Submitted by SalmonellaTizz t3_ya0sn9 in gadgets
Comments
crono141 t1_it8smum wrote
The problem is that the regulations were set and designed around the average 1080p set power draw. 4k requires more power (more pixels, more processing, more power), and many don't fit under the cap. 8k TVs are right out.
So, what's going to end up happening is either
-
stagnation of innovation
-
4k and 8k TVs no longer being sold in the EU.
wavecult t1_it8uw0z wrote
Samsung says its doable and the article also says there are ways to achieve it. It seems it just wasn't on their list of priorities because R&D into true innovation would cost them more.
Zironic t1_it8tswc wrote
Or someone innovates and manages to design a high pixel density TV that doesn't consume as much power as an oven.
MetaDragon11 t1_it8weq0 wrote
What? My 65 inch 4k tv uses about 250 watts max. The average electric oven uses 2500-3000 watts.
Thats an order of magnitude difference.
Zironic t1_it8xw7y wrote
Some of the 85'' 8K TVs have been drawing upwards of 800W so they were getting up there.
silent--onomatopoeia t1_itbbxyr wrote
Those TVs defo have labels saying "powered by Nvidia" lol
NelchaelSS t1_it96isd wrote
Doen’t matter. If you need HDR, you need a lot of nits/light, so the TV uses a lot of power. I don’t want to go back to 400nits TVs just because there is a shitty regulation put in place by technical illiterates. Just give it a worse energy rating score and move on.
Freedom to choose is a right.
MrMitchWeaver t1_it9b4qc wrote
Freedom to not die of global warming is a bigger right.
Your rights end where mine begin.
NelchaelSS t1_it9ii9s wrote
Yeah, keep believing that your green TV with 50W/h less peak power consumption will save the planet. Better yet, stop eating meat & start eating bugs, they’re greener.
The amount of propaganda you guys eat from corporations and billionaires, that YOU as a person are 100% responsable for global warming is unbelievable. They live like kings, 1 polluting like 1 million of us peasants, but we must be held responsible for them.
You guys can live like as you like, but I have only 1 life and I won’t live like a dog.
Zironic t1_it9iygx wrote
Imagine typing this rant attached to an article literally written by corporations wanting to sell you more unsustainable crap.
NelchaelSS t1_it9l73j wrote
>Imagine typing this rant attached to an article literally written by corporations wanting to sell you more unsustainable crap.
So? What does me being a consumer to a company has to do with the fact that companies/billionaires pollute?
Should we stop buying anything just because the guys we buy from pollute?
And the article says clearly: for the technology we have microLED (which is already very power efficient), we can't reach the EEI, because 8K displays would need to consume as much energy as 4k displays. 33 million pixels can't consume less energy than 8.2 million pixels + that you need a more powerful SoC to process the image.
As easy as that. That's why laws about tech should be passed by walking fossils that are tech illiterates. (and that these kind of laws should be updated regularly)
alexxfloo t1_itdc960 wrote
A dog ? If a 4k tv is the difference between a good and a bad life than your life is pathetic
[deleted] t1_itddp5r wrote
[removed]
skinlo t1_itlbkkk wrote
And when do they get their billions from? From you buying crap to make yourself feel better is the answer. If you think the resolution of your TV defines whether you live like a dog, then I suggest you have bigger problems than that.
NelchaelSS t1_itmblhn wrote
You are as stupid as the other guy I responded to, "live like a dog" is a figure of speech about the way you live, not about the TV.
Also, I don't have a problem with them making billions, as long as it's properly taxed and they are held accountable about the amount of pollution they do. Want to cry about billionaires, business owners making more than the guy that washes dishes, etc, go to r/antiwork .
MrMitchWeaver t1_it9lnxa wrote
I'm going to have to go sentence by sentence because your comment is laughable.
> less peak power consumption will save the planet.
Partly, yes. Maybe not my TV specifically but billions of them working every day do have an effect.
> Better yet, stop eating meat & start eating bugs, they’re greener.
I try to cut back for sure, but me changing my diet for the rest of my life is absolutely not comparable to you having to wait a few months until the engineering is fixed. Not even a little bit.
> The amount of propaganda you guys eat from corporations and billionaires
You are literally defending the 8K lobby right now. They wrote the article that spawned this thread.
Remember when corporations told us that cigarettes didn't cause cancer?
Now they are telling us that they can't make efficient TVs.
Let's talk again in 12 months to see if they were able to decipher this unsolvable challenge.
> YOU as a person are 100% responsable for global warming is unbelievable
They don't say that and I don't believe it. I do believe we are all responsible of making green choices whenever we can by choosing to consume or not consume something, or to encourage or not encourage certain products and businesses. I don't encourage inefficient electronics.
> They live like kings, 1 polluting like 1 million of us pheasants,
I think you meant to say peasants. Yes, they are worse than us.
> but we must be held responsible for them.
No, each person is responsible for their own actions. They for theirs and we for ours.
> You guys can live like as you like,
Thank you for your permission. I will continue trying to not melt the planet.
> I have only 1 life
Fortunately.
> I won’t live like a dog.
So not getting an inefficient TV at an early date equates to "living like a dog." Gotcha. I'm going to try really hard to not die of laughter whenever I think of that.
NelchaelSS t1_it9lsod wrote
K.
soldiernerd t1_itai529 wrote
how is that a right? What grants that right?
