@@ps4games164Bullshit argument, there is no visible difference between 4 and 8k, your eyes dont even have that much receptors as 8k got pixels, just absolutely pointless, except if you need to zoom in photos a lot
@@TheRealMcCoy88 The first 4k display was released 22 years ago by IBM. Cheap monitors from 2003 were near 2k resolution. We had 4k big screen wide view monitors in 2009. 4k isn't anything new and we should have been on 16k by now. Top TVs offering 4k is "unethical business practice". The corporations should be sued for that. Their job is to push humanity forward. Not to turn humanity into cash cows in exchange of lies.
Problem with 8K in films and shows is not image acquisition or storage but post production and VFX... Processes like planar or 3d tracking and compositing can choke a super powerful workstation even at 4k. So studios cant push deliveries deadlines and returns of investment too many years ahead just for getting a couple of extra pixels that can only be reproduced in a limited number of devices, theaters around the work just end up paying for the DCi 4k projectors they acquired a decade ago, they will not upgrade again when the bussiness is slowing down. And with the bans for high power consuption devices in Europe around the corner I really don't think the 8k train will leave the station any time soon..
@@tulenik71 I've never had unlimited budget, unfortunately, but I can tell you that I've been doing 4k postproduction on off the shelf PCs since 2012 for feature films and network TV shows with no problems.
I have 8K and from first hand I'm telling you guys my Sony ZH8 is worth every penny. I'm serious! The colors, the detail, the big picture. Ohhhhh. Nothing like my past middle class Sony from 2019. The black levels are also good. I'm enjoying it. All of it.
AI up scaling is awesome on TV's today 8K knocks 4k socks off when up scaled have you seen a 1080p to 4k the difference that makes? what about 4k to 8k have you ever seen in person? it's practically life-like and no I dont own my own but honestly the up scaling AI from a TCL wont be as good as say a Sony a 100$ chip vs a 1000$ processor is the difference between night and day you want to reach out and touch the screen. you get what you pay for 2,000$ vs 20,000+ in 8 years everyone will own one wether the content is available or not the picture improvement alone will sell the product as price drastically falls in the next 2 years @@ThreshyNeonz
@@I_am_not_a_bot-s6i I have seen 8k in person and 4k looks about the same unless you have like a 100in TV. Even the tech savy people from linustechtips could not really spot a difference. 8k content is far and few between and these Tvs are way too expensive to justify
Had a Samsung 8k tv . Literally took a crap 💩 on me after 2 years of use. They changed the screen and the main board (twice) and the remote receiver. Nothing fixed the problem. Now idk what to get.
My wife and I have had a “4k” tv for over 2 years now.. problem is when we try to watch something in 4k or use the new ps5 in 4k, and it tells us “this display does not support 4k resolution” ……. (Yes we are using the special “ARC” HDMI outlet
I bet more then 50% of the viewers watched this video on their phone or tablet with smaller then 12" screen size. At that screen size even a 720p would look good. 8K would be amazing, unfortunately we are not there yet.
At that time they were not wrong, the first 4K TVs weren’t powerful enough to even play 4K from streaming services, you required a laptop or something like an Apple TV, and even now, 4k is not really what makes the biggest difference compared to old TVs, it is technologies like HDR Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos, and of course OLED or MIniLED and the amount of nits. Now it is the same with 8K TVS, sure they will replace 4K tvs eventually, but they will be able to natively stream 8k TH-cam videos, something I haven’t seen any current 8K tv do. Also, they will have better technologies like MicroLED and more nits, which is much more noticeable than more pixels.
@@augustogalindo8687 They were actually wrong. Because 4K development went so fast, that any investment back then is justified. Also I heard people back then saying that anything higher than 1080P is not noticeable with the human eye. But now that 4K is mainstream, there is definitely a noticeable quality difference between 4K and 1080P. I however predict that 8K technology is especially useful for VR headsets, as VR need that pixel density.
I am getting a 8k tv as a monitor for my MacBook m2 pro. So like 4x4k monitors nice for coding. Setting it up right is not to easy, but once you do it should look great
8K is a good way to get rid of unwanted money. the jump from 1080p to 1440p to 4k is not great. Yea 1440p is a good higher option and I think 4k may be noticeable for some people but for most people its not worth the added cost. This will depend on the individual, size of the screen, distance from the screen and your disposable income as well as your use case (Work related + how often you use it).
