4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 78

Though the man from NHK also mentioned they don't know how much 3D (ie. stereoscopic) people are watching (maybe they're worried that too much stereoscopic 3D could be bad and give headaches etc.).

Here's one site that talks about integral 3D:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/29/3042847/super-hi-vision-tv-8k-nhk-future

So it could be:
About 2020 Japan broadcasts 7680x4320 UHDTV to consumers
About 2030 Japan broadcasts integral 3D.

Though things could obviously change. I'm sure they will have other types of 3D with it, a lot before 2030, even if it's just the current stereoscopic type.

I see you never set in any committee meetings. Congress is a good example. Well, the source was from the actual committee members, but I can't recall where it was posted at this time. http://broadcastengineering.com/encoders/allegro-unveils-first-hevc-h265-compression-equipment Allegro states the final standard, while http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings/stockholm12/stockholm_press.htm Sounds like it will be in 2013, but not sure if it will be January or not.

I haven't seen a service that offers an uncompressed audio in Bluray yet. Ultraviolet still has a disc, but think about this a little. You have to select the audio format based on your equipment. Not everyone has the new audio formats on their receivers.

The technological problems for recording 8K video are likely to be solved within 10 years but in my opinion the main issue will be display size. In the BBC video they mention flexible OLED displays will be used in the future but that is something that might take a very long time before it becomes affordable in very large sizes (120" and larger).

The NHK has done incredible research work on UHDTV but they also promoted analog HDTV so they have made some poor decisions in the past. Even the explanation the NHK has for not using 4K UHDTV is that they don't want to go through two transitions which sounds like an excuse for a decision that has already been made. I think it is possible that even 10 years from now the only broadcaster promoting 8K UHDTV will be the NHK.

Agreed, all the official sources say that the final draft of HEVC will be released in January 2013. The rumor that it will be delayed was posted in another thread by someone who claims to have inside information about HEVC (but has never posted about HEVC before now) who claims that it will be delayed to "mid 2013 at the earliest, 2014 is quite possible". I am very skeptical of that rumor. From what I have read the final draft of HEVC will be released in January 2013 which can be seen in company press releases, such as this Erisson press release, and in the official HEVC meeting documents. As such all the official sources for HEVC state that the final draft will be released in January 2013.

Real 8K or 9K cameras will come in about two years. Not the "pixelshift 8K" Sony is claiming F65 will do next tear. But real 33MP or 65MP. Canon showed 50MP CMOS sensor in 2007 and 120MP CMOS sensor in 2011, so the sensors are there already (probably "hiding" in some drones).
RED has 9K camera in the works, and "some amazing technology that will take some time to get ready" they say.
It is a matter of camera size, compression codecs and transport of 8K over satellite and terrestrial and fiber. NHK already proved it is possible. With HEVC and some time, everything will be easier.
Samsung has made those in small scale and claim they will release flexible OLED next year. The day OLED printing problems is solved, possibility for large flexible screens will be easy. Then we can have 120" screens and 4 times 8K resolution.
If that takes 10 years it will be launched at the same time 8K broadcast starts to be regular in some countries.
In the mean time we can be content with 85" 8K screens like the one Sharp has made several of. And some 4K satellite channels, which Sony with ASTRA tested in September with 50Mb/s, where they aim at 20Mb/s next year with HEVC.
I believe that stranded because it showed that it was impossible to mass-produce CRT HDTVs. Something to do with unsteady pictures caused by sensitivity to fluctuating currents and earth magnetism.
It is a very proper and rational decision, surprisingly so, and very much backed by the EBU. To make all broadcasters invest Billions in new equipment for 4K broadcast when they are only years from a 8K solution is not very smart.
That would mean they either go for 4K and put 8K on hold for 20 years or go directly to 8K.
It is 8K that visually will make a easy sell-able difference between HD and 8K. 4K will be just a soon forgotten stepping stone.

