8K is already here

There's still plenty of people I know who don't even have a 4K TV yet.

Reminder that the hard limit of our eyes concerning resolution is 10k and even at 8k the jump is minimal. 4K is the last true "leap" and even then it was a hop compared to 1080p.

4K TV adoption in the West is still only at about 30%-ish.

So I have a switch and ps4, they just continue to run at the same 1080p I have currently?

And people who actually use the 4k TV for proper 4k media and games is probably far less than that lmao. I bet most of the people who buy a 4k TV just bought it cause it was a nice, big TV which was on sale. Like how most people never used 3D on their 3D TV, they only bought it cause it was a cheap TV and not cause they looked out for that specific feature.
4k is a meme and thanks to retards on YouTube who benchmarks at Ultra settings it'll stay one for a few more years.

I run them on my 4K TV.
Hell I even run my OG XBOX on my 4K TV.
If it can output those lower resolutions properly it's fine.
And it's a cheap CHIQ that I got.

PS4 doesn't even offer true 4k. Xbonex offers 4k but at 30fps.

If anything there's a reason to get a 4k tv now since the ps5 will finally be able to support it.
They're dirt cheap because you're looking at A) lower end models B) Lower end to mid range models from last year. Do your research and get a good 4k tv that offers a 120hz refresh rate and you'll end up spending about 600+. Then again idk what cheap is since it varies person to person

t. techlett
On console you can get "4k" via upscaled and checkerboarded 1800p and some rare native 4k games, 30 though LMAO.
On PC you have to spend anywhere between 250 and maybe 2 grand to get 4k, depends what you want to play. I can play pretty much every game at 4k up to a certain year and for games released in the past 3-4 years it's gonna be wonky 60fps at low-med settings down to 30fps.

Not true. 1080p on 4k is only good cause it's exactly 4 times the pixels, there won't be ugly upscaling unlike 720p on a 1080p screen. If the game runs at 900p native, like a bunch of One S games you're gonna have issues.

t.brainlet
Except, that if you read properly, I said to wait two generations of consoles.
Which is roughly 10 years at least.
PC hardware will be better then.

Nigga I still have trouble telling the difference between the 1080p and 4K
Nice cart before the horse retards

the best PCs cant run new games in 4k properly and you want 8k

PS7 is gonna be 3 gens you mong. PS5, 100% no doubt in my mind will bring "4k" to everyone and they're most likely gonna have a Pro model too again. Going from 900p/barely 1080 in 2014 to the One X having some native 4k games in 2019 it's very likely to see 8k at the end of next gen or the one after that.

> How long until 16K?
8K is a standard. 16K probably will never happen.
4K is a temporal standard.

In other hand there is no hardware by sane price to handle true 4K.

I'm not going to be getting a new set for a while yet. I bought a 4K Samsung a little under three years ago during a black friday sale on Dell's site, and while the ad claimed it had HDR, it wasn't HDR10, which basically meant that all it does is desaturate the image when you turn HDR on. I'm a little pissed about it, but it still does 4K fine, and I don't have room for another TV right now, so I'm just going to tough it out for the time being, and tell myself that HDR isn't THAT big of a deal. Besides, I think I'd rather get Valve's Index VR headset right now anyway.

"muh can't run 4k/ultra"
PCs can handle 4k for several years now, turn the details down to high you faggot.

It's definitely noticeable on PC games, where you can swap between resolutions on the fly.

"16k will never happen"
Meanwhile 15-20 years ago we had 144p screens on our phones and everyone was rocking 480p Tvs except some very rich people who had 720o and 1080i screens.

And the last olympics Japanese broadcast

>just add more pixels
t. retards who know fuck all about picture quality

in the case of gaymans the compute power required to output shit tons of pixels does not scale linearly so you will not see 8k gaming for decades unless some magical new technology is discovered for micro processors

480p was a standard from when? 1950's?
1080p was a standard from 2005 I presume.
4K is not even widely spreaded. Some shitty demo 4K channels from satellite are not in count.
8K? Nothing, only some high end TVs without 8K content

144p and 480p look like shit
4k is better than human vision on a depending on the size of the tv and your distance from it
8k is enough overkill that you will never need anything better until robot eyes are invented

Do we even have cables that can transmit 8K content?

Shhh. Dont confuse the dumb goys

>just play on low bro
>10-50 FPS is fine dude
if you can't run 60-144hz/high you can't game on it. it's that simple.

Do we even have anything in 8k to send through it?

Absolutely pointless for video games.

Yeah, they will support 8k* alright...

1080p didn't even become standard until 2010.

this reads like
>humans can't see over 60fps

> Do we even have cables that can transmit 8K content?
Nope. High end TVs still operate with 4K signal and then upconvert it to 8K.

