8K by 4K or Octo HD - the real SUHDTV technology - Page 22 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 18Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #631 of 725 Old 12-12-2013, 03:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,804
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

So is 80 inches the largest size for 8K that we could see in the next 10 years?
The only 8K TV made till now is 85" (LCD) 145" (plasma).

They are making mobile phone screens that are HD with PPI that passes 500 PPI, (like a 5.5" with 534 PPI). Theoretically, these screens can be made larger, and then a 500PPI screen would hit 8K at 17" (518 PPI)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post


I'm looking forward to the availability of large, flexible OLED displays. Like in BTTF smile.gif

Large flexible screens (regardless if they are OLED or LCD) would be an enormous success, first in the high-end market that are willing to pay big money that would fast pay for the investment for the manufacturers. Every cinema would throw out their projectors, and then we have all type of signage, from billboards to in-shop advertising (where they now use light boxes) and then when prices fall, we all want it in our homes.
For wall-to-wall high PPI screens, I gladly sacrifice wall space (and some green ones).
The screen can so easily be part of the room decoration or a window, so for example my house seems like a beach front property from the inside.. wink.gif


coolscan is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #632 of 725 Old 12-13-2013, 07:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 7,180
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Liked: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

So is 80 inches the largest size for 8K that we could see in the next 10 years?
The only 8K TV made till now is 85" (LCD) 145" (plasma).

They are making mobile phone screens that are HD with PPI that passes 500 PPI, (like a 5.5" with 534 PPI). Theoretically, these screens can be made larger, and then a 500PPI screen would hit 8K at 17" (518 PPI)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post


I'm looking forward to the availability of large, flexible OLED displays. Like in BTTF smile.gif

Large flexible screens (regardless if they are OLED or LCD) would be an enormous success, first in the high-end market that are willing to pay big money that would fast pay for the investment for the manufacturers. Every cinema would throw out their projectors, and then we have all type of signage, from billboards to in-shop advertising (where they now use light boxes) and then when prices fall, we all want it in our homes.
For wall-to-wall high PPI screens, I gladly sacrifice wall space (and some green ones).
The screen can so easily be part of the room decoration or a window, so for example my house seems like a beach front property from the inside.. wink.gif

]

For a simulation of a window, though, you'd also need at least glasses-free 3D. A holographic presentation would be better, though I doubt the latter will be available in my lifetime frown.gif

Selden
Selden Ball is online now  
post #633 of 725 Old 01-21-2014, 12:40 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
irkuck is offline  
post #634 of 725 Old 01-21-2014, 01:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,599
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 530 Post(s)
Liked: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Meticulous development continues tirelessly

 

Interesting.  Jeepers.  I'll have to spec out for fun what would have to happen to get a PC to drive one.  Holy moley.

 

BTW irkuck: I know you've been skeptical of the need for 4K in the home.  Can I extrapolate from there that you're extremely skeptical of the point of 8K?


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #635 of 725 Old 01-21-2014, 11:22 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Interesting.  Jeepers.  I'll have to spec out for fun what would have to happen to get a PC to drive one.  Holy moley.

There would be no problem with PC processing power to decode 8K. Problem is 8K display and connector to the display. Even 4K PC monitors while available are still immature, 4K picture is made by stitching two vertical halves using obscure MST feature of DisplayPort and there is no support for HDMI 2.0 in monitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

BTW irkuck: I know you've been skeptical of the need for 4K in the home.  Can I extrapolate from there that you're extremely skeptical of the point of 8K?

Let me clarify my position since it has been modified (I am not fundamentalist but rational, modifying when there is new evidence). With the 100"+ displays appearing 4K makes sense in the living room from the visual perception point of view since VD will be in the range of 2.5PH.So if there are 120" LCD displays, there is a need for 4K. I still maintain that with displays (much) below 100" 4K makes no sense. But 4K is inevitably coming since price difference between the 4K and 2K panels is disappearing. Seeing 4K Ultra HD and 2K HD stickers on the sets consumers will prefer Ultra 4K HD over just "mere" 2K HD.