@@tobiasgvenus yes but all the 8K TV are flagship TV’s for all the brands and they get the best panels, backlights, processing power for local dimming and they usually get brighter the most impactful HDR experience. Thats what I’m in the market for. 8K capability is irrelevant and non existent. 4K TV don’t have the horse power I’m looking for. I’m seriously considering the Sony Z9K. I have nice UHD Blu-ray collection and watch a lot of 4K streaming also.
heres my thing tho if u get a samsung 8k tv it wll upscale almost anything to 8k or about 7.6k i recommend they samsung qn900b if your looking best one out there an the qn800b for well its still amazing and its super thin
@@tobiasgvenus no idea. maybe each company creates products with a different component that changes something. my old 4k tv was from samsung and the new 8k one is from LG. i'm more of a software person so i don't know much in-depth of what most pieces specifically do what on a tv
@VampireConnoisseur I am saying that is it a lie and that 4k and 8k looks the same the human eye cannot tell the difference visually just because it has more resolution doesn't mean it's better overall 8k is useless in today's society and a waste of money. We do not have 8k content yet that is a decade from now and 4k is just becoming a thing in this day and age that's what I mean.
Doesn’t seem like 8k is necessary since 4k is already very sharp and impossible to tell the difference from a normal viewing distance. If there is a noticeable change it does not justify the price tag. Give it 5 or so years and the pricing and technology required to put out 8 k content will be justified. But it’s going to be a while before that happens.
Human perception is limited. I would say very limited. Thus the law of diminishing returns already bite at 4K - even 4K is not worth the upgrade. Much better added information was 3D, until it was commercially killed. Not only movies aren't viewed stopped from 10 cm distance from the screen, but we have only several hundred thousands cone cells for blue colour (overall number of cones is 6-8 millions). Because we are pretty good in dynamic range, HDR is more interesting. So, having back 1080p HDR 3D would be the sweet spot. For viewing complex images, but NOT in motion, 4+ K is of course still meaningful. The same can be true for some special applications.
@@tobiasgvenus 1080i, actually. That means interlaced rather than progressive, so it has half the scanlines, making it closer to 720p. ATSC 3.0 is a newer standard that uses much more efficient compression (HEVC vs MPEG2) and is thus capable of higher resolution, high refresh rate, and HDR (among other features like Internet integration, interactivity, mobile viewing, and significantly reduced multipath interference). However, ATSC 3.0 is still in its very early days, and it will take tim to become affordable, supported by OTA broadcasters, and widely adopted by consumers. Broadcasters probably won't be using to broadcast in 4K until ATSC 1.0 is shutdown to free up more spectrum.
You definitely did not have the best gaming specs for this. For 8k, it would've been nice to have something like a 3090ti + a 12th gen i9 with 64gb of ddr5 ram
Linus tested it with a 4090 and it still wasn’t noticeable. You have to be way too close to an 8k tv to tell the difference and even then it has to be over 70 inches
@@bobsucks9647 I sit 5.7 feet from my 8K 75 inches and it's noticeable, but yeah the difference is not that big. 8K is nice because the best models are usually 8K and you get better features (better construction, quality control, more dimming zones, etc).
how do you find using it to watch normal TV is it fatiguing after long periods of time? Im thinking I'm getting something around that size and sitting 6 feet away @@gills87
Lol 3:30 is noise from the snow which is a classic streaming issue.... This dude has good but then shit points. At least TH-cam offers higher bit rate and hdr
8k tv is great for playing last gen pc games or games that are not too demanding like rocket league. I think that game probably looks glorious in native 8k
@@supercia1 You also think the human eye can't see more than 30fps right? 8k is freaking awesome for native 8k gaming. It's totally worth it if you like to sit close to the screen.
LOL 8K's not a thing. Even 4K is an absolute joke. Who wants to see very microscopic detail on someone's skin, or all the minute flaws on a set or prosthetic? It just ruins the immersion and takes you out of the experience. It's distracting and puts too much detail or emphasis on irrelevant parts of the scene, taking away from where the director wants your focus to actually be on.
8k TVs are excellent.. I have an 85 inch QN900B Samsung TV. With this size, you definitely notice a big difference. Plus there is plenty of 8K content on TH-cam and on the web and in gaming. Plus you have to remember that the AK TV is the top of the line TV and Samsung throws in all the bills and whistles into this model. Even if you can't see a difference between 8K and 4k (which I definitely can see) , there are more dimming zones, more brightness, more settings, more technology baked in to the top of the model 8k. This reviewer looks like he's broke and he can't afford an 8K TV. That's why he's bashing it.
