The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/01/lg-joins-the-rest-of-the-world-accepts-that-people-dont-want-8k-tvs/
20 comments
Sounds like you have too small TV or you too long viewing distance.
The differency between FullHD and 4K is very noticeable with THX-recommended viewing angles. I watch 98” from 3 meters.
The differency between FullHD and 4K is very noticeable with THX-recommended viewing angles. I watch 98” from 3 meters.
That is an enormous TV that would dominate the decor of almost any living room. Even if it was a The Frame tv it still would be too dominant a piece.
OP is right, at the typical TV pixel per angle (TV distance + screen size), 2160p is a waste. That's also why I always tell people to switch on performance mode on all console games that support it. Doubling your FPS for an imperceptible resolution decrease is a golden trade-off.
Ironically, monitor pixel per angle is still often too small. For typical desk viewing distances, you want 2160p at 21" and 2880p at 27". Most people that have big monitors have 2160p at 27".
Note that ultra-wide or not doesn't matter if you express the resolution you want in the vertical
OP is right, at the typical TV pixel per angle (TV distance + screen size), 2160p is a waste. That's also why I always tell people to switch on performance mode on all console games that support it. Doubling your FPS for an imperceptible resolution decrease is a golden trade-off.
Ironically, monitor pixel per angle is still often too small. For typical desk viewing distances, you want 2160p at 21" and 2880p at 27". Most people that have big monitors have 2160p at 27".
Note that ultra-wide or not doesn't matter if you express the resolution you want in the vertical
Not aware of viewing distance recommendations differing between monitors and TV; it's the same 30°-40° of horizontal field-of-view for both, with 32° being a notable notch along the range.
This is then usually combined with the 60 PPD visual acuity quasi-myth, and so you get 1800px, 1920px, and 2400px horizontal resolutions as the bar, mapping to FHD and ~WQHD resolutions diagonal size independently. From these, one could conclude even UHD is already overkill. Note for example how a FHD monitor of exactly standard density (96 PPI, so ~23") at 32° hfov results in precisely 60 PPD. That is exactly the math working out in its intended way afaik.
At the same time, Mac users will routinely bring up the Pro Display XDR and how they think it is the bare minimum and everything else is rubbish (*), with it coming in at a staggering ~200 PPD, 188 PPD, and ~150 PPD at 30°, 32°, and 40° hfov respectively. Whether the integer result at 32° is just the work of the winds, who knows. It is nonetheless a solid 3x the density that was touted so fine, you would "not be able to see the individual pixels". But if that was a lie back then...
The pixel density (PPI, PPD), viewing distance, and screen real estate discussion is not one with a satisfying end to it I'm afraid. Just a whole lot of numerology, some of which I sadly cannot help but contribute to myself.
(*) not a reliable narration of these sentiments necessarily
This is then usually combined with the 60 PPD visual acuity quasi-myth, and so you get 1800px, 1920px, and 2400px horizontal resolutions as the bar, mapping to FHD and ~WQHD resolutions diagonal size independently. From these, one could conclude even UHD is already overkill. Note for example how a FHD monitor of exactly standard density (96 PPI, so ~23") at 32° hfov results in precisely 60 PPD. That is exactly the math working out in its intended way afaik.
At the same time, Mac users will routinely bring up the Pro Display XDR and how they think it is the bare minimum and everything else is rubbish (*), with it coming in at a staggering ~200 PPD, 188 PPD, and ~150 PPD at 30°, 32°, and 40° hfov respectively. Whether the integer result at 32° is just the work of the winds, who knows. It is nonetheless a solid 3x the density that was touted so fine, you would "not be able to see the individual pixels". But if that was a lie back then...
The pixel density (PPI, PPD), viewing distance, and screen real estate discussion is not one with a satisfying end to it I'm afraid. Just a whole lot of numerology, some of which I sadly cannot help but contribute to myself.
(*) not a reliable narration of these sentiments necessarily
> Not aware of viewing distance recommendations differing between monitors and TV
Uh.. what?
You usually sit 60cm from your monitor, but 3-6m from your TV. It completely changes the math, which lets you "cheat" with ordinary TV sizes (50"-65") because you will not or barely notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p.
