Is An 8K TV Worth It?

The newest 8K TVs have 33 million pixels - but can you even see that many?
Hosted by: Stefan Chin
SciShow has a spinoff podcast! It's called SciShow Tangents. Check it out at www.scishowtangents.org
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever:
Adam Brainard, Greg, Alex Hackman, Sam Lutfi, D.A. Noe, الخليفي سلطان, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Charles Southerland, Patrick D. Ashmore, charles george, Kevin Bealer, Chris Peters
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
----------
Sources:
www.pcmag.com/article/358604/...
wolfcrow.com/notes-by-dr-opto...
wolfcrow.com/how-to-find-the-...
blog.eyewire.org/what-is-the-...
www.t3.com/news/high-resoluti...
stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-d...
en.letsgodigital.org/televisi...
www.bbc.com/future/story/20150...
www.opt.uh.edu/onlinecoursema...
stanford.edu/class/ee267/lect...
www.opt.uh.edu/onlinecoursema...
medlineplus.gov/ency/article/...
ia801708.us.archive.org/33/it...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NB...
nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroscience/...
www.spiedigitallibrary.org/co...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...
journals.lww.com/internat-oph...

[@spaminbox]

hopefully this means manufacturers will now focus on increased color space, and obscene refresh rates, cause there's a HUGE difference between looking at a tv, and looking out the window.

[@aprisia]

Based on all previous attempts, the general public hates high refresh rates on anything but video games.

[@Petteri82]

We're so conditioned to how movies look that anything realistic looks "non-cinematic". But at least they finally got blacks right. I can no longer tell if my tv is off or showing a video with a black screen.

[@MrMighty147]

High resolutions are only promoted because it's easy for manufacturers to tell customers that more is better. I'm afraid we are going to see 16, 32 and God knows how many K screens in the future. Simply because dumb people will believe it when they are being told that more pixels makes the TV better.

[@felixthefox100]

Yeah, a tv/monitor with 5000 NITs brightness, real life colour accuracy and over 300Hz refresh rate would be nice.

[@NotHPotter]

@@MrMighty147 Bigger number = better, right?

[@blackdoge5754]

my uncle.. *brags his 4K TV to everyone* *watches standard definition shows* LMAO

[@sergiox03]

Lol what a waste of money

[@salmontim3742]

Probably in full-screen stretched.

[@dragon47208]

@@sergiox03 not a waste of money. There is a big noticeable difference, especially if the tv has Dolby vision.

[@marcozolo3536]

I have a new 200Hz 4K and make it my mission to watch all content in 4K even 8K KZbin downscaled to 4K and it looks noticeable

[@micahphilson]

If I don't wear my contacts/glasses, it doesn't matter how many pixels there are, if they're more than 8 inches from my face, it'll all look the same!

[@sonicboy678]

That pretty much sums it up...

[@BigMobe]

8K TVs are worth making the price drop on 4K TVs

[@mrtalos]

Yup, about to buy a 4K, they are getting really cheap now

[@UmVtCg]

Oly If you are a cheapskate, UHD TV's are already dirt cheap

[@divyangvaidya9675]

They are becoming cheaper.

[@DJ_Force]

Except you can't appreciate 4K either.

[@justSTUMBLEDupon]

BigMobe EXACTLY!!! TCL 4k 55" screen $350 bucks on Amazon 😂

[@staviwavi222]

I really appreciate the thought that went into making this video. It's interesting that we're getting to the point where increased resolution is basically useless.

[@DJ_Force]

We've been there with phones for a while.

[@saucyg6371]

Just give me low input lag, high refresh rate and HDR10

[@andy56duky]

Introducing 2160p300fps 1ms latency hdr20 dab monitor

[@officer_baitlyn]

@@andy56duky *_lolol_*

[@HTPCYMC]

You should just wait for the 64K TV to come out. Stacks can’t go any higher than 64, so they shouldn’t be able to create a tv that’s higher either.

[@MaxArceus]

Finally some hardware good enough for my Nintendo 64

[@arthas640]

Then i can finally buy a 480 inch TV without feeling like an idiot for needlessly spending money

[@jaredharmer7047]

partlycurrent Minecraft has been making a big comeback recently lol

[@matbroomfield]

Stacks?

[@zashbot]

What if you use redstone?

[@checkmyplaylist6879]

No, it costs 8,000 dollars, I’m too poor for that

[@TheIntJuggler]

I remember when a 1080p plasma TV cost $10,000

[@richardlazarus1738]

The reality is that I wouldn't even buy that if I was "rich." It just sounds like a poor investment.

[@spidaxtreme]

"Hmmm, an 8k tv or 8 months of rent? What to do, what to do..."

[@Andytlp]

@@richardlazarus1738 these things fall in price fast. this year its 10k per tv next year a third of that. Third year a 1000 bucks. But by then theres way better technology out. Im waiting for something that can cover the entire wall. Lets say $2000 to cover 200 inches. Or modular panel stuff.

[@batman_2004]

But I'm not.

[@someone-wi4xl]

Linus have changed recently.. did he buy a new shirt?

[@patrickssj6]

You mean Austin Evans

[@NathanWubs]

Lol Linus would sing the praises of 8k tvs. Wait he already did! because he is a sucker for new gadgets.

[@elonmush4793]

Linus likes that company money

[@irvingchies1626]

There's also a linus video on this subject in my recommended videos but came to watch this one first

[@scalpingsnake]

His voice is much better

[@soulman71901]

My life isn't even in 4k. Before my morning caffeine I am lucky get 240 DPI.

[@EdwardDowner]

I know it's a joke but you are mixing terms. A 4k screen can be 240 DPI depending on size.

[@AnimusTelum]

I can't get above 120 DPS without 4 cups.

[@nuralimedeu]

@@AnimusTelum Wait, do you always hit somebody in the morning o_O?

[@AnimusTelum]

@@nuralimedeu only my sleepiness.

[@nuralimedeu]

AnimusTelum I thought DPS meant ‘damage per second’, that’s why I asked, haha.

[@Blewlongmun]

All I want is for scientists to take it farther. 128K tv. I was to literally touch the screen with my nose and see everything crystal clear.

[@xpodx]

It's never enough.. and I'm sure we can all tell the difference of 8k and beyond. Be better if they made a video with a 4k 60" next to a 8k 60" and sonething over the frames so can only see the screens, and have random people say which is 4k and which is 8k

[@michaelangst6078]

@@xpodx an 85 inch 4k vs an 85 inch 8k would be a wayyyyy better test..

[@tonicrvnts]

I think most people have less than 20/20 vision. I think instead of waiting for higher resolutions, I will wait to get an eye upgrade 🙄

[@albertjackinson]

@tonicrvnts Yeah that'll be the dream. Then I will finally be able to drive when I get my license! But I hope they have self-driving cars anyway, because then I can drive even without an eye upgrade. Heh heh heh! Technoooology! Yeah baby! Technoooology! Yeah baby! OK OK. Enough cheesy and cringy lyrics :-)

[@blacklyfe5543]

I have 20/20 vision

[@tonicrvnts]

@@blacklyfe5543 so?

[@Rdasboss]

VR would benefit from greater resolutions, and i'm sure some technical applications but not needed for tv or movies.

[@NoMoreForeignWars]

More useful for high res computer monitors where you can really get close.

[@Arrogant_Artemis]

@@NoMoreForeignWars no... you would either need a 60in monitor or on a standard 20-30 inch monitor and you would need to have your eyes like less than a foot away to see a difference.

[@davidworrell86]

Read through all the comments to see if someone was thinking the same thing

[@ThisOldSkater]

Unless I'm specifically concentrating on image quality at the expense of what I'm actually watching, even 720P looks fine to me.

[@Babarudra]

I had the 21" tube-tv I bought right after college in the 90s until a couple years ago when it died. The 36" flat screen I bought to replace it is fine, but I still don't understand the desire for people to have huge 60"+ screens. I don't know who they're trying to impress, it's not me.