And plenty of 8K content on TH-cam. I have an 8k top of the line 8k Samsung qn900b and it is night and day compared to 4K. Best scenario is to get an 85 in and be within 10 ft of the TV. Then you will see the difference
They are selling 8k tv’s at a premium price with no 8k ? I was looking at an 8K glad I didn’t purchase it thinking I would have 8k picture. So 4K is the way to go?
@@naturelover2292 well a majority of TV/streaming content are still 2K with a few 4K videos thrown in. So why spend the money when there is no content, now they have 16K TV's on display.
The other difficult part of this transition is that production isn't ready for the exponential increase in necessary hard drive space, processing power and general pain in the ass factor needed to shoot edit, create CG, etc for 8k content. 4k is already grueling to work on, now they're going to double the standard? I do medical animation and I still haven't done a full 4k video yet. Everything is still done in 1080p. 8k is a scam to milk money from suckers who don't know anything about digital graphics.
Quadrupling the standard. Because 8K is both twice the width AND twice the height of 4K, it has four times as many pixels. A vs AA AA This also applies to 4K vs 1080p.
@@mlordwhiteslayerfromf.u.g From my experience modern TVs have really fast response times. You can't even compare the response time advertised anyway because there's no standard way to measure it. For example the Acer XB271HU (1440p 165hz monitor) advertises 4ms of response time but RTINGS measured 17.4ms. The QN900B (8k TV) advertises 8ms response time and RTINGS measured 7.2ms. I have an 8K TV and the response time is excellent! I can't tell the difference from my 165hz monitor.
@@gills87 I'm not talking about input lag (which that in itself is a whole other beast) I'm talking about how fast the pixels on a screen change from black to white. I guess it doesn't really matter to most people but I tend to notice ghosting on monitors that have response times around 8ms and over. I don't care about it on my secondary displays but my main display needs to be no higher then 5ms otherwise it really bothers me. edit: my main display is the Samsung Odyssey Neo G8 which has been independently rated at an average of 1.7ms
@@mlordwhiteslayerfromf.u.g But I was specifically talking about pixel response time. I have no idea why you assumed I was talking about input lag. All the numbers I mentioned were about RTINGs measures on response time. You can check the reviews. Still, there's no standard way to measure response time so saying that an advertised 8ms is worse than another advertised 4ms is incorrect because the companies can measure it differently. It's fine if you're sensible to ghosting but I also hate ghosting and I was unable to notice anything on any modern TV. But I also don't play competitive FPS with a mouse on my TV so maybe I would be able notice something on extreme scenarios like that. Not sure if this is relevant because most people wouldn't play competitive FPS on a TV anyway.
@@gills87 obviously you should always take manufacturers ratings with a grain of salt. I was never referring to manufacturers response time ratings. I'm saying that rather then buying a TV that's as much or more expensive then your computer you should probably just buy a 4k monitor instead and you won't have to drop 2k dollars on a graphics card to run your games at that resolution. I suppose though that if you can afford a 4090 then money is no object to you so go right on ahead and buy an 8k tv
3:56: you get get lossless compressed UHD video files that are way smaller than 80GB. 6:00: 8K gaming isn't worth it unless there's an 8k TV out there with sub or at 1ms latency. buying a 4k gaming monitor is a better way to spend your money.
I watched this on a 1080p screen. Looked good.
Your grandma's old tv were also good
@@ps4games164Bullshit argument, there is no visible difference between 4 and 8k, your eyes dont even have that much receptors as 8k got pixels, just absolutely pointless, except if you need to zoom in photos a lot
8k came out 11 years ago and 4k is just recently beginning to become the new standard
11 years ago? What are you smoking smh, Sharp introduced the world's first 8k tv in 2015. 4k came out in 2011
@@TheRealMcCoy88 The technology was patterned 11 years ago. It's just now coming to the civilian market.
@@TheRealMcCoy88as usual dumn uninformed American...
@@TheRealMcCoy88
The first 4k display was released 22 years ago by IBM. Cheap monitors from 2003 were near 2k resolution. We had 4k big screen wide view monitors in 2009. 4k isn't anything new and we should have been on 16k by now. Top TVs offering 4k is "unethical business practice". The corporations should be sued for that. Their job is to push humanity forward. Not to turn humanity into cash cows in exchange of lies.
