I spend an inordinate amount of time on the RU-vid tech channels. You are the first person to give me a scientific explanation for the 1080p vs 4k vs 8k comparisons, claims, and my personal experience. Well done!
🇬🇧 🇺🇸 Resolution comparison: 480p - I'm watching a retro video, doing necessary research, or my internet is lousy. 720p (HD) - Hey, at least it's a clear image, and it's cheap. 1080p (Full HD) - Yes, yes, very small pixels… but let me just enjoy my content. 1440p (2K) - Thanks microscopic pixels; everything looks so sharp, and squinting at tiny stuff is no longer annoying. 2160p (4K) - I'm looking through a zero-pixel digital window into real life, or into another reality. 4320p (8K) - Zero-pixel digital images, with a little bit of magic… yes yes I want more… wait, wait I can't afford it! Yet.
🇫🇷 🇧🇪 🇨🇭 Le comparitif des définitions : 480p - Je regarde une vidéo rétro, je fais les recherches nécessaires ou mon Internet est nul. 720p (HD) - Hé, au moins c'est une image claire, et c'est pas cher. 1080p (Full HD) - Oui, oui, de très petits pixels… mais laissez-moi profiter de mon contenu. 1440p (2K) - Merci les pixels microscopiques ; tout a l'air si net, et plisser les yeux sur de petites choses ne me dérange plus. 2160p (4K) - Je regarde à travers une fenêtre numérique à zéro pixel dans la vie réelle… ou dans une autre réalité. 4320p (8K) - Images numériques sans pixel, avec un peu de magie… oui oui j'en veux plus… attends, attends, je ne peux pas m'en offrir ! Pas encore. How's my French?
Thing is, 8K is not pointless, but 8K TVs are. You need to sit further away, and not to mention upscaling SDR content to 8K wich these TVs do is horrible. With 8K, 80% of the upscaled pixels of SDR are fake made pixel, wich results in a weird off looking image. SDR and HD will be a thing for many years still. Another thing, a true 8K image requires a 12bit panel for full Rec2020 color. These 8K TVs now are still all 10bit and cant produce full rec2020 unless it has 8000+ nits to see no banding for the human eye to see. In my opinion, all these so called 8K TVs are all fake 8K tvs. They are pushing 10bit panels to “make” 8K picture processing.
This is the most factual answer by far. Yes all 8k tv now are in that ball park that is why i am seeing reviews about 8k tv having allot of motion picture issues in the middle of action scenes. Good stuff
You should do a video proving you can see a difference between 60hz and 144hz, and higher. People say higher refresh rates makes no difference at all *While they never used a higher refresh rate display*
Yes , some people are so ignorant or undedicated they say it's stupid to upgrade from 60 to 144hz or 60 to 240hz.The truth is when people like us gamers play it's so much more smoother and especially on shooter games everything is more easier to hit and track
This is more like the difference between 120Hz and 480Hz. Is 480Hz a lot? True. Will you be able to tell the difference? Well, YEAH, if you put them side by side. Will it make a huge difference? I am afraid not.
I understand what you are saying and you do make a lot of good points, although even if we did get 8K content its quality would still be unmatched to 4K due to the fact we will never get an 8K blu ray format, your only option would be through streaming which would be far more compressed than a 4K UHD disc
What this guy said. Let's not forget that all that pretty upscaling and visual enhancements go flying out the window and get turned off when you enable Game Mode to reduce input lag. People don't just use their TVs to watch TV shows, we game and use them as PC displays too.
If you want to sit a yard away from your tv go with 8k. If you want to sit a few yards away from your tv like a normal person then don’t even bother concerning yourself with what 8k can offer, 4K gives you more than enough definition and 4K is as good as it gets.
I get your points, however in a practical setting, the difference is extremely subtitle. When you watch a movie, I think there's a larger perception difference between 720 vs 1080, than even 1080 vs 4K. The main reason is that movies are shot with a narrow depth of field so in most cases, only a portion of the screen is using the full resolution. On top of this, close-up shots can be even more difficult to tell the difference (there's a video on RU-vid that I can't find that illustrates this, but If I find it, I'll post it to the comments). Also, you're comparison test is between two signals next to each other, which makes the perception much more obvious. It's tough to notice a difference when you don't have a direct A/B comparison. Even though some films have started to film in 8K, they typically down-convert to 4K (or even 2K) for theaters. Also, most CGI done in movies is still done in 2K because it takes forever to render and the perception difference in 4K is minimal. I have also seen 8K up close and it looks insane, but I think the benefit of 8K is going to be making 4K look better (which is certainly does well).
Not to mention the smaller pixels are more difficult to get to the same brightness so in some cases 8k might even lead to worse image quality when sharpness isnt a factor. This isnt an issue for samsung though, they love misleading customers with bogus marketing terms
@@KebunH NO. JUST NO. You don't know what you are talking about. Nobody will ever say this in the future when it's standard. But based on all the idiots I have seen in these comments... It will be a long time.
If it is 720p, it is probably not even LED and probably way more than a couple of years ago. Also, you phone probably has more pixels on a smaller screen. Changes that have changed are beyond resolution like HDR decoding, contrast ratio, reflection rejection, color accuracy and technology implementation. I went from 1080p to 4k, but on the viewing distance I could not differentiate the details, but HDR can definitely be perceived.
@@Changuro I'm not sure what lighting tech it has. It's ~19in flat-ish screen with bad viewing angles. My may have one of the best IPS panel put on a phone 2 years ago, LG G7. It's screen is better than that tv. My N Switch has a better screen. I often use it a second screen or my Switch. I will probably get monitor for some light gaming and school work for my laptop
I have a 2010 plasma 1600x825 I don't remember the resolution and I still use it to play games. I really want to buy oled but after I know it burn in i changed my mind. I want to buy the new upcoming qled with nivida gsync and freesync. Q90r is not gsync. So waiting for q100r model 75 model
While there is a very slight visual difference, the majority of content being released now has only just gone to 4K and 4K TVs are 9 years old at this point. Apart from demonstration videos on RU-vid there basically isn’t any 8k content that you can find. I’m sure I will upgrade to 8k, in 5-10 years time when actual 8k content becomes common.
Great video. The question for me isn't if 8K looks better, it's when will it make sense for people to buy it? Price, latency and frame rate are important too.
Peak brightness may be different as well. Usually brighter TVs cost more (because HDR makes sense only if TV have high peak brightness). Which means you can have a choice between a great 4K screen and a "so-so" 8K screen in the same price range.
Superb explanation as always. Whilst I've no doubt everything you say is correct you can be sure that once 8k is established MKBHD and others will be pointing out its limitations and agitating for 16k in all new TVs.
@@RobertK1993 Maybe 8K and future will mark an end for physical media, since why bother to make and buy a disc if we can upload and stream it as easy as 1-2-3?
Thank you for telling the real TRUTH and benefits about 8K displays! I've noted a lot of statements are simply opinions and not based on real world testing and comparison with native 8K content.
i remember people being skeptical of 4k TVs when 1080p FHD TVs were the norm. the perception was that FHD was already good enough. but perceptions change the better technology gets with time
Full HD is good enough. The Wider Colour Gamut and higher Brightness and Contrast is what made the Picture better. Not the Resolution. 4k and 8k is only useful in a big Screen size
Its more about price. $300-500 for 4k vs $2,500+ minimum for 8k in same size. That price difference, most wouldn't hesitate to get a 4k instead even watching them side by side. I really don't see 8k taking off like 4k.
8k TVs that cost less than 1000$ will appear by 2022 at the very latest, maybe even by next year in 2021. Since this video was uploaded the cheapest 8k TVs have already dipped below the 2000$ barrier. 8k will take off because the manufacturers are forcing it to. By 2025 8k will be the new TV standard, with 4K TV’s being permanently being pushed down to the budget section (as of right now you can already buy 4K TV’s for less than 300$), while you won’t even be able to buy 1080p TV’s in stores anymore.