Regarding 8K it does not make sense for any traditional TV viewing scenario. But it can make sense with new future scenarios which look like fantasy today, for example walls in the house being displays, or high density big size electronic paper, or virtual reality headsets, or highly stretched curved displays covering 60 deg of visual field. These are technologies which are likely appear in 2020's and 30's. There is also a general trend to higher pixel density which is best seen in portable displays: 2K HD in 5" phones, 3K in the IPad mini, 4K in 24" computer monitors. With resolution so cheap to make, 8K will enter even if there is no pressing need for it.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #636 of 725 Old 01-22-2014, 06:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,599
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 530 Post(s)
Liked: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Interesting.  Jeepers.  I'll have to spec out for fun what would have to happen to get a PC to drive one.  Holy moley.

There would be no problem with PC processing power to decode 8K. Problem is 8K display and connector to the display. Even 4K PC monitors while available are still immature, 4K picture is made by stitching two vertical halves using obscure MST feature of DisplayPort and there is no support for HDMI 2.0 in monitors.

 

That's what I'm referring to.  Not the CPU bandwidth footprint.


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #637 of 725 Old 01-22-2014, 11:15 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

That's what I'm referring to.  Not the CPU bandwidth footprint.

Then you are right. If one looks at the multimonitor gaming rigs people are building, it is evident there is immediate
need for stretched curved monitors with total of 6K-12K, and even up to 20K pixels.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #638 of 725 Old 01-23-2014, 04:10 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Reportedly in development, consumer-grade 8K TVs aren’t expected to hit the market until at least 2016. Prepare for 2017 onwards then, 4K has still as much as 3ys to rule on top biggrin.gif

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #639 of 725 Old 01-23-2014, 06:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,921
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Reportedly in development, consumer-grade 8K TVs aren’t expected to hit the market until at least 2016. Prepare for 2017 onwards then, 4K has still as much as 3ys to rule on top biggrin.gif

I hope I can see them at Best Buy in 2016 (If they're still around and carrying TVs), but I seriously doubt it. We probably won't have a 4K Blu-ray player until 2015.
KidHorn is online now  
post #640 of 725 Old 01-23-2014, 06:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,599
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 530 Post(s)
Liked: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Reportedly in development, consumer-grade 8K TVs aren’t expected to hit the market until at least 2016. Prepare for 2017 onwards then, 4K has still as much as 3ys to rule on top biggrin.gif

 

Bet the 8Ks will upscale a DVD like it's nobody's business.....


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #641 of 725 Old 01-23-2014, 07:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,000
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 321 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Once people have done the 4K upgrade they would have had enough of the resolution upgrade for a while... Good luck with selling those 8K TVs in 2017, 2018 etc... smile.gif
barrelbelly likes this.
8mile13 is online now  
post #642 of 725 Old 01-23-2014, 07:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,599
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 530 Post(s)
Liked: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Once people have done the 4K upgrade they would have had enough of the resolution upgrade for a while... Good luck with selling those 8K TVs in 2017, 2018 etc... smile.gif

 

Of course I was joking, but only half so.  Have you seen the 2K->4K upscaling done by the Sony XBR-65X900A?


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #643 of 725 Old 01-23-2014, 07:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,000
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 321 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Once people have done the 4K upgrade they would have had enough of the resolution upgrade for a while... Good luck with selling those 8K TVs in 2017, 2018 etc... smile.gif

Of course I was joking, but only half so.  Have you seen the 2K->4K upscaling done by the Sony XBR-65X900A?
They only thing that matters in this conversation is the 4K → 8K upscaling. So what tells your gut you about 4K → 8K upscaling? Will it be noticable? Up to 85'' cool.gif
8mile13 is online now  
post #644 of 725 Old 01-23-2014, 07:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,599
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 530 Post(s)
Liked: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Once people have done the 4K upgrade they would have had enough of the resolution upgrade for a while... Good luck with selling those 8K TVs in 2017, 2018 etc... smile.gif

Of course I was joking, but only half so.  Have you seen the 2K->4K upscaling done by the Sony XBR-65X900A?
They only thing that matters in this conversation is the 4K → 8K upscaling. So what tells your gut you about 4K → 8K upscaling? Will it be noticable? Up to 85'' cool.gif

 

My gut says in a single 85" 8K TV running a split screen with the left side 4K 4:2:0 done with NN and the right side 8K 4:2:0 done using a 4K->8K "more clever" upscale, I'm betting you'll see an improvement on the right at 9 feet.


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #645 of 725 Old 01-23-2014, 08:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,000
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 321 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 

My gut says in a single 85" 8K TV running a split screen with the left side 4K 4:2:0 done with NN and the right side 8K 4:2:0 done using a 4K->8K "more clever" upscale, I'm betting you'll see an improvement on the right at 9 feet.
Split screen confused.gif Why is that? We are talking about full screen content/appropriate viewing distance ( pro-calibrated TV, 4K blu-ray 4K TV vs. 8K blu-ray 8K TV - though 8K blu-ray might never happen (outside Japan) so make that 4K blu-ray 4K TV vs. 4K blu-ray 8K TV).
8mile13 is online now  
post #646 of 725 Old 01-23-2014, 08:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,599
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 530 Post(s)
Liked: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 

My gut says in a single 85" 8K TV running a split screen with the left side 4K 4:2:0 done with NN and the right side 8K 4:2:0 done using a 4K->8K "more clever" upscale, I'm betting you'll see an improvement on the right at 9 feet.
Split screen confused.gif Why is that? We are talking about full screen content/appropriate viewing distance ( pro-calibrated TV, 4K blu-ray 4K TV vs. 8K blu-ray 8K TV - though 8K blu-ray might never happen (outside Japan) so make that 4K blu-ray 4K TV vs. 4K blu-ray 8K TV).

 

You didn't say "vs. 8K blu-ray 8K TV", you said "So what tells your gut you about 4K → 8K upscaling?" like the 2nd half of the sentence above does.

 

Given that, the split-screen is the only "fair" comparison vehicle because it eliminates the worst of the apples and oranges.  A side by side doesn't work because different displays are different.  The split screen eliminates that, the differing settings, any fundamental low level manufacturing vagaries like DSE, etc., etc.  It's as close as you can get to determining if a new resolution yields a noticeable difference.


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #647 of 725 Old 01-23-2014, 10:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,000
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 321 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 

You didn't say "vs. 8K blu-ray 8K TV", you said "So what tells your gut you about 4K → 8K upscaling?" like the 2nd half of the sentence above does.

Given that, the split-screen is the only "fair" comparison vehicle because it eliminates the worst of the apples and oranges.  A side by side doesn't work because different displays are different.  The split screen eliminates that, the differing settings, any fundamental low level manufacturing vagaries like DSE, etc., etc.  It's as close as you can get to determining if a new resolution yields a noticeable difference.
U nfortunately there is non such thing as a screen that has 4K pixel dimension on the left and 8K pixel dimension on the right.
8mile13 is online now  
post #648 of 725 Old 01-23-2014, 11:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,599
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 530 Post(s)
Liked: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 

You didn't say "vs. 8K blu-ray 8K TV", you said "So what tells your gut you about 4K → 8K upscaling?" like the 2nd half of the sentence above does.

Given that, the split-screen is the only "fair" comparison vehicle because it eliminates the worst of the apples and oranges.  A side by side doesn't work because different displays are different.  The split screen eliminates that, the differing settings, any fundamental low level manufacturing vagaries like DSE, etc., etc.  It's as close as you can get to determining if a new resolution yields a noticeable difference.
U nfortunately there is non such thing as a screen that has 4K pixel dimension on the left and 8K pixel dimension on the right.