8K came to mass market in 2019
Problem with 8K in films and shows is not image acquisition or storage but post production and VFX... Processes like planar or 3d tracking and compositing can choke a super powerful workstation even at 4k. So studios cant push deliveries deadlines and returns of investment too many years ahead just for getting a couple of extra pixels that can only be reproduced in a limited number of devices, theaters around the work just end up paying for the DCi 4k projectors they acquired a decade ago, they will not upgrade again when the bussiness is slowing down. And with the bans for high power consuption devices in Europe around the corner I really don't think the 8k train will leave the station any time soon..
Good points!
*can't
*delivery
*around the world
*DCI
*ago. They
*business
*corner, I
*anytime
If you are not a pro with unlimited budget, processing and storage even at 4K is very painful.
@@tulenik71 I've never had unlimited budget, unfortunately, but I can tell you that I've been doing 4k postproduction on off the shelf PCs since 2012 for feature films and network TV shows with no problems.
@@alvallac2171 What an asshole.
The comparisons were great, awesome video.
Especially the bitrate part with the split screen comparison.
I have 8K and from first hand I'm telling you guys my Sony ZH8 is worth every penny. I'm serious! The colors, the detail, the big picture. Ohhhhh. Nothing like my past middle class Sony from 2019. The black levels are also good. I'm enjoying it. All of it.
Let me guess... The colors are because of OLED right? A 4k OLED will deliver besically the same. Like he said... It's compression
I am guessing you upgraded from CRT 😂
This is top tier buyers copium
AI up scaling is awesome on TV's today 8K knocks 4k socks off when up scaled have you seen a 1080p to 4k the difference that makes? what about 4k to 8k have you ever seen in person? it's practically life-like and no I dont own my own but honestly the up scaling AI from a TCL wont be as good as say a Sony a 100$ chip vs a 1000$ processor is the difference between night and day you want to reach out and touch the screen. you get what you pay for 2,000$ vs 20,000+ in 8 years everyone will own one wether the content is available or not the picture improvement alone will sell the product as price drastically falls in the next 2 years @@ThreshyNeonz
@@I_am_not_a_bot-s6i I have seen 8k in person and 4k looks about the same unless you have like a 100in TV. Even the tech savy people from linustechtips could not really spot a difference. 8k content is far and few between and these Tvs are way too expensive to justify
if 8k is going to matter at all, everyone will need a movie theater sized screen and a far viewing distance to appreciate it.
If anything, viewing distance would need to be closer, not farther.
65 inch minimum
Monitors my guy, my 5k 27 is alot sharper than my 4k 28. 8k 27 would be amazing.
Had a Samsung 8k tv . Literally took a crap 💩 on me after 2 years of use. They changed the screen and the main board (twice) and the remote receiver. Nothing fixed the problem. Now idk what to get.
Come to Japan. They've used in house 12k camera for tv production and broadcasted 8k for years now.
Dammit youtube stop trying to stream this in 360p
Watched your switch video and got hooked on the channel since, really high quality content dude, can't wait to see the channel grow!
Thank mate! Appreciate the kind words :D
My wife and I have had a “4k” tv for over 2 years now.. problem is when we try to watch something in 4k or use the new ps5 in 4k, and it tells us “this display does not support 4k resolution” ……. (Yes we are using the special “ARC” HDMI outlet
I bet more then 50% of the viewers watched this video on their phone or tablet with smaller then 12" screen size. At that screen size even a 720p would look good. 8K would be amazing, unfortunately we are not there yet.
you had guys saying the same thing going from 720 to 1080 then to 4k a long time ago exact same argument
we said 4K wasnt worth your while aswell, look at us now, even this video we are watching is shot at 4k lol 😂😂😂
At that time they were not wrong, the first 4K TVs weren’t powerful enough to even play 4K from streaming services, you required a laptop or something like an Apple TV, and even now, 4k is not really what makes the biggest difference compared to old TVs, it is technologies like HDR Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos, and of course OLED or MIniLED and the amount of nits.
Now it is the same with 8K TVS, sure they will replace 4K tvs eventually, but they will be able to natively stream 8k TH-cam videos, something I haven’t seen any current 8K tv do. Also, they will have better technologies like MicroLED and more nits, which is much more noticeable than more pixels.
