does it come with the connect box like its bigger siblings from last year? And if yes, with the new version with hdmi 2.1 or the old version? And if not. What version are the direct hdmi inputs?
I don't have good hearing, so I use subtitles frequently, and the local dimming can't be turned off and looks bad with subtitles, so I prefer OLED still. Interesting TV though, I think 8k will hit low prices very quickly.
8K is a blessing for all of us more sane people who think 4K is the "resolution sanity limit" because it will mean drop of prices. Hopefully of 4K OLED prices as well.
Economy of scale can mean producing 8K sets will eat into 4K production, keeping 4K pricing higher. And, if people don't want 8K then demand will also push up 4K pricing.
The best time to get sale pricing is when there is an excess of product and when something has been truly surpassed in terms of quality. Companies are very good at avoiding excess product.
In what UNIVERSE does a 4K 55" TV cost more than $1000? This TV is going for 2.5x the price for a resolution NO ONE is going to be able to appreciate given the small TV size unless you are literally less than a foot away from the screen.
Early adopters' tax. Also, the other part of your statement is false. As has been demonstrated with 4K computer monitors, there is much to be gained from a higher resolution. Sharper text, reduced need for anti aliasing algorithms, etc.
Errr... this is not a computer monitor. I would agree on computer monitors that 8K is useful... even on much smaller screens than 55". But on a 55" TV 8K is completely useless.
We are discovering that the conventional idea that visual acuity drops off quickly, is in fact wrong.
While it is true that you might not be able to see an individual 8K pixel from a distance, you can see textures that cover large swaths of pixels. Textures that are gone in 4K are visible in 8K, even at great distances. Maybe you don't care in TV or film to know what type of material the shirt is made from, to see the goosebumps on the actresses arm, to see exactly how rough the mountain is as the hero slides down it, etc. But, you can finally see it, for those of us who do care.
It's not. I wouldn't say it "drops off quickly". It is a linear progression and it happens to everyone. A texture is lower resolution needed than an individual pixel to see. It also depends highly on the contrast. The higher the contrast, the greater the distance you can decipher a pixel or texture.
But it happens equally. The visual references used for "you can discern the difference between 1080p and 4k with this size television is X number of feet from the TV" applies to people with 20/20 vision and AVERAGE contrast.
Someone with above average visual acuity with a high contrast image will be able to tell the difference a lot further away.
However, with a 55" 8k TV, all else being equal, even someone with exception vision and a high contrast scene aren't going to be able to tell the difference at what one would normally consider reasonable distances. At that point you are talking being able to discern a difference at perhaps 3-4 feet away from the screen. Someone with average vision on a more average contrast image and it'll be significantly closer, maybe two feet away.
So rock on with finally seeing the texture of the weave on the actor's shirt that is filling 1/5th of the TV screen, by pausing it, getting up close and squinting. You won't be able to tell while sitting on your couch.
Also motion reduces visual acuity. Which also limits the gains in resolution. As it stands between 1080p and 4k, even at distances where you can discern the difference between them with average contrast between pixels, if those pixels are in motion you won't be able to tell the difference (even with lossless video compression).
So yes, it can be pretty confidently stated that pretty much nothing will be gained on a 55" TV going from 4k to 8k. You might gain something from higher contrast, more color depth, etc. The extra resolution itself, no, you pretty much won't ever notice a difference. As someone with 20/12 vision, I can say there isn't a chance in heck I'd notice it under any realistic viewing conditions.
Now 8k might be of some benefit to the really large displays, but you are still talking getting in to like 70+ inch displays and sitting real close to them to notice the difference. You might tell the difference then at maybe 5 or 6 feet away with certain scenes or high contrast pictures between 4k and 8k.
So if I was investing in an 85" TV, maybe 8k would be a sure thing (or not stupid). If my 65" 4k needs replacing, I sure won't be spending any time losing sleep over what resolution to get.
You didn't actually attempt to understand my post. The thing is that with textures you CAN SEE THEM FROM YOUR COUCH, even with a small screen at 8K. That is the new thing that people need to realize.