If we talk 2030 (the 10 years it takes from introduction of 8K broadcast to mainstream) and huge OLED printed video walls, the resolution of minimum 8K will be needed.

Just a matter of conceptual wording.

"Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) is due January 2013, which is the start of formal ratification."

Final Draft in January, formal Ratification summer 2013.

Once the final draft is in place the decoding hardware will be built. Any changes from them would probably only require small firmware upgrades. If you think there will be no 4K blu-ray in 2013, my offer for a bet still stands.

Guys, I'm definitely no expert in this business, but from everything I'm been able to find, there is no perceptible benefit of 8K for screens up to 12 ft.    4K over 2K, yes, but 8K doesn't add any visual benefit. 

Sure, camera technology will continues to improve but cost is an issue and that is especially true for major movies which use a lot of CGI. There is a reason that many $100+ million dollar movies (such as The Avengers) continue to be finished in 2K. I think that 4K will become standard for major movies within 3 years but it shows that cost is an issue even for major movies.

When 120" flexible OLED screens become affordable than my position on 8K UHDTV will change but until than I am very skeptical of whether current display technology would allow for 8K UHDTVs in the average home.

The poster referred to SVC which is a profile that most likely won't be added until the second version of HEVC. The second version of HEVC is expected in January 2014.

It will take a certain amount of time to develop HEVC hardware decoders, test them, mass produce them, ship them to factories, have the consumer products made that use them, and have those products shipped to where they will be sold. Also though a task force has been made to extend the Blu-ray Disc format they have not yet announced a specification.

Actually, I think it's probably more accurate to view NHK's UHDTV1|UHDTV2 (4K2K & 8K4K) technology as one platform family capable of (nationalized) implementation as either 4K2K or 8K4K.
_

PS   Is there any evidence, e.g., from double blind viewing tests, that viewers can tell any difference between 4K and 8K for 1 SW viewing distance?

Latest NHK study* is still not available in English, and Japanese version is behind a paywall. Publicly available chart is somewhat confusing and it's hard to draw conclusions from it:

Annual Report 2011, chapter 1 pdf

However, we know that Vernier acuity is much higher than what we're dealing with when discussing displays, resolutions and acuities (30, 60, 120, 200, 312 pixels per degree) so benefit from those extreme resolutions should exist.

Edit: for classic minimum separable acuity, or ability to tell that two points are in fact separate entities, you should have no problem considering it to be down to 0.3 arc-minutes. Below that, you'd have to be pretty optimistic individual.

*Y. Kusakabe, K. Masaoka, I. Kondo, Y. Nishida and M. Sugawara: “Subjective Evaluations of Preferred Viewing Distance and Psychophysical Effects of Extremely High Resolution Images Using Super Hi-Vision 85-inch LCD,” ITE Technical Report, Vol. 36, No. 9, ME2012-62, HI2012-24, AIT2012-24, pp. 245-250 (2012) (in Japanese)
Edited by Randomoneh - 12/2/12 at 9:17pm

Yes, I have seen this figure before, and what I gathered from it was that from 1.5 - 2.0 PH viewing distance--about as close as most anyone would like to sit (I like ~ 1.8 PH ~ 1 SW), there this a noticeable benefit of going beyond 2K, but that the gain of 8K over 4K is minimal.    Are I wrong in this?

 

PS   And if one sits at >/= 3 PH, there is no point in having more than a 2K display.

I wouldn't call it minimal, but honestly - I don't know for sure.
More info on this study: preferred viewing distance did not depend on resolution or content and ranged from 1.5 to 4 times the screen height, with the most preferred distance being 2.5 times the screen height. Also, motion video was used while conducting tests.

Honestly, I'd wait for another study, be it from NHK or someone else. Previous studies were less conflicting and more conclusive than this one.

I would like to see A/B viewing tests by experienced 'experts' of actual 4K (and 8K to the extinct it exists) to see at what viewing distance they see 4K to be noticeably improved over 2K, and 8K over 4K.