@@augustogalindo8687 They were actually wrong. Because 4K development went so fast, that any investment back then is justified. Also I heard people back then saying that anything higher than 1080P is not noticeable with the human eye. But now that 4K is mainstream, there is definitely a noticeable quality difference between 4K and 1080P. I however predict that 8K technology is especially useful for VR headsets, as VR need that pixel density.
@@body187j3x1 Can't wait until movies are 2TBs!
📺Thx 4 vid. Pro Info i check this video more time 👍
4k is good enough!
I agree! So why are they selling 8k tv’s that cost a lot of money?
I am getting a 8k tv as a monitor for my MacBook m2 pro. So like 4x4k monitors nice for coding. Setting it up right is not to easy, but once you do it should look great
I just got my first 4K tv last year.
how come your channel is so underrated.
your videos are amazing!
Thank you so much!
But what if I want to have an 85 inch tv? Don't you think I'm gonna notice the difference
TLDR : just don't buy if you don't have a decent PC to pair it with.
If you do however , everyone will be watching movies at your house ;)
would you take this one or oled c1
Sony Bravia Z9K is best 8K Mini LED TV on the market in 2022
great content
Thanks!
8K is a good way to get rid of unwanted money. the jump from 1080p to 1440p to 4k is not great. Yea 1440p is a good higher option and I think 4k may be noticeable for some people but for most people its not worth the added cost. This will depend on the individual, size of the screen, distance from the screen and your disposable income as well as your use case (Work related + how often you use it).
Most AV enthusiasts are not buying 8K TVs for 8K. It’s mostly for the PQ on how much better 4K looks
They would need incredibly sharp eyes or an enormous TV to perceive any difference.
@@tobiasgvenus yes but all the 8K TV are flagship TV’s for all the brands and they get the best panels, backlights, processing power for local dimming and they usually get brighter the most impactful HDR experience. Thats what I’m in the market for. 8K capability is irrelevant and non existent. 4K TV don’t have the horse power I’m looking for. I’m seriously considering the Sony Z9K. I have nice UHD Blu-ray collection and watch a lot of 4K streaming also.
heres my thing tho if u get a samsung 8k tv it wll upscale almost anything to 8k or about 7.6k i recommend they samsung qn900b if your looking best one out there an the qn800b for well its still amazing and its super thin
100% its amazing difference i just had mine and the difference is mind blowing
Its a 55 inch 120hz 4k and 8k 60 hz monitor, with vrr, mine is on the way. 800 quid, bonus its also a tv
*It's (contraction of "it is" or "it has")
its = possessive
What about 6k TV?
I beg to differ. I got a 8K TV on my birthday at it looked much better than my 4K TV
Is that because it's 8k or because it's new?
@@tobiasgvenus no idea. maybe each company creates products with a different component that changes something. my old 4k tv was from samsung and the new 8k one is from LG. i'm more of a software person so i don't know much in-depth of what most pieces specifically do what on a tv
Cap it looks the same!
@@blacklyfe5543 im not a native english speaker what do you mean? Are saying that i should o limit the capability?
@VampireConnoisseur I am saying that is it a lie and that 4k and 8k looks the same the human eye cannot tell the difference visually just because it has more resolution doesn't mean it's better overall 8k is useless in today's society and a waste of money. We do not have 8k content yet that is a decade from now and 4k is just becoming a thing in this day and age that's what I mean.
Doesn’t seem like 8k is necessary since 4k is already very sharp and impossible to tell the difference from a normal viewing distance. If there is a noticeable change it does not justify the price tag. Give it 5 or so years and the pricing and technology required to put out 8 k content will be justified. But it’s going to be a while before that happens.
Spot on!
Read my review
try 4k on 85 inch and see the truth with your "sharp" eyes
I can easily see 8k benefit vs 4k.
@@ps4games164 ok for like 10,000 dollars. The price is totally not justified
Human perception is limited. I would say very limited. Thus the law of diminishing returns already bite at 4K - even 4K is not worth the upgrade. Much better added information was 3D, until it was commercially killed.
Not only movies aren't viewed stopped from 10 cm distance from the screen, but we have only several hundred thousands cone cells for blue colour (overall number of cones is 6-8 millions).
Because we are pretty good in dynamic range, HDR is more interesting. So, having back 1080p HDR 3D would be the sweet spot.
For viewing complex images, but NOT in motion, 4+ K is of course still meaningful. The same can be true for some special applications.
I'm happy with watching free to Air on an 8k TV, will it be okay to watch free to air with samsung 65" 8k TV?
