LG joins Sony and TCL in abandoning 8K TV market

[Subset6]

I made the mistake of jumping on the 4k bandwagon way to early. The early 4k monitors where very expensive and like 8K suffered from interface issues. I had to use MST to combine two, 2K images into one logical 4K display. It worked pretty well but had some limitations and annoyances outside windows.

However as this was a monitor I was not exactly starved from 4K content and I had a PC that was very capable of pushing 4K60 back then via SLI. When I saw 8K I did a major eye roll and said never again.
4K actually made sense from a pure pixel density standpoint, 8K not so much. It's not useless but much more niche then 4k ever was.

The only consumer use case's I could think of would be a very large display, such as a 200 inch 8K projector home theater room, or possibly a high end HMD.

 

[themastergoose]

So, you use the built in apps on your Sony TV? Do you ever use an external streaming device like Roku?

The Sony runs Google TV, so being Android based and not feeling slow or lacking in features - I use the Netflix, Disney+ and Youtube apps from the Google Play store. I don't think I'll see any difference if I used a Roku over the TV's own android apps given I get 4K, HDR, Atmos, Dolby Vison from those services?

 

[Squid Surprise]

The Sony runs Google TV, so being Android based and not feeling slow or lacking in features - I use the Netflix, Disney+ and Youtube apps from the Google Play store. I don't think I'll see any difference if I used a Roku over the TV's own android apps given I get 4K, HDR, Atmos, Dolby Vison from those services?

The key is that in 5 years or so, the apps will run slower as they get “upgraded”… but you can buy a Roku/firestick/Apple TV to plugin that is far more palatable to upgrade every few years to keep current.

Smart TV is basically a way to trick you into upgrading your TV for no reason.

 

[daffy duck]

I made the mistake of jumping on the 4k bandwagon way to early. The early 4k monitors where very expensive and like 8K suffered from interface issues. I had to use MST to combine two, 2K images into one logical 4K display. It worked pretty well but had some limitations and annoyances outside windows.

However as this was a monitor I was not exactly starved from 4K content and I had a PC that was very capable of pushing 4K60 back then via SLI. When I saw 8K I did a major eye roll and said never again.
4K actually made sense from a pure pixel density standpoint, 8K not so much. It's not useless but much more niche then 4k ever was.

The only consumer use case's I could think of would be a very large display, such as a 200 inch 8K projector home theater room, or possibly a high end HMD.

8K for monitors makes a lot more sense than for TV's. 8K video is now common place in high-end cameras so being able to run 100% view in the processing software is nice. Same for stills with cameras at hitting 9-10K. In phtooshop my 46MP images still have to be at 50% view to see the enitre image. Also you can use 1 6-8K monitor rather than have two separate 4K monitors.

For my next monitor I'd love to see a true 6K in say 40" to keep dpi in check.

 

[kaosken]

Users cannot tell the difference between 4K and 6K let alone an 8K choice.
Guess you would call it K-envy.

 

[blainehamilton]

8k has very little use in today's display marketplace, aside from photo editing and limited uses in specialty graphical displays.

There isn't adequate processing in current generation graphics hardware available to push 8k gaming properly, and the current inflationary and phantom stock BS caused by the AI bubble has ensured that will be the case for another half decade or so.

Couple that with pretty much zero decent 8k media content available for display, and you have a premature stillborn tech. Internet and streaming services have made muddled 4k content suck as it is. The only way to get decent 4k playback is Blu UHD, OTA broadcasts, and the surf the interweb seas (arrr!)

I'm sure an 8k resurgence will eventually reappear in the 2030s with a newer media interconnect standard that will replace HDMI and Displayport. Something highly patented and heavily royalty enforced, a repeat of the HDCP horrors of the early 2000s.

 

[LimyG]

The only time that I see 4k TV (48 inch) really show it's full potential is when using my new 4k blu-ray player, with 4k disks. (I live in Japan where disks are still popular.) It is amazing. (Not cheap though.)

8K in 2026 is pointless for main stream. Sure great on HUGE displays, advertising and what not in public space. In the home? What's the point, how much 8k content is available? What's 4k to 8k upscaling like?

It may go main stream in 10 years or so, but the market, the equipment, and the content simply is not ready.

Plus, on, say a 42, or 56 inch TV, would 8k look better than high bit rate (rules out streaming pretty much)
4k physical media? I honestly don't know. But I've learned never to say XX is enough - forever. So -

- I won't say 4k is enough because when 720p 42" plasma (Pioneer Kuro) came out I thought it can't get better than this. But then full HD 1080p on a high quality screen was even better. Again I thought this is all I'll need unless going above 52"

I was wrong. 4k, even at 48" is fabulous with the right material. Notably better than 1080p. It's not just all down to resolution of course. Currently the best 4k material on a high quality medium size TV seems superlative.

But 10 years later? If history is anything to go by I will want 8k???