MrMitchWeaver t1_itak91e wrote
The same legislation that grants you the right to have an inefficient 8K TV in March 2023.
soldiernerd t1_itaktcd wrote
Oh so nothing. Got it
PineappleLemur t1_itybq22 wrote
Issue is HDR content needing very high brightness display to work properly.
High enough to make you squint when the sun is on screen in a lit room.
So those panels will consume more energy when playing HDR content there's no way around this.
Most of the time it consumes as much as a fridge even for 65" TVs..
beleidigtewurst t1_it8w7td wrote
> The problem is that the regulations were set and designed around the average 1080p set power draw.
No, that is absolutely not "the problem" as one would have "upped" the figure otherwise.
It is conscious "we do not want to do that". The same reason why old style inefficient bulbs are banned.
Zncon t1_it93o2c wrote
There were a few things lost, but for the most part switching to LED was a neutral move to the consumer. They both create light.
A 1080p and 4k screen are not equivalents.
beleidigtewurst t1_it959cv wrote
It doesn't matter.
The goal is (at least for now, it might change if "energy will be abundant" vision turns true) that nobody wants to increase power consumption of an average household, on the opposite.
If that renders some shiny tech that arguably barely anyone on this planet needs, oh well.
[deleted] t1_it8u5b3 wrote
[removed]
nicuramar t1_itbakiy wrote
> So, what’s going to end up happening is either > - stagnation of innovation > > - 4k and 8k TVs no longer being sold in the EU.
Or something else that you didn’t think of.
BdR76 t1_itbbp1e wrote
>stagnation of innovation
Yeah restrictions are famous for stifling innovation and creativity. /s 🙄
Also if a livable planet means we won't have 32K tv's.. idk I think we'll manage, somehow
Jv1856 t1_it9jzjn wrote
Yes they should, bc this shit isn’t the problem. The problem is places like my old company that are using 40yo electric motors at 37% more draw than a contemporary motor. It works, so they’ll run it in to the ground. The power that place uses is 200x more than the rest of the town combined. Now think about the fact that there are 11 other manufacturing sites in that town, most (if not all) of which are at least as dated. And they all get a lower rate per kWh than residents. The municipality is just as bad too.
But yeah, focus on the consumers….
[deleted] t1_it9rznm wrote
[removed]
richardawkings t1_itayh8t wrote
Ohhhh boy.... whatever you do, do not look into water usage.
skinlo t1_itlca6n wrote
And what would be the energy cost of replacing that motor?
In car terms, it is almost always better to run your inefficient car for years until it is falling apart than buy a shiny new Tesla, because of the cost of resource extraction and manufacturing.
danielv123 t1_it9sh6t wrote
Why not both?
Jv1856 t1_it9xdqe wrote
-
because it never happens, it’s always targeted at everything BUT Corporations.
-
if corporations were doing their part, the rest wouldn’t even be needed. This is global, so needs to include China. But the energy consumption of the worlds corporations was collectively reduced even 15%, it would vastly surpass the world’s loftiest goals to reverse climate change.
Same thing with income tax(American): up to 1913, America was funded almost entirely from corporate taxes. In the 40s, it reached another level. Now today it’s almost the inverse, funded mostly by citizens. If corporations were taxed at the pre-war levels, they could fully fund the current post-secondary tuition bill, nationalized healthcare, and enough left over to start paying down the national debt, all with $0 income tax to the individual citizen.
Further, we no longer incentivize investment back into the company as a tax write-off like it was even a decade ago. This is to encourage stock buyback and consolidation, putting more money into billionaires pockets from the hands of the middle class.
- China. Full stop. They don’t give a shit and account for something egregious like 88% of all pollution and energy inefficiencies. Nothing is sacred over their except for power, control, and ¥¥¥.
Individuals should fight tooth and nail to resist this to put the onus back where it belongs.
soldiernerd t1_itahwh4 wrote
That's because there was no personal income tax until 1913.
In 2021, US Government revenue was 2.04T from personal income tax (50.7%), 1.31T from payroll taxes (32.6%), and 372B (9.2%) from corporate income tax.
50% of payroll taxes (16.3% of federal revenue) are paid by corporations, which means money directly from corporations makes up 25.5% of federal revenue. The other half (another 16.3% of federal revenue) is from employee-paid payroll taxes, which is just money handed from the employer to the employee to the government, so essentially 41.8% of federal revenue comes directly from the employer.
Looking at IRS data from 2018 and 2019 it appears that salaries and wage makes up about 2/3 of reported personal income.
Now that doesn't mean it is the source for 2/3 of the tax revenue of course, as deductions and credits alter that. Notwithstanding, if tax revenue from wages and salaries makes up only 16% of total personal income tax revenue, that would mean 50.0% of federal revenue is derived, directly or indirectly from a company.
The reality is that personal income tax on wage and salaries probably far exceeds 16% of all personal income tax revenue, meaning businesses are likely responsible for well over 50% of federal revenue.
That's without taking into account any other federal revenue streams from companies such as excise duties and customs taxes.
So companies are still a very very large driver of Federal revenue.
Jv1856 t1_itaily6 wrote
Payroll tax is not the same as income tax. Crediting corporations for employee-paid portions of payroll tax seems disingenuous to me
soldiernerd t1_itajfig wrote
I didn't say it was the same as income tax.
