540
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 160 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

article took forever to get to the bottom line. content. 8k content essentially does not exist. TV manufacturers were putting the cart before the horse.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 109 points 5 days ago

4k tvs existed before the content existed. I think the larger issue is that the difference between what is and what could be is not worth the additional expense, especially at a time when most people struggle to pay rent, food, and medicine. More people watch videos on their phones than watch broadcast television. 8k is a solution looking for a problem.

[-] jqubed@lemmy.world 21 points 5 days ago

I think it’s NHK, or one of the Japanese broadcasters anyways, that has actually been pressing for 8K since the 1990s. They didn’t have content back then and I doubt they have much today, but that’s what they wanted HD to be.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Not familiar with NHK specifically (or, to be clear, I think I am but not with enough certainty), but it really makes a lot of sense for news networks to push for 8k or even 16k at this point.

Because it is a chicken and egg thing. Nobody is going to buy an 8k TV if all the things they watch are 1440p. But, similarly, there aren't going to be widespread 8k releases if everyone is watching on 1440p screens and so forth.

But what that ALSO means is that there is no reason to justify using 8k cameras if the best you can hope for is a premium 4k stream of a sporting event. And news outlets are fairly regularly the only source of video evidence of literally historic events.

From a much more banal perspective, it is why there is a gap in TV/film where you go from 1080p or even 4k re-releases to increasingly shady upscaling of 720 or even 480 content back to everything being natively 4k. Over simplifying, it is because we were using MUCH higher quality cameras than we really should have been for so long before switching to cheaper film and outright digital sensors because "there is no point". Obviously this ALSO is dependent on saving the high resolution originals but... yeah.

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

it’s not exactly “there is no point”. It’s more like “the incremental benefit of filming and broadcasting in 8k does jot justify the large cost difference”.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 4 points 5 days ago

Which, for all intents and purposes, means there is no point. Because no news network is going to respond to "Hey boss, I want us to buy a bunch of really expensive cameras that our audience will never notice because it will make our tape library more valuable. Oh, not to sell, but to donate to museums." with anything other than laughter and MAYBE firing your ass.

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

the point is, the cost/benefit calculation will change over time as the price of everything goes down. It's not a forever "no point".

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 days ago

... Almost like it would be more viable to film in higher resolution if more consumers had higher resolution displays?

[-] bobo1900@startrek.website 16 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Not only the content doesn't exist yet, it's just not practical. Even now 4k broadcasting is rare and 4k streaming is now a premium (and not always with a good bitstream, which matters a lot more) when once was offered as a cost-free future, imagine 8k that would roughly quadruple the amount of data required to transmit it (and transmit speee is not linear, 4x the speed would probably be at least 8x the cost).

And I seriously think noone except the nerdiest of nerds would notice a difference between 4k and 8k.

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago

TV manufacturers are idiots.

[-] fartographer@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

That's usually the case

[-] Broken@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago

Not only does it not exist, it isn't wanted. People are content watching videos on YouTube and Netflix. They don't care for 4k. Even if they pay extra for Netflix 4k (which I highly doubt they do) I still question if they are watching 4k with their bandwidth and other limiting factors, which means they're not watching 4k and are fine with it.

this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2025
540 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

74914 readers
1623 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS