8K by 4K or Octo HD - the real SUHDTV technology - Page 13

Has Japan decided to start with 7680x4320 broadcast in 2016 instead of 2020 as planned early?

Interesting thread. I went through first couple of pages where we deliberate about when 8k or 16k displays players and media will become bread and butter

and I can't forget some 30-35 years ago in '70 when I was maybe 5-6 years old, technology enthusiasts were convinced that in 2000 we are going to be travelling in flying car or having colonies on Mars and beyond.

None of these happened simply because of economy that always priorities toward most efficient but still acceptable solutions that that can bring most profit to its sellers not consumers.

Same fate seems to be written for super high res technology which would have to become so cheap to become another marketing tool which would allow convincing average homeowner to switch to new 8k or 16k by the way when upgrading broken or old tv set.

I am not saying this is not going to happen but again't with modern economy it is less likely than more in next 10 years.

Japanese were always leaders in this but keep in mind how long it took for rest of western world to adapt 1080 hd after Japanese introduced it over 30 years ago.

Forgive this interruption with some dumbo questions:

If 4K broadcast is for basically impossible: How will people get 4K programming?

Will they have to buy super duper Blu-rays?

How long would it take to download a 2 hour 4K movie if it was not compressed?

And lastly the big question--how much will 4K and super resolutions higher than that actually cost?

How much cheaper would it be to download or buy a disc and play it at home versus wtching the movie in a theater?

Will all these problems be solved by 2020?

Will the internet basically have to be all fiber optic wired for this stuff to really work well?

First UltraHD demonstration channel on satellite in Europe
http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/14/first-ultra-hd-channel-goes-live-in-europe/

It will take years but eventually we will have UltraHD channels

What are the limitations of satellite transmission in terms of speed; bandwidth?

I'm not sure why you think they'd be significantly different than OTA requirements. I mean other than the fact they can pretty much do what they want. So they could provide high bandwidth per channel and give good quality to a few channels, or they can provide low bandwidth and give poor quality to a lot of channels. Most seem to prefer the latter. But they are not regulated in that regard, to the best of my knowledge, since they provide the decoding boxes, I also think they could use whatever codec they like. Cable companies are in the same situation.

I can see already some greedy cable companies trying to pull some customers into ultra hidef resolution programming sending indeed 8k signal to the user but with compression that makes some fast moving scenes pixelized like a chessboard. No thanks I will pass on that.

Same argument NHK use for going straight for 8K.

It isn't impossible.
European Satellite owners ASTRA have been testing 4K for a year already. EUTELSAT just opened their dedicated 4K sattelite channel January 8.
NHK have been testing 4K and 8K over fibre for years. Latest was their live transmissions of 8K from the Summer Olympics last year to several sites in the UK, Japan and US.
All this will be easier when the High-Efficiency- Video-Codec (HEVC) is finalised later this year.
4K/UHD Blu-Rays with HEVC don't need to be Super-duper. They have sufficient bitrate,can keep the same size/volume and disc structure, use the same replication equipment.
They will need new players with a higher capacity video processor to process the 4K resolution.
Broadcom recently announced that they are starting up the processor chip manufacturing for HEVC/4K/UHD to launch this year and be mass-produced in 2014.
Only cinemas will get "uncompressed" 4K delivered on physical hard-discs or satellite fed. Consumer 4K/UHD content for distribution will be typical 20-25Mb/s bitrate with HEVC. Undistinguishable from "uncompressed" DCI for cinemas on screens up to 20 feet.
4K original material can be compressed much harder than 2K without loss of quality.
Only one consumer film in 4K is yet sold; Timescapes natural documentary.
Wait for RedRay player with content distribution (downloade) from Odemax for price-levels.
Or possible Playstation 4 as a distribution server to fulfil Sony's promise at CES to have a 4K distribution system ready for the summer. For something that hasn't started yet. How can we know? Long before, like in the next three years starting now.
Non-fiberoptics Internet doesn't work very well for anything other than reading.

uncompressed != losslessly compressed. I think you already know that, but some might be confused.
I would be shocked to learn that anybody distributed uncompressed. It would be stupid. Camera to editing at the studio might be losslessly compressed distribution. I would think everyone else in the food chain would be lossy compression. Certainly you, HBO, etc. will receive something with lossy compression. Post houses and maybe theatres would likely receive something with low lossy compression, but maybe they might be able to receive losslessly compressed. Back of the envelope calcs indicate a 2 hr. 16x9 2k movie distributed 4:4:4 , 10 bits luma/10 chroma 24 fps would be about 1 Terabyte. Lossless compression might hit 3:1 depending on content, and I recall hearing theatres got movies at around 300G. Still, I think theatres get movies with lossy compression, just light on the compression.

