org 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The only complaints I've ever heard about 60fps are from gamers who prefer higher refresh rates. Does anyone advocate for framerates to be lower than 60??

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Yes, movie people complain that more than 24 fps looks like soap operas (because digital TV studio cameras moved to 60 fps first).

[–] Liz@midwest.social 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It's got that cinematic feel, bro.

Yeah, I love when the camera pans slowly and everything is a blurry mess. Pure cinematic excellence.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I do prefer it, no /s

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

Thing is, I suspect you’ve been conditioned to it, rather than it being inherently good.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

Yeah, also as I alluded to earlier if you shoot at 60fps you get a shorter max exposure time per frame, which can translate to needing more light, which in turn leads to the studio lighting soap opera feel. But that was more of a limitation 15 years ago than it is now.

[–] DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 8 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Even 4K is not yet easily available . I mean except from AppleTV plus that all content is 4K and it’s part of basic subscription, every other streaming charges much more for 4K content, most people don’t want to pay more every month for 4K

So 8K is just a distant reality that content makers are not really wanting to happen

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

4k is really cheap now.

having said that, I have a4k TV and practically only use 1080p for everything.

videogames? performance mode

movies/tv/YouTube? 1080p for better buffering.

[–] MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

We're still limited by what the HDMI and DP cables can throughput so it's not like 8k tvs are even ready. Nobody wants an 8k tv if the cables can't even transmit full fat uncompressed signal.

[–] DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Wait HDMI 2.1 does not support uncompressed 8K? How much data rate you need for 8K?

[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 7 hours ago

Sixteen times as much compared to 1080, four times as much compared to 4K.

load more comments
view more: next ›