or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 8K by 4K or Octo HD - the real SUHDTV technology
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #421 of 670
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Correct, and therein lies the problem with 8K and to a lesser degree 4K. We need to sit real close to typical screen sizes or invest in really large screens where we can sit a bit further back. This is why 8K is such a tough sell with 4K being not a whole lot easier, but still a bit easier to demonstrate.

You guys are not appreciating long-term vision of the Japanese. 8K makes obviously no sense for standard TV viewing scenario. Even 4K has very limited sense. If one takes that its perceptual distance is 2.5PH and the reasonable viewing distance in a living room is in the range bit above 10 feet, one comes to the conclusion 4K makes sense at display sizes in the 100" range, e.g. the chinese 110".

From this point of view 8K does not make sense at all. But it makes sense if one considers (1) resolution is getting cheaper and cheaper and there is trend for high-density displays, (2) new viewing scenarios may/should appear. Regarding those new viewing scenarios one can imagine e.g. 100% electronic replacement of glossy magazine paper will be invented and used for personal displays. Knowing that glossy magazines are printed up to 2400 dpi to look perfect, the 8K video on such personal displays won't be too much.
post #422 of 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

You guys are not appreciating long-term vision of the Japanese. 8K makes obviously no sense for standard TV viewing scenario. Even 4K has very limited sense. If one takes that its perceptual distance is 2.5PH and the reasonable viewing distance in a living room is in the range bit above 10 feet, one comes to the conclusion 4K makes sense at display sizes in the 100" range, e.g. the chinese 110".
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

From this point of view 8K does not make sense at all. But it makes sense if one considers (1) resolution is getting cheaper and cheaper and there is trend for high-density displays, (2) new viewing scenarios may/should appear.
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.
post #423 of 670
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

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 3.16PH is under rather stringent requirements
rather pushed by Sony one of the main promoters of 4K, consult figures p. 8 and 9 and it is maxed out. 2.5 PH seems to be realistic compromise. 8K was being promoted as showing the difference at 1.5PH.

What was the display size in the BBC test?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

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.

True. Especially China may wish to go its way as the world's biggest economy. But if the 8K display cost is non-issue others should follow.
post #424 of 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post


That is based on the assumption that 4K UHDTV isn't sufficient for the average consumer home. If 4K UHDTV is sufficient for the next 20 years, or more, than there is no reason to use anything higher than 4K UHDTV. The NHK thinks otherwise but the NHK is also promoting 22.2 channel audio.

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!
post #425 of 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

You guys are not appreciating long-term vision of the Japanese. 8K makes obviously no sense for standard TV viewing scenario. Even 4K has very limited sense. If one takes that its perceptual distance is 2.5PH and the reasonable viewing distance in a living room is in the range bit above 10 feet, one comes to the conclusion 4K makes sense at display sizes in the 100" range, e.g. the chinese 110".

From this point of view 8K does not make sense at all. But it makes sense if one considers (1) resolution is getting cheaper and cheaper and there is trend for high-density displays, (2) new viewing scenarios may/should appear. Regarding those new viewing scenarios one can imagine e.g. 100% electronic replacement of glossy magazine paper will be invented and used for personal displays. Knowing that glossy magazines are printed up to 2400 dpi to look perfect, the 8K video on such personal displays won't be too much.

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.
post #426 of 670
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

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.

8K is targeted to be 'ultimate', 4K is going to be transitional. Talking about 'viability' of 4K is a joke: nothing is really available. Japanese approach of preparing full chain before the launch is viable though it is derailed somewhat by the 4K rush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

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!

You guys take conservative static approach while the 8K developers rightly thought there will be new scenarios and they see 8K as enabler. Thus, from your POV (point of view) 8K is crazy since display would be too big and viewing distance too short. From the visionary POV 8K is just right and will enable new developments. For example display equivalent of glossy paper magazine would be absolutely the same size as the Hustler magazine but definitely require 8K to display the stuff in full video biggrin.gif. Today, ultra-high displays are fantasy, tomorrow they might be norm. In the same way as 2K was once unbelievable and soon it will be in everybody's pocket.
Edited by irkuck - 2/4/13 at 7:44am
post #427 of 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

8K is targeted to be 'ultimate', 4K is going to be transitional. Talking about 'viability' of 4K is a joke: nothing is really available. Japanese approach of preparing full chain before the launch is viable though it is derailed somewhat by the 4K rush.

"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. rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

You guys take conservative static approach while the 8K developers rightly thought there will be new scenarios and they see 8K as enabler. Thus, from your POV (point of view) 8K is crazy since display would be too big and viewing distance too short. From the visionary POV 8K is just right and will enable new developments.

