this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
226 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

60332 readers
3676 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
226
HDMI 2.2 will require new “Ultra96” cables, whenever we have 8K TVs and content (arstechnica.com)
submitted 3 days ago by neme@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world
104 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] baatliwala@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I doubt the general public cares about or can even tell the difference from 4k to 8k. Not to mention the amount of bandwidth that will be required.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This exaxt comment could have been for 1080 to 4K. That said 4k has had a lot less fanfare to HD.

[–] baatliwala@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Not really.

  • like I said bandwidth required is insanely high, 4k movies are around 30-60 gb (for download not streaming). Extrapolate that to 8k, and a TV series? No one is going to reserve potentially 500gb to 1TB for a TV series in 8k for local download
  • phones especially mid rangers are still somewhat struggling with watching 4k content if it is local, not to mention even 4k is useless for the screen size of a phone. Every thing is mobile driven these days in terms of design.
  • 8k is not going to be worth for monitors because of their size
  • Top of the line graphic cards still cannot max out the latest games at 4k60, how can they achieve 8k? Not to mention the power draw will be higher.

Sorry but no way native 8k is going mainstream any time soon. 4k is genuinely better looking over 1080p but 8k to 4k is not much of a difference for the relative increase in requirements.

[–] Llewellyn@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

Top of the line graphic cards still cannot max out the latest games at 4k60, how can they achieve 8k?

Top graphic cards will always be catching up to the latest games. Software is developing much much quicker than hardware.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I really don't know a movie the cinematographic virtues of which were better seen in 4k as compared to 1080. Colors' quality, refresh rates - maybe, but the amount of pixels? You see a square 1080 pixels tall, 1920 pixels wide. How the hell are you going to discern a group of 2 or 3 pixels in that, let alone a separate pixel (I'm aware it's in fact a group of 3 colored ones)? Even if you will, what will it change in your perception of the movie, which detail?

Apple users sometimes boast how fonts look nicer on their screens, but IRL I haven't seen much difference with a glossy screen of worse resolution.

[–] spyd3r@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

I expect the content delivery companies to do something stupid again with 8k (like when they rolled out 4K), and totally nerf the bitrate and encoding quality, making it look worse than a properly encoded high bitrate 720p/1080p file.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah but there will always be freaks like me who need to sit less than 2m away from a massive 75" screen so that they can browse the desktop at 4K without increasing display scaling beyond 100%.

Needless to say, I could benefit from 8K.