4K did not take off lol. It's been around for 13 years. Ppl are just barely getting into it now. All because of stupid broke recently graduated students or failed old age filmmakers who kept saying 4K doesn't matter. You can't see the difference. Absolutely astonishing to think that the same ppl who wanted to be DPs and think they are speilbergs couldn't see the difference. It was denial and it cost them their careers.
It would be pretty boring if there were never upgrades like 4k and 8k. Fun to know where things will be in 5 years (assuming we humans are still here).
The big driver for extreme resolutions will be VR/AR IMO. The Oculus Quest for example has a total horizontal resolution of 3200 and I can not only see the individual pixels but the relative size difference between the pixels and the gaps between them and my vision isn't even that good these days. I suspect the benefits of going from 32K to 64K would still be pretty apparent in that form factor.
Yes, 8K indeed IS pointless. There's a major blooming problem with it. Because it has higher pixel density, it demands more backlight effects to break through those increased clusters. And when you ramp up the brightness like that, you ramp up the blooming, which is a situation that may never be solved. So stick with 4K - it's much better - and cheaper - in the long run.
I remember the first time I watched FullHD content and was amazing, i was skeptical about 4k but again, I was surprised I guess more due the size of the screens these days (we are not longer watching in 14" screens) we also need more color Depth, more pixels, faster screens. Nice video, I worked with Carl Zeiss Meditec Ophthalmology (equipments for diagnosis and treatment of eyes related pathologies) and this subject was always interesting to me.
You forgot to add the fact, that due to the very high pixel density of 8k panels, there’s a inherent problem that comes with it. Due to the boost in the amount of light needed to be pushed through the pixels (on a FALD), causing much more exaggerated blooming and ghosting, as well as poor black uniformity. This is particularly noticeable on Samsung’s 2019 and 2020 8k tvs. IMHO, Samsung is selling Snake oil. Their 8k sets have worse PQ than their 4K counterparts. The only 8k set I’d even consider buying is the Sony Z9G 85 inch monster. That’s a real 8k tv....not just a marketing scam. It bothers me big time when manufacturers push out a product that just clearly isn’t ready for the masses. That’s exactly what I feel Samsung did in 2020. At one time, I was the biggest Samsung fanboy. I have been for the past ten years. Whether it was tvs, phones, mocrowaves, etc, I always went Samsung. Well those days are over for me. I’ve literally been pretty disappointed with every Samsung experience I’ve had. So I made the switch to IPhone last week, and I’m never looking back. I also got rid of the boat anchor 6 series Samsung TV I had, and replaced it with a TCL r625. All I have to say is....WOW! This tv cost way less than my previous Samsung, and is leagues ahead of my past tv. Especially, in HDR performance, and motion. I’ve never seen a tv with worse motion than my old ku6300. That tv makes me sick even thinking about it.
The problems 8k faces is upscaling despite what you say. Maybe the ai is that much better, but I'd have to see a non-corporate online comparison first to believe it. It face the problems of video gaming. Currently 4k gaming in 60fps ultra/high settings is only just starting to be possible in a realistic sense. Games like Rust and RDR2 still require the most expensive consumer gpu's that aren't even available. Plus hdr has been a nightmare as many remasters have ruined the original look like terminator, mission impossible (great fidelity improvement, but hideous colors). And the lack of tv's that actually can hit hdr requirements (which in reality if we are going by the nit numbers 99% of consumer tv's can't). But if we can overcome these problems I'm all for it. I just don't see 1080p/2k movies which the majority of American films have shot in, looking good on a 8k tv. Stretching 1080p that much has to eventually hit a wall that even ai can't fix. But maybe im wrong.
I watched Disturbing Behavior and the Goonies on my new 8K and they both looked way better than they did on my 4K and they are not new movies. The whole point of this video is to say that the challenges facing 8K don't invalidate that it is a better display and we should keep pushing.
8k... Is worth it on extremely large tvs... And only if you sit close to it. Another application would be for vr headsets. Higher ppi makes it a better quality image. Im more interested in things like micro led tvs. And tvs with higher bitrates for more color accuracy.
Your statement is not true. You need to actually have 8K experience to say something. Which i know for fact you don't because of your statement. Please stop talking and opinioniating about things you haven't actually seen or experienced in life.
