Sony doesn’t have any idea when 8K video support will be coming to the PlayStation 5, according to FlatpanelsHD, which shared a report today that mentions how the publication reached out to PlayStation’s PR representatives for comment regarding the omission that remains two years after the console initially launched on November 12, 2020, but failed to receive a response.
“Sony has not commented publicly on its plans for an 8K update,” the publication noted in its story today about how there is still no sign of support for 8K video output via HDMI 2.1. “FlatpanelsHD reached out to PlayStation’s PR representatives for comment, but did not receive a response.”
Some PlayStation 5 owners are apparently bothered by this, being that Sony has explicitly marketed 8K support on the box, which features not only 4K/120 and HDR logos, but also one that clearly reads “8K.”
PlayStation 5 does support internal 8K rendering, however, with The Touryst, an action-adventure puzzle game developed and published by Shin’en Multimedia, being the first game to claim 8K rendering at 60 FPS, as noted in FlatpanelsHD’s coverage.
8K UHD refers to an image or display resolution that amounts to 7680 × 4320, a significant increase over 4K Ultra HD, which amounts to 3840 × 2160.
The GeForce RTX 4090 is capable of running some of today’s most popular games at 8K with playable frame rates, according to NVIDIA, which has described its latest flagship graphics card for gamers as the pinnacle of gaming.
Benchmarks shared by NVIDIA suggest that Red Dead Redemption 2 can reach 85 FPS at 8K on an GeForce RTX 4090 with DLSS 3 enabled.
Discussion (10 replies)
Join Discussion →I can't help but roll my eyes at '8k' video. Perhaps 2030 for a bit more contents, hopefully 4k by 2030 will truly be everywhere then.
8K, the thing almost nobody wanted.
Next up, Sony demos PS5 playing games at 8K 120 FPS! How about tic-tac-toe or checkers, anyone? Now with ray tracing to boot and rendered at native resolution!
8k is a total gimmick.
There is no combination of screen size and viewing distance that fits inside the human field of view that would allow a human even with exceptional vision to be able to detect the difference from 4k.
The only practical application would be in cases where youi have people close to a very large sceen focusing on a small part of that screen.
I mean... 8k movie screens could make sense.
On a home level, the other reason I have little to no interest in 8K is that we're mostly once again stuck with streaming compression junk as physical media keeps dwindling, and even then you take your chances with how something is mastered and authored so there's still no guarantee of bit rates for A/V. I'd much rather see 4K bump up its video bitrates than have another resolution increase.
In terms of streaming, I'm happy with most 1080p streams I see these days but it's still very hit or miss for 4K in that some are barely distinguishable from 1080p. About the only good thing 8K could bring to the table is that same sort of backward downscaling suddenly has an 8K stream looking like a decent 4K steam. -lol!
Not really. At least not if you want to see the whole screen.
You are going to have to back up far enough that the whole screen will fit in your field of view, and if you do there will be no perceivable difference between 4k and 8k.
I mean, it may be noticeable if you are one of those people who like to sit really close to the screen and keep turning your head (or at least your eyes) throughout the film, but that's not how most people like to watch films.
The only benefit I can think of is the argument that high resolution provides a natural form of antialiasing, but it is a very computationally expensive way of accomplishing this goal, as going from 4k -> 8k roughly cuts the framerate to a quarter on the same GPU.
That, and you don't need to increase the resolution of the screen to get those benefits. In fact, the results may even be better if you don't. As an example 4k displayed on a 1080p screen in DSR/VSR has fewer "jaggies" than native 4k. So if you really wanted this benefit, it would be better to run 8k DSR/VSR on a 4k screen than it would be to run 8k native.
I love running DSR / VSR in older titles. Nothing looks better from an AA perspective, but requiring 300% more GPU power to do so makes it hugely inefficient. Every single other form of AA uses way less GPU power, even 8x MSAA.
I meant at an actual movie theater. You know.. 50ft screen sort of thing. Problem is a 50ft oled at 8k would be SOOOO bright. lol.
Yeah, but even at the theater, I tend to try to select a seat such that the entirety of the screen fits inside my field of view. Don't you?
Yeah, that would be brutal :p
This, exactly! Who the f*ck cares about the resolution when the bitrates are so low? That's one reason why I never bother with streaming. BD rips or GTFO. 1080p streaming sucks @ss compared to 1080p BDs, and the same for 4K streaming compared to Ultra HD BDs. Shiat, a lot of the time I think 1080p BDs look better than 4K streaming. When I grab BD rips one of the main things I look at is the bitrate. We don't need a resolution increase, especially to something so f*cking useless as 8K. What they need to focus on are the bitrates.
I will say that I'm really impressed with HBO Max's 1080p streams. I don't know what their doing but I like it. On the other hand Amazon and Paramount+ are the absolute worst. P+ occasionally has its moments but the app is horrid on most my TVs regardless of OS and buffering is just as bad as Amazon. Netflix, it depends but I'd put it at the middle, at best. Hulu, the same. Peacock, I hardly watch ever.
Edit: Disney, all over the map.