The BBC report is an obvious, carefully orchestrated production by NHK to undermine and ridicule the 4K, note all the gangnam-style blasts and bombshells there . It is just proving my point that 4K is stillborn. Now you can expect more rumors coming about 'ultimate' OctoHD versus 'fake' 4K. Don't ridicule yourself telling technological problems of OctoHD will be solved in 10ys, expect announcements of huge progress within the next 24 months.

Note: In the report NHK shows the prototype of 120 Hz camera, meaning this is their target for 8K. With this camera they will be able to prove the 4K@60Hz is jerky and fake dealing it a blow.

As I posted earlier the statements you have made against 4K UHDTV could also be made against 4K computer monitors. As such what is your position on 4K computer monitors? Personally I think that both 4K UHDTVs and 4K computer monitors make sense.

4K at 120 fps is supported in the UHDTV standard.

120fps is supported but it will not be offered in this crazy 4K rush, just same parameters as the current 2K. I stated here that 4K computer monitors are the only sensible aspect of this technology. This can not be equalized with the 4K TV simply because viewing conditions are different. The first real 4K computer monitor will be 32". I just made tests with 32" HDTV in the computer monitor scenario and it came out clear that 2K is insufficient. Thus 4K is necessary for the 32" computer monitor. This can not be said about 4K TV, it is really not necessary for the current viewing scenario. But with the high density displays coming everywhere and potentially new viewing scenarios one has to deal with the resolution issue once and for all. Ultimate solution here is not 4K, it is 8K.

We are only seeing the first 4K TVs and I think it would be a mistake to assume that all future 4K TVs will have the same parameters as current HDTVs. And with the creation of the Main 10 profile in HEVC I think we will see 10-bit video offered in future consumer video formats/services. Also while expensive and proprietary the RED video player that was recently announced supports 12-bit 4:2:2 video.

I don't see how you can argue that the resolution for 4K UHDTV is both too low and too high. You can argue for one of those but it isn't logical to argue for both. Either 4K UHDTV resolution is too high or 4K UHDTV resolution is too low. In a 2004 BBC London survey the average viewing distance for watching TV was 2.7 meters or about 8 feet. At that viewing distance a person with 20/20 vision would benefit from a 84" 4K TV.

Based on that opinion shouldn't you argue against 4K computer monitors as well? If you believe that display size and viewing distance aren't important than why support something that isn't the "ultimate solution" for computer monitors? After all making 8K computer monitors for the average viewing distance would be even easier than making 8K UHDTVs for the average viewing distance.

In my opinion both display size and viewing distance are relevant for a TV and for that reason both 1080p TVs and 4K UHDTVs will make sense for a very, very long time. If someone with 20/20 vision buys a 32" TV that they watch from 12 feet away do they need a 4K UHDTV? Would it make sense for them to buy a 32" 4K UHDTV? No, and given that situation a 1080p TV would be more logical. If someone with 20/20 vision buys a 84" TV that they watch from 8 feet away do they need a 8K UHDTV? Would it make sense for them to buy a 84" 8K UHDTV? No, and given that situation a 4K UHDTV would be more logical. The combination of display size and viewing distance are relevant for a display. I think that the resolution of 4K UHDTV makes sense for some people now, will make sense for more people in 5 years, and will make sense for some people 30 years from now.
Edited by Richard Paul - 12/4/12 at 7:08pm

Nothing like that will happen with the 4K since general attitude (except the japanese) is to make fast buck by dropping 4K with current parameters on people.

The entire resolution discussion is bogus if one considers current TV viewing scenario. There will be no difference to 2K if one would compress the 2K to the same bit rate as the 4K will be using. But since the trend is towards retina displays one has to get with this resolution issue once and for all, this is why 8K is the solution.


