Originally Posted by pgwalsh
Originally Posted by mastermaybe
As many have already mentioned- and similarly to 4K- we have reached the level of this resolution idiocy where one cannot even take in the ENTIRE IMAGE at the distances required to fully resolve said image...or certainly cannot be taken in with some level of discomfort.
With my 150" screen for instance, go ahead and sit 8-9 feet away with 4K (the distance required to "take it all in" , lmao) and tell me your brain does feel like a pan of scrambled eggs in 5 minutes.
Again, it's not about "having something against 8K". It's about SO many other attributes regarding picture quality where time and money would be so much better spent. It's a phallus-measuring-marketing-game and anyone with a brain between their ears knows it: 8K would sell the common-folk at at LEAST a 3:1 margin vs HDR, DV, black level "x" tech , or anything else: and ALL of course are more important at this stage of the game.
This all never minds the fact that the reality is that internet bandwidth borders on soup cans and string for (still) a shocking percentage in this country-- fantastically behind most first (and third) world countries.
Good luck with those 4 (never mind, 8) K streams/downloads.
James, you're literally the first person I've heard complain about a large screen and seeing 4K on it. Then you rage about 8K and the internet and how everyone else is more advanced than in the USA. I live in a foreign country where the government has spent billions on fiberoptic internet throughout the country..... well, that's not entirely true. They have pushed it out to regions where there's a concentrated population. I live 15 minutes outside the city and have to use wireless and have very limited bandwidth with extremely slow connection and it's very very expensive. I live in a reality that 4k streaming wont happen where I live for 10 plus years and that's optimistic. People here still rent discs and those that live in the city complain how slow their internet is and they're on fiber. So in reality it's not much different than the USA. I'm still a disc purchaser and will be for a long time so in my book purchasing or renting 4K or 8K isn't an issue.
Anyway, no one is going to force 8K down your throat, so no reason to get so upset about it and just because "you" don't think it's necessary doesn't mean it should not happen. If you go by that logic we should all still be using computers with punch cards. [IMG class=inlineimg]https://www.avsforum.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/IMG]
Wow. Seems you spent a lot of time and keystrokes repeating things I never said.
I'm not "upset", I just think and know 8k is a joke.
And I didn't "complain" about 4k, I asserted that 4k is BARELY worthwhile (IN AND OF ITSELF) on anything but the largest screens (see my 150?). Yes, MOST times 4k resolution cannot even be resolved...read: enjoyed/deciphered from 1080.
Yes, within 12-14' or so on my ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY INCH SCREEN, 4k - in and of itself- offers improved detail that can be realized at a near-typical distance for a screen of its size.
4k on 50, 60, 70 and even 80" displays?
All but a joke when 95+% sit 10+ feet away.
And yes, there are 200 countries on the planet- some with inferior i-net to the states. Doesn't invalidate what I stated, of course.
The analogy re the cpu's with punch cards was so flaccid and I won't even dignify it with a retort.
Enjoy 8k. Hopefully the sooner, the worse off we?ll all be as meaningful improvements in display technology will fall into the rearview while all the lemmings chase the new "x-k" and we hear how any imbecile can see how it clearly spirals 4k into the ground.