[@allhumansarejusthuman.5776]

I am in the same boat. I just kinda squeeze a t.v. in where I can so its always small, Idk if I could pick out anything higher then 720 on a bigger screen and I dont care either. it works for me thats all I care about

[@arthas640]

i find it hilarious when half blind nerds stress about 4K vs 8K resolution when many of us need glasses to read 12 point font.

[@ag135i]

@@arthas640 ha ha ha

[@piranha031091]

1080 actually makes quite a difference when there's text displayed on the image. Like on the HUD of a videogame.

[@MattiasCL]

Higher than 4k really only matters in VR, where 8k or even 16k will make the experience incredible in the coming decades (because your eyes are so close to the screens).

[@frankschneider6156]

I'd say in VR the frame rate is of primary importance, resolution is nice, but secondary

[@MattiasCL]

@@frankschneider6156 Yes but the frame rate is already there though.

[@HalfgildWynac]

Actually, were each eye to have a 180-degree field of view (dream on), you would need about 74 megapixels for each eye to make the image sharp wherever you look (assuming hemispherical displays). In reality, your primary concern is the area in the middle of your eye about 6° wide. It is where human vision is sharpest (60 pixels per each degree or even slightly higher than that). By rotating your eyeballs you can scan a much larger view with this area. However, given the limits of your eyeballs' rotation, it is safe for each display to only cover the central area about 90°×90° wide at max resolution. Actually, the user is unlikely to look more than 30 degrees to the side, up or down with just their eyes. With these limitations, 8K*8K for each eye should be more than enough for a typical person with good eyesight. If, however, the VR system producers deem it inconvenient to make variable resolution LCDs, you can indeed expect 16K in future-provided the graphics cards can handle this much at over 60 fps.

[@jerotoro2021]

What a waste of effort. Contrast, color space, framerate is what they should be focussing on. 4k is already more than necessary. This is like putting 2 extra sets of wheels on a car and calling it the next, best model.

[@teemoney8087]

Jero Toro Actually the extra and smaller sized pixels greatly increases dynamic range, the very things you are talking about. Higher frame rates aren't necessarily better either.

[@boygenius538_8]

tee money why would frame rate be undesirable

[@danlocs]

Tee money is clearly not a gamer.

[@teemoney8087]

Daniel Navejas I actually am, and for those that aren't, it's pretty obvious why a higher frame rate may be undesirable. 🙄

[@ItsMrReaper]

@@teemoney8087 no, no it's not. 60FPS is unbearable for me

[@vibecheck663]

The title looked like it’s an episode of techquickie

[@crestofhonor2349]

Xenobyte Productions I thought it was that too

[@Sciencerely]

Eye don't think so

[@rharizona]

The animated visualizations really help making a point. Thank you for including these and putting the effort in. I hope to see more of this in upcoming videos :)

[@RageNukes]

Let's switch the race to wider color gamut and higher refresh rates

[@4jonah]

Imax, I hear, is equivalent to 16k but those are building-sized screens, and only proper when on IMAX film filmed in IMAX

[@jorgea.garzav4650]

Movies at some "digital" theaters are still being projected at 720p

[@0x8badf00d]

720p is good enough for video, at least for me. I can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 unless there is some very fine text.

[@GTI8855]

That's the best explanation of 8K screens I've seen so far. Good job!

[@mathewnorthey]

Clear insightful information, good job!

[@purplealice]

Why in the name of all that's holy does anybody need a TV screen the size of a bedspread?

[@reptylus3129]

For the same reason they need a living room the size of my house.

[@LukeLane1984]

20 years ago people watching their 17" cathode ray tube TVs would've said something similar about the TVs we have now.

[@purplealice]

I'm pretty old, and when I was a kid, people who had money had a big radio (which also received AM, FM, and shortwave) which was also equipped with a *ROUND* screen, about 10 inches in diameter, and it displayed television as a flickering, static-filled grey/green image. Today's 85-inch flat screen TVs are about the size of a king-size bedspread. I worked as a broadcasting technician during the 1970s, and even then I didn't really understand why someone at home needed to be able to see the pores on the newscaster's nose in a close-up.

[@Markle2k]

@@LukeLane1984 20 years ago, 35 years ago even there were 60 inch diagonal rear projection TVs in 4:3. 30 years ago, the largest freestanding models were about 70 inches. You could get a 120-inch rear projector, but you had to custom build the room around it as it didn't have a cabinet. You mounted into a wall that hid all the electronics and subwoofers. These bigger ones started at about half the price of an average new car.

[@personaslates]

150 people bought an 8k screen then watched this.

[@williamsu3]

Probably best graphics i've seen on scishow in a while! Absolutely well done!

[@nobiggeridiot]

So i'm curious. For a long time, the common refrain for slow monitor refresh rates what that humans only taken visual data at a certain max frequency. Those early attempts of subliminal programming an example, and countless others. Yet there is a very perceptible differences when using monitors with greater refresh rates that are now showing up on the market. While your logic seems sounds, I wonder if we'll find in the future, that the common arguments against 8k, just didn't consider the complete complexity of visual experience. Although i'm inclined to agree here, it seems like we are chasing numbers for marketing more than fidelity. Thanks for the vid !

[@ag135i]

Thanks for busting one more marketing gimmick now many manufacturers might start to hate you

[@limalicious]

20/8? My vision isn't even 20/20 anymore with corrective lenses.

[@limalicious]

@rem brandt Vision problems aren't that simple. I've been wearing glasses for 25 years, and my prescription is the strongest in my family, even as the youngest family member, even over my parents. I need to have Lasik surgery if I ever want to hope to have 20/20 correction ever again. One of my eyes is already halfway to the maximum possible corrective lens. Do I have a severe eye problem? No. I have myopia and mild astigmatism. That's it. It's bad myopia, but it's still just plain old myopia. Sometimes the lens you have in your eye just can't be corrected to 20/20 anymore. Once you hit a certain point, you're officially declared legally blind, and sometimes it's just simple myopia that does it.

[@aloysiusobuareghe394]

This was funny as hell. You guys are savage! 😂😂😂😂

[@greyareaRK1]

Great explanation. Thank you.

[@tiffyw92]

So to enjoy 8k to the fullest, you have to become near-sighted. Got it.

[@you_just]

Rubia Ryu 20/8 vision isn’t nearsightedness. If you have 20/8 vision, you can read images at a distance of 20 meters away that a normal person with 20/20 vision would have to be 8 meters away from.

[@tiffyw92]

@@you_just I know, sometimes puns are so subtle they fly over your head.

[@you_just]

Rubia Ryu oh, that was a pun? I guess we have different senses of humor

[@tiffyw92]

@@you_just Sorry, this topic is just way too easy to make puns for. I could go on for daze. I mean days. Drat, not again!

[@danielauto3767]

How was this comment a pun? Do you mind explaining it?

[@markguyton2868]

Maybe AAA game companies will finally work on game polish once they reach 8k and realize they can't use that as their selling point anymore...

[@arthas640]

*EA 2030:* "we've finally developed a new 400K resolution so even your pet peregrine falcon can't tell the difference between video and reality anymore!"

[@KineticSymphony]

If people stop falling for the gimmick, they will.

[@brianjensen5661]

You did a funny

[@roberts9553]

Excellent animations to explain the eye 👍

[@warren52nz]

What a great channel! So clearly explained and great graphics. I've always suspected that 8K is a waste of time. 4K is pretty damn sharp!

[@Nobody-vr5nl]

I'm a tech nerd. This is a very good way of describing the problems. Ppl usually generalize it to where they miss a lot of important info. Not these guys.

[@Houdini111]

So we've finally reached the end of the resolution race so we can finally work on other missing features instead.

[@TheSuzberry]

This video has explained a great deal about vision that I didn’t understand before. Good to know.

[@usama57926]

very nice and informative video

[@Sinaeb]

Imagine people buying 8K tvs while you're still on a 720 screen

[@lean572]

8k is actually 4320p

[@bobberry1463]

Lean this comment make no sense

[@Sinaeb]

@@bobberry1463 4k is just double 1080, so 2160, 8k is just double 4k so 4320

[@superdau]

@@bobberry1463 It does make sense. Suddenly calling TVs "4k" and "8k" is just another form of marketing wank. Resolutions have been called by their number of lines for a long time. But then some marketing guy got the brilliant idea that "4k" is bigger than "just" 2160p and now the big (and pointless) resolutions are numbered by their width instead of height.