Conventional thought was that you could not see fine details from far away. But, as soon as we actually had the TVs available and tested it, we found out that conventional thought was wrong. Yes, you can't see a specific pixel. But you can see a wide area of pixels from far away, even on a small screen, and the texture is visually different. Significantly different from 8K vs 4K when far away.
OG, your mistaken, UHD2 8K was invented for exactly that purpose Public broadcasting of the TOKYO Olympics on Friday, 24 July 2020, 20:00(JPN) !! in 317 days 18hours5 8min 59sec
,and beyond, aka IPTV, streaming end to end production to end consumer etc
i do know that BBC engineering with NHK, did engineer and test 50,59.94,100,150,200,250,300 Hz as the REQUIRED real UHD 8K 120FPS standard they layed out,along side the upto 22.2 engineering required AND TOLD EVERYONE over 6 years ago.
NHK also showcased a new 8K VR display during NAB 2018. The display was designed to eliminate the pixelated look common to current VR headsets….
as in,6 years ago their display partners did a prototype (i forget the exact size,recall) 3.5″/7″ 4k and 8k as a POC ,so if you take nhk papers above as a given, then human eye vr focal point times 1.5 the hight of a generic 3.5″/7” display at upto 300 Hz for VR gives you a target top spec. ------ Hybrid-Log Gamma (it created it jointly with the BBC). NHK’s engineers
https://gizmodo.com/okay-this-argument-for-8k-tvs-... Okay, This Argument for 8K TVs Is Kinda Convincing Alex Cranz,1/15/19 10:12am …And this is where things get complex. Here we turn to a 2013 paper describing a study by a group of NHK engineers. The NHK is Japan’s public broadcasting organization—think PBS or the UK’s BBC—and it is heavily involved in creating broadcast standards, encoder types, and even the very first HDR standard for broadcasting, Hybrid-Log Gamma (it created it jointly with the BBC). NHK’s engineers posited that there is a distance where an object on a TV, under optimal lighting, will appear as real to the human eye as the actual object…
..Despite this commonly accepted wisdom, the NHK paper’s research suggests that the distance for a more “real” image on an 8K display isn’t .75 H but 1.5 H, the same as a 4K set for visual acuity. Which means if NHK is right, an 8K TV in the same space as a 4K TV should feel more “real” when sitting the same distance from the TV. (This ITU paper on the state of UHD TV has one of the easier to grasp explanations of “realness” in TV.)..
This TV is only 160 PPI. Plenty of people can see far better than 160 pixels per inch. Just think of the thousands of uses for static images on a TV (art, advertising, maps, information screens, business meetings, displaying photos, etc). TVs aren't only for watching at a distance. Please try to think beyond your limited use case before posting.
You are right but have you calculated how close someone with 20/20 vision would need to be to see better than 160 PPI? When you do and realize you wouldn't be able to see the entire screen you are going to feel silly about this post.
Computer monitors maybe. Nobody sits in front of TVs as close to make 8K useful. What you posted here are pictures from ads mostly or ones that dont prove anything. Why would you need an 8K LCD to display huge letters or a basic touchscreen UI to have 8K? I dont think you even grasp what resolution means.
I said that advertisers and museums are users of 8K up close, then I posted images of advertisers and museums using 8K screens. Why? Because they need undistorted images for those purposes. They want to draw people in, not push them away with text that is not crisp or images that are downsampled.
I feel like you think that a horse and buggy are good enough for anyone. That might work for you, but the rest of us want and need high quality detailed images. Do you really want your surgeon looking at a low resolution image of your insides so that small polyps or cancers are missed? Do you really want distorted lines and text on your screens? Do you really want pixelation and banding (especially sunsets, sunrises, areas of color gradients, or images where light casts long shadows)? Do you really want your movies to look different from the reference movies? Do you really want to keep missing out on textures in all images on screens?
Studies have shown that 8K monitors look more real than lower resolution monitors, even if you think that you can't see the details. You go ahead and watch your images on low resolution screens. I'll enjoy realistic looking images.