Do you think it looks good? Pretty sure most free to air is still broadcast in 1080p
@@tobiasgvenus but like it still works fine doesn't it?
@@tobiasgvenus 1080i, actually. That means interlaced rather than progressive, so it has half the scanlines, making it closer to 720p. ATSC 3.0 is a newer standard that uses much more efficient compression (HEVC vs MPEG2) and is thus capable of higher resolution, high refresh rate, and HDR (among other features like Internet integration, interactivity, mobile viewing, and significantly reduced multipath interference). However, ATSC 3.0 is still in its very early days, and it will take tim to become affordable, supported by OTA broadcasters, and widely adopted by consumers. Broadcasters probably won't be using to broadcast in 4K until ATSC 1.0 is shutdown to free up more spectrum.
When you buy an 8k tv and realize streaming bit rates suck and there's no native 8k content yet.
🙃
That's not why you buy an 8k tv.
So I saw your video too late 😂 I just bought the QN750a . Think its called QN700a outside of Denmark. Ups
Hey if you enjoy it don’t worry what I say!
*Oops.
Ups = plural of "up" (opposite of "down")
I watched it on a 4k video and it looks good
than stay with 4k to the end of your days
A large 8k tv are great as Pc monitors, so you can see many windows at the same time, it is 16 x 1080p monitors Wow
It would be great if you could watch 4 shows at once
My tv only goes up to 4k
I think
You definitely did not have the best gaming specs for this. For 8k, it would've been nice to have something like a 3090ti + a 12th gen i9 with 64gb of ddr5 ram
Linus tested it with a 4090 and it still wasn’t noticeable. You have to be way too close to an 8k tv to tell the difference and even then it has to be over 70 inches
@@bobsucks9647 I sit 5.7 feet from my 8K 75 inches and it's noticeable, but yeah the difference is not that big. 8K is nice because the best models are usually 8K and you get better features (better construction, quality control, more dimming zones, etc).
how do you find using it to watch normal TV is it fatiguing after long periods of time? Im thinking I'm getting something around that size and sitting 6 feet away @@gills87
Yeah right and I remember when cnet and others said 4k was not needed they ended up eating their own words
8k tv still no Android version?
Lol 3:30 is noise from the snow which is a classic streaming issue....
This dude has good but then shit points. At least TH-cam offers higher bit rate and hdr
Fair enough! This was a few years ago now. Maybe I should revisit the idea.
Yeah, 8K not worth it yet for us peasants lol. I only upgraded to a 4k 55" tv in 2020 when i got the ps5 and then the xbox series x, lol!
You got a shit camera because the 8k shots I see a amazing then nvidia or a better TV lowers resolutions better.
8k tv is great for playing last gen pc games or games that are not too demanding like rocket league. I think that game probably looks glorious in native 8k
Ah damn should've tried it. Probably would've run...
Fucking stupid any thing above 4K is pointless your eyes can’t tell the difference.
@@supercia1 You also think the human eye can't see more than 30fps right?
8k is freaking awesome for native 8k gaming. It's totally worth it if you like to sit close to the screen.
Just get tv box that's 4 or 8k same view
1080p TVs are not worth it. Only good tvs are CRTs and that's a fact
rtx 4090 enter the chat
Should help.
LOL 8K's not a thing. Even 4K is an absolute joke. Who wants to see very microscopic detail on someone's skin, or all the minute flaws on a set or prosthetic? It just ruins the immersion and takes you out of the experience. It's distracting and puts too much detail or emphasis on irrelevant parts of the scene, taking away from where the director wants your focus to actually be on.
He has an Alienware pc. I've seen enough.
What’s wrong with Alienware?
8k TVs are excellent.. I have an 85 inch QN900B Samsung TV. With this size, you definitely notice a big difference. Plus there is plenty of 8K content on TH-cam and on the web and in gaming. Plus you have to remember that the AK TV is the top of the line TV and Samsung throws in all the bills and whistles into this model.
Even if you can't see a difference between 8K and 4k (which I definitely can see) , there are more dimming zones, more brightness, more settings, more technology baked in to the top of the model 8k.
This reviewer looks like he's broke and he can't afford an 8K TV. That's why he's bashing it.
What have you been watching in 8k lately?
Can you watch free to air TV on your 85" Samsung with no probs?
*bells and whistles
Recently ive got an 8K Sony and I'm backing your words. It's massive upgrade compared to my middle class 4k tv from 2019. Just massive.