[@altareggo]

@@gabrielmorais4451 Um.... who really cares??? Who lives their lives around their TV anyway? Its a minor part of most folks' lives, so the difference between 4k and 720 is not that relevant... now 240, yes i can see that that would be a bit of a bummer, lol. My computer is set at 720 and i;m QUITE happy with that.

[@TedSeeber]

Short answer, no. People who can afford the TV, can't see in 8k, because they're over 40. People who can see in 8k, because they're under 40, aren't earning enough to buy an 8k screen.

[@blacklyfe5543]

That makes no sense

[@TedSeeber]

@@blacklyfe5543 Well, it was 3 years ago I made that comment. The economics may have changed. The biology sure as hell hasn't- at 51 I need to zoom *everything* on my 4k monitor to see it. Starting at about age 40, you start losing photoreceptors. Not to mention your vision angle deteriorates rapidly past age 40.

[@CanuckMonkey13]

My right eye is right around 20/20 but my left eye is something like 20/80, and I don't use any corrective eyewear because the right eye is sufficient for my needs. Would having one weak eye like I do make any difference in these kinds of calculations, or would I just go with the results for my stronger 20/20 eye?

[@SeetheWithin]

what an amazing video topic Good job

[@dawnofasad]

I don't even own 4k yet 😂😂

[@blazer666del]

No point...1080p on a big tv is perfect..

[@dragon47208]

@@blazer666del 4k is better. If you want a better image 4k is worth it. Especially for games and Dolby vision

[@arduria538]

1080p is just fine for me. 4K isn't worth it to me. So 8K is even less worth it.

[@urbanistgod]

1080p sucks. It’s not good enough. 4K is good enough though

[@xpodx]

1080p is garbage

[@bengoodchild883]

I would love to see this same analysis done for computer monitors! I could do the math myself, but having something like this to share with friends would be awesome. Thank you for the great video as always :)

[@massimookissed1023]

Um, it makes no difference. Given our field of view and angular resolution, you need good eyesight to tell 4k from 1080p.

[@bengoodchild883]

@@massimookissed1023 For the conclusion it makes no difference you're right, but it does make a difference for the size examples used since monitors are usually smaller than TVs, and we usually sit closer to them. For Ex. At what distance from a 27" monitor would I have to sit to not be able to tell the difference between 4K and 1080p? What is the human FOV for being able to see detail as he mentioned? I know there's a colour cone near the centre and the rest our brains make up from what we remember, but roughly what angle does that happen? Etc... I guess at this point I may as well just look it up... someone likely has made a tool or written a paper about this at some point. Thanks for your reply though!

[@carloscasas-sanchez128]

Thanks now I know what to buy and where to put it!

[@penwoopydo]

They shouldn’t be called Ultra HD, 4K is already Ultra HD.

[@DearHRS]

more like *THE MOTHER OF MOST FULLEST ULTRA HD*

[@TheKodiak72]

It's called marketing wank. The ultra HD basically means nothing except to suck people in b

[@trparky]

And to think that I still have a 1080p TV and I don't care. I don't even see the point of 4K, let alone 8K. 1080p is fine for me.

[@TheScurvyBruce]

Bo I wanna know how close or far away you need to hold a 6.5in to 7.5 inch phone screen to tell the difference between 720 and 480

[@claudebbg]

Missed the absence of 8k input even before having 8k media/streaming ? But on the other hand that superposition could mean more precise colors, more contrast and (if oled) light 4k 55´oled owner staying at ~1m for exactly the reasons you gave.

[@kf160k160]

So to enjoy every penny you spent on 8K TV, you literally have to glue your eye on the screen. Got it!

[@blazer666del]

The same can also be said for 4k...

[@nunyobiznez875]

I'm still perfectly happy with my 1080P TV.

[@TomasPetkevicius94]

Saw 8k tv today in store. Looks dope!

[@Goni983]

Scishow for the win, answering questions I didn't know I wanted the answer to

[@csweezey18]

I can't even tell the difference between 1080p and 4K, so forget 8K. That's literally worthless to me.