Why is it disingenuous? Where do you think the money is coming from?
Jv1856 t1_itajwia wrote
We don’t say that retailers pay 6% of tax on sales. They COLLECT the tax from the purchaser on behalf of the state. It’s the same with an employee’s share of payroll tax. That is money that theoretically would otherwise go to the employee, but the company collects on behalf of the government.
soldiernerd t1_itakabq wrote
Sure but the difference is sales tax is money coming from the consumer, with no tie to the collecting company.
Payroll tax is money the company hands to the employee, who immediately hands it to the government. It's money which was created by the company and which the government receives as a direct result of the company's economic activity.
danielv123 t1_itbb5ek wrote
Sales tax is avoidable. You can simply not buy anything and put it all in a bank account, so I agree that its something the consumer pays.
You cannot receive income without paying income tax. For that reason you might as well consider the tax part of the payout. Your income is paid by someone, and they are effectively paying your income tax as well.
MrMitchWeaver t1_it9aupb wrote
After hearing for decades of corporation shenanigans trying to avoid environmental standards I have ZERO empathy for them. Make it work, or don't sell it at all. 8K is not a human right FFS.
notataco007 t1_it8tzfk wrote
I don't know, probably. I get a feeling 500+ watt PCs are next
Starold t1_itbp1i9 wrote
It's consumers that buy hotter color boxes.
m4nu3lf t1_it92iib wrote
So what's next? Gaming PCs? If you want to reduce emissions you just tax carbon emissions and let the market adjust. What if I prefer a 8K TV but I don't own some other energy intensive hardware? I think the EU is becoming a joke.
ebonyseraphim t1_it9fkyg wrote
Seems off topic but it really is the same issue as when MLK called out “excessive consumerism” as a main problem he saw in western societies. The entire part of the speech he criticizes that we are forever busy, forever trying to do more business. That our devices and machines are not always time saving devices, nor are they soul saving devices.
When I look at how competitive and specific TV and monitor technology has become, and think about this: what resolution did we enjoy Independence Day (1996) at? The Lion King? I am in tech and have a lot of it myself so I’m not ignorant to what the differences are, but damn…we have to stop pushing forward. Companies push to out new stuff to motivate us to spent more money on stuff we don’t need, but can’t stand that someone else has it better than us (Drum Major Instinct). Eventually reviewers get on board and start educating us on why some spec or tech matters and everyone has to have it.
Do we really need the blackest of black next to bright spots perfectly rendered on our TV? If we actually understand how vision works and just “watch” movies, there is no difference. You have to direct someone’s attention to see a problem with virtually all of the “artifacts” present in lesser TVs.
Same thing for nVidia’s RTX. Sorry, games aren’t really ray tracing an entire scene. Visual effects can easily be faked to achieve results ray tracing can, without extra special hardware to achieve it. That’s how the industry still operates today and RTX is still mostly a checkbox feature gamedevs have to put effort into to make it worth it.
vinraven t1_it8qfow wrote
Can anyone see any 8K vs 4K difference with normal vision?
elkarion t1_it8s8cu wrote
Yes you can. But you will need a very very large screen to be able to tell.
Granum22 t1_it8t5s7 wrote
Or be sitting 3 inches away
kickerua t1_it8uh3d wrote
3 foot, not 3 inch.
For somebody monitor with 50" makes sense, I would buy it as I see it useful.
GibsonMaestro t1_it8znam wrote
A 50" screen doesn't need more than 1080p (and HDR, which only comes with 4k screens).
kickerua t1_it8zsfe wrote
I'm using 32" 4K at the moment, for gaming and productive work it's not a super high density
GibsonMaestro t1_it90o3f wrote
Yeah, but you're what - a foot away? Most people are going to be watching tv or gaming from a couch across the room.
kickerua t1_it91htd wrote
Yes, but I'm want to use it as regular monitor, so it's like 80 cm from me.
I totally agree for plain TV case 8k doesn't make any sense
GibsonMaestro t1_it91mtl wrote
Yes, in your case, 4k and possibly 8k totally makes sense
PeteThePolarBear t1_it9lx7a wrote
I reckon you just need glasses, it's pretty easy to tell the difference of 4k in a lounge room setting. Even with a smallish tv
GibsonMaestro t1_itakchv wrote
To add to this (rather than edit my response) 4k streaming on most services is roughly the same (and often times less than) the bitrate of a 1080p blu-ray (max 28Mbps).
Unless you're getting all your media from Apple TV+, which streams at 20 to 40Mpbs or from 4K discs, your 4K Television is outputting the same quality as a 1080p blu-ray, but with the addition of HDR.
walgman t1_itngjec wrote
Yeah but the modern pirate steamers playing out at max quality are well over 120Mbps at 4k. That’s Plex on Apple TV.
GibsonMaestro t1_itnlivk wrote
Yes, but pirate streamers are easily the minority of (North American/Western European) consumers. Of course, fringe groups can do better. Hell, you can almost consider blu-ray owners a fringe group, at this point.
GibsonMaestro t1_it9vbdv wrote
It's likely the HDR you're noticing, not the pixel density. Are you comparing to other televisions in your house, or upgrades to ones you've gotten rid of? Were the previous tvs low end?
