The world's first ever 8K TV will be making its debut soon, and it's supposed to be incredible. Supposedly, it has 16 times as many pixels as HD, making the screen appear as 3D as it can, and clearer than even real life.

Such a TV will be expensive though, and estimates say it will cost well over $100,000. Do you think such a TV could really be worth while?

yea it is a cool thing but I'm waiting for the next "standard" something more permanent like regular HD.  It might very will be the 8k tv your talking about but maybe something that costs less than my house.

100k for 8k.  Sounds like a rip-off.

OK OK joking.  I dunno.  I guess it would vary from person to person.  It could accomplish some good.  And seeing things in glorious 8k would probably be fun.

supernerd117 : That's 100,000 to own something that's literally clearer than the best movie theater screen. If its 16 times clearer than HD, that's got to be at least 10 times better than IMAX.

there are people who will buy this. Anything to have the best thing out there.

And once they are done buying it then the price will come down as they get better at making it and the technology becomes more common.

I'm still on 720p and it works just fine for me. I don't feel the need to upgrade everytime something new comes out.

This is just getting ridiculous. Why bring out 8k when 4k isn't really even supported yet? In fact, statistics show that most "HD" shows on television aren't even 1080p. So my question is, with 1080p still being unmet by broadcasters, why was 4k made? And then why 8k? What good does it do us for them to keep cramming more pixels in there if they're more or less unutilized still?

I mean we can buy an 8k TV, but we won't actually see true 8k programming for probably a decade, since we've yet to even reach full 1080p programming in most cases (despite saying it's in HD). Literally for the first several years of 8k's existence we'll be seeing (at best) 1080p with the rest of the extra unused pixels mimicking the others. Literally it'll be the same as 1080, or at best a slight improvement.

So yeah, in twenty years, I could be interested in an 8k TV...or in ten years I might be interested in a 4k TV, but currently owning either one would be like buying a PS5: there'd be nothing to really use it for for the next several years.

I read an article about this yesterday on Facebook. I would purchase it if i had a ridiculous amount of money. Would be sweet to watch sports on and play video games although 100k for a TV sounds kinda crazy lol

That's just crazy.  Tech it's self needs to slow down.

Half of the shows aren't even in full HD and yet people are gonna try a realistic 3d simulation to cash in.


Even with HD, half the tv shows are kinda meh, they look like something that was just randomly drawn in MS Paint, you ask me any day, old cartoons/anime's>New cartoons/animes.

 Too much money, not too many cartoon/shows that look or are great (at least to me) and not alot of Programs are in HD

So yeah my answer is no, it's not gonna be worth it in my eyes.

If I had the money, I would definitely buy this.
I held out on 120hz TV and when I got 1, I had to replace my other TV with one.
Same with my monitors. Both had to be 144hz.
I am a little skeptical about how much will actually be view-able in 8k, but I am still sure it will be amazing.

I don't see the point in this except for pure novelty. I don't even personally like 4K TV's. To me it looks too crisp if that makes sense, and in my eyes, actually takes the quality down a notch compared to 1080p. That being said I'm still using a 720p TV as a monitor. Pretty much makes no difference to me and I don't see the appeal to such products.

Eirinn : To be technical, 720p is considered HD. It's just not as HD as the 1080, lol.

I honestly love 4k TV's. That said, 8k is a bit ahead of it's time. As with any new thing, though, someone will make something that fits the specs. We'll see something 8k when it comes out. The problem, though, is that we won't see enough that fits with 8k for quite a while.

Fantastic concept, but bad timing. Give it 7-8 more years, and it'll be well timed imo.

I think the 4k tv is stretching the worth, and the 8k is for millionaires.

mrfe : Right, I know, I was just saying that we haven't seen a real use for 1080 yet when it comes to watching television programs. Movies on discs might be different, I don't know. But when the vast majority of us will be using it for watching TV, there's little point to owning 4k or 8k before broadcasters begin outputting for them. Just my two cents though.

Eirinn : Ah, I understand (and agree). I love the concept of 4k and 8k, but definitely agree that it's not yet practical.

I'll end up getting a 4k in like 7-8 years, probably, but I have no need to get one before then. 8k would be cool, but isn't in the cards for quite a while yet.

I think it sounds neat, but it probably won't take off for a while for a wide number of reasons.

4K is just now starting to take off, and even then it still needs to get better support.

You need insanely fast internet to stream 8K content, its hard enough to stream 4K video.

Games on consoles are still struggling to reach 1080P, even high end gaming PC's can't maintain solid frame rates at 4K.


8K will definitely be a thing someday, but for now. I would salivate over the 4K TV's as those resolutions are already pushing boundaries.

Hmm 100K? wew well I mean if your rich then sure? Nobody not rich isn't going to be able to afford that xd I mean I would so get it if I was rich though.

Now this is just getting ridiculous...
At this rate we'll have 16k resolution technology soon.
8k resolution means 7680×4320 pixels, or 33,177,600 pixels on the screen!
We have almost no 4k content (and not that much 1080p content) at the moment. I don't think any 4k content is coming anytime soon, either. That means 8k content is very far away.
Hopefully, though, this will be over soon. The human eye views 16k as almost perfect.
But $100,000... wow.
I'm not ready for all this new technology
Eventually movies will take up yottabytes of data with these ridiculous resolutions. Yikes!

Petraplexity : Looks like you are good at math, how many total pixels would the 16K be?

zanderlex : Well, 16k resolution is equal to 128 megapixel, so 128 million (128,000,000) pixels!

As for comparison, there are about 120 million photoreceptors in each eye. Which means...

An Oculus Rift with a 16k display for each eye would literally look better than the real world.

Thanks for having me look that up, it made me realize what I put in big text.

Wow, imagine making glasses transmit everything around you into 16K, pretty sure that would probably kill the eyes after a while though.