Khronikos:

Very cool, but something tells me consumers will be entirely uninterested in this tech, and only ubiquity will get them in mass doors if we are talking non-VR. But yeah this is the beginning of what VR will bring in time. 4K gaming isn't leaving anytime soon as a target render. 4K per eye target renders in VR will be bound loosely for a decade or more as we strive for photorealism and not more resolution. I think once you hit 4K per eye in VR you are good, and that might entail something like an 8K screen similar to how PSVR does it with one screen. I definitely see that happening. Film rarely goes beyond 4K in detail except for newer digital standards, and nobody will care anyway. UHD will be the last major physical format for film, and the only one we really need. I just can't see myself wanting to upscale most content I have to 8K even in 5 years maybe ten. The new consoles will be 6 or so years and 4K will be the target they probably won't hit 60FPS with all the bells and whistles. Mostly, it is VR that will need 8K.

VR still need to tackling with motion-sickness... latest VR already improve much yet many people cant comfortably using VR after within an hour, and resolution isnt the one solve the motion-sickness for 8K : https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/8k-tv-everything-you-need-to-know/ while its true, for gaming, it will take years before true-8k resolution become common in gaming but other than gaming, the content will grow fast enough imo why u think 4k will be the end for film format ? like simply because our eyes cant see any different more than 4k ? now 1080p vs 4k, do it have different quality ? some people might say same quality, while other can really see the different but when 8k common, do people prefer getting old 4k ? i dont think so as the tech grow, movie maker always want to shoot at higher-resolution, as its future-proof (when remastering) and easier manipulate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_resolution : "Despite this, filmmakers are pushing demand for 8K cameras due to their ability to capture better 4K footage." with the content grow, 8k eventually replacing 4k that for sure the point is how long it would take ? so for now indeed getting 8k tv now is kinda pointless

sorry but lol. 8K is useless, UNLESS you're either below 3ft distance to the tv, OR it has to be bigger screen than 85in. anything less and you won't see any difference just because the screen is too small (at tv viewing distance). part why i laugh everytime i see the stupid 65in samsung in 8k, were not one customer (last 10 month) could tell any difference to the model in 4k until they were like 2 or 3 ft away. But hey, at least they have the first... o_O and content: its easier to upscale 4k to 8k, than it is to do SD to 4k, soooo yeah. and its nice to see again post were someone decides what "we" need or dont need. just because i dont own a 20 million $ mansion, a 200 million $ superyacht, doesnt mean im gonna say we wont need those. we didnt get to big screens today, because everyone was happy with a 15in tube tv.:D if you dont want one, great, doesnt mean thats the case for the whole planet.

While there might not be a current urge for 8K, there certainly is for 4K120, I’ve been waiting years for Hdmi 2.1 to get released so we can play in 4K120 on the tv 🙂 Now Geforce 3080 series need to come with Hdmi 2.1 and I’ll be real happy 🙂

The value in 8k to me is that they cant so casually half ass the hdmi 2.x specs like they did with 4k. think any 8k tv and with a 2.1 cable should be able to do 4k@120.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

I agree it is a little far fetched (8K), but Samsung certainly is pushing it. Samsung Electronics has received the industry's first 8K HDMI 2.1 video standard certification for its 2019 and 2020 TVs.... Samsung TVs Get First 8K HDMI 2.1 Certification

What do you mean 'far fectched'? Definition of far-fetched 1 : brought from a remote time or place 2 : not easily or naturally deduced or introduced : improbable a far-fetched story Not trying to be a pedantic boor, but that isn't the right term. I think you mean something more akin to overkill or excessive. 😉 For me, I'd really like a quality 120hz 4K with both DP and HDMI 2.1.

@slyphnier IIRC we can see up to about 32K.

why is 8k far-fetched? i use a 4k 49" display as a desktop. that's like 4 1080p 24" screens glued together 8k would be like 4 4k screens glued together, i really am tired of not having the desktop being higher dpi all this boomer talk about "8k is pointless" is really getting tiresome.

It's pointless in the living room mainly, as you would need to be sitting really close or have a massive TV. Now having a higher resolution desktop would be nice but desktop monitors have been slacking in innovation.

1024 X 8 = 8192 That, is all you "...need to know!..."

Dynamic HDR formats are also supported

Both HDR10+ and DolbyVision?

Watch out for 8K it's all bullshit [youtube=5qW3B7yvWpQ]

im guessing you don't know the difference between a hardware decoder and an lcd panel.

Perrrrrrfect i just ordered a 1440p monitor last day ! One step at the time! :P , in all seriousness 8k gaming is so far away ...8k=4 times the 4k pixels to drive ...or 16 times 1080p!

Finally! I don't care much about 8k but I do want TVs that support 4k @120hz. I play a lot of games that are older so running 4k at high frame rates isn't that difficult.

What we really need is a TV that has OLED colours and contrast but doesn't suffer from burn-in and includes an anti-reflective layer on the front.

RavenMaster:

What we really need is a TV that has OLED colours and contrast but doesn't suffer from burn-in and includes an anti-reflective layer on the front.

Samsung are making an OLED/QLED hybrid. It will use OLED for low level brightness/near black level definition, and QLED above that to get full colour volume and brightness with HDR. Because OLEDs are not pushed hard they wont suffer burn in, QLEDs see to high brightness. Best of both worlds, hopefully the integration is seemless.