Winjin t1_it95u4d wrote
Yeah it's not about resolution, it's all about DPI now basically. Besides a specific DPI it all becomes completely useless marketing.
Phil152 t1_it8yjed wrote
Definitely, and I'm on the older side (the Pleistocene Age on the Reddit spectrum) with eyesight that is still functional but nowhere near what it used to be.
Which is why we recently upgraded to a large screen 4k OLED. Compared to our old HD flatscreen, it's night and day. The old tv was perfectly functional. It was a decent midlevel tv when we got it. It served us well for many years. The upgrade was a conscious concession to age.
That's 4k. But when we were in the store (the Magnolia section in our local Best Buy, not some exotic high end specialty store), there were a couple of tv's on display that were just jaw-droppingly good in every dimension. The biggest of them had a price tag of $25,000, which of course very, very few of us would even consider buying unless we won the lottery. Naturally, however, both the picture quality and the price tag attracted my attention, and I felt compelled to ask about it. It WAS unmistakably better than anything else on display. It was a very large screen 8k OLED.
Yes, you can tell the difference with normal vision. You can tell the difference with significantly suboptimal vision.
The folks at the store were very quick to emphasize that this tv was on the floor simply to demonstrate the technology and alert people to what they might be considering 10+ years from now. Possibly sooner? Who knows? But it's good to see what's out there over the horizon.
They also emphasized that the pictures we were seeing on the 8k were specially made demo pieces, again simply to demonstrate the technology, that there is basically no 8k content available now, and that no one is anywhere close to streaming it. The good news, however, is that prices are coming down. That particular model will be only $17,000 next year. Not that this would make any difference to us.
How soon will 8k be a player in the Harry Homeowner market? Good question.
BenekCript t1_it96tpw wrote
No one is anywhere close to streaming full fidelity 4k and surround audio. I really hope we ditch discs for owned digital downloads that are equivalent or better…but we’re not there yet as far as I have found.
Phil152 t1_it9emkv wrote
My tech sophistication doesn't go much beyond changing batteries and hitting the power button. So a question:
I know that the streamers' ability to stream 4k is still a bit of a mixed bag. Some older content (especially old tv shows) is still SD, but since I don't watch tv shows, that's not a serious issue for us. A lot is still HD. More and more is 4k, but it's a mix. 4k is becoming the standard, but it will take time.
When we upgraded, we had to upgrade our cable speed and swap to a new 4k ready cable box. (I've thought about switching to fios but that's a separate issue.) My tv tells me the quality of the video I'm getting on any given movie.
My question: can you explain what the gap is between the "4k" listed for a given film and the "full fidelity 4k" to which you refer?
Surround sound is not an issue. We considered that, but we're in an old house and the tv is in a finished basement, but the configuration and wiring issues raised a lot of complications. We settled for a high quality sound bar, which for our room is more than enough.
danielv123 t1_it9sboy wrote
It's about bitrate. All video is compressed. Compression introduces artifacts - you can see this on low res youtube videos for example, rather than seeing large squares with a uniform color you see weird blob like patterns etc, especially in areas with gradients.
The bitrate is how much compressed data is transferred per second. More bitrate means less artifacts, but more expensive for the provider.
Typical 4k blue ray runs at about 100mbit/s. Apples high quality streaming tops out at 40, youtube typically runs about 15 but can reach as much as 40 in some scenes. Netflix doesn't go past 20.
This is not an inherent streaming limitation though, it's just about how much the provider wants to spend. I stream shows from Plex just fine at 120mbps.
Phil152 t1_it9z2n4 wrote
Thanks. There's nothing I can do about what the streaming networks do at the front end. Which for a technophobe like me means it is one more thing I don't have to worry or educate myself about. I suppose the streamers will get nudged along by competitive pressures as 4k TV's become more common. (That assumes the difference is enough for most home viewers to notice or care about.)
Do you know what the current market penetration is for 4k's?
TheThiefMaster t1_itb0i81 wrote
There's some good information on that topic in this YouTube video talking about YouTube experimenting with requiring a subscription for viewing at 4k, by someone that runs a major YouTube channel and small side streaming network (that does support 4k also).
It was about 44% penetration for 4k TVs, but for his content, TVs only made up 11% of viewers in total.
I suspect Netflix has more TV streamers so it would be different for them.
BenekCript t1_it9u2xy wrote
For similar reasons (cost) they also use lower fidelity sound mix. This is most noticeable in the surround channels. If you have at least a 5.1 system, watch a show you own on a streaming platform and then on 4k blu ray. Even those who don’t care about such things will notice the difference. The majority do not though, or would be unwilling to stomach increased cost to get there with streaming today. It also doesn’t help that the general internet infrastructure probably can’t support it en masse.
Phil152 t1_it9zmzf wrote
Thanks. I will try some side by side comparisons between a blu ray and streaming.
killerboy_belgium t1_itnbjly wrote
the big problem is the bitrate tho so even streaming services would serve 4k/8k if the bitrate is shit because its getting so compressed it doesnt really matter
TheThiefMaster t1_itb08zz wrote
Yeah at present a 1080p blu ray is a better picture than a 4k stream, because streams are compressed to hell.
Deadofnight109 t1_it8s8zn wrote
I think the only advantage to having an 8k screen is when the screen size starts getting massive. Like bigger then any home tvs. So it'll be good for say, theaters or big signage but totally useless in home.
13900_lP_wasted t1_ita5s3w wrote
Specially in developing countries where TV isn't even 1080p.. I've been saying this for a while, TV can't compete with streaming services/youtube if it won't even do 1080p, let alone 8K.
BigJigglingMelons t1_itrh4wd wrote
Most media consumption is now on phones or social sites as you listed by consumers
Theaters etc have been going downhill for a while and are the only true settings where these resolutions matters
Outside science and medical applications of course where the higher res the better
Little_Winge t1_italwp0 wrote
I keep seeing the phrase signage, but what does it actually mean?
TheThiefMaster t1_itb0ync wrote
Big advertising billboards. The TV style ones.
Little_Winge t1_itcn9p1 wrote
I am dumb, kinda thought it had to do with signing things like documents...
kickerua t1_it8uo9h wrote
Not bigger, actually in case you'll use regular 55" TV as a monitor with distance of ~80 cm it's already pretty bad with 4K.
And it makes sense in case it's curved
Deadofnight109 t1_it8xypl wrote
You're right, distance is also a factor. Was thinking more along the lines of across the room. Although as someone who uses my 55" 4k TV as a monitor from across the room I couldn't imagine sitting that close to it lol. I think you have to be closer then like 5ft to notice the difference on a 60"tv.
FlanOfAttack t1_it9uqhv wrote
For me it's a desktop productivity thing. I've been using 27" 1440p monitors for about a decade, and I'd like to high-PPI the desktop and gain a little more screen real estate. To properly double my resolution I'd have to go up to 5K, and that would still be a 27" monitor.
With 8K at 40", I could have the pixel density of a MacBook display, but the screen real estate of two full desktop monitors.
StayyFrostyy t1_it8tchi wrote
I was comparing the two at store and honestly i couldnt tell the difference
NelvisAlfredo t1_it8uju2 wrote
Technically for normal TV viewing distance (not computer monitor distance) you can’t even discern the difference between 1080p and 4K even with perfect vision.
Dark_Clark t1_it9gc0p wrote
That’s not even close to being true. I can absolutely tell a difference.
MoltresRising t1_it8vux9 wrote
What? My wife said the she couldn't tell the difference until I showed her the same video in 1080p vs 4K while she sat on our couch. Then she said 'It's like the fish are in our living room!" and now she's on board with 4K.
NelvisAlfredo t1_it8wgos wrote
It is likely other advancements like high dynamic range or local dimming that are making the difference for her. Basically at a pretty standard 10ft TV viewing distance the screen would have to be ungodly huge for her to see the difference in pure resolution.
MoltresRising t1_it8wnqa wrote
Article with a scientific study on this?
auctorel t1_it90uf7 wrote
Table in this article with distance you have to be to be able to tell the difference
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2017/11/01/when-a-4k-tv-looks-just-like-a-1080p-tv/
It really is pretty ridiculously close
shifty_coder t1_ita0uoz wrote
I’d go with LTT’s input over some tech journalist’s on Forbes’
QueefBuscemi t1_it90jfb wrote
Someone test this man's wife in laboratory conditions!
GibsonMaestro t1_it90gvh wrote
They are plentiful and easy to find. /uNelvisAlfredo is speaking the truth, and it should be common knowledge by now.
A mid range 1080p plasma will kick the crap out of any non HDR LCD/LED tv in terms of contrast, color accuracy, and refresh rate.
HDR is a game changer, however.
thefinalcutdown t1_it943lp wrote
Very much this. I happen to have both a low-end 4K tv for general viewing and a top-of-the-line (at the time) 1080p plasma for “movie night” viewing. There’s absolutely no comparison. The plasma is miles and miles ahead in every way. Contrast and black levels make way more of a difference than resolution, but that’s harder to market to the general public. I have above average vision (close to 20:10) so I can see a slight difference in the resolutions at 10-12ft viewing distances but that’s minuscule in comparison to the areas in which the plasma excels.
ETA: the low-end 4K is 50” and the plasma is 60”
I-seddit t1_ita4cbk wrote
Bullshit.
mark_99 t1_it8w7r2 wrote
You really can, although only in parts of the image that are high contrast and/or high frequency.
[deleted] t1_it929el wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_itavtmz wrote
[removed]
imakesawdust t1_itaaqsy wrote
IKR? I have a 75" TV but my couch is 11 feet away. I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference between 4K and 8K content. Hell, I'm not convinced I can really tell the difference between 1080p and 4k content at this distance.
pseudobipartisan t1_it9fejt wrote
I can’t tell when it’s a normal screen but I can definitely tell on my oculus.
wolfofremus t1_it9x019 wrote
I kinda wish my 48" OLED is 8K instead of 4K. If you have to read a lot on the screen, a high res monitor will change your life.
WetDehydratedWater t1_itb3j8o wrote
Yes. Easy to see. Particularly if you use an OLED as a large format monitor. I can see 4k pixels on a 65 inch screen easily at regular viewing distances. 5ft back or so. EU rules for tvs are dumb. Eco settings ruin TV display quality. First thing to turn off on any TV.
rocketwidget t1_itq8odm wrote
Technically yes, especially if you have a very large screen or sit very close. But the effect will always be very subtle. It's a diminishing returns problem.
There is also the content problem. 8k content exists, but it's very rare.