Surveillance systems. I have a home surveillance system and many times I'm less than a foot away from the tv. So yes, surveillance systems are the perfect application for 8k sets. Fact.
Special niche products have always existed. So what?
That doesn't mean the technology should displace something more mainstream. 8K comes with plenty of drawbacks, like the ridiculous amount of data required.
I should note the topic of discussion: "a resolution NO ONE is going to be able to appreciate given the small TV size unless you are literally less than a foot away from the screen".
Yep, advertisers are going to eat this up. 8K will really make the screen pop when someone walks by it. Telepresence and digital whiteboard applications as well.
Just about any decent modern smartphone takes photos that are more than 4K (most are roughly 6K). Meaning, to see your photos on a 4K TV you get nasty compression artifacts.
As I said, you have no idea what you are talking about. Compression artifacts from displaying a bigger picture than the screen is??? Yeah no, dont bother, Im not going to argue with someone like you...
Yes, I was just thinking the density is equivalent to 4K at 27.5", which is pretty decent for a desktop monitor. 55" would (just) fit on this desk instead of 2x23" screens. However, I'm not sure how I'd use the vertical space... fullscreen video might not be a good idea unless you view from further away.
You might want to try out 4K first. 4K at 27.5" at 100% scaling is just a bit too small unless you have better than 20/20 vision. Eye fatigue comes on fast at that size.
I'd probably be at 175% scaling for 4K/27", given I use 125% at 1440p/27". I suppose 8K is fun because you double your screen size *and* double the clarity. I don't want to halve the size of the UI! Anyway, this is speculation at this point since 8K is pretty esoteric still and demanding on hardware.
Backlight quality is going to make a far larger impression (or OLED... some kind of non-backlit tech) than 8K over 4K.
Color space coverage should be probably the top priority for innovation but, instead, people obsess over pixel size. At least things like OLED have fixed the static contrast ratio problem, unlike the tech like IPS which has really low contrast and glow.
55 inches is too small too see any benefit from 8K. Is there a gain from 8K? Sure, but only for 80"+ sizes. Below that size, unless you sit <1 m / 3 feet from the TV there is zero benefit. For a 55" size you would need to sit less than ~50 cm / ~20 inches close to see any benefit, i.e. computer monitor distance. At that distance vs that size your field of view would almost certainly be overwhelmed, so it might be best to step back a little. By doing that you also lost the resolution gain from the monitor use...
In short 8K will be of use only for people who can afford (and have the room for) 80+ inch sizes, and only barely at first. You need to go to ~100"+ to see a clear advantage of 8K over 4K. That's just the reality of resolution vs size vs viewing distance. If the industry doubles on the insanity and moves to 16K in the future that's when the real fun will begin, since 150"+ monitors are probably not even possible (even if they were they probably cannot enter even big houses). You need (very bright) projectors to reach such sizes.
We saw this silly argument with 4k tvs too, and everyone was wrong back then. 4k was especially a huge change in gaming. There are a lot of real time effects that add blurriness, and higher resolution causes the depth of field, the AA and more to all be much higher quality and improve the image. I don't think 8k will do much for movie watching, but it will definitely make a difference in gaming.
If they ever do high field-of-view screens for gaming (like domes/hemispheres or at least half-cylinders), the 8K resolution is going to come in handy for giving detail across all angles.
You can't see differences between FHD and 4k at typical viewing distance _when looking at uncompressed content_. When content gets compressed, FHD isn't really FHD anymore and 4k isn't really 4k. Add a pinch of oversharpening that will be less visible with smaller pixels and you'll see where theory and practice start to diverge.
Gaming is a different beast, let's stick to TVs here (even though consoles are used together with TVs).