A higher bitrate only matters when you have 4K and 8K because then you can actually see the difference. Colour accuracy lmao. Yeah I'm sure your eyes can tell the difference between low and high quality color accuracy. Talking out of your ass
My thinking is this: Plug a laptop into an 4k tv via HDMI. Open Word and start typing a series of commas and periods, like so: ...,.,...,,,.,.,.,. Move as far away from the screen as much as possible. Now move towards the screen slowly, and then stop only when you can clearly tell the difference between the commas and periods without straining your eyes or guessing. If you are standing too close to the screen for comfortable viewing, then that screen _probably_ has more resolution than you need..... ...Unless that screen still has more resolvable detail thana 1080x1920 screen, despite not being able to fully resolve the commas and periods. For me, 4k is the upper limit. I've seen 1440p monitors, and can still resolve very fine resolution differences in small, far away details in PC games, such as far away enemies over 1440p. I highly doubt that 8k will wow me enough for me to care about it over 4k, but I have yet to see one in person.
Its good for the technology to be further improved but there is diminishing returns. The more important part is the PPI, if peoples living rooms and therefore distance from the tv doesnt change then people will be able to look at 2 screen, whether it be 2k, 4k 8k, or something else they can choose the best size and resolution for them to fit their needs. Different people have varying levels of disposable income so 8K may be worthwhile for those who have the money to spare.
The only purpose of an 8K resolution display is if you have a really big display that is 100 inches and above, you can get an image as sharp as a small 4K tv. You will not see any more detail in the movie.
I have the same belief. When I'm watching 4k, yes the image is super good, but you can still see artifacts that your brain is just trying to ignore and you get used to it. The same way when you switch from a CRT tv to a DVD, you are amazed and yet the feeling is , "It's not quite there yet."
Very interesting, I suspect If someone makes you believe that you are watching 4K even if you are watching just 2K, you would never even notice the difference. Artifacts come from compression, not resolution size.
How close do you sit to your 4k screen and what size is it?! My 4k OLED is insanely crisp on 4k content. Yes if I'm playing 1080p of 720p content that a different story but that's normal
Mediatek are experts in SoC need make sure 2024 Sony Bravia TVs can have 4 HDMI 2.1 ports full 48 Gbp/s and all gaming features as well as on other brands with 4K 120HZ Dolby Vision outnof the box .
I’d like too see a real world comparison of two TVs of identical size, panel type, and image processor viewing actual content from REALISTIC viewing distances and see what the results are. I’m highly skeptical there’ll be a significant difference.
The Mach Banding has nothing to do with resolution: in fact, the gradients are so small in 4K already (between two pixels), that the human eye can't rarely make the difference. Misconception, as so often one can find on the web. The pixelating example is rationalization if I ever heard one: there are already 1080 pixels in early HD, which is already so much that one can hardly say that there is a pixellation problem with curves! Our brain is not used to see the world in pixels? Have you seen the texture of our retina? It IS a pixelling network, albeit, the pixels are interconnected, but the cells do work in pixels, that the brain blends together. Even light itself is not a continuous wave.
Worthless only to the unwealthy. Not affordable, nor is not a significant improvement in picture quality unless you have a need for 75 inch displays or larger.
I think it is good for the future of movie preservation, as the largest film formats have the equivalent of 12k resolution or higher, but not for the average consumer yet
Still using a 720p set here. Like to upgrade, especially for better blacks, but the entertainment unit we use doesn't allow anything above a 32" set. So we'll continue using it until it falls apart tragically during a move and/or termites get to it.
Resolution of your TV is not that important. Bitrate fps and more color and brightness are. I can see use in those screens for some things but not much as tvs. To even be able to take any advantage of all those pxl you have to shoot everything at like 14 mm or lower. There is little to NO difference between SD and HD with most close ups. Let alone 4k/8k. Then again i can see use in those high res big screens for surveillance maybe even for computer monitor for reading text and having more staff on 1 screen instead of using multiple ones. But for movies and tv shows big NO!