Would 8K look good if you had a 200 inch screen?

How far could you sit from it?

How much do used drive-in screens run?

Does anyone in the world have an IMAX screen in their own house?

I wonder...what is the biggest screen in anyone's house in the whole world?

So is 4K going to be the standard for MANY years like NTSC was?

You don't need an IMAX-sized image to sit one picture height away from the display - I do that today.
No, that will probably be 8K.

Possible, and there are limits to TV display size based on current technology. In my opinion 4K UHDTV will be the next major standard for the vast majority of the world and will remain the standard for a very long time. The costs associated with 4K recording have been going down and while it once was used only in major Hollywood movies the cost is now low enough that it can be used in high budget TV series.

I honestly don't see the need for 8K. If we're bickering over whether we'll see much of a difference going from 2K to 4K, what is to be gained going from 4K to 8K? We have reached the point of diminishing returns.

I'm not even going to get in to the discussion of 8K content (one can argue there IS considerable 4K content ready today). Who is shooting in 8K today? What movies have been mastered in 8K? How will this material be disseminated and with what compression?

+1 4K will be the next major standard for the vast majority of the world and will remain the standard for a very long time.

Not if you listen to the arguments from NHK or BBC or EBU or for that matter a channel like ESPN.

Bryan Burns, VP of strategic business planning and development at ESPN said;

“By the time we get [to 4K] we will be on to 8K or whatever. I don’t want to make the capital investment [in 4K]. There might be a gradual evolution…but I don’t see us heading to 4K production or an ESPN 4K channel.”

All the arguments are that it is more economical to go straight for 8K as an alternative to first upgrade equipment for 4K and then later upgrade again for 8K.

Burns heads the content subcommittee of CEA’s Ultra HD Working Group.

Th HEVC stuff will get us 4K blu-ray and 4K broadcast. HEVC is the main reason why there will be 4K blu-ray and 4K broadcast at some point.
. what coding will get us 8K blu-ray and 8K broadcast?
. for most people going from 4K to 8K makes no sence.
.

ESPN is very profitable and will continue to feed people crappy 720p unless competition forces an upgrade. His comments are driven by $ only.

Absolutely Dave. When I read that several days ago, that's exactly what I was thinking. His motivation was not enhancing quality.

Is there a danger in quality getting so good that NO ONE goes to the games?

Can sports make if if no one is at the scene REALLY watching?

They try to hide the empty seats at bowl games but it makes you ask yourself--if those seats are empty is this game really worth watching?

People will always go to games and always go to the movies. Why? Because regardless of how good the picture is at home, there's the social aspect of 'going out', and if we're objective, there's still nothing like 'being there' at a sporting event.

HEVC will get you 8K too down the line.
UHD-1=4K
UHD-2=8K Most people will not have switched to 4K before 8K is offered them.
I have no familiarity with ESPN.
The reason they where used as an example is because they declared early last year that they prepare for 4K and now changed their decision.
And because they use the same argument that the initiative behind 8K broadcast, NHK, BBC and EBU use; That it is more sensible to go straight to 8K for broadcast than going via a 4K upgrade of equipment first.
Has nothing particularly to do with ESPN, just an illustration.
Edited by coolscan - 1/30/13 at 3:56pm

Only the NHK is planning 8K production.

The only content organization I know of that has said that is the NHK and we will see if they stick with that. Going straight from 1080p24 to 4320p120 is a huge leap and they are also promoting 22.2 channel audio.

22.2 audio, lol. They exude excess and it would seem they cater to the elite of the elites.