You seem not to understand there is huge difference between computer monitor scenario (1-1.5 PH, fine details) and TV viewing scenario (min 2.5- 4PH)
I am telling you I tested it myself recently when buying LG 32" HDTV and putting it side by side with Samsung 27"@2560x1440. 32" HDTV has too liitle
resolution for desktop monitor, pixels are annoyingly visible. For 32" monitor 4K is necessary, and first such monitor will be made by Sharp. Thus there is clear-cut case for the 32" computer monitor@4K based on the resolution alone. There is no such case for TV.

As I said, the case for 8K is two-fold. One is new viewing scenarios e.g. kind of surround immersive viewing. Second is getting the resolution problem done once and for all.

BTW, for computer monitor there is a need for res beyond 8K at if you look who sit surrounded by 3 2K monitors. In a couple of ys you may see people surrounded by 3 4K monitors. There is thus a real need for 12K curved computer monitors which may come when flexible display tech progresses.

Westinghouse teases 110-inch 4K (4096x2160) LED TV, promises more details at CES
World largest LCD?
This is probably the "China Star" 110" announced in March. Have some Chinese company bought the Westinghouse brand name?

Samsung owns a 15% share of the manufacturing plant. http://itersnews.com/?p=14610
Edited by coolscan - 12/5/12 at 3:03am

^Heh, this sounds normal 4K TV vs. those miniature 84" sets . Though it is begging for replacement by a genuinly ultimate 8K@110" .

Yeah, 110" is quite a bit larger than 84". Would not be much problem for them to make it a 8K. The 4K 110" has about the same PPI as a 50" HD TV. Image Processing power would of course be a bigger issue.

Soooo...we have a $5 bet then? I say we have 4K blu-ray player for sale in the US by end of 2013, you say no. Shall I book it?

I guess only time will tell which one of us is right but I personally have no doubt that we will eventually see 4K UHDTVs that will support 10-bit video in the UHDTV color space.

You are making an argument based on an opinion you have about the TV viewing distance. There is no evidence for that limit and when I previously asked you for evidence you posted a link to a study that used the recommended viewing distance for HDTV (which is 3 picture heights). The argument you are making against 4K TV is similar to the argument that some people made during the 1990's that HDTV would fail because people wouldn't want to sit 3 to 5 picture heights from their TV. In other words I disagree with your opinion.

I am not a betting man but I am confident that we won't see real 4K Blu-ray players released until at least 2014. I would mention that the 3D task force for Blu-ray was announced in May 2009 and the specification for Blu-ray 3D was released in December 2009.

This is fantasy. The 4K plot is to bomb consumers asap neglecting all other parameters. Genuine Ultra TV with 10-bit and 120Hz will be seen with the 8K starting in Japan.

The argument about PH is not out of the blue. It is very reasonable and obvious, for standard Joe Sixpack sitting close to TV is simply obtrusive.

the better bet might be whether there will be any 4k content for your 4k bd by the end of next year.

The UHDTV standard was approved a few months ago and it will likely take at least a year before we see the mass production of video processing chips that support the UHDTV color space. Also there needs to be a consumer video connection that supports the UHDTV color space and hopefully it will be supported with the next version of HDMI.

I disagree with that opinion and only time will tell which one of us is right about 4K UHDTV.
Edited by Richard Paul - 12/7/12 at 12:00am

Does the modern costs of pixel production make it pointless not to go to 8K out of curiosity? Speaking specifically about displays, not infrastructure, since the TV's can always scale content < 8k.

One of the great disappointments this year in HDTV-land. Today I saw LG's $17,000 84-inch 4K display, showing a high-end travelogue: Other than black level(a little better but not all that much) the resolution was about equal to the 1080p Ultra-BluRay boxed travelogue discs which have been available for a year. So what's the big deal? The resolution on an 84-inch display is about equal to what you'd get with a high-end source on a 65-incher like mine and that is a genuine benefit, but will 4K become the norm? If the cost gets down to what we now pay for 1080p, why not? But at the premium price being ask for today? Gimme a break.