 

NO NO NO, of course not.  You misunderstand.  Let's call it my fault for not spelling it out better.  Here's what I said:

 

Quote:
single 85" 8K TV running a split screen with the left side 4K 4:2:0 done with NN and the right side 8K 4:2:0 done using a 4K->8K "more clever" upscale

 

NN is Nearest Neighbor.  It's pixel replication of 1x1 -> 2x2 in the case of 4K->8K.  The left side would be pixel replicated upscale faithfully showing 4K (albeit with a tighter spaced grid).  The right side is 4K->8K but not with mere NN, but with a "more clever" upscale, similar to what Sony does (the only one I can vouch for) with their 2K->4K upscale, and 480p -> 2K upscale (within my BDP).

 

Perhaps the "left side 4K" wording is confusing.  Because of the pixel replication it is (still) an 8K screen with replicated pixels showing a 4K image.  The right side is an 8K image but done with "clever" 4K->8K upscale.  Perhaps you'd call the right side a "fake" 8K image, dunno.


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #649 of 725 Old 01-23-2014, 01:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 234
@tgm1024:

I think the only way to do what you are suggesting would be to build a 80"-150" PRYSM LPD Wall. Send 8K content to half and the identical signal in 4K to the other half. The LPD has seamless splits. Each module is identical to each other. And they are comparable to CRT, Plasma and OLED in terms of PQ..
barrelbelly is offline  
post #650 of 725 Old 01-24-2014, 05:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,599
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 530 Post(s)
Liked: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

@tgm1024:

I think the only way to do what you are suggesting would be to build a 80"-150" PRYSM LPD Wall. Send 8K content to half and the identical signal in 4K to the other half. The LPD has seamless splits. Each module is identical to each other. And they are comparable to CRT, Plasma and OLED in terms of PQ..

 

I don't know why you think so.  I'm talking strictly about easily manipulated image data.  Besides there is no such thing as "identical signal in 4K".  And this isn't about 4K vs. 8K, it's about 4K vs 4K upconverted to 8K (using a fancier algorithm than mere replication), though this technique works in both cases.

 

You need to crop each "version" down to fit in half the screen of course.

 

Remember, 4K images using simple 1x1->2x2 replications look like 4K image on an 8K display.


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #651 of 725 Old 01-24-2014, 09:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Is there a lot of native 8k content?

I thought most of the masters used for Blu-Ray was 4k and that represented scanning old film to what they thought was a future-proof digital format. Most of this work was done within the past 10 years?
wco81 is online now  
post #652 of 725 Old 01-24-2014, 01:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,599
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 530 Post(s)
Liked: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post

Is there a lot of native 8k content?

 

No.


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #653 of 725 Old 01-27-2014, 03:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 211
Is it true that a 171 inch display would fit through the average door? Would you be able to discern a difference of 8K over 4K if you were viewing a 171 inch at 9 feet?

Maybe you have to buy a drive-in to notice the 8K difference?
Artwood is offline  
post #654 of 725 Old 01-27-2014, 04:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Is it true that a 171 inch display would fit through the average door? Would you be able to discern a difference of 8K over 4K if you were viewing a 171 inch at 9 feet?
Maybe you have to buy a drive-in to notice the 8K difference?

Yeah, 171 would fit through the door as its height would be just smaller than the door height. One could see a difference over 4K when sitting at about 1PH. You may wish to go to cinema with 4K digital projector and test if this VD fits you.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #655 of 725 Old 01-27-2014, 05:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,599
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 530 Post(s)
Liked: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Is it true that a 171 inch display would fit through the average door? Would you be able to discern a difference of 8K over 4K if you were viewing a 171 inch at 9 feet?
Maybe you have to buy a drive-in to notice the 8K difference?

Yeah, 171 would fit through the door as its height would be just smaller than the door height. One could see a difference over 4K when sitting at about 1PH. You may wish to go to cinema with 4K digital projector and test if this VD fits you.

 

He got the 171 from my calculations a long time ago assuming a door height of 84", and keeping the display perpendicular to the floor.  I figure that angling the display through the hypotenuse of the door could compensate for the bezel of the display as long as it wasn't absurdly wide (which it won't be) and as long as the display itself wasn't absurdly thick (which it won't be either).