Nope lol

We didn't have ANY 4K media when 4K TVs came out. It's fucking pointless.

>1
Probably never since Nvidia has no reason to push for it outside the 80ti's.

480p was standard on phones for less than 15 years. Now we have 1440p and 4k phones. That's what I am getting at, display technology has been improving A LOT in the past 2 decades while TVs didn't evolve a lot for 50 years.
"4k is better than human vision"
It's not retard, it literally comes down to PPI whether you can see individual pixels or not. If you have a 4k TV but it's like 10 meters in diagonal length you're gonna have pixels as big as twinkies while on a phone those pixels are not distinguishable with the naked eye.

japan already has 16k TV

>>PS5 confirmed to support 8K
remember "60 fps or nothing"? yeah

The tech industry has to be one of the laziest and greediest out there. They should be focusing on maximizing picture quality on existing tech but instead they just slap an easily marketable word like 8K since everyone thinks "bigger number better picture". I guess you can't blame them when they're just trying to do whatever they can to make sales but shit someone needs to stand up with some morals.

Fucking 15 year old poster or just some really really dumb fuck user that probably used the "red white and yellow" cables up until his friend gave him an hdmi for his Xbox 360

>480p Tvs
retard alert

>PS5 confirmed to support 8K
meanwhile PS4 Pro cant even run 1080 60 properly lmao

How much do they cost ?
It's 15 000 euros for an 8K here in France.
Is it double then ?

Reminder that 2160p is a meme and "8K" is a bigger meme

>going from ultra to high is the same as playing on low
I challenge you to try to notice the difference between high and ultra on the fly in 10 different games. Protip: You won't be able to spot the differences and tell which is which. Ultra is literally a meme that kills fps in a lot of cases for no noticeable gain. You'll will notice differences in still screenshots taken side-by-side, nothing else.
>10-50 FPS is fine dude
You can play a lot of games at low 60 and "older" games at 60 on high settings. For newer games you have to live with 30fps if you want high detail. Don't want 30fps? Get a better video card, it's that simple. But a better card will cost you more money.

Attached: 1d7b20faaae160fc77bf5c7f4199b6bafbe5e441_00.jpg (340x512, 15K)

4k TVs existed back in 2012, what's your point? Tech companies always prototype and work on future tech. Samsung's JU range goes back to 2011, 4 years before it was released to consumers. Besides you're stupid if you think all the tech companies would take a massive loss on 4k to jump immediately to 8k.

>TVs didn't evolve a lot for 50 years.
because people didn't need a permanent loan to get things. Unlike your 4K phone that you paid thousands and thousands already, and will continue to pay a thousand a year (probably 1.5 starting next year)

God damn, and here I am still using 720p TV

Attached: 1558600206951.jpg (1024x1024, 128K)

HUmans can't see past 29.95 fps you dum mongo
It's quadruple, since the resolution is 4 times larger too.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_of_television
A typical resolution of 720×480 or 720x576 means that the television display has 720 pixels across and 480 or 576 pixels on the vertical axis. The higher the resolution on a specified display the sharper the image.
You can get 4k phones for below 500 bucks you genius.

> 1080p didn't even become standard until 2010.
Agree. It was good for home video only. But back then industry was able to provide a good library for movies by scan theatre films and release them on blu-rays.
Kek, I still remember early xbox360 without HDMI.
CRT TV is literally 480p TV. What's wrong?

Kek poorfag who doesnt have a 8k tv and a car by now

>it literally comes down to PPI whether you can see individual pixels or not
No shit, it's almost like you only read half the sentence I posted

Ps5 games will run on 8k while your 10k$ pc cant even play games on 1080p
Pc cucks are rtarded

> japan already has 16k TV
**CONSUMER TVs**
Not some Sony public theatre.
What is it? I really want to see true 720p TV. Not just some 1366x768 nonsence.

Who are you talking about? Are you talking about me in ?
What are you even trying to say with "Fucking 15 year old poster or just some really really dumb fuck user", what does it relate to? It's literally true, TV tech didn't do anything resolution wise for ages, at least not big jumps like we see nowadays and phones literally had 144p screen 15-20 years ago, while now we have 1440p and 4k phones.

Aka you and your kind are poorfgas

He's calling you a retard because TV's didn't have pixels back then you mong. They were analog.

cringe

Oh okay so you're a console pleb then who only plays on his bigass TV he sits half a football field apart from? because I can clearly see individual pixels on my monitor when I browse or play games.

I like my 4k TV, I use it as a monitor, but at what point does the bump in pixel count actually just look the same as it did?