[@cheetahluv210]

It might have to do with screen size and the movie might not be in true 4K because most movies are in 2k

[@mad_max21]

You're not watching 4k content, dumbass.

[@csweezey18]

@@mad_max21 I know I'm not. Look at the title of the video, and maybe then you'll understand why I said that.

[@ThrottleKitty]

4k looks flawless, I see no pixels. 8k is useless on a screen smaller than 80 inches.

[@pyrotheevilplatypus]

Overhead projector. So unless you're in an institute or have a personal home theater, not worth it.

[@spottheturtle9568]

Yup, I have 55 inch 4k. Have to be like a foot away to pick out a pixel.

[@TheDoh007]

@@spottheturtle9568 the thing about that is, even if you can't see the individual pixels, you might be able to make out more detail anyway. But as stated in the video, we are approaching the limit for that

[@spottheturtle9568]

@@TheDoh007 yes I get that. I think the HDR makes more difference than the 4k does.

[@Benedictus899]

Aliasing in games is still visible on a 4K 50 inch TV when sitting ~2 meters away from it.

[@HarshJain-it2bg]

Where is the link to buy that 8k tv

[@joshuachristofferson9227]

3:55 "60 inch TV maxes out Visual Field at about 1 meter" is EXACTLY why my PlayStation is just about 5 feet away from my 1080p--it's all encompassing/immersive, and doesn't waste pixels. PERFECT in every Way 😆

[@creestee08]

I'm still pretty cool with 1080p.

[@AIDANPEREIRA]

So basically 8k for rich folks or TVs larger than 70 inch or for monitors as u sit very close to them

[@assdan27]

I would believe this if it weren't for the fact that it's incredibly easy for me to tell when my 4k monitor is running something in 1080p.

[@marcopohl4875]

I prefer older resolutions: it's so detailed, i can see every single pixel

[@blazer666del]

Lolz

[@outlawz38]

while i dont think i see a big difference between 4k and 1080p, my next purchase will be 4k, since i want a new tv anyways, and they are getting cheaper and cheaper. thanks 8k!

[@YouNoub1]

dont fix something that ain't broken. 4K is all good

[@nuralimedeu]

Judging by the video, it seems that even 4K is a bit too much.

[@blazer666del]

1080p is all good

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

All that makes sense, however I have a couple questions. I know that our eyes tend to move about and that our brains piece all that movement into an apparent smooth image. Might a slightly higher resolution than what we can perceive be beneficial when taking into account eye movement? I know on photography, image stacking increases effective resolution, wouldn't the movement of our eyes be something along the lines of image stacking? I've seen 1080p and 4k tv's from proper viewing distance, and I know that the 4k ones have hdr and other features that improve picture quality, but it still seems like the 4k looks better resolution wise than the the 1080p tv's from a distance where it shouldn't, and I think there is more to our visual acuity than the density of our photo receptors.

[@rickharold69]

Awesome!

[@KnightSlasher]

"Is 8k tv worth it" **buys tv** Wallet: *_I am literally crying rn_*

[@MetalJesusRocks]

My Atari 2600 looks freakin SWEET in 8k!! (Said nobody ever)

[@sn0tkore]

So tv resolution is going to go the way of camera pixels. About time.

[@SafetySheepRnD]

One small catch tho, you might not be able to discern the pixels, but the extra pixels also means you can have more shades of colors. For example, say you have a single 1080p pixel, at 4K you would have 4 pixels in the same area, so the 1080p content can only show 1 solid color in this area while the 4K content can now display 4 different shades and luminosities in the same space. This allows for greater control of the color output for stuff like smooth color grading which eliminates some of the color banding you see when you don’t have as many colors or the color shifts drastically from pixel to pixel. This extra pixel data also means that compression artifacts quickly become non issues as they would end up getting confined to very small sections of the screen due to how subsampling happens.

[@pangaeamenslijk9183]

Meh everything over 1080p looks the same to me unless you have a pretty good size screen.