(P.S. Just my opinion, but the thing that makes people go "wow" with existing 4k TVs is not mostly the 4k part, it's improvements to things like High Dynamic Range (HDR) and Wide Color Gamut, the quality of which varies significantly by 4k set. I'm personally a bit cynical of 8k because of the price premium).
Knuddelbearli t1_it913au wrote
I don't even see a difference (I see one when I search for difference but not Netflix and chill) from FHD to 4k ...
Winjin t1_it9661u wrote
Yeah not too mention that most people (like 90%?) are probably watching compressed videos that are barely real full HD.
Like I remember thinking whether I need 4K to watch movies... And then I reminded myself that I have dirt cheap wifi and watch everything in compressed 720p.
danielv123 t1_it9r180 wrote
YouTube has done the testing and it turns out most people are fine with 360p somehow.
ThePu55yDestr0yr t1_ita2bkk wrote
Tbf majority demographics of YouTube are like:
-
Half probably bot net inflating viewers, astro turfing or annoying content creators
-
children who don’t care for HD cus they don’t know how to press buttons on their iPhone or TV, or mindlessly auto-playing watching kid shows or some dumb content creators
-
Everyone else, fifth or quarter of “everyone else” are probably vision impaired or old people where hd may not matter.
Also music vid viewers who don’t give a shit about video quality replaying over and over.
HD demographics are gonna be the minority when, need good internet (or patience), and don’t fall into above categories.
Personally I prefer HD vids but no way I can tolerate video buffering and shit ads on trash connection
TheThiefMaster t1_itb14g7 wrote
If you have a phone in portrait mode you probably don't have many more pixels than that for a video.
I've done it a few times scrolling comments while the video played.
TheBigFeIIa t1_it9vf3l wrote
Hardly surprising given decades of fuzzy analog TV
mileswilliams t1_it9qt7y wrote
First thing I ever watched in HD was South Park.
Knuddelbearli t1_itb8i6e wrote
Yes, anime/animation and porn is where I'm most likely to notice a difference on my TV. But still, FHD ( on 42 inches, with 65+ then eventually 4k) is actually enough for me, I prefer better colours / black levels.
Whatifim80lol t1_it8r6cd wrote
Lol no. But that doesn't stop people from feeling like they can. We don't need 144hz monitors either, human flicker-fusion threshold is like 60hz. Anything over 90 makes very little difference for our eyes.
Edit: your eyes aren't seeing those higher refresh rates, they're just seeing a crispy picture and less blur as the frames change. The way frames are drawn by games make this difference, not the monitor itself per se. Gamers always take this news hard for some reason, I guess because of marketing or something? The difference you see isn't what you think it is. Your eyes physically don't work that way.
Basically, if there is a LOT of change between frames in what needs to be drawn from frame to frame (like spinning around 360⁰), the change between those frames appears muddier as they are quickly drawn across the monitor. Higher fps/hz just spread this muddiness across more frames, so each frame looks slightly crisper than it would otherwise.
Your eyes do not see more frames in a second just because you're playing at a high frame rate.
tycoon282 t1_it8rpmr wrote
Nah, high refresh is 👌🏼 once you see 165hz, 60 is 🤢
NerdMouse t1_it8rorl wrote
You say that but doesn't VR say that 90hz is the bare minimum needed to have a smooth experience? Cause I have a VR headset and I can definitely tell when it's just at 90hz
rbnhd_f t1_it8s7zm wrote
Yes, this person is just plain wrong - talking out of their ass. There is diminishing returns the higher you get, but 30fps is absolute trash compared to 120 or 144.
that_other_goat t1_it8urke wrote
If I am remembering correctly it's to avoid the issues with early VR like eye strain, headaches and nausea. I could be misremembering but I'm not sure.
The virtual boy was terrible and there were often vomit buckets beside the hang glider sims at the arcade.
Diggsey t1_it8s6ln wrote
This is not true at all - high refresh rates are very easily detectable, and the human eye doesn't operate at any particular "refresh rate". Humans can detect very tiny difference in reaction times (eg. when you move a mouse and seeing that movement reflected on a screen). A 30hz computer monitor is almost unusable with a mouse. 60hz is fine for normal usage, but for eg. gaming you can get a measurable advantage with 144hz instead and feels smoother. There's probably no reason to ever go above 200hz.
Regarding resolution - yeah 8k is pointless for most usecases, but it really depends on how it's going to be viewed. 8k projected on the side of a building could make sense if you expect people to be looking at it up close. Meanwhile anything above 1080p is completely pointless if it's a watch face...
thecist t1_it8rtj4 wrote
It’s just you who can’t see a difference
elkarion t1_it8spip wrote
The high rephrase is not for our eyes its to more accurately syncing to what's happened. The game say runs at 300 fps. You get 1 frame ever 60say but if you go to 120 time since last frame is reduced so your display will be more up to date.
120 should be standard. Stop with this blurry shit that Hollywood put on us as 24.
I own a 144 hz monitor and notice when it's not smooth and see the dips to sub 60 when game is stressful to the hardware.
TeFD_Difficulthoon t1_it8s500 wrote
AHAHAHAAHHAHAH
nero519 t1_it8tau6 wrote
You either have never used a 144hz monitor or you could have an actual eye problem, is pretty much impossible not to notice the difference.