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
Back to Article
remosito - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
does it come with the connect box like its bigger siblings from last year? And if yes, with the new version with hdmi 2.1 or the old version? And if not. What version are the direct hdmi inputs?Alistair - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
I don't have good hearing, so I use subtitles frequently, and the local dimming can't be turned off and looks bad with subtitles, so I prefer OLED still. Interesting TV though, I think 8k will hit low prices very quickly.Santoval - Sunday, September 8, 2019 - link
8K is a blessing for all of us more sane people who think 4K is the "resolution sanity limit" because it will mean drop of prices. Hopefully of 4K OLED prices as well.Oxford Guy - Tuesday, September 10, 2019 - link
Economy of scale can mean producing 8K sets will eat into 4K production, keeping 4K pricing higher. And, if people don't want 8K then demand will also push up 4K pricing.The best time to get sale pricing is when there is an excess of product and when something has been truly surpassed in terms of quality. Companies are very good at avoiding excess product.
quiksilvr - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
In what UNIVERSE does a 4K 55" TV cost more than $1000? This TV is going for 2.5x the price for a resolution NO ONE is going to be able to appreciate given the small TV size unless you are literally less than a foot away from the screen.eek2121 - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
Early adopters' tax. Also, the other part of your statement is false. As has been demonstrated with 4K computer monitors, there is much to be gained from a higher resolution. Sharper text, reduced need for anti aliasing algorithms, etc.Beaver M. - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
Errr... this is not a computer monitor. I would agree on computer monitors that 8K is useful... even on much smaller screens than 55". But on a 55" TV 8K is completely useless.haukionkannel - Monday, September 9, 2019 - link
No it is not. You can look it much closer distance than 85” tv.Oxford Guy - Tuesday, September 10, 2019 - link
8K is useless for television and film because of viewing distance and visual acuity, which drops off quickly with distance.The only use 8K sets have is for up-close work.
dullard - Tuesday, September 10, 2019 - link
We are discovering that the conventional idea that visual acuity drops off quickly, is in fact wrong.While it is true that you might not be able to see an individual 8K pixel from a distance, you can see textures that cover large swaths of pixels. Textures that are gone in 4K are visible in 8K, even at great distances. Maybe you don't care in TV or film to know what type of material the shirt is made from, to see the goosebumps on the actresses arm, to see exactly how rough the mountain is as the hero slides down it, etc. But, you can finally see it, for those of us who do care.
azazel1024 - Tuesday, September 10, 2019 - link
It's not. I wouldn't say it "drops off quickly". It is a linear progression and it happens to everyone. A texture is lower resolution needed than an individual pixel to see. It also depends highly on the contrast. The higher the contrast, the greater the distance you can decipher a pixel or texture.But it happens equally. The visual references used for "you can discern the difference between 1080p and 4k with this size television is X number of feet from the TV" applies to people with 20/20 vision and AVERAGE contrast.
Someone with above average visual acuity with a high contrast image will be able to tell the difference a lot further away.
However, with a 55" 8k TV, all else being equal, even someone with exception vision and a high contrast scene aren't going to be able to tell the difference at what one would normally consider reasonable distances. At that point you are talking being able to discern a difference at perhaps 3-4 feet away from the screen. Someone with average vision on a more average contrast image and it'll be significantly closer, maybe two feet away.
So rock on with finally seeing the texture of the weave on the actor's shirt that is filling 1/5th of the TV screen, by pausing it, getting up close and squinting. You won't be able to tell while sitting on your couch.
Also motion reduces visual acuity. Which also limits the gains in resolution. As it stands between 1080p and 4k, even at distances where you can discern the difference between them with average contrast between pixels, if those pixels are in motion you won't be able to tell the difference (even with lossless video compression).
So yes, it can be pretty confidently stated that pretty much nothing will be gained on a 55" TV going from 4k to 8k. You might gain something from higher contrast, more color depth, etc. The extra resolution itself, no, you pretty much won't ever notice a difference. As someone with 20/12 vision, I can say there isn't a chance in heck I'd notice it under any realistic viewing conditions.
Now 8k might be of some benefit to the really large displays, but you are still talking getting in to like 70+ inch displays and sitting real close to them to notice the difference. You might tell the difference then at maybe 5 or 6 feet away with certain scenes or high contrast pictures between 4k and 8k.
