Lenny93 said:
Why would manufacturers invest in a resolution with no percievable gain? And why would consumers purchase TVs with a resolution that leads to no percievable gains? I think they will invest in ultra HDR (if it's a significant improvement) and better image quality. There's a reason we never had HD audio CDs, humans couldn't tell the difference between them and regular CD quality. |
They'll invest on high pixel count because the big number helps them sell new TVs to naïve people (the vast majority, alas) that would be perfectly fine with the 4k (or even 1080p) they already own, and that's a relatively modest investment for them, as display tech still has a lot of miniaturization available, unlike integrated circuits that are getting close to silicon physical limits. They'll also invest on HDR, but they'll always boast pixel count.
The sad news though is that such tech will have few contents on broadcast TV, mainly premium ones, as bandwidth is a limited resource, and TV netwoks will offer high res and HDR only on their main clear channels, while the other, like now, will keep on receive more limited banwidth, so people will watch on them interpolated 4k, furtherly interpolated to 8k by their TV set if they own a 8k one, and forget about HDR, they'll find some cheap way to replace it (BTW MPEG and other lossy formats already use very cheap colour encoding with fewer bits for red than for green, even fewer for blue, and they encode colour infos at a lower resolution than brightness).
