LG will introduce TVs with miniled-backlight with almost 2500 dimming zones in 2021 – Image and sound – News

[…]

8k does not add anything to almost everyone, it only costs money. You can hardly see the difference between 1080p and 4k at normal viewing distance, I bet 4k and 8k will be really indistinguishable.

8k is just marketing and bragging rights right now. I think good hdr is much more important to be honest.

–

[…]

You yourself indicate that you can hardly see the difference between 1080p and 4K, but almost all new screens are 4K. Why would this be any different with 8K?

4k is also all marketing and bragging rights, yet the market has moved towards it? I also think Hdr is more important, but the fact that we think that is more important does not necessarily mean that 8K will flop. HDR will be further developed next to it. It is not an either / or, but an and / and

8k is also not free, it costs bandwidth, so you will not get television broadcasts quickly. I also wonder whether YouTube, Amazon and Netflix will switch to it quickly. And 8k televisions are simply much more expensive, while the consumer does not see the difference. I honestly wonder if 8k is really going to be there for the masses.

Your examples are already being comprehensively compressed, a 4k TV and even a full HD TV are not very useful when you start from television broadcasts. Netflix exactly the same, so you have to purchase a 4K TV for that. A full HD blu-ray looks a lot better than a 4K netflix stream. And you have to look up for a joke how expensive the first FullHD TVs and 4K TVs were. Ultimately, the price will fall due to mass production, among other things. Think you can get an 8K LED TV for 500 euros in 5 years, perhaps even an OLED. And that is all due to the development that continues to progress. That is why development is progress. That makes old technology cheaper.

[…]

“Just because we can” says it all. Only with a very small price difference would people opt for 8k and it is certainly no reason to replace your current TV if it is still working fine.

You yourself already indicate that 4k is also a kind of case ‘because it is possible’. Yet there are now massive 4K TVs on the market. My first TV was a Philips 43 inch 1080 p screen for 500 euros. I had bought this in 2012. Well, I bought an LG 55-inch 4K TV in 2018 for 470 euros. Ultimately, is it simply unnecessary to replace a Full HD TV to a 4K? Because again you yourself indicate that the difference is negligible.

I don’t think people replace their TV specifically because they want a higher resolution, but other things also play a role.

HDR, Smart TV, larger TV, OLED, HDMI functions, etc …. You eventually get the 8K for free. There just comes a point where it is more profitable for a manufacturer to plant an 8K screen in their TV than a 1080p or 4K.

[…]

We will see. I think 8k is much slower to accept than 4k back then. Anyway, the consumer also likes to be fooled and likes to brag with numbers that are higher than what the neighbor has, so rational arguments against 8k are actually pointless, I realize that.
[/quote]

Yes, and I also realize that manufacturers are better off investing in techniques other than resolution, but it’s just part of the deal. Even if it is only to be able to convince the consumer to choose a new TV in jip and janneke language.

–