Man *this* explanation contains more scientific details than all conspiracy theories combined about 5G causing the Covid19 Honestly, I'm guilty. I'm one of those people who were initially in the camp of "8k is pointless right now" but this video made me do a 180° turn
Research visual acuity distance. You need to be far closer than the optimum viewing distance to even notice the difference between 4K and 8k. 8k IS pointless.
@@Make_Boxing_Great_Again Ew..... Cursing and claiming to religious in the same sentence. Then spewing non sense about viewing distance. In the study you’re referencing People could barely tell the difference between 8k and upscaled 4K. However that content was upscaled 4k not true 4k. If people noticed the difference with upscaled they will definitely see a difference with 4k. 8k>4K Upscaled>4K Native
Darnell Hill Your first paragraph makes no sense. Doesn’t make much difference if it’s native 4K or 4K down scaled from 8k. 4K is 4K and further detail cannot be determined by the human eye at optimum viewing distances. If you want to experience the enhanced detail of 8k you would need to sit so close to the screen that you would miss detail on the edges. 8k is good for photography but for end user video formats it’s just overkill plain and simple. Why don’t you set up your own experiment and then you will see how pointless 8k is.
Darnell Hill Younmust be confused because it wasn’t upscale 4K v 8k it was 8k down scaled to 4K v 8k. For all intents and purposes it was 8k v 4k. You have just proved my point.
Just started the video, but do convince me. I am currently sitting 4 feet from my 65 inch 4k TV, my normal viewing distance for my 'RU-vid' viewing TV. I type this on my gaming 4k 43 inch 144hz monitor directly in front of me at maybe 26 inches distance. I will need good convincing to consider ever going 8k, at least when even 4k video source is mostly just limited to RU-vid at the moment. aka, those 4k HDR ish steady camera street tours.Then there is that little energy usage issue either way, like what the EU is doing to max power requirements striking many OLEDS off the market.
It's not pointless it's just incredible niche and a waste of money for most tv owners who buy 50 to 70 inch tvs. You'd need 80 inch plus to see a difference at normal viewing distances so yeah very niche some just use the word pointless. They should have just waited awhile to push 8k but these tech companies are greedy after all and people are silly enough to buy 8k due to a bigger number.
The fad of hating on better technology is what led me to this video, I just bought and 8K TV and I can tell the difference from 6 feet. Articles saying you have to be 2 feet away to notice and how our eyes can't percieve it are EVERYWHERE. In so fact I became suspicious because the claims of why 8K were pointless sounded so nonsensical. It is dumb to say it's pointless because it's just trying to hold us back. It just sounds like people being salty cause they can't afford an 8KTV and I couldn't either, but I just got mine at a great sale price and I can tell the difference night and day from my couch I don't have to be 2 feet away and images do look more depth perceptive and have better color gradients and better contrast than a 4K television. Any idiot can get on a computer and do a piece but why people are doing all this hate on 8K is beyond me. Thank you for making this video.
Hope you are still enjoying your 8K TV. I bought one recently and playing games in 8K is insane. I can definitely see the difference from my last 4K TV and this 8K one. Being able to run nearly every game in 8K means I have huge amounts of 8K content too so that argument is also silly.
I'm not sure if the reference of it being pointless is about the actual quality IF you actually have an 8k TV or monitor. It's pointless right now if your going to stream your content online. It's pointless right now if your monitor is only 4k, Full HD or lower because it takes a lot to edit 8k footage (of which most people's computers will struggle to get it on the timeline and be able to edit without major lag, freezing and choking) and you will be compressing it to get it out there lowering the quality. Once 8k TV's and monitors are prevalent and internet moves more towards fiber optics everywhere and not just specific locations then sure its amazing and will be well worth it. Just my two sense.