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.
post #428 of 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

8K is targeted to be 'ultimate', 4K is going to be transitional. Talking about 'viability' of 4K is a joke: nothing is really available. Japanese approach of preparing full chain before the launch is viable though it is derailed somewhat by the 4K rush.
You guys take conservative static approach while the 8K developers rightly thought there will be new scenarios and they see 8K as enabler. Thus, from your POV (point of view) 8K is crazy since display would be too big and viewing distance too short. From the visionary POV 8K is just right and will enable new developments. For example display equivalent of glossy paper magazine would be absolutely the same size as the Hustler magazine but definitely require 8K to display the stuff in full video biggrin.gif. Today, ultra-high displays are fantasy, tomorrow they might be norm. In the same way as 2K was once unbelievable and soon it will be in everybody's pocket.


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.
post #429 of 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

Even with a small screen and|or 1080 display, or a 4k2k|8k4k display placed too far away for full resolution to be visible, there are advantages to having the highest possible source resolution because 'reframing with zoom' can make full use of any 'otherwise invisible' signal content . . . as I suspect both the broadcast sports and Adult Film industries already understand.

A video clip in this May 2012 article from theverge com, "The future of TV as seen in Super Hi-Vision" (link), clearly demonstrates the 'added value' which can be obtained from 8k4k source content using, e.g., only (two) 1080 displays:


_
Edited by SoundChex - 2/4/13 at 10:26am
post #430 of 670
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. smile.gif
post #431 of 670
^I'll go one step further and state we presently have little need for 4K. :X
post #432 of 670
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.
post #433 of 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

How BIG a screen do you need for 8K? Does the ceiling have to be taller than 9 feet?
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.
post #434 of 670
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

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.

This is evident if you consider traditional scenarios. I maintain that for such scenarios 2K is THE ultimate technology which could be still plenty improved by: less compression, 4:2:2, 10-bit, 60p. But market logic and marketing makes its differently. So I maintain 4K makes some sense with displays in the 100" range. But 8K makes no sense for traditional scenario. It may, and this is the plan of the Japanese make sense for nonstandard scenarios. For example, some kind of simulator rigs with 180 deg field of vision. Another point is that 8K would definitively kill the endless talk about resolution, perhaps there would be only left talk about too much resolution biggrin.gif .
post #435 of 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

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.
post #436 of 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

This is evident if you consider traditional scenarios. I maintain that for such scenarios 2K is THE ultimate technology which could be still plenty improved by: less compression, 4:2:2, 10-bit, 60p.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Certainly if you are close enough to pinch to zoom.
Those are 15″ notebooks, not tablets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

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 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

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.
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.
post #437 of 670
Chronoptimist: If 8K really does happen what size screen will you buy to enjoy its benefits?
post #438 of 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post


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.

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.
post #439 of 670
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!
post #440 of 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post


Those are 15″ notebooks, not tablets.

You may have missed my attempt at humor there, Chron.
Quote:
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.

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.
Quote:
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.

You can if you're close enough. And it matters for some small number of apps. It doesn't matter for many apps though.
Quote:
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.

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.
post #441 of 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Chronoptimist: If 8K really does happen what size screen will you buy to enjoy its benefits?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

You can if you're close enough. And it matters for some small number of apps. It doesn't matter for many apps though.
Most of my apps have text in them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

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.
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.
post #442 of 670
Chron, all those points are well made.
post #443 of 670
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.
post #444 of 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

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).
post #445 of 670
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

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.

You can sell everything including pure gold toilet seats, the problem is sales volumes. To soak 4K comfortably in the living room one needs 100"-class displays. I tend to think there would be market for such class if the price is for mass market people with market size like for the current 90" - btw, how many of these might be sold???
post #446 of 670
*throws a number into the air*

100 worldwide?
post #447 of 670
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

*throws a number into the air*
100 worldwide?

You mean the current 90" by Sharp sold 100 worldwide? Or the future 4K 100" class will sell 100 worldwide? In the latter case be kind to throw estimated price.
post #448 of 670
The latter. wink.gif I'll throw out $10k for the estimated price.
post #449 of 670
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.
post #450 of 670
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

The latter. wink.gif I'll throw out $10k for the estimated price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

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.

For $10K, the 100"-class displays would definitely sell in tens of thousands - one thing not to miss is that such 4K displays would eat almost all home theater projector market. We see now that 70" is accepted as 'normal' size at the high-end, 80" is monster and 90" gargantuan. That may easily shift up to just 110" being gargantuan.
For the chinese manufs striving to the top, selling 10's of thousands should be tempting. But of course the truth is that money and volumes are only in small high-density
panels, behemoths are just for ego-boosting.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 8K by 4K or Octo HD - the real SUHDTV technology