So if I was investing in an 85" TV, maybe 8k would be a sure thing (or not stupid). If my 65" 4k needs replacing, I sure won't be spending any time losing sleep over what resolution to get.
dullard - Tuesday, September 10, 2019 - link
You didn't actually attempt to understand my post. The thing is that with textures you CAN SEE THEM FROM YOUR COUCH, even with a small screen at 8K. That is the new thing that people need to realize.dullard - Tuesday, September 10, 2019 - link
Conventional thought was that you could not see fine details from far away. But, as soon as we actually had the TVs available and tested it, we found out that conventional thought was wrong. Yes, you can't see a specific pixel. But you can see a wide area of pixels from far away, even on a small screen, and the texture is visually different. Significantly different from 8K vs 4K when far away.BMNify - Tuesday, September 10, 2019 - link
OG, your mistaken, UHD2 8K was invented for exactly that purpose Public broadcasting of the TOKYO Olympics on Friday, 24 July 2020, 20:00(JPN) !! in 317 days 18hours5 8min 59sec,and beyond, aka IPTV, streaming end to end production to end consumer etc
i do know that BBC engineering with NHK, did engineer and test 50,59.94,100,150,200,250,300 Hz as the REQUIRED real UHD 8K 120FPS standard they layed out,along side the upto 22.2 engineering required AND TOLD EVERYONE over 6 years ago.
NHK also showcased a new 8K VR display during NAB 2018. The display was designed to eliminate the pixelated look common to current VR headsets….
as in,6 years ago their display partners did a prototype (i forget the exact size,recall) 3.5″/7″ 4k and 8k as a POC ,so if you take nhk papers above as a given, then human eye vr focal point times 1.5 the hight of a generic 3.5″/7” display at upto 300 Hz for VR gives you a target top spec.
------
Hybrid-Log Gamma (it created it jointly with the BBC).
NHK’s engineers
https://gizmodo.com/okay-this-argument-for-8k-tvs-...
Okay, This Argument for 8K TVs Is Kinda Convincing
Alex Cranz,1/15/19 10:12am
…And this is where things get complex. Here we turn to a 2013 paper describing a study by a group of NHK engineers. The NHK is Japan’s public broadcasting organization—think PBS or the UK’s BBC—and it is heavily involved in creating broadcast standards, encoder types, and even the very first HDR standard for broadcasting, Hybrid-Log Gamma (it created it jointly with the BBC).
NHK’s engineers posited that there is a distance where an object on a TV, under optimal lighting, will appear as real to the human eye as the actual object…
..Despite this commonly accepted wisdom, the NHK paper’s research suggests that the distance for a more “real” image on an 8K display isn’t .75 H but 1.5 H, the same as a 4K set for visual acuity. Which means if NHK is right, an 8K TV in the same space as a 4K TV should feel more “real” when sitting the same distance from the TV. (This ITU paper on the state of UHD TV has one of the easier to grasp explanations of “realness” in TV.)..
dullard - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
This TV is only 160 PPI. Plenty of people can see far better than 160 pixels per inch. Just think of the thousands of uses for static images on a TV (art, advertising, maps, information screens, business meetings, displaying photos, etc). TVs aren't only for watching at a distance. Please try to think beyond your limited use case before posting.FreckledTrout - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
You are right but have you calculated how close someone with 20/20 vision would need to be to see better than 160 PPI? When you do and realize you wouldn't be able to see the entire screen you are going to feel silly about this post.dullard - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
Hmmm, how close are people to 8K TVs?https://www.digitalavmagazine.com/wp-content/uploa...
https://i1.wp.com/www.gadgetguy.com.au/wordpress/w...
http://www.digitalavmagazine.com/en/wp-content/upl...
I could go on and on of examples of where people are close to TVs and need detail.
dullard - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
Here are a few more examples:
https://www.electronicwhiteboardswarehouse.com/pub...
https://ak5.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/33368575...
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Biotechnology/8K-...
Am I supposed to feel silly?