>>PS5 confirmed to support 8K
doubling pixels and applying hq2x is NOT 8K

Yeah, except this is actually true. 4k is already reaching the limits of human vision at some screen sizes/distance.8k will reach those limits at MOST distances. There's little reason for resolutions beyond 8k to even exist except for extreme zoom-in capability. And even 8k isn't really necessary for a typical living room tv unless we're talking a 70+ inch one and you're sitting

>Does anyone even care about 8k?
This is how technology advances. We make something new that is stupidly expensive to create. Then over time we get better at making that thing, then someone even better pops up. Then people make huge investments of time and money to master that technology so they can move on to that newer discovery and use the previous one as a stepping stone.

Repeat ad infinitum.

I already have a car. Retard.
But if I had to blow 15K, I'd take a car.
Now kys.

Attached: sagawa.png (568x447, 374K)

what would you expect from snoy retards

My PC can run Minecraft at very high fqs at ultra mega HD< tyvm
>I'm mad about technicalitiess
TVs have scanlines yeah, but you could still see big fucking blobs that look like pixels on CRTs. At least I can vividly remember seeing those twinkie sized blobs when I still had my childhood TV.

> TV's didn't have pixels back then
TV signal had. Not pixels, but lines. 480 progressive lines was a top-tier standard back then.

>>PS5 confirmed to support 8K
pc's have done 8k video playback for ages now.

HQX2 isn't 8K.

Attached: k.png (338x338, 97K)

>PC's have done 8k
>PC is have done 8k
user..

> Repeat ad infinitum
Except there's no reason to keep repeating this for resolution when 4k is already close to the limits of human vision. I doubt 90% of people could tell the difference between 4k and 8k at the typical distance they sit from their television.

>TV fag
have desk

Falling for the 8K meme

youtube.com/watch?v=1unkluyh2Ks

who gives a flying fuck what resolution your TV is. Resolution is by far the least interesting display performance metric.

kill yourself you pedantic cunt.

4k/8k/16k are all pushed by the same chinese hardware manufactures who back consoles made to run at 30fps

it's all about getting the customer to accept sub-par framerates and choppy gameplay as the norm as long as it means some text on an upscaled image is slightly more crisp

Aww, thank you!

Attached: 1556744365858.png (300x291, 164K)

Everything after 4k is a meme

Your eyeballs literally cannot tell the difference you mega retards.

Yes they do.
8K is still noticeable when comparing with a 4K next to it.
Do you also think our eyes are capped at 60FPS :^)

Attached: fufufufu.jpg (551x600, 107K)

Reddit

spacing

nig

Attached: 1558217061563.png (500x415, 226K)

>8k
Literally sucker bait. At the average screen size and viewing distance, we're not even talking about diminishing returns anymore. We're talking no returns.

So your eyes are capped at 4K user ?

Attached: ha.gif (498x278, 1.69M)

What

Are
You

Talking about?

480p wasn't even around for consumers until about 2004. And 1080p wasn't a thing until 2006ish and even then not widespread until about 2009. You're a fucking child because you have no clue as to when any of these technologies were introduced but you're spewing shit as if you have a clue

I bet you pretend you notice anything above 1080p on phones.

Nobody with any sense cares about 4k resolutions when 1080p at 60 frames per second is still perfectly adequate for video/computer games. Seriously, I don't even have a 4k tv or monitor and probably won't for years yet.

This race to higher resolutions is like AMD's old push for more cores = better

t.Intel pajeet
We'd be stuck at 4 cores if it weren't for AMD.
Fuck off. It's not even comparable.

Attached: you.jpg (600x600, 58K)

Most CRT TVs are 480i, 480p was only really available on professional sets.

Frankly I don't understand why I'd ever want more than 4k, especially for a screen that seats at a few meters from my face. I'm typing this on a 30" 4k monitor and I'm not sure if I'd be able to notice any further increase in resolution at this point.

I wish they'd focus on improving other aspects of the monitors instead of having this ridiculous number race. HDR seems pretty nice for instance.

Can you really notice the difference while standing at a normal viewing distance? I doubt it. But then again this type of discussion on the web is pointless, see all the bullshit audiophiles pretend to be able to discern even though it's physically impossible for a human to hear them.

I'm sure soon we'll see user posting that they can't play at anything below 8k because it gives them headaches or some shit.

Whenever someone tries to use reddit in an argument, they immediately forfeit. Stop responding.

While slight, there is indeed a difference.
Is it worth paying thousands when you can get a great 4K TV for 399 ?
No.
I would never recommend 8K because of its obscene price tag and the fact nothing will make use of it.
But don't act like there is no difference at all.
You can't notice it ? That's fine, some people don't notice the difference between 60 and 144 Hz.