Honestly you know you wasted your money. There's not a single streaming service doing 8k. Nice one
Dz
Fake K 😂 Lol
Inb4 I buy an 8k tv and go homeless😂😂😂😂😂
Don't do it Ryan!
8K won’t be a viable TV resolution until game consoles can do 8K at 60hz.
PlayStation 5 actually has a kid capability that they have not switched on yet. Read my reply
There is also 8K gaming with computers
And plenty of 8K content on TH-cam. I have an 8k top of the line 8k Samsung qn900b and it is night and day compared to 4K. Best scenario is to get an 85 in and be within 10 ft of the TV. Then you will see the difference
120HZ 8K PS6 2026/2027
@@dannyvafa3639 Not gaming AAA games
People exaggerate too much specially nerdy gamers.
*much, especially (different meaning)
still waiting for 4k tv shows
had a look at 8K tv's 2023, went with a 4K OLED, not regretting it, love it.
They are selling 8k tv’s at a premium price with no 8k ? I was looking at an 8K glad I didn’t purchase it thinking I would have 8k picture. So 4K is the way to go?
@@naturelover2292 well a majority of TV/streaming content are still 2K with a few 4K videos thrown in. So why spend the money when there is no content, now they have 16K TV's on display.
@@LinuxGalore16k Tvs don't exist
What about energy usage and climate change?
The other difficult part of this transition is that production isn't ready for the exponential increase in necessary hard drive space, processing power and general pain in the ass factor needed to shoot edit, create CG, etc for 8k content. 4k is already grueling to work on, now they're going to double the standard? I do medical animation and I still haven't done a full 4k video yet. Everything is still done in 1080p. 8k is a scam to milk money from suckers who don't know anything about digital graphics.
Quadrupling the standard. Because 8K is both twice the width AND twice the height of 4K, it has four times as many pixels.
A
vs
AA
AA
This also applies to 4K vs 1080p.
8k right now is only for gaming on high-end computer. It's totally worth it if like to sit close to the screen.
not with those response time's it isn't. better to have a nice 4k monitor that has 1ms response times then an 8k tv that has up to 8ms response times
@@mlordwhiteslayerfromf.u.g From my experience modern TVs have really fast response times. You can't even compare the response time advertised anyway because there's no standard way to measure it.
For example the Acer XB271HU (1440p 165hz monitor) advertises 4ms of response time but RTINGS measured 17.4ms.
The QN900B (8k TV) advertises 8ms response time and RTINGS measured 7.2ms.
I have an 8K TV and the response time is excellent! I can't tell the difference from my 165hz monitor.
@@gills87 I'm not talking about input lag (which that in itself is a whole other beast) I'm talking about how fast the pixels on a screen change from black to white. I guess it doesn't really matter to most people but I tend to notice ghosting on monitors that have response times around 8ms and over. I don't care about it on my secondary displays but my main display needs to be no higher then 5ms otherwise it really bothers me.
edit: my main display is the Samsung Odyssey Neo G8 which has been independently rated at an average of 1.7ms
@@mlordwhiteslayerfromf.u.g But I was specifically talking about pixel response time. I have no idea why you assumed I was talking about input lag. All the numbers I mentioned were about RTINGs measures on response time. You can check the reviews.
Still, there's no standard way to measure response time so saying that an advertised 8ms is worse than another advertised 4ms is incorrect because the companies can measure it differently.
It's fine if you're sensible to ghosting but I also hate ghosting and I was unable to notice anything on any modern TV.
But I also don't play competitive FPS with a mouse on my TV so maybe I would be able notice something on extreme scenarios like that. Not sure if this is relevant because most people wouldn't play competitive FPS on a TV anyway.
@@gills87 obviously you should always take manufacturers ratings with a grain of salt. I was never referring to manufacturers response time ratings. I'm saying that rather then buying a TV that's as much or more expensive then your computer you should probably just buy a 4k monitor instead and you won't have to drop 2k dollars on a graphics card to run your games at that resolution. I suppose though that if you can afford a 4090 then money is no object to you so go right on ahead and buy an 8k tv
3:56: you get get lossless compressed UHD video files that are way smaller than 80GB.
6:00: 8K gaming isn't worth it unless there's an 8k TV out there with sub or at 1ms latency. buying a 4k gaming monitor is a better way to spend your money.
*than (comparative)
@@alvallac2171 Grammer Natzi.