8K upscaling question?

[panteragstk]

The MAIN feature of most 8K capable inputs is that they support 4K/120hz inputs, which is mostly useful for gaming. Kind of.

The main reason I want HDMI 2.1 on my new AVR and TV is for the 4k/120hz input. Not for just the refresh though, but for variable refresh rate. That's something I'd use quite often.

I don't really care about most of the other HDMI 2.1 features other than VRR. 8K is a waste of effort as we all know.

 

[lovinthehd]

That's a HDMI.org group issue more than anything else. When LTT tests their cables, they are testing up to the full 48Gb/s that HDMI 2.1 allows.

What the HDMI group allows is completely assinine and stupid IMO. The same is true of what the USB group allows and their naming conventions.

HDMI eARC is a HDMI 2.1 feature, and requires no upgrade, that I'm actually aware of, in terms of data rates. So, you can use eARC (HDMI 2.1), with standard HDMI 2.0 cables. There are a host of other HDMI 2.1 features that require no additional bandwidth as well. It's kinda crazy. There are only some specific resolutions that fully saturate 48Gb/s cables, and almost nothing actually supports that. Displays may max out at 40Gb/s or less. Game consoles (PS/XBox) don't reach that 48Gb/s mark. So, we are just hearing so many people talk about HDMI 2.1 who don't realize how silly it all is right now.

Get a 4K cable, call it a day. Unless you're an avid gamer, in which case, make sure you're working with displays and equipment that fully support every aspect of what you are doing. Then just get a certified 8K cable that's 6 feet long and it almost definitely won't have any issues at all.

Yeah that's nice that LTT does that but spelling results of testing out that way is somewhat misleading and just isn't how hdmi cables are actually rated. The whole 8k thing I'm not holding my breath for nor do I need/want eARC otoh. HDMI has plenty of issues in general.....

 

[BMXTRIX]

Yeah that's nice that LTT does that but spelling results of testing out that way is somewhat misleading and just isn't how hdmi cables are actually rated.

I think you know that, and I know that, but the masses really do NOT know that. They think 4K is 4K is 4K. They hear buzzwords like Dolby and think it must be completely the best. I mean, if my receiver has ANY Atmos, then it must be a 7.2.4 capable receiver.... right? It's a very low level way to reach a specific target audience.

The video itself, on the other hand, discusses the way the cables are tested and what's going on behind the scenes of the results. They are getting more and more serious about their technical reviews and methodology. With their growth and funding, it may be pretty scary what they end up delivering for reviews. I know they are looking at building a semi-anechoic chamber as part of their labs with RF rejection in the same space. Because of their merchandising, they aren't beholden to any manufacturers either.

 

[lovinthehd]

I think you know that, and I know that, but the masses really do NOT know that. They think 4K is 4K is 4K. They hear buzzwords like Dolby and think it must be completely the best. I mean, if my receiver has ANY Atmos, then it must be a 7.2.4 capable receiver.... right? It's a very low level way to reach a specific target audience.

The video itself, on the other hand, discusses the way the cables are tested and what's going on behind the scenes of the results. They are getting more and more serious about their technical reviews and methodology. With their growth and funding, it may be pretty scary what they end up delivering for reviews. I know they are looking at building a semi-anechoic chamber as part of their labs with RF rejection in the same space. Because of their merchandising, they aren't beholden to any manufacturers either.

Yeah its an old complaint about marketing of hdmi cables.... But also part of the weirdness that is hdmi....

 

[rsharp]

I do have to add that there's no reason to go to 8K for displays (putting aside special case uses such as for medical or scientific applications).

In order to see that level of detail, you'd have to sit super close. But when so close you'd have to constantly turn your head to look at various areas of the screen. So you either move back away from the screen, or get a smaller display. Both of which shrink the perceived size of each pixel and alas you can no longer get any benefits of the extra resolution.

I would take the money not spent on an 8K display and either bank that, are invest in a higher-performance 4K display.

At least with 4K, we got HDR and more frame rates above the higher resolution. With 8K, all that provides is extra resolution that approximately zero people will even need.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Fukk 8k

 

[lovinthehd]

Fukk 8k

LOL so far that's my attitude towards 4k

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

LOL so far that's my attitude towards 4k

Lol. I’m looking forward to 4K and hdr but alas, still rockin a plasma.
But still, Fukk 8k. Marketing assholes need to get lives.

 

[panteragstk]

LOL so far that's my attitude towards 4k

Meh on 4k for the resolution. Yes to 4k for the HDR.

The only reason I'd ever purchase an 8k TV was if I needed to replace a TV and that was the only option. It seems like a waste to go that route, but manufacturers will do anything to sell us pointless features.