> it is possible to get 8K TVs to comply with the new regulation, but it will not be easy
There you go. They just prefer the easy option of doing nothing.
With these EU legislations there's a pattern of the EU saying "you have a grace period of X years to make a gradual improvement to the worst offender", companies do nothing for X years, and then have a last-minute "oh shit" moment and do a PR spin of "the dumb bureaucrats want to ban fun".
OT: Looking at the Disqus comments below the article made me realize once more how great the discussion and moderation here really is. It's not perfect, but it's so much better than ~80% of the threads being political rants, over-reductionist takes or just plain trolling.
Disqus = democracy, reflects the current society, whether you like it or not, if someone have a bad take, there is still an opportunity for whoever wants to respond to it to correct him, then the reader can read the bad take and the correction
HN = totalitarian, if you have lot of karma, you can silence someone, for what ever reason, hence you only see people who think the same and opposition is always marginal
People cant see 4k resolution from normal sofa viewing distances. Why do we need 8k televisions? Besides the tv industry needing a new resolution to sell more TVs?
as an European I would prefer the EU to spend more time building cheap energy sources such as the one from nuclear power plants, or if they really need to regulate stuff just tax energy use. I don't understand why, if I want to waste energy, I am not allowed to. They could introduce progressive taxes where I pay higher percentage the higher energy waste I have.
if you think doing something like this makes sence -> do they regulate multiple TV? Lets say I buy 4 tvs and have them play at the same time. Why do we allow people to do that but regulate 1 better resolution TV.
They might trust average EU citizen common sense to not use 4 tv at the same time. If 4 different people are watching at the same time in the same household… well it’s a win (in POV of energy consumption, not of consumerism).
I wonder why larger TVs are allowed to use more energy?
If the intent is to promote lower power devices surely it's better for me to use an 'inefficent' 14" screen using 100w than a 100" screen using 110w?
The only counterpoint that I can think of is that this would effectively ban very large TVs. But once you're at the point of saying you can't have energy wasting things, it seems obvious that that would include very large inherently energy wasting things.
Oh noes, what will I use to watch all of my 8K content on? Im sure they will manage to work out power draw by the time 8K broadcast and distribution is actually viable.
I like how the "idiot proof" Energy label doesnt have the most basic information in normal form. Instead of 66W its 66kWh/1000h, like its somehow easier?
I completely agree, 66kWh/1000h is a pointless way for the consumer to measure consumption! Why not show XXkWh/732h so we can quickly estimate how much the monthly electric bill will change??
[+] [-] pornel|3 years ago|reply
There you go. They just prefer the easy option of doing nothing.
With these EU legislations there's a pattern of the EU saying "you have a grace period of X years to make a gradual improvement to the worst offender", companies do nothing for X years, and then have a last-minute "oh shit" moment and do a PR spin of "the dumb bureaucrats want to ban fun".
[+] [-] yccs27|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kukumber|3 years ago|reply
Disqus = democracy, reflects the current society, whether you like it or not, if someone have a bad take, there is still an opportunity for whoever wants to respond to it to correct him, then the reader can read the bad take and the correction
HN = totalitarian, if you have lot of karma, you can silence someone, for what ever reason, hence you only see people who think the same and opposition is always marginal
[+] [-] acd|3 years ago|reply
Viewing distance calculator https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator
[+] [-] brokenmachine|3 years ago|reply
I doubt I could tell the difference between 4k and 8k though.
I suppose doing the math, I would expect to be able to tell the difference between 4k and 8k on a 110" TV.
[+] [-] profstasiak|3 years ago|reply
if you think doing something like this makes sence -> do they regulate multiple TV? Lets say I buy 4 tvs and have them play at the same time. Why do we allow people to do that but regulate 1 better resolution TV.
[+] [-] nicolaslem|3 years ago|reply
Having regulators nudge manufacturers in the right direction has a massive impact when we are talking about a market of half a billion consumers.
[+] [-] hotcoffeebear|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benj111|3 years ago|reply
If the intent is to promote lower power devices surely it's better for me to use an 'inefficent' 14" screen using 100w than a 100" screen using 110w?
The only counterpoint that I can think of is that this would effectively ban very large TVs. But once you're at the point of saying you can't have energy wasting things, it seems obvious that that would include very large inherently energy wasting things.
[+] [-] thot_experiment|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gordonjcp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rasz|3 years ago|reply
I like how the "idiot proof" Energy label doesnt have the most basic information in normal form. Instead of 66W its 66kWh/1000h, like its somehow easier?
[+] [-] 1970-01-01|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kukumber|3 years ago|reply
Both Intel and NVIDIA should be regulated too, that'd force them to reduce the insane TDP of their products
They should learn from Apple
[+] [-] Gordonjcp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtwo|3 years ago|reply
The next logical size is 16k case at least it scales
[+] [-] dopidopHN|3 years ago|reply
At the time some cinema owner with a training in management of projection where underwhelmed by 4K. for them, we reached a resolution plateau at 4K.
I wonder what they think of 8k tv :)
( context : for their screen of 12m wide , 4K was when you start to have diminishing returns in term of quality )
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]