Beaver M. - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
With such examples... yes.dullard - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
Which examples would you perfer? I can post thousands more examples where 8K is used up close.Beaver M. - Saturday, September 7, 2019 - link
Computer monitors maybe.Nobody sits in front of TVs as close to make 8K useful. What you posted here are pictures from ads mostly or ones that dont prove anything. Why would you need an 8K LCD to display huge letters or a basic touchscreen UI to have 8K?
I dont think you even grasp what resolution means.
dullard - Saturday, September 7, 2019 - link
I said that advertisers and museums are users of 8K up close, then I posted images of advertisers and museums using 8K screens. Why? Because they need undistorted images for those purposes. They want to draw people in, not push them away with text that is not crisp or images that are downsampled.I feel like you think that a horse and buggy are good enough for anyone. That might work for you, but the rest of us want and need high quality detailed images. Do you really want your surgeon looking at a low resolution image of your insides so that small polyps or cancers are missed? Do you really want distorted lines and text on your screens? Do you really want pixelation and banding (especially sunsets, sunrises, areas of color gradients, or images where light casts long shadows)? Do you really want your movies to look different from the reference movies? Do you really want to keep missing out on textures in all images on screens?
Studies have shown that 8K monitors look more real than lower resolution monitors, even if you think that you can't see the details. You go ahead and watch your images on low resolution screens. I'll enjoy realistic looking images.
LittleScoobyMaster - Saturday, September 7, 2019 - link
Surveillance systems. I have a home surveillance system and many times I'm less than a foot away from the tv. So yes, surveillance systems are the perfect application for 8k sets. Fact.Oxford Guy - Tuesday, September 10, 2019 - link
Special niche products have always existed. So what?That doesn't mean the technology should displace something more mainstream. 8K comes with plenty of drawbacks, like the ridiculous amount of data required.
FreckledTrout - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
I should note the use cases for this TV are a TV not anything else.dullard - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
I should note the topic of discussion: "a resolution NO ONE is going to be able to appreciate given the small TV size unless you are literally less than a foot away from the screen".voicequal - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
Yep, advertisers are going to eat this up. 8K will really make the screen pop when someone walks by it. Telepresence and digital whiteboard applications as well.AntDX316 - Saturday, September 7, 2019 - link
Yea, you are better off using an S10+ or Note 9 for 500 DPI.dullard - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
The high end 4K 55" TV UNIVERSE is at that price range:https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-55-class-oled-a9...
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-55-class-led-...
tuxRoller - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
LG B9 $1400LG C9 $1600
LG E9 $2300
Sony A9 $2800
MDD1963 - Saturday, September 7, 2019 - link
I bought a 4k 58" by Westinghouse for $250 on sale.... :)prophet001 - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
What is outputting 8K content right now?dullard - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
Just about any decent modern smartphone takes photos that are more than 4K (most are roughly 6K). Meaning, to see your photos on a 4K TV you get nasty compression artifacts.Beaver M. - Saturday, September 7, 2019 - link
As I said, you have no idea what you are talking about. Compression artifacts from displaying a bigger picture than the screen is???Yeah no, dont bother, Im not going to argue with someone like you...
dullard - Saturday, September 7, 2019 - link
There is no need for you to give up when you are wrong. We can educate you, so that you can do better next time.Try reading up on image resampling. Here is an oversimplified example of what happens to an image when displayed on a screen of lower resolution: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3...
Details disappear. Blur often is often created or distorted. Fine details can be entirely eliminated. Sharpness changes. Etc.
Look at the test images here and how distorted the lines look, or even how lines disappear or clump: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread271...
