8K by 4K or Octo HD - the real SUHDTV technology - Page 15

For 20/20 vision it is 3.16 PH for a 1080p display. As for viewing distance a survey done by the BBC for their employees in London said that the average viewing distance was 2.7 meters or about 8 feet.

The NHK may be willing to spend more on 8K UHDTV based on the possibility of new display technologies but that doesn't mean that other broadcasters will.

I think that's the point that some are missing here. There will be an absolutely miniscule % of consumers that will be able to accommodate a screen size sufficient to show any 8K advantage, let alone consumers who will be able to tell the difference. The industry has its work cut out for it just to address the same issues, though to a lesser extent, with 4K!

Then the question is, what's the point of waiting for such a longer period of time for the maturation of 8K, when we're already so close to 4K being viable? I see no point when we both agree there's nothing to be gained from 8K relative to 4K.

"Ultimate" what???? If we agree 8K has no visual advantages to the consumer, your 'ultimate' nomenclature means nothing, nada, zippo. You keep saying that 8K is the 'limit', that 8K is the 'ultimate', that NHK as ordained this is the path we should follow and yet you give not a single coherent reason why anyone should care about 8K other than what NHK 'dictates'. I could care less (as could the consumer), what NHK is doing. Who gives a rat's ass? Let them develop and push 164K. With no visible benefits, wake me when it's over.

If you define 'conservative static approach' as 'common sense', I'll finally agree with you. BTW, I see nothing 'static' about moving from 2K to 4K. That seems pretty 'dynamic' to me. Again, if it doesn't fit your NHK goal, then it makes no sense. You can sit there and talk about static approaches, lack of vision and all that good stuff, but when you can come up with common sense, viable reasons why the consumer should care about a system that offers no visual benefits to them, necessitates utterly huge screens that almost nobody can accommodate and viewing distances that will leave nose prints on the screen, I'll sit up and take notice. Until then, I hope we are not led by NHK because they'd like to dictate the path the world should follow for whatever it is that motivates them.

8K is just not going to happen for the consumer market. Law of diminishing returns. 8K could be use for high-res medical and military application, but to change over the consumer infrastructure is just not worth it. I could even see 8K being used by movie studios for their "master copy" and distributed to movie theaters in the future, but not for the consumer on the size of screens that can fit into the typically home.

Reposting:
_
Edited by SoundChex - 2/4/13 at 10:26am

So let me get this straight. We need 8K so we can go over to our 'touch-enabled', huge screen home displays so that we can walk over to them and 'pinch to zoom'. Got it. Thanks for confirming we have no need for 8K.

This is actually getting amusing.

^I'll go one step further and state we presently have little need for 4K. :X

How BIG a screen do you need for 8K? Does the ceiling have to be taller than 9 feet?

Would 8K be a good choice for Cowboys' stadium?

Would the picture be so great that people would watch the Redskins versus the Giants instead of the Cowboys live on the field?!!!



Sorry folks--I just guaranteed that Jerry Jones will never install 8K at Cowboys' stadium.

Well at 42" you only have 210 pixels per inch, which is lower resolution than Apple's Retina MacBook Pros. So it doesn't need to be that big.

Certainly if you are close enough to pinch to zoom.

For realistic TV viewing, however, we're in another place.

There is currently some momentum for "supra-retina" phone displays of like 1920 x 1080 at 5 inches, for example. They look great. But do they look greater than regular "retina" displays? Not in realistic viewing. Again, we find ourselves looking for contrast, ambient rejection, etc. over the additional resolution.

I don't want to suggest there are no applications for 8K -- because those applications exist. There just aren't an awfully large number of those applications.

Again, no need for higher chroma sampling rates until we top out luma resolution. Maybe once we have 8K there will not be any need to increase resolution any further, and then we can think about 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 video.

Look at this post for example: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1614315&postcount=17361

With madVR chroma upsampling, you are getting better than 4:2:2 resolution from upsampling a 4:2:0 source.
Those are 15″ notebooks, not tablets.
I have long argued that Apple should have gone 3× with their “retina” devices, rather than only 2×, because they can’t move up in resolution again now unless they either go to 4× (unlikely) or go to 3× which means that current 2× apps won't scale nicely.

These 1080p devices are roughly equivalent to the 3× I argued that we should have been switching to right away, and I can absolutely see a difference between them and 720p devices.
If 8K is the point where there is zero reason to increase resolution any further on home displays, then that seems like a worthy goal. 4K is definitely not enough for some applications.