8K is pointless for most casuals today in 2021. For movies. There is hardly any content. We need 100+ Mbps unlimited internet bandwidth to stream it. BluRay discs would need to be 100+ GBs. You would need to get off you butt to change discs when you watch a Lord of the Rings extended edition movie. 4 hours of 8K 24fps movie would take take up more room than a double layer 50GB BluRay. For gaming. There is no GPU that can render 4K 120fps at ultra details. 4K textures are huge. Most games today are over 100GB install sizes. 8K gaming would require about 4 times GPU power and 4 times larger install sizes. Maybe 5 or 10 years from now when we have cheap unlimited high-speed internet and cheap solid state or massive hard drives 8K will be ready for the masses. However today there is a lot of compromises to get 8K and it's minimal benefits. Anyone remember they tried making a 4K phone a few years back? Turns out it was pointless cause nobody could tell the difference on a 6 inch screen but everyone noticed that 4K kills your battery life in the phone.
I have a 75 in lg 8k I use it whit my windows 11 PC and wow you can have so many windows at the same time , I can play map games and see the entire map in the screen no need to drag , wow , I recommend it , my next tv will be 8k but 85-100 inch and ideally Oled 😊😊
I am getting an 8 k gaming monitor. Certain games coming out this year will be supporting it. I too have whiteness 4K/8K. Idk now anyone can’t tell the difference. Totally agree on the 1080P/4K. It is NOTICEABLE. lol. Your kidding yourself if your not seeing it.
Lol I'm curious what GPU and CPU you plan to play 8k modern games with? Without DLSS you can barely play 4k let alone 8k. So even with a 3090 to play 8k you will be using DLSS which isn't native 8k it's fake might not even be using native 4k upscaled. It's your money but sounds like you've convinced yourself it's a full proof purchase when it's not. Maybe rtx 5000 plus?
@@malazan6004 I have experience with 8K and have seen it. I'm curious do you feel so certain about every other topic of which you have 0 experience with? For your statement to be true, it would need to be true forever. Which it won't be because it's not even true today. Have you driven a Lambo or ferrarri? Please tell me based on your 0 experience about what you think about driving those cars are like? You seem to be knowledgeable of things you have 0 experience in.
LMFAO! How many times have you played a game or watched a movie in true 8K 60fps? It's going to be the standard and ppl are going to want more of it because it is fucking insane. I personally have experience with this technology and have seen and played 8K 60fps so my opinion actually has value. You don't wtf you are talking about.
No it kinda is pointless for the mass majority of the public. Most people will not be able to see a difference and those that can will barely see a difference. The machine leaning and chipsets etc thing can benefit 4k too if applied to 4k because that technology isn't specific to 8k. There are tests done where people can't tell a difference between 4k and 8k tv right next to each other and thats even using 8k content. BTW, new consoles with 8k content
I don't think there is a super bright future for 8k, even from a decade from now. The reason is due to the lack of content. Yes, that has time to change in the next decade too, but the amount of bandwidth needed to stream 8k cinema is upwards of 50 MB/s at a minimum, factor in HDR, smart devices that are always connected to the internet, and other people in the house using the internet and needing at least 100 MB/s internet speeds is not that crazy. In the US the common household internet speed is just 25 MB/s. That too will change with time, but when it comes to internet speeds it has never had that insane of an uplift ever in the history of rising internet speeds, so even if it will cost less bandwidth if it does not, unless it is at least of efficient as 4k bandwidth requirements then it won't be taking off for well over a decade.
Your comment is so dumb. Internet speeds already can do 50mb/s upload and we haven't even gone 5G yet. You don't know what you are talking about. This is literally what they use to say about 4K. Ppl like you are the biggest problem. There will obviously be a lot more 8K content now that broke filmmakers can afford it
Plus, even if we did get 8K content, your only option would be through streaming, which would be far more compressed than a 4K Blu Ray, the 4K disc would still be higher quality
No one is saiying it's pointless for the reasons you talked about, it's more about price and content availability, it doesn't make sense to buy an 8k tv with no 8k content available
The issue there is HDMI needs to catch up we just got HDMI 2.1 that can do 4k 120hz HDR max so until like HDMI 5 is out that isn't even possible and display port is same as HDMI right now
@@barnacles1352 RU-vid supports 8K, however, the content creators doesn't bother to publish the video in 8K for this reasons: 1. They may lack computing power 2. They may lack necessary internet speed and bandwidth 3. The viewers' internet are barely reach 480p, let alone 720p and beyond