 

Artwood, is 8K the new drumbeat of yours?  Have you given up on bashing 4K?  :-P


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #656 of 725 Old 01-31-2014, 12:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 211
I don't bash 4K--I bash small 4K which I define as less than 110 inches.

What I DO bash a lot is 4K LCD--LCD hasn't improved--I hated it before there was 4K--4K doesn't correct its shortcomings.

I don't bash 8K--I just think that it needs to be larger than 4K--if 171 inches was big enough to enjoy the resolution difference over 4K then I would certainly be in favor of 8K.

I think 4K and 8K are great for LARGE screens--they aren't great for small screens and either 4K or 8K is BAD if it is sub Sharp Elite quality LCD.

In other words LCD in my opinion still sucks! Resolution is great if it can be seen--even if it can be seen it would still suck with LCD because LCD sucks!

Now I'll sit back and listened to the sales force denigrate me for still not helping them sell LCD with 4K and 8K sales strategy ploys.
Artwood is offline  
post #657 of 725 Old 01-31-2014, 01:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,985
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 669
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Is it true that a 171 inch display would fit through the average door? Would you be able to discern a difference of 8K over 4K if you were viewing a 171 inch at 9 feet?

Maybe you have to buy a drive-in to notice the 8K difference?


Yeah, 171 would fit through the door as its height would be just smaller than the door height. One could see a difference over 4K when sitting at about 1PH. You may wish to go to cinema with 4K digital projector and test if this VD fits you.

He got the 171 from my calculations a long time ago assuming a door height of 84", and keeping the display perpendicular to the floor.  I figure that angling the display through the hypotenuse of the door could compensate for the bezel of the display as long as it wasn't absurdly wide (which it won't be) and as long as the display itself wasn't absurdly thick (which it won't be either).

Artwood, is 8K the new drumbeat of yours?  Have you given up on bashing 4K?  :-P

Guys, I believe may have figured out Samsung's and LG's true motivation for developing curved screen technology - it will be the only way to get very large screen through the front door!!! biggrin.gif

-fafrd
fafrd is online now  
post #658 of 725 Old 02-03-2014, 09:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 211
I think they're doing a test to see how bad they can make a TV and still have a herd of people at AVS saying that it is great regardless of the facts.
Artwood is offline  
post #659 of 725 Old 02-04-2014, 08:07 AM
Senior Member
 
9179mhb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 414
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

I don't bash 4K--I bash small 4K which I define as less than 110 inches.

What I DO bash a lot is 4K LCD--LCD hasn't improved--I hated it before there was 4K--4K doesn't correct its shortcomings.

I don't bash 8K--I just think that it needs to be larger than 4K--if 171 inches was big enough to enjoy the resolution difference over 4K then I would certainly be in favor of 8K.

I think 4K and 8K are great for LARGE screens--they aren't great for small screens and either 4K or 8K is BAD if it is sub Sharp Elite quality LCD.

In other words LCD in my opinion still sucks! Resolution is great if it can be seen--even if it can be seen it would still suck with LCD because LCD sucks!

Now I'll sit back and listened to the sales force denigrate me for still not helping them sell LCD with 4K and 8K sales strategy ploys.

Do 4K TVs provide native support for the HVEC H.265 codec? Is this an established standard that content providers are likely to adhere to?
9179mhb is offline  
post #660 of 725 Old 02-13-2014, 01:58 PM
Senior Member
 
worth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post

Is there a lot of native 8k content?

I thought most of the masters used for Blu-Ray was 4k and that represented scanning old film to what they thought was a future-proof digital format. Most of this work was done within the past 10 years?

The vast majority of post-production work is still done at 2K for time and cost factors - only a handful of new films are actually finished in 4K. There are 4K scans of older films being done for archival purposes, but that's mostly reserved for very popular titles and classics. Most scans are still 2K. And there's little benefit to scanning 35mm at anything higher than 4K. Really, only large format titles benefit from 8K scans.

Don't tug on that, you never know what it might be attached to...
worth is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
Lcd Hdtv , Displays , Plasma Hdtv , Panasonic

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off