8K by 4K or Octo HD - the real SUHDTV technology - Page 27 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 32Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #781 of 794 Old 06-15-2015, 12:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Sony introduced a couple of cameras this past week with 4k capabilities, a compact with a 1 inch sensor and a full frame dslr.

But I believe they are at most 30fps and not sure they have HDMI 2. Nor probably some support for the HDR that display manufacturers are moving towards, so these may not be quite a source for the 4k HDR TVs which are coming.

Too bad ...
wco81 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #782 of 794 Old 06-15-2015, 12:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Sony introduced a couple of cameras this past week with 4k capabilities, a compact with a 1 inch sensor and a full frame dslr.

But I believe they are at most 30fps and not sure they have HDMI 2. Nor probably some support for the HDR that display manufacturers are moving towards, so these may not be quite a source for the 4k HDR TVs which are coming.

Too bad ...
Though this is the "8K by 4K" thread (7680x4320 - 4 times more pixels than a "4K" (3840x2160) TV). So the cameras won't be the best for 8K (7.68K) TVs/content. Though they could still upscale or do something similar to what the other person did (ie. shoot in portrait mode and composite to make it higher res - though there could still be issues - eg. if things are moving).
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #783 of 794 Old 06-15-2015, 06:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 27,010
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2983 Post(s)
Liked: 2679
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Sony introduced a couple of cameras this past week with 4k capabilities, a compact with a 1 inch sensor and a full frame dslr.

But I believe they are at most 30fps and not sure they have HDMI 2. Nor probably some support for the HDR that display manufacturers are moving towards, so these may not be quite a source for the 4k HDR TVs which are coming.

Too bad ...
I've already owned several 4K cameras and although they don't do HDR, they are superb sources for 4K and can produce output that rivals the demos you see on these UHD TVs. They are fully compatible with any of the 2015 UHD TVs and yes, they all shoot 30fps (or 24fps if that's your choice).
Ken Ross is offline  
post #784 of 794 Old 06-15-2015, 06:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NuSoardGraphite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 1,573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 147
8k isn't at all necessary for the home. you need a HUGE display to see any benefit from the resolution increase. I think 4k is as high as home cinema needs to go. (maybe 8k for projectors, but not flat panel displays 85" or smaller)


other technological advances (expanded color, HDR, quantum dots, OLED) will be necessary to enhance PQ on a flat panel from here on out.

Stand tall and shake the heavens...
NuSoardGraphite is offline  
post #785 of 794 Old 06-15-2015, 07:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuSoardGraphite View Post
8k isn't at all necessary for the home. you need a HUGE display to see any benefit from the resolution increase.
Depends on your intended use. I desperately want a 44″ 8K panel.
That's 200 pixels per inch, and an ideal "retina display" to use as a PC monitor.

4K means you have to choose between a large workspace or retina-quality text and images. 8K gets you both.
dsinger likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #786 of 794 Old 06-15-2015, 07:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NuSoardGraphite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 1,573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
Depends on your intended use. I desperately want a 44″ 8K panel.
That's 200 pixels per inch, and an ideal "retina display" to use as a PC monitor.

4K means you have to choose between a large workspace or retina-quality text and images. 8K gets you both.

I suppose so. Though I am hardpressed to identify individual pixels on a 65" 2160p screen. I can imagine that 4k on a 44" screen would be pretty good.


Why do you need such a tight PPI count?

Stand tall and shake the heavens...
NuSoardGraphite is offline  
post #787 of 794 Old 06-15-2015, 07:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 27,010
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2983 Post(s)
Liked: 2679
Although only 28", seeing pixels on my 4K monitor is tough to impossible.

I certainly don't see the advantages of 8K for home displays, but we all know it will come...eventually. They need to sell us something.

I can actually see more benefit in 8K camera recording. That would allow me to crop and pan an 8K image for a final 4K project. That would be very nice. Right now you can do that with a 4K recording, but you wind up with HD.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #788 of 794 Old 06-15-2015, 08:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Although only 28", seeing pixels on my 4K monitor is tough to impossible.
I have no difficulty seeing pixels on a 160 PPI monitor.
That's closer to a non-retina notebook/iPad (130-140 PPI) than a retina display.

All of Apple's retina displays are >200 PPI:
  • iMac: 218
  • MacBook Pro: 220/227
  • MacBook: 226
  • iPad: 264

A 28″ 4K monitor gives you a non-retina 3840x2160 workspace, or a retina 1920x1080 workspace.
It's really too small to use as a non-retina display (should be 44″ for 100 PPI)
And too big to use as a retina display (should be 22″ for 200 PPI)

I was never a fan of when they tried changing 1080p monitors from being 22″ to something more like 27/28″ as a low-cost alternative to 2560x1440 screens.
100 PPI or thereabouts had been standard for PC displays as far back as I can remember.


On Windows with a 28″ 4K screen you can use 1.5× scaling, but non-integer scaling is far from ideal. At least you have the option though, unlike OS X.
I personally wouldn't buy anything other than ~100 PPI or ~200 PPI to use at 1× or 2× scale.
Non-integer scaling is too much of a compromise.

The new 5K monitors are nice though. 5120x2880 at 27″ is 218 PPI which is almost perfect. Just a little bit smaller than I'd like. (ideally 29″)
That gives you a 2560x1440 workspace when used as a retina display.
The problem is that they are very expensive right now, are non-optimal for displaying videos (though great for editing) and are currently all tiled displays which are limited to 60Hz.
If I'm buying a monitor like that I'd be waiting for DisplayPort 1.3 to have a single non-tiled image, using a single cable to connect it to the PC, and hopefully with a refresh rate above 60Hz.