[deleted] t1_it8u5b6 wrote
[deleted]
wavecult t1_it8uhiy wrote
So in essence the EU is driving innovation - to manufacture devices that do more, with the same amount of energy. Doing more with less pretty much sounds like a big part of the definition of what innovation should be and honestly feels like the way to go.
The industry's concern is clearly more focused on their ability to milk profits than offering the best product possible for the end consumer. Many may disagree, but I find it rather unfortunate that not all countries have regulatory bodies protecting and driving consumer's best interests (as well as environmental interests). In many places the main concerns seem to be oriented towards the protection of profits and corporate interests.
The current 8k lineup doesn't offer better energy efficiency because it was never high on the priorities list of manufacturers, not because its impossible. The article clearly acknowledges that consumption is high and that there are ways to reduce it and Samsung seems to be saying it is doable.
There are known limitations with the current materials and processes and I guess that is precisely why the drive should've been put towards true innovation.
As a consumer I'm perfectly happy to wait a year or 2 before there are 8k options available with reasonable power consumption - after all it really is in my own best interest to do so.
zowie54 t1_it8nqog wrote
8k is stupid and unnecessary.
Nervous-Message-4394 t1_it92yoz wrote
the same thing was once said about FullHD
Theworden1111 t1_it8u84k wrote
Thank you! Back in my day, we only has 720p and we called that HD! I remember when they first invented color
alice_op t1_it8z6he wrote
TV is stupid and unnecessary, back in my day we had a radio -- I remember when they invented the first wireless.
sillypicture t1_it9ffxr wrote
Radio is stupid and useless. Back in my day we had the town crier keeping us apprised of the latest shenanigans around town and we were happy.
kickerua t1_it8u6j4 wrote
I'm using 32" 4K monitor and I use 125% scaling.
I'm drying about 40-50" curved one with 8k, basically somewhat similar pixel density as what I have now, but being much bigger.
Yes it's not going to be usefull full screen, but I can limit game window to reasonable size. But during productive work I wish I had "distant space" like second screen to put windows out of main focus. I can buy second screen now, but I want to have one giant.
ShadowRiku667 t1_it8sk8k wrote
There isn’t even enough 4k content and they are trying to push 8???
americansherlock201 t1_it9f1ha wrote
Yup. 4K TVs are easy to get and common now. So they need to push something else to justify prices in the several thousand dollar range and up.
They know there isn’t content for the last Gen but they don’t care. Their job is to get people to buy the next Gen technology. It’s up to others to create the content for the technology
katycake t1_itb1o3p wrote
We don't even need 8K.
Is there any reason to upgrade at this point? Our eyeballs were actually quite content with 360p at one point, but then things changed and showed how much ass that sucked.
I don't need to see 8K just to get pissed off at currently 4K content. Let's ride that for as long as possible.
goldbloodedinthe404 t1_itclrib wrote
There are reasons to upgrade 4k tvs to better 4k tvs there aren't reasons to upgrade to 8k
VeryLazyNarrator t1_itbksgf wrote
There isn't even a wide enough adoptability with 4K TVs and Monitors.
I feel like they are moving faster than the consumers and media can move. 4k is only now starting to be more adopted, which still isn't all that much.
Optimus_Prime_Day t1_it9ggww wrote
What? Like everything on streaming services are 4k HDR if it was made in the last few years.
Sirisian t1_it8yi9y wrote
Not sure I'm buying this. MicroLED as mentioned should be fine in terms of power usage, so it's not the display technology.
> More video processing means more transistors in the TV’s System n Chip (SoC) IC compared to a 4K version, and so, more power consumption.
Using an 8K capable decoder and modern fabrication should handle this fine. This ignores that in the time since 4K that chips are smaller and more energy efficient. Now trying to use older hardware and run at 8K and it will draw a lot of power, but that's exactly what regulation like this is trying to prevent. Devices that last years drawing way more power than they should.
GeorgeRRHodor t1_itctbnm wrote
The relevant part is the backlight (or the light emitting part of an OLED pixel):
>With a nearly constant-sized infrastructure component, that means the light-passing part of the pixel (aperture ratio) is much smaller in 8K displays vs. 4K displays. As a result, more backlight power is needed to create the same on-screen luminance as the equivalent-sized 4K TV. A similar problem exists for OLED 8K displays as well.
You need a much stronger backlight to get an equivalent screen brightness, and that means higher energy consumption. That's such physics, and there is no way around it.
Sure, an entirely new display technology that makes the smaller 8K pixels let through more light, could possibly alleviate the issue, but we don't have something like that in the pipeline.
Throwdaway543210 t1_it8ny3c wrote
Sele81 t1_it96wyu wrote
In Germany we don’t even have proper Full-HD TV channels. If you want Full-HD you have to pay extra money for free channels. 4K is still future tech for some reason.
palegate t1_it9mi2r wrote
That reason most likely being bandwidth.
Equadex t1_it9wsp8 wrote
They could use modern compression techniques like HEVC or VVC. It's a solved problem.
[deleted] t1_it9th1n wrote
[removed]
Starold t1_itbpfsk wrote
4K content is not coming from TV channels, but from internet based sources.
Sele81 t1_itbrv0k wrote
I am Turkish/German living in Germany and Turkey. In Turkey we for example have TRT 4K. It’s free over cable and all series and stuff are in 4K. Almost all free TV channels are HD/Full-HD. In Germany most free channels are SD. If you want HD or even Full-HD you pay money. 4K is only available on Sky.