Attached: kanmari.png (450x500, 354K)

8k is four times the number of pixels of 4k, for a videogame it's a ridiculous waste of resources IMO. I'd rather the game used those resources to increase the draw distance, the lighting or the number of assets on screen rather than waste 3/4 of the GPU cycles rendering at a resolution that won't make a significant difference. Hell, I'd gladly take 4k@240Hz over 8k@60Hz.

I spent quite a lot of time on this board arguing against people who said that 4k was a meme because it does make a very noticeable difference IMO, especially for PC gaming when you're standing close to the monitor. 8k on the other hand is just silly, it's TV makers trying to bump the numbers to sell more screens.

On top of that if you bought at 8k screen today you'd spend 99% of your time looking at upscaled 4k or even 1080p content anyway.

I emulate a lot on my PC and I find that non-integer scaling is less of an issue with high density screens. Non-homogenous pixels are obvious at 1080p but much less so at 4k. I still try to stick with integer scaling whenever possible (mostly out of purism) but when the ratio is just too inconvenient I go with non-integer and it's mostly unnoticeable unless you really glue your face to the monitor to look for it.

You might have a point for video content. But for games, can you even begin to justify renreding 4 times as many pixels compared to 4K?

Fair enough, I have definitely not been able to spot the difference on 8k screens I've seen in the wild but I haven't used them for long enough to see if I could tell the difference when going back to a 4k monitor.

At least we can agree that whatever improvement it makes it's too small to justify the cost (plus the cost of whatever computer would be able to drink 8k at a decent framerate). All the power involved in rendering 4 times as many pixels could probably be better used to improve the 4k image in a much more obvious manner.

NTSC is around since the 50s, we have had 480i since then, right?
Samefagging much?

I actually do have a desk/monitor. In fact, I don't even have a TV at all and game exclusively on my PC/Switch in handheld mode. But even on PC I don't feel like 8k would make a difference. My current monitor is 1440p and with good anti-aliasing pixels are barely noticeable. Of course, I also have pretty bad vision and a glasses prescription that's out of date so maybe 20/20 people can actually see some minute details that I can't. But I can't imagine it's that much of a difference. Certainly not enough to justify the performance hit. Even the difference between 60fps/120fps is more noticeable than pixels on my screen

CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME THAT NEW TV good goy 4k isnt enough 8k isnt enough is it? you need MORE grafics!

>he doesn't play at 15360 x 8640 at 2.5fps
PATHETIC

Attached: 1556591950619.gif (500x376, 2.61M)

>PS6 will play checkerboard 8K at buttery smooth 28fps

Attached: 1462114317354.jpg (710x508, 360K)

Checkerboarded 1800p upscaled to 8k with tons of TAA*

On this I definitely agree. I came up as smug because that's custom on this god forsaken board.
But make no mistake, I'll never endorse 4K before prices are equal to 4K or we have the technology to make use of it.
I downgraded from 4K to 3440x1440 to play games.
While I do miss the really crisp image, I do think that having a higher frame rate without killing your GPU and retaining some beauty is a better choice.
Considering the very small leap done by NGREEDIA and the path LAZYMD took, we'll have to wait a few years to really see GPU's constantly pushing 8K at even 30 Frames.

Attached: big birb.jpg (1280x720, 127K)

I meant to say 8K. Ffs

What resolution do we need for the equivalent to the DPI of high quality print? That seems like a good goal to stop at

>GPU's
>GPU is
user..

Attached: 1556542106677.png (389x386, 312K)

GPUs
My bad user, thanks for correcting my typo.

Attached: catnae.jpg (600x800, 87K)

+1

>How long until 16K?
As a human being, you are very worthless

>The reception to 4k seemed pretty lukewarm to me already
I think the problem here is that most people don't even understand or care about picture quality. I've seen a number of people who have their TVs set to the wrong aspect ratio, who run DVD players into HDTVs with fucking RCA cables, people who's kids fuck with the remote settings and have a distorted blurry image that's cut off from one side and they don't even notice it!
the average person can't even distinguish between 1080p and 2160p

Alright I see it's just bait. You win

They get scaled up. 4K is actually a worthy investment for gaming because the HD formats (720 and 1080) scale perfectly to it. If you have a 1080p screen, 720p images don't scale perfectly because 1080 is only 1.5x bigger, however 2160p is 3x bigger than 720 and you get a much clearer scale.
4K will play your 720-era video games and make them look better than they did on 1080p displays

NTSC HAS been around for 50 years though and it's always operated at the same amount of scanlines.

Chill man. It sounds over

>scale perfectly to it
Tell that to Nvidia. Even when they can do integer scaling like that, they still put the image through bilinear shit.

I have 20/20 last I checked but I can't tell a fucking difference