But what I'd really like is a massive 3840x2160 workspace and retina-quality rendering.
A 5K monitor is nice, but it's the same workspace as the 2560x1440 displays we've had for 5+ years at this point. (well 2560x1600 before some idiot decided 16:9 was better than 16:10 in a monitor)
That requires an 8K panel, and 44″ is the ideal size - which is significantly smaller than the “100″ or larger” displays that many people claim are required for 8K to be worthwhile.

Seiki's 40" monitor is an example of what that would be like, only it is a "non-retina" 110 PPI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
I certainly don't see the advantages of 8K for home displays, but we all know it will come...eventually. They need to sell us something.
For televisions to sell to the mass market, you could be right.
I'm not convinced yet though. I've mentioned it on the forums before but a few people I know have updated their displays from smaller <55″ 1080p screens to larger 65″+ 4K ones and were not that impressed by the resolution increase.
The increase in size was enough that pixels are still quite visible to them. Not quite as bad as their older 1080p sets, but they didn't disappear either.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #789 of 794 Old 06-15-2015, 08:33 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 12
What difference will 8k make? The industry will probably be stupid enough to try to fit it onto multi layer bluray discs - same as with 4k. Along with that, online streaming will say that they are streaming in high quality but in fact it is too compressed to fully enjoy the resolution and audio. Heck, bring back the 12" laser disc with today's modern technology and have it hold 1TB per side!!
STIGUY2014 is online now  
post #790 of 794 Old 06-15-2015, 08:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 27,010
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2983 Post(s)
Liked: 2679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
I have no difficulty seeing pixels on a 160 PPI monitor.
That's closer to a non-retina notebook/iPad (130-140 PPI) than a retina display.
Well your eyes are better than mine then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
All of Apple's retina displays are >200 PPI:
  • iMac: 218
  • MacBook Pro: 220/227
  • MacBook: 226
  • iPad: 264

A 28″ 4K monitor gives you a non-retina 3840x2160 workspace, or a retina 1920x1080 workspace.
It's really too small to use as a non-retina display (should be 44″ for 100 PPI)
And too big to use as a retina display (should be 22″ for 200 PPI)

I was never a fan of when they tried changing 1080p monitors from being 22″ to something more like 27/28″ as a low-cost alternative to 2560x1440 screens.
100 PPI or thereabouts had been standard for PC displays as far back as I can remember.
<snip>
On Windows with a 28″ 4K screen you can use 1.5× scaling, but non-integer scaling is far from ideal. At least you have the option though, unlike OS X.
I personally wouldn't buy anything other than ~100 PPI or ~200 PPI to use at 1× or 2× scale.
Non-integer scaling is too much of a compromise.
I actually find the windows scaling to be quite good for most apps that adhere to it. I use the monitor for 4K editing and it works well for me. I don't use Apple because they don't support my editing program and I won't buy an Apple computer to use it in dual-boot mode. More trouble than it's worth. Plus, Apples have issues with new codecs. They are not receptive to H265 whereas I have a program that ingests these 4K H265 clips natively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
For televisions to sell to the mass market, you could be right.
I'm not convinced yet though. I've mentioned it on the forums before but a few people I know have updated their displays from smaller <55″ 1080p screens to larger 65″+ 4K ones and were not that impressed by the resolution increase.
The increase in size was enough that pixels are still quite visible to them. Not quite as bad as their older 1080p sets, but they didn't disappear either.
Of course their ability to see pixels on that UHD display all hinges on their visual acuity and viewing distance. To me, at the distance I'd be at from a 65" UHD display, it's a total non-issue. Frankly I've seen very very few people complain of this.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #791 of 794 Old 06-15-2015, 09:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by STIGUY2014 View Post
What difference will 8k make? The industry will probably be stupid enough to try to fit it onto multi layer bluray discs - same as with 4k. Along with that, online streaming will say that they are streaming in high quality but in fact it is too compressed to fully enjoy the resolution and audio. Heck, bring back the 12" laser disc with today's modern technology and have it hold 1TB per side!!
You don't need an 8K source to benefit from an 8K display. Same thing applies to 4K TVs.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #792 of 794 Old 06-15-2015, 09:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
Luke M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
On Windows with a 28″ 4K screen you can use 1.5× scaling, but non-integer scaling is far from ideal. At least you have the option though, unlike OS X.
I personally wouldn't buy anything other than ~100 PPI or ~200 PPI to use at 1× or 2× scale. Non-integer scaling is too much of a compromise.
What needs to be scaled? Icons? Bah, who cares.

To me it's all about whether small text looks smooth or not.
Luke M is offline  
post #793 of 794 Old 06-15-2015, 10:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,277
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 89
8K 4320p videos on youtube today !






Marques Brownlee has been shooting 4K videos for his youtube Channel BKBHD with his 4K RED camera and has the 8K version on order.

jogiba is online now  
post #794 of 794 Old Today, 07:33 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Though this is the "8K by 4K" thread (7680x4320 - 4 times more pixels than a "4K" (3840x2160) TV). So the cameras won't be the best for 8K (7.68K) TVs/content. Though they could still upscale or do something similar to what the other person did (ie. shoot in portrait mode and composite to make it higher res - though there could still be issues - eg. if things are moving).
Sony A7RII has resolution of 7,952 x 4,472 pixels which exceeds the 8K format, one could make 8K still photos by cutting excessive rows and columns. Moreover the camera does 4K video recording in full frame mode by taking 8K frames and downscaling them to 4K. This means 8K recording would be a piece of cake for this camera, most likely it is not implemented just from marketing reasons since there is no way of watching 8K (and camera other technical parameters are bordering on scary anyway). Thus 8K video is technically no problem anymore.
irkuck is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
Lcd Hdtv , Displays , Plasma Hdtv , Panasonic

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