The other way around, your monitor won't really get the 'retina' effect of not discerning pixels until you hit ~220 PPI.
Uh.. what?
You usually sit 60cm from your monitor, but 3-6m from your TV. It completely changes the math, which lets you "cheat" with ordinary TV sizes (50"-65") because you will not or barely notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p.
The other way around, your monitor won't really get the 'retina' effect of not discerning pixels until you hit ~220 PPI.
> 3-6m from your TV (...) lets you "cheat" with ordinary TV sizes (50"-65") because you will not or barely notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p.
Yes, at those sizes and distances, all the usual rules of thumb will report that the difference will be indistinguishable between FHD and UHD. We're in agreement there.
It's just that if "cinematic immersion" is among the goals at all, I really don't think e.g. viewing a 50" TV from 6 meters away can provide it. That's more like "something is making noise while I'm having a pop and scrolling social media on my phone" at best. A lot of TV watching happens like that, but then resolution is rarely a concern during those anyways.
> You usually sit 60cm from your monitor
> the 'retina' effect
So we're selecting for 60 PPD ("retina") at 60 cm of viewing distance, let's see:
21" -> 42.352° hfov, 2544 × 1431, ~139 PPI. At UHD, it's ~210 PPI. WQHD would be enough though, and that'd be ~140 PPI.
22" -> 44.18° hfov, 2656 × 1494, ~139 PPI. At UHD, it's ~200 PPI.
23" -> 45.981° hfov, 2768 × 1557, ~138 PPI. At UHD, it's ~192 PPI.
24" -> 47.761° hfov, 2880 × 1620, ~138 PPI. At UHD, it's ~184 PPI.
25" -> 49.52° hfov, 2976 × 1674, ~137 PPI. At UHD, it's ~176 PPI.
26" -> 51.25° hfov, 3088 × 1737, ~136 PPI. At UHD, it's ~169 PPI.
27" -> 52.96° hfov, 3184 × 1791, ~135 PPI. At UHD, it's ~163 PPI.
All of this is to say, I have no idea where you're pulling that ~220 PPI figure from, especially when it comes to higher sizes.
You can also see the PPI slowly descending from some maximum value (eventually reaching 0) since we're talking about a flat panel, and so the math slowly gives out. If you assume a curved display and make the viewing distance the curvature radius (600R) to compensate, you can calculate that maximum value to be ~145.5 PPI. In that case, this value would remain fixed no matter the diagonal size. Not anywhere close to 220 PPI still however.
That said, I definitely sit further than 60 cm too.
Yes, at those sizes and distances, all the usual rules of thumb will report that the difference will be indistinguishable between FHD and UHD. We're in agreement there.
It's just that if "cinematic immersion" is among the goals at all, I really don't think e.g. viewing a 50" TV from 6 meters away can provide it. That's more like "something is making noise while I'm having a pop and scrolling social media on my phone" at best. A lot of TV watching happens like that, but then resolution is rarely a concern during those anyways.
> You usually sit 60cm from your monitor
> the 'retina' effect
So we're selecting for 60 PPD ("retina") at 60 cm of viewing distance, let's see:
21" -> 42.352° hfov, 2544 × 1431, ~139 PPI. At UHD, it's ~210 PPI. WQHD would be enough though, and that'd be ~140 PPI.
22" -> 44.18° hfov, 2656 × 1494, ~139 PPI. At UHD, it's ~200 PPI.
23" -> 45.981° hfov, 2768 × 1557, ~138 PPI. At UHD, it's ~192 PPI.
24" -> 47.761° hfov, 2880 × 1620, ~138 PPI. At UHD, it's ~184 PPI.
25" -> 49.52° hfov, 2976 × 1674, ~137 PPI. At UHD, it's ~176 PPI.
26" -> 51.25° hfov, 3088 × 1737, ~136 PPI. At UHD, it's ~169 PPI.
27" -> 52.96° hfov, 3184 × 1791, ~135 PPI. At UHD, it's ~163 PPI.
All of this is to say, I have no idea where you're pulling that ~220 PPI figure from, especially when it comes to higher sizes.