Chronoptimist: If 8K really does happen what size screen will you buy to enjoy its benefits?

The problem is most of those 8K applications have nothing to do with in-home TV viewing, but rather medical & research applications. So I still have not been convinced of the need for 8K in the home.

With 8K you need a billion inch screen and there's no way to broadcast it but it's going to happen?

What is more absurd--that notion--or the people at area 51 with the black helicopters releasing moth eyes?

They're out there!

You may have missed my attempt at humor there, Chron.
Processing is not free. Nor is backlighting for all those tiny aperture pixels. They went with 2x for a reason and they won't be moving up, I think.

In fact, there are many who think they won't join the 1920 x 1080 bandwagon on phones anytime soon that even if they grow the screen to ~5", they'll let the pixel density drop to 264ppi or so.
You can if you're close enough. And it matters for some small number of apps. It doesn't matter for many apps though.
But so what? Is the goal of every device to support every application? I don't believe the answer is yes. And making everyone carry the baggage of all that processing power for those small number of apps isn't a win.

Well Windows currently does 150% UI scaling cleanly, and OS X does 200% scaling. So anything between 44" (200 PPI) and 58" (150 PPI) would be ideal for me.

If future versions of Windows or OS X supported 300-400% scaling, I would happily buy a 22" monitor, as that is 400 PPI, and about the limit for me. (these 5" 1080p phones are just about right) That would be perfect for photo editing, as you would be able to finally see print-like results.

4K would be ideal at laptop sizes, giving you around 300 PPI on a 15" model.
That's true. I understand why they went with 2x, but I would rather they held off a year and went with 3x - particularly on the iPad where the pixel density is already lower.
Most of my apps have text in them.
That is exactly what Apple has been doing with their iOS devices right from the beginning. It's only recently with the iPhone 5 that anything has changed. Prior to that, you design one iPhone app, and it looks the same across all devices (either at 1x or 2x) similarly, you develop one iPad app, and it looks the same on every iPad - either at 1x or 2x.

Once you start changing aspect ratios, or going to non-integer resolutions, you are having to develop completely different versions of your app for those devices. Going from 1x to 3x would have been easy - legacy apps simply turn one pixel into a 3x3 box. But now we have 2x devices, and you can't cleanly upscale that to a 3x device - you need to go to 4x for that. (which is overkill)

If they went to 3x, 1x apps would look good, but current "retina" 2x apps would look bad until they were updated, which involves creating new assets.

Chron, all those points are well made.

rogo: I believe you said that you have a 65-inch plasma set now. When you do buy your next set--whether it be 4K or not or LCD or OLED--what size do you think you'd go for? I figure you like everyone else gets a little bit bigger with each purchase.

What's the biggest size you could see yourself getting next?

Is it true that with the price of OLED probably being extreme and 4K at a premium--that if someone actually wants to get the real benefits of 4K at 9 or 10 feet away that they'll have to go MASSIVE!

Seems to me like the ONLY thing that won't break the bank in the next 3 or four years will be Chinese 4K LCD. Do you see it that way?

Personally I think the largest realistic size that will sell in the future is 80-inch in a den or a living room. Most people will buy smaller and for most 65 inches will be the limit.

Larger than that and you're talking a real bat cave movie theater set up.

So for me, unless we move to a new home, I'm probably maxing out at around 70-75 inches. We have a strong sense of how much more TV we'd enjoy watching most regular content (i.e. 90% of what we watch) and going much bigger for the occasional movie or sporting event doesn't make any sense.

Because I don't believe you need to be so close as to be counting the pixels, I'm likely to end up with a 4K that I "sit too far from".

As to who will make it, I don't have any idea. I already find current pricing on the $3000 TVs acceptable (70" Sharp, 65" Panasonic plasma). I'd like it to be cheaper and better of course. But we'll see how everything shakes out over the next few years before I personally have to concern myself with all that. I wouldn't count out the Korean mfrs. and wouldn't even give up totally on the Japanese yet (although I wouldn't bet on them either).

*throws a number into the air*

100 worldwide?

The latter. I'll throw out $10k for the estimated price.

I'm not really sure what the market is for the Sharp 90", but my thinking is that it's above 20,000 annually at this point.

In the first year, the 70" sold around 200k units and that appears to be growing nicely (although nothing like exponentially). The 90" is 3-4x the price of the 70" at introduction so something like 1/10 as many is probably about right.