That is why you often don't want low resolution screens, even if you cannot "see" the pixels from far away.
citan x - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
I would be interested in this. And I want it as a monitor. Ideally, I would prefer a 40 inch 8k for 220 ppi, but this could work.stephenbrooks - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
Yes, I was just thinking the density is equivalent to 4K at 27.5", which is pretty decent for a desktop monitor. 55" would (just) fit on this desk instead of 2x23" screens. However, I'm not sure how I'd use the vertical space... fullscreen video might not be a good idea unless you view from further away.voicequal - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
You might want to try out 4K first. 4K at 27.5" at 100% scaling is just a bit too small unless you have better than 20/20 vision. Eye fatigue comes on fast at that size.stephenbrooks - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
I'd probably be at 175% scaling for 4K/27", given I use 125% at 1440p/27". I suppose 8K is fun because you double your screen size *and* double the clarity. I don't want to halve the size of the UI! Anyway, this is speculation at this point since 8K is pretty esoteric still and demanding on hardware.alpha^2 - Sunday, October 13, 2019 - link
This TV very much interests me for use as a monitor. Any thoughts on driving it with a MacPro (Late 2013) appreciated.zodiacfml - Saturday, September 7, 2019 - link
I'd be all over this if I shoot photos with a full frame digital camera, mainly for displaying images. Otherwise, a 4k TV with decent specs will do.Oxford Guy - Tuesday, September 10, 2019 - link
Backlight quality is going to make a far larger impression (or OLED... some kind of non-backlit tech) than 8K over 4K.Color space coverage should be probably the top priority for innovation but, instead, people obsess over pixel size. At least things like OLED have fixed the static contrast ratio problem, unlike the tech like IPS which has really low contrast and glow.
MDD1963 - Saturday, September 7, 2019 - link
can't *wait* to pay extra now so I can very eagerly get started viewing all the plethora of 8k format movies available!!!! :/Santoval - Sunday, September 8, 2019 - link
55 inches is too small too see any benefit from 8K. Is there a gain from 8K? Sure, but only for 80"+ sizes. Below that size, unless you sit <1 m / 3 feet from the TV there is zero benefit. For a 55" size you would need to sit less than ~50 cm / ~20 inches close to see any benefit, i.e. computer monitor distance. At that distance vs that size your field of view would almost certainly be overwhelmed, so it might be best to step back a little. By doing that you also lost the resolution gain from the monitor use...In short 8K will be of use only for people who can afford (and have the room for) 80+ inch sizes, and only barely at first. You need to go to ~100"+ to see a clear advantage of 8K over 4K. That's just the reality of resolution vs size vs viewing distance. If the industry doubles on the insanity and moves to 16K in the future that's when the real fun will begin, since 150"+ monitors are probably not even possible (even if they were they probably cannot enter even big houses). You need (very bright) projectors to reach such sizes.
Alistair - Sunday, September 8, 2019 - link
We saw this silly argument with 4k tvs too, and everyone was wrong back then. 4k was especially a huge change in gaming. There are a lot of real time effects that add blurriness, and higher resolution causes the depth of field, the AA and more to all be much higher quality and improve the image. I don't think 8k will do much for movie watching, but it will definitely make a difference in gaming.stephenbrooks - Sunday, September 8, 2019 - link
If they ever do high field-of-view screens for gaming (like domes/hemispheres or at least half-cylinders), the 8K resolution is going to come in handy for giving detail across all angles.bug77 - Monday, September 9, 2019 - link
Actually, no, everyone was not wrong back then ;)You can't see differences between FHD and 4k at typical viewing distance _when looking at uncompressed content_.
When content gets compressed, FHD isn't really FHD anymore and 4k isn't really 4k. Add a pinch of oversharpening that will be less visible with smaller pixels and you'll see where theory and practice start to diverge.
Gaming is a different beast, let's stick to TVs here (even though consoles are used together with TVs).
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, September 10, 2019 - link
Fallacy.1080 was too little vs. 4K. There is a limit to human visual acuity. It doesn't magically go up because TV companies want to sell us new stuff.
thechrissmartin - Monday, September 9, 2019 - link
Does anyone feel that this is the same thing as the upcoming OnePlus TV?Soulkeeper - Monday, September 9, 2019 - link
Everytime they use the words "Quantum dot" or even just "Quantum" I think of Sulu and those commercials ... can't help it.FXi - Monday, September 16, 2019 - link
Well until Sammy gets over their problem with Dolby Vision - not one of their sets makes the short list