64
Big Surprise—Nobody Wants 8K TVs
(www.howtogeek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2025
64 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
75027 readers
387 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How about uncompressed 4k before going to even more compression 8k. I have seen uncompressed 8k content on an 8k TV. I couldn't tell the difference between it and a good quality 4k picture, and I'm admittedly a quality snob. I can tell the difference in 1080 vs 4k pretty easily even on cheap tvs, it's just virtually non existent at 8k vs 4k in tv sizes up to 80 inch beyond viewing inches away from the screen.
That would be... (checks math)... about 5.972 Gbps of bandwidth, assuming just non-HDR content and 30 fps. Probably impossible for most people.
Less compression could make sense, but literally no compression would be a colossal waste of bandwidth and storage.
Maybe that's the point I meant to make clearer. 8k, even compressed would take more bandwidth, or it's going to be compressed so much that it totally defeats the purpose of 8k content.