JAYKEBAB t1_it8qoyc wrote
I'm pretty sure it only applies to the standard mode so it doesn't really matter. Just have it ship in eco and if someone is tech savy enough to know about picture quality they will change it.
heckdditor t1_it8r6ms wrote
Why is it important an 8K Tv? What does it do that a 4k doesn't?
Shakeyy13 t1_it8un9c wrote
Why is it important an 4K Tv? What does it do that a 1080p doesn't?
Zncon t1_it94l2r wrote
Why is it important an 1080p Tv? What does it do that a 480i doesn't?
januarytwentysecond t1_it9fujd wrote
Why is it important a 1080p TV? What does it do that a 640i doesn't?
heckdditor t1_it8wbei wrote
Exactly. Why do you need 8k and 4k TV's?
Starold t1_itbq4zu wrote
Isnt it obvious? More pixels...
As why it's important, bigger TVs will need more pixels to keep the DPI viable.
heckdditor t1_itc0ds7 wrote
How big do you need a TV? 83 inches isn't it big enough?
Starold t1_itc5qt0 wrote
Depende on the room size. 100" are very viable in some places.
PineappleLemur t1_itybzq8 wrote
150" to enjoy the personal theater experience...
It's usually as big as your wall/living room can fit.
skinlo t1_itldfve wrote
Little. People don't understand diminishing returns, so instead make edgy comments.
mmarollo t1_it93kk3 wrote
8K makes sense for computer monitors because you're so close. For TVs? Few people can tell the difference, and among those who can not many people care.
PineappleLemur t1_itybva7 wrote
It's the other way around actually... It's all about DPI.
johansugarev t1_it9lw21 wrote
Resolution is pretty irrelevant once you’re more than a 2 meters away. I use an LG oled 55” from about 1m away as a monitor. I do see a case for an 8k model in my scenario but that’s not how most people use them.
throwdroptwo t1_it9t6yg wrote
More EU laws affecting the world lmao.
skinlo t1_itld6gr wrote
I mean the world is affected by US laws enough.
PhasmaFelis t1_ita6mv5 wrote
> 8K displays also require more sophisticated video processing than comparable 4K displays. That’s because there are four times as many pixels to process with the need to upscale nearly all current video sources today.
I love how they admit right there that there isn't even any 8K content to watch on the damn things.
AutoModerator t1_it8hwwc wrote
We have multiple giveaways running!
Phone 14 Pro & Ugreen Nexode 140W chargers Giveaway!
WOWCube® Entertainment System!
Hohem Go AI-powered Tracking Smartphone Holder Giveaway!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_it8mmra wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it93tpy wrote
[removed]
incoherent1 t1_ita26ut wrote
8K mostly seems like a fad anyway. Except for maybe video and photo editing.
escalinci t1_itay511 wrote
>The power consumption limits on 8K TVs (and microLED-based displays) are set so low that essentially none of these devices will pass
The association seems to be implying that MicroLED is also at risk, a technology that actually presents benefits the the average viewer. But as I understand it, that's not the case.
It seems perfectly fine for the EU not to want an arrival of 8k displays to be accompanied by a big uptick in power consumption.
dniffjj t1_itbdla2 wrote
It’s hard to argue either way without specifics but the average tv size I’ve come across is about 55” viewed from around 2.5 meters away at which point the added pixels make no difference - it’s impossible to see. However what people are Lilley seeing at this distance is the difference a decent screen or broadcast will make and don’t forget many 4K broadcast use Dolby vision and other tech not related to pixel count.
[deleted] t1_itbxqsk wrote
[removed]
shelf_caribou t1_itazyxf wrote
Fantastic. Tv is not more important than the planet. (Do cars next!)
Zionics t1_itctdyh wrote
Man. In before the mass exodus of trees to print more newspapers. Oh wait. Killing more trees = destroying more of the earth's natural regulatory defenses....Damn.
Are we just slow rolling death on all sides?
(The point here is too much production of anything will make a mess. Now how do we solve that when people are used to prime delivery?)
viski252 t1_itb1b57 wrote
"Oh no! I will be forced to buy a 4K 120 Hz monitor! Boo hoo!"
m_willberg t1_itb6k7k wrote
Maybe they do not need to have "bigger marketing numbers". To me display devices have way too much brightness ... tv @ 30%, monitors @ 25%, phone @ 15%. Lower max. brightness == lower max. energy usage.
I have shivers seeing commuting people blasting their phones so bright that you can read the text on their faces.
Zionics t1_itct1ln wrote
But without the additional nits, the explosions aren't as boomy :(:(.
JasonP27 t1_itan7yw wrote
It's always the EU and their regulations 🤷
Starold t1_itbq8zc wrote
Thankfully
Ok-Brilliant-1737 t1_it8qu7x wrote
Welp, here shortly the EU won’t have enough electricity to run a transistor ration, so it’s kinda moot.
Ok-disaster2022 t1_it8nwbj wrote
I'm sorry but should consumers really care? Energy efficiency regulators are trying to impose standards to benefit society. Vendors can either innovate to meet those regulations or just not sell in the marketplace. The world is dying and manufactures want to sell even hotter color boxes.