[@AverytheCubanAmerican]

0:21 The one in the middle is the Slavic way to watch vids and TV

[@71.218-westshed]

I didn't know you can get a T.V. from Dollar Tree.

[@ilovesparky13]

😭😭😭

[@timmicheletto1913]

higher color range is typically more readily available in 4 and 8k screens as opposed to 1080p ones, so a 4k screen where you can't resolve all of the pixels will likely still look better than the 1080p equivalent

[@suleiman1520]

Finally, Sci Show is answering life's biggest questions...

[@soonny002]

Let's face it, these TVs are just symbols of your social status.

[@michaelangst6078]

how so?? The people buying 8k tv's right now are probably anti social people willing to over pay for new technology to feel like they are worth something

[@xpodx]

No.

[@GTI8855]

You won't impress anyone today with your screen resolution.

[@v0ldy54]

There is no point going past 4k for normal viewing distance, case closed

[@blazer666del]

Erm try 1080p

[@SinaelDOverom]

@@blazer666del I can easily discern pixels of 1080. The whole point of 4/8 k is that there'd be no discernable pixels at intended viewing distance, without the use of antialiasing techniques (that blur the image).

[@GraveUypo]

@@blazer666del the screen has to be significantly higher resolution than your vision, or else you WILL notice the imperfections. 4k is great for 60". 8k is a bit unecessary.

[@blazer666del]

@@SinaelDOverom No you can't...

[@blazer666del]

@@GraveUypo Did you listen to this video?...its is pointless having 4k at distances we watch tv. 4K you would have to be a foot or so away from a 60 inch tv to notice the resolution....

[@gschnaper]

Excellent! Now I know!

[@NotHPotter]

So what's the resolution on an average theater movie screen?

[@TempestMia]

The real advice you need about 8k tvs: NO YOU DON'T NEED IT. SAVE UP FOR RETIREMENT.

[@DandyParrott]

Or get that dental work you've been needing...

[@TheBest_F-22]

@@DandyParrott If You (really) *_Needed_* it, You should have got it done already... It's not even that expensive as long as it's just preventive care/checkup (yearly) or just *Light Fixes* (Like small Cavities)... Unless it's actually a Huge Fix/Reconstruction/whole Tooth Replacement... Or if it's just for purely "Aesthetic" Reasons too (instead of functionality/Health Reasons)... Those tend to start getting expensive, way over the €100 mark apiece for the Repair alone (heard it could go for over €1000 for a proper whole Tooth Replacement meant to last more than a decade, possibly 2 decades or more - before accounting for the proper Discounts/Returns on the IRS Tax for that Health expense, which tends to be a big chunk of it, unless it's not really needed/just for aesthetics)... I am, of course, talking about My Country's Health System (Portugal 🇵🇹 ) which is supposed to be somewhat similar (mostly in prices; policies tend to be implemented differently of course) to most of Western Europe... (I know that the U.S.A. is still using a Health System worthy of a 3rd World Country that makes Preventive Care and somewhat Regular Checkups way too prohibitive for most Average People, even though Preventive Care/Checkup Appointments are way FASTER to go through most of the time - specially because those are actual appointments scheduled way beforehand, not unscheduled "Urgencies" that actual need queues...) (I don't even want to imagine a Dental Urgency... Cause it normally gets way Less Priority than most others... It can Hurt Like HELL but You're not in any actual Danger, Most of the Time at least... There's always exceptions though, hence the initial _Triage_ in the Urgency section of Hospitals...) Would Love to see the U.S.A. give a better use to that irrationally Big Federal Budget (in percentage) used just for the "Military"/"Defense" (more Like "Attacking" but whatever) and spread it around other areas Like Education, Healthcare, infrastructure, etc.... Because most Taxpayers don't seem to really benefit from that huge Budget allocation on the Military... It's totally Not useful on their Day-to-Day Activities or for their own wellbeing, specially in Regards to the Percentage allocated. That's Levels of Military Budget allocation worthy of _Active "Wartime"_ anyways, not "Defense"... /Rant Bye then. .

[@Prasad-kf3rh]

I am watching this video in 1080p and It's enough for me.😊👍

[@attackLive]

Why dees looking at completely sharp image makes it hard to look and read? Setting it more blurry in screen settings helps, but why?

[@alvallac2171]

*does *make

[@jochie18]

I can definitely see the difference between 1080p and 4k from 2,5 meters (even from 3,5 meters). I tried the same thing between 4k and 8k, however wasn't able to distinguish the two while in the mediastore.

[@Taibo1986]

Something I've noticed is that when I set my 4k laptop screen to 1080p mode, everything looks blurrier even on a 15 inch screen. I think it might be blending the image to account for the extra pixels since it is missing the info to make it 4k. 4k also makes a huge difference when reading small text. I haven't been able to test if any re-sampling affects 4k content viewed on an 8k screen though.

[@allhumansarejusthuman.5776]

Your also on a laptop, by default your pretty close to the screen making things more visible.

[@TheZenytram]

i would take a 200fps rather than any 4k+ monitor

[@TheDoh007]

same, that is at least if it's true 200hz. Many TVs claim high refresh rates while actually just repeatedly showing the same frames multiple times

[@lucasward9506]

1080p @144hz for life.

[@skizzik121]

@@lucasward9506 1440p @144hz for life for me.

[@lucasward9506]

@@skizzik121 bruh i cant spend that much on a graphics card. I too poor

[@TimeofRagnarok]

You realize that the point he made applies to your stupidly ridiculous framerate too.

[@robotpanda77]

this is like watching a workout video for the best arm exercises and the guy starts going into cellular biology on how protein synthesis works. Its just more than we need to know

[@RedwoodGeorge]

Good to know - I'm sitting about 4 feet away from a 55 inch 4K TV which doubles as my computer monitor. When I compared the pixel density to the previous 26 inch monitors (1080p) they were very close to the same dot pitch. The text is perfectly readable when I'm coding at 30 inches from the screen and when it's time to sit back and watch a movie, I'm at the sweet spot of 42 inches...

[@sTEALtooth]

8k is stupid for home use IMO. my 70" 4k tv is awesome, but 1080p looks great on it, 4k looks amazing for sure, but it's not necessary since my couch is about 15' away

[@H0DLTHED0R]

Sell your couch and wife

[@Master_Therion]

My TV isn't even one K. Is it good? meh, it's 0K.

[@charleshanson9467]

FYI: a 1080p HD TV is "1K" hahaha

[@Master_Therion]

@@charleshanson9467 True, but just barely. 1080p is very close to 2K.

[@angelvalencia6782]

Gonna replace every window in my house with an 8k TV. We gonna be in Europe in the morning, San Francisco by mid day and in Tokyo by the evening.

[@DanielBloom1]

omg scishow made a dis track, I love it.

[@RevJynxed]

I'm still on a 32in 1080 at 3 feet. Still haven't seen a need to go to 4k.

[@H0DLTHED0R]

Loser

[@arttra9158]

You spelled "I'm an attention seeking child" wrong.

[@asparagusnoodle]

Correct, Resolution size becomes important the bigger the screen being viewed is, therefore this technology is brilliant for large screens and projector technology for Mass market applications, and is not imperceptible at a large enough scale, hence why movies appear blurrier and rougher in movie theaters.

[@lurcovq]

Isaac Allen also really important for small screens in VR since our eyes are so close to the screen :)

[@richardbidinger2577]

What about tv's with curved screens?

[@skizzik121]

they arent flat obviously! lol

[@alvallac2171]

@@skizzik121 *aren't

[@RogerWazup007]

Can someone with 20/20 vision make out the difference in resolution between a 1080p TV and a 4K TV of different sizes from 7 feet away?

[@montengro234]

If we can barely do 4k, why would we go to 8k?

[@SmegmaGoblin]

To get to 16k

[@Je.rone_]

Is any t.v. worth it 📺?

[@Je.rone_]

@@John-ir4id yeah i haven't owned a tv in like 6 years

[@invidious07]

"Blended into illegible smudges" sounds like a good title for a indie rock album.

[@Phane02]

Ansel screenshots that take over 16k resolution. Now you can zoom and really take it all in without ever seeing the picture go all fuzzy or blurred.