You can also see the PPI slowly descending from some maximum value (eventually reaching 0) since we're talking about a flat panel, and so the math slowly gives out. If you assume a curved display and make the viewing distance the curvature radius (600R) to compensate, you can calculate that maximum value to be ~145.5 PPI. In that case, this value would remain fixed no matter the diagonal size. Not anywhere close to 220 PPI still however.
That said, I definitely sit further than 60 cm too.
> That said, I definitely sit further than 60 cm too.
I've tried sitting closer than 1 metre / (3ft) from a flat 32" 4K display, and I find it kind of overwhelming. At 60cm viewing distance I end basically up keeping one window down the middle of the display that is in focus, and put utility windows off to the sides - and then I physically translate my head to look at then, because the corners of the screen are distorted if I just pivot.
I used to have a 40" 4K display, back when such things were available on eBay from SK, and I had to wall mount it some ways behind the back of my desk to use it comfortably.
I'm sure a curved panel would help with the corner distortion up close, but it kind of seems like a solution in search of a problem.
I've tried sitting closer than 1 metre / (3ft) from a flat 32" 4K display, and I find it kind of overwhelming. At 60cm viewing distance I end basically up keeping one window down the middle of the display that is in focus, and put utility windows off to the sides - and then I physically translate my head to look at then, because the corners of the screen are distorted if I just pivot.
I used to have a 40" 4K display, back when such things were available on eBay from SK, and I had to wall mount it some ways behind the back of my desk to use it comfortably.
I'm sure a curved panel would help with the corner distortion up close, but it kind of seems like a solution in search of a problem.
> The differency between FullHD and 4K is very noticeable with THX-recommended viewing angles. I watch 98” from 3 meters.
I think you'll find fairly few people (outside of serious TV enthusiasts) have their living room setup like this. It's a massive amount of wall space to dedicate to a TV, and a pretty tight sofa <-> coffee table <-> TV placement.
I think you'll find fairly few people (outside of serious TV enthusiasts) have their living room setup like this. It's a massive amount of wall space to dedicate to a TV, and a pretty tight sofa <-> coffee table <-> TV placement.
> I realized the whole time most of the streaming services I used barely even gave me 4k content, and when they did it was so low bitrate it was basically comparable to 1080p.
That is also my experience. You get a mashed, distorted, rescalled resolution (being UHD or FHD) which makes original MPEG promotion videos (320x240 pixels) look sharp.
Streaming is all about lies. They want to use the lowest possible bitrate while promising you the moon.
That is also my experience. You get a mashed, distorted, rescalled resolution (being UHD or FHD) which makes original MPEG promotion videos (320x240 pixels) look sharp.
Streaming is all about lies. They want to use the lowest possible bitrate while promising you the moon.
I think the new tech that will go mainstream for displays is colored backlight inplace for white backlight as the current limitation of displays is more the color, brightness and contrast. Not the resolution.
As I have said many times when ever there is a discussion on 8K, I wished we had settled on 6K instead. Something above 4K, but not 8K which is practically useless on TV.
Why would 6K be better if no one can tell the difference between 4K and 8K? For sure no one would be able to tell the difference between 4K and 6K.
> Why would 6K be better if no one can tell the difference between 4K and 8K?
Because that is not entirely accurate. It is just in most cases. And now the improvement all went to HDR and Framerate. Which is much more useful, but we missed the opportunity for a Higher Res and forever stuck with 4K when economy of scale meant anything but 4K wont ever be able to compete.
Because that is not entirely accurate. It is just in most cases. And now the improvement all went to HDR and Framerate. Which is much more useful, but we missed the opportunity for a Higher Res and forever stuck with 4K when economy of scale meant anything but 4K wont ever be able to compete.
The entire article talks about how almost no one can tell the difference and it's not worth the money. If practically no one can tell the difference between 8k and 4k then no one can tell the difference between 6k and 4k. The effort to try to convince people to make the upgrade is even more useless.
How about 8K monitors though? Never enough pixels!
When I recently switched to self-hosting, I was almost certain since I was so used to 4k that I’d need to self-host all 4k content.
I realized the whole time most of the streaming services I used barely even gave me 4k content, and when they did it was so low bitrate it was basically comparable to 1080p.
So now I specifically download 4k movies for ones that I really care about being 4k (e.g nature documentaries) and for the rest 1080p is more convenient space/time wise.