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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] n1ck_n4m3@lemmy.world 42 points 1 day ago

As someone who stupidly spent the last 20 or so years chasing the bleeding edge of TVs and A/V equipment, GOOD.

High end A/V is an absolute shitshow. No matter how much you spend on a TV, receiver, or projector, it will always have some stupid gotcha, terrible software, ad-laden interface, HDMI handshaking issue, HDR color problem, HFR sync problem or CEC fight. Every new standard (HDR10 vs HDR10+, Dolby Vision vs Dolby Vision 2) inherently comes with its own set of problems and issues and its own set of "time to get a new HDMI cable that looks exactly like the old one but works differently, if it works as advertised at all".

I miss the 90s when the answer was "buy big chonky square CRT, plug in with component cables, be happy".

Now you can buy a $15,000 4k VRR/HFR HDR TV, an $8,000 4k VRR/HFR/HDR receiver, and still somehow have them fight with each other all the fucking time and never work.

8K was a solution in search of a problem. Even when I was 20 and still had good eyesight, sitting 6 inches from a 90 inch TV I'm certain the difference between 4k and 8k would be barely noticeable.

[–] BlackVenom@lemmy.world 45 points 1 day ago (4 children)

For what content? Video gaming (GPUs) has barely gotten to 4k. Movies? 4k streaming is a joke; better off with 1080 BD. If you care about quality go physical... UHD BD is hard to find and you have to wait and hunt to get them at reasonable prices... And these days there are only a couple UHD BD Player mfg left.

[–] oatscoop@midwest.social 6 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (3 children)

For what content?

Seriously though, quality 4k media is hard to find outside of ... "finding it" on the internet.

[–] BlackVenom@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago

Is there a player other than the shield that can play them and be simple? Roku Ultra can't handle most 4k HQ streams .

[–] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 6 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Those rips are still coming from physical. If those go extinct, bye bye BD Rips...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

It's because for the Average Joe, having a TV box at the end of your driveway that has the latest big number on it is important. It's how they gain their identity. Do not upset them for obvious reasons.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] happydoors@lemmy.world 59 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I am a filmmaker and have shot in 6k+ resolution since 2018. The extra pixels are great for the filmmaking side. Pixel binning when stepping down resolutions allows for better noise, color reproduction, sharpened details, and great for re-framing/cropping. 99% of my clients want their stuff in 1080p still! I barely even feel the urge to jump up to 4k unless the quality of the project somehow justifies it. Images have gotten to a good place. Detail won’t provide much more for human enjoyment. I hope they continue to focus on dynamic range, HDR, color accuracy, motion clarity, efficiency, etc. I won’t say no when we step up to 8k as an industry but computing as a whole is not close yet.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 18 points 1 day ago

The same argument goes for audio too.

6K and 8K is great for editing, just like how 96 KHz 32+ bit and above is great for editing. But it's meaningless for watching and listening (especially for audio, you can't hear the difference above 44khz 16 bit). When editing you'll often stack up small artifacts, which can be audible or visible if editing at the final resolution but easy to smooth over if you're editing at higher resolutions.

[–] obsoleteacct@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Imagine you're finishing in 8k, so you want to shoot higher resolution to give yourself some options in reframing and cropping? I don't think Red, Arri, or Panavision even makes a cinema camera with a resolution over 8k. I think Arri is still 4k max. You'd pretty much be limited to Blackmagic cameras for 12k production today.

Plus the storage requirements for keeping raw footage in redundancy. Easy enough for a studio, but we're YEARS from 8k being a practical resolution for most filmmakers.

My guess is most of the early consumer 8k content will be really shoddy AI upscaled content that can be rushed to market from film scans.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago

film scanning at 4k res already reveals the granular structure of film, at 8k it's going to become hard to ignore. And you're spot on - they'll do crappy 8k upres garbage for ages before the storage and streaming become practical.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Pretty sure my eyes max out at 4K. I can barely tell the difference between 4K and 1080P from my couch.

[–] sobchak@programming.dev 3 points 17 hours ago

HDR is more noticeable, but yeah, I don't care if it's 1080p or 4k.

[–] BlackVenom@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Try BD vs UHD BD on a modern movie. No Country for Old Men for example. Hugely noticeable.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah. Another one for me was Deadpool, because the texture of his outfit actually feels real on the 4K disc in a way that it doesn’t in HD.

Whenever I see people point at math equations “proving” that it’s impossible to tell the difference from a comfortable viewing distance, I think of Deadpool’s contours.

Can I identify the individual pixels in HD? Nope. Does it make a difference? Yes definitely.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The difference between 1080 and 4K is pretty visible, but the difference between 4K and 8K, especially from across a room, is so negligible that it might as well be placebo.

Also the fact that 8K content takes up a fuckload more storage space. So, there's that, too.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

solution: 16K 3D TV. buy now.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Even 1080p isn't hugely different from 4k in many cases. Yeah, you can probably notice it, but both are fantastic resolutions. I've had a 4k TV for years, and I can count the number of times I've actually watched 4k content on it on two hands because it generally isn't worth the storage space or extra cost.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I find that it really depends on the content on the size of the display.

The larger the display, the more you'd benefit from having a higher resolution.

For instance, a good quality 1080p stream vs a highly compressed 4k stream probably won't look much different. But a "raw" 4k stream looks incredible... think of the demos you see in stores showing off 4k TVs... that quality is noticeable.

Put the same content on a 50"+ screen, and you'll see the difference.

When I had Netflix, watching in 4k was great, but to me, having HDR is "better".

On a computer monitor, there's a case for high-resolution displays because they allow you to fit more on the screen without making the content look blurry. But on a TV, 4k + HDR is pretty much peak viewing for most people.

That's not to say that if you create content, 8k is useless. It can be really handy when cropping or re-framing if needed, assuming the desired output is less than 8k.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kinokoloko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 day 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 1 day 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 1 day 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.

[–] Oderus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Not just size of TV but quality of TV. Not all 4k panels are the same. Spend lots of money on a kickass OLED TV and you'll see the difference between 1080p and 4k. Assuming both sources are of high quality of course. Comparing a high quality 1080p vs a low quality 4k isn't enough.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 15 points 1 day ago

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

[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day 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.

[–] kylian0087@lemmy.dbzer0.com 59 points 1 day ago (6 children)

I do want a dumb 8K TV. I do not want all the so called smart features of a TV. Small Linux device with kodi works way better.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] goatinspace@feddit.org 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day 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 16 points 1 day 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)
[–] derry@midwest.social 12 points 1 day ago (8 children)

4k ought to be enough for anybody

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day 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)
[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago

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

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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)
[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 36 points 1 day 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)
[–] Photuris@lemmy.ml 124 points 2 days ago (25 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.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 160 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (24 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.

load more comments (24 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›