 

[LimyG]

There's basically no content available for it. Heck, the 4K content that's available is mostly at such a low bitrate that there is still much to be gained from simply increasing that.
Even then, how much does it even add? I CBA paying extra for Netflix 4k especially since they don't even give you that on PC.

Yep. Bit rate is just as important. Regarding TVs, the only way to do 4k full justice, as in my post above, is currently by using 4k Disks. Streaming doesn't look as good. The difference isn't tiny either. (Stream vs physical 4k media)

 

[LimyG]

Users cannot tell the difference between 4K and 6K let alone an 8K choice.
Guess you would call it K-envy.

I would say you are correct for TVs. But there is a problem with comparison. Bit rate can't be overlooked.
4k with inadequate bitrate is just a con job. 1080p with proper bit rate would be better with at least 10bpc wide gamut. That's a lot of data even at 1080p.

 

[LordVile95]

The only time that I see 4k TV (48 inch) really show it's full potential is when using my new 4k blu-ray player, with 4k disks. (I live in Japan where disks are still popular.) It is amazing. (Not cheap though.)

8K in 2026 is pointless for main stream. Sure great on HUGE displays, advertising and what not in public space. In the home? What's the point, how much 8k content is available? What's 4k to 8k upscaling like?

It may go main stream in 10 years or so, but the market, the equipment, and the content simply is not ready.

Plus, on, say a 42, or 56 inch TV, would 8k look better than high bit rate (rules out streaming pretty much)
4k physical media? I honestly don't know. But I've learned never to say XX is enough - forever. So -

- I won't say 4k is enough because when 720p 42" plasma (Pioneer Kuro) came out I thought it can't get better than this. But then full HD 1080p on a high quality screen was even better. Again I thought this is all I'll need unless going above 52"

I was wrong. 4k, even at 48" is fabulous with the right material. Notably better than 1080p. It's not just all down to resolution of course. Currently the best 4k material on a high quality medium size TV seems superlative.

But 10 years later? If history is anything to go by I will want 8k???

Moving to OLED has been the largest factor for me. With HDR it’s a significantly better image than my older LED TV that couldn’t do HDR properly

 

[LimyG]

Moving to OLED has been the largest factor for me. With HDR it’s a significantly better image than my older LED TV that couldn’t do HDR properly

Yes, the display tech is the biggest. TBH 1080p with well encoded, decent bit rate content it's plenty for TV. EDIT: OLED, or a TV that does HDR properly is most important I mean - as you said.

4k at 48" is pretty stunning on OLED, but I only really appreciate it when watching purchased 4k blu-ray disks. Here is Japan regular satellite TV is all HD, they even have 4k channels which do look good. But not necessary for regular TV viewing (Of course it's subjective.)

As things stand 8k seems pointless for home entertainment.

 

[BogdanR]

I do not think these are completely pointless. Very soon, we should be able to do real upscale from 4k to 8k. Imagine rewatching your favorite movies and shows in 8k.

Sadly, these seem to havbe stayed more expensive unlike 4k which resulted in prices much higher than people are willing to pay for new tech.

At the end, I am sure the interest will come when people can use technology to watch their content at 8k

Somehow I feel being able to count every hair on Spartacus’ head, or counting all the grain of sand in Lawrence of Arabia or every minute armour detail in Kagemusha will somehow make those movies any better.
But that’s just me.
Besides the “optimal invisible pixel” formula is 1.2 to 1.5 the screen diagonal size for 4k TVs. If I sit sit anywhere farther than around 2 meters from my 65” 4k TV having a finer pixel size becomes largely irrelevant.
8k is a total waste of time for the average user.

 

[SpotOfTechYo]

Somehow I feel being able to count every hair on Spartacus’ head, or counting all the grain of sand in Lawrence of Arabia or every minute armour detail in Kagemusha will somehow make those movies any better.
But that’s just me.

...scaring your pets with Clint Howard's Jumbotron forehead in Gung Ho...

 

[GTvon]

Somehow I feel being able to count every hair on Spartacus’ head, or counting all the grain of sand in Lawrence of Arabia or every minute armour detail in Kagemusha will somehow make those movies any better.
But that’s just me.
Besides the “optimal invisible pixel” formula is 1.2 to 1.5 the screen diagonal size for 4k TVs. If I sit sit anywhere farther than around 2 meters from my 65” 4k TV having a finer pixel size becomes largely irrelevant.
8k is a total waste of time for the average user.

Exactly 8K is not needed in almost any case at all. It might help in the medical industry. What we really need is to skip past the 16K and 32k and 64k and get right to the 128k TVs! I want to be able to watch my TV with a scanning electron microscope.

 

[GTvon]

The key is that in 5 years or so, the apps will run slower as they get “upgraded”… but you can buy a Roku/firestick/Apple TV to plugin that is far more palatable to upgrade every few years to keep current.

Smart TV is basically a way to trick you into upgrading your TV for no reason.

Just like the smartphone, the smart doorbell, the smart locks, the smart thermostat etc. If they're selling you a smart device it's because they think you're dumb.