| General > General Technical Chat |
| The EU is banning 8K TV's!!! |
| << < (43/53) > >> |
| tooki:
--- Quote from: KaneTW on November 09, 2022, 10:33:49 pm --- --- Quote from: tooki on November 09, 2022, 09:29:52 pm --- --- End quote --- No, it's just a question of priorities. A friend who is definitely not the 1% has a home theatre in his house. Anyone that's upper middle class can afford it, and from there it's a question of "do I want it?" --- End quote --- Come on, duuuuude… I am talking about whether such things* are commonplace (they’re not), not whether cases of non-rich people with some sort of home theater exist. And to reiterate: by “actual home theater” I mean a high-end, dedicated room with cinema-like construction, seating, etc. and equipment that significantly reproduces a cinema experience. Not just a regular room with a big screen and some speakers, in front of a sofa. And of course, it’s not “just” a matter of priorities: most Americans simply don’t earn anywhere close to enough money to afford such a luxury. The median household income in USA is about $71K. In many parts of the country, you’d pay 10% of that just on the annual rent for the space to house the home theater! Then remember that half of households make less than that — in many, many cases significantly less — which certainty doesn’t leave any way to spend tens of thousands on a home theater. *with the photo as a reference, which I’d guess at being a ~$20-40K home theater, including construction costs to raise the floor, install the built-in cabinetry, etc, plus seating, sound panels, and the AV gear. |
| tooki:
--- Quote from: MK14 on November 09, 2022, 09:41:43 pm ---I suspect (currently) sales of 8k TVs themselves, are the top (something) percentage of the population (I'm not sure what percentage that would actually be though). … They (8k TVs) seem to be priced (brand new), (only did a VERY quick check on prices), in the £1,800 to £4,400, according to googles, initial response page. --- End quote --- Frankly, I don’t see the point in 8K. At a comfortable viewing distance (i.e. one where the screen comfortably fits within, but nearly fills, your field of view), your eyes plain and simply cannot resolve a single 4K pixel, never mind at 8K. We don’t have enough angular resolution to do so. This page explains the problem nicely. To tell apart two pixels on an 82” 8K display, you’d have to be sitting just 28” from the screen, just a bit more than arm’s length! I can’t even sit that close to my 42” TV for very long. 8K really only makes sense when you want to come close and inspect some part of the screen. Perfect human vision simply doesn’t have enough resolution to make use of it from afar. When you consider that a typical TV is somewhere on the order of 10 feet (120 inches) from the viewer, it becomes clear that 8k is laughably unnecessary even on an 85” TV or 120” projection screen. Heck, even digital cinemas, actual movie theaters people pay money to go see movies at, are mostly just 2K! (Few cinemas are jumping at the chance to replace a $60,000 projector they bought just a few years ago, so we are likely stuck with lots of 2K cinemas for a while.) If 4K isn’t even essential for a literal cinema with a 65 foot screen, then 8K certainly isn’t even distantly needed for a 65 inch TV!! |
| MK14:
--- Quote from: tooki on November 09, 2022, 11:47:38 pm ---Frankly, I don’t see the point in 8K. At a comfortable viewing distance (i.e. one where the screen comfortably fits within, but nearly fills, your field of view), your eyes plain and simply cannot resolve a single 4K pixel, never mind at 8K. We don’t have enough angular resolution to do so. This page explains the problem nicely. To tell apart two pixels on an 82” 8K display, you’d have to be sitting just 28” from the screen, just a bit more than arm’s length! I can’t even sit that close to my 42” TV for very long. 8K really only makes sense when you want to come close and inspect some part of the screen. Perfect human vision simply doesn’t have enough resolution to make use of it from afar. When you consider that a typical TV is somewhere on the order of 10 feet (120 inches) from the viewer, it becomes clear that 8k is laughably unnecessary even on an 85” TV or 120” projection screen. Heck, even digital cinemas, actual movie theaters people pay money to go see movies at, are mostly just 2K! (Few cinemas are jumping at the chance to replace a $60,000 projector they bought just a few years ago, so we are likely stuck with lots of 2K cinemas for a while.) If 4K isn’t even essential for a literal cinema with a 65 foot screen, then 8K certainly isn’t even distantly needed for a 65 inch TV!! --- End quote --- That is a good question, and to do it justice, I'd hope that reliable/honest people (scientists perhaps), can perform experiments, theoretical analysis, and then answer such questions for us. Ideally taking into account Psychological effects, such as Placebo ones. I.e. (Psychological/Placebo), a Million dollar Ultra-Delux-Platinum-King-View TV, with a billion superBright-Mega-pixels, would be perceived by some/many, as having a better quality image, than a $199, 1080P, Foreign Unknown branded, Cheapo-matic TV. Even if the actual real life picture quality, was identical between them (i.e. a Placebo or psychological like effect). I don't think I've yet to see an 8k TV in real life, that I've noticed (but could have walked passed one in a shop, without realizing it). Actually, it's usually OLED TVs, which seem (for me, at least) to have amazing picture quality, and nice and bright, too. From what I've seen. It is just I'm too worried about picture burn in issues. Which were very likely to have been 4k TVs. |
| james_s:
--- Quote from: MK14 on November 10, 2022, 12:13:16 am ---Actually, it's usually OLED TVs, which seem (for me, at least) to have amazing picture quality, and nice and bright, too. From what I've seen. It is just I'm too worried about picture burn in issues. Which were very likely to have been 4k TVs. --- End quote --- I'm not too worried about burn in, I think OLED is similar to CRT based rear projection in that matter and I used one of those for years without getting burn. That said, I don't watch TV in a traditional sense, I'm 100% streaming. Commercial TV all has those stupid logos that sit in the corner all the time and those can burn in. |
| PlainName:
--- Quote ---To tell apart two pixels on an 82” 8K display, you’d have to be sitting just 28” from the screen, just a bit more than arm’s length! I can’t even sit that close to my 42” TV for very long. --- End quote --- I sit 2" more than arm's length from a 43" 4K screen. I can just about make out the pixels. My partner sits a bit closer (arm's length) to a 32" 4K screen without issue, but for me to use that I have to have Windows in 115% mode. So that's a long way of saying she could see the pixels on my screen. And having used it for some time I could go with a bigger screen with more resolution, sitting the same distance away. Could my eyes see the individual pixels off to the side of such a screen? Of course not! But that's why my head and eyes can swivel (often independently). If I looked at that part of the screen then there would be no issue and all pixels could be noticed. The only thing (apart from cost, availability and the ability to drive it) that would prevent me getting such a huge screen would be the flatness of it. It would need to be a curved one, I think. Gosh, it was only yesterday (really) that I was thinking how I could fit two 43" 4K screens in front of me without there being a double-bezel in the middle. An 80" 8K screen would do that nicely. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |