8K by 4K or Octo HD - the real SUHDTV technology - Page 18

I like this, thanks. There's a differing approach from Apple, which is very iron-curtain IMO until actual release. Not sure which approach is better. Many people love to scream "VAPOR" at the top of their lungs.

Manufacturers of televisions will roll out 8k sets in just a couple years for two reasons:

1. It is necessary for UHD passive 3D.
2. To best the competition in the specs game.

OYE.

1. To be clear though: [as everyone knows] passive 3D only halves the vertical resolution. With UHD it'll be 3840x1080, and quite frankly, I'm very surprised at what 1920x540 already looks like in 3D---I did not predict it would look quite that good---at least since LG cleaned it up (somehow). And with all the diminishing returns arguments about 2D's 3840x2160 in the first place, I can't imagine that 2160p in 3D is going to be any driving force at all. What argument could be next? 16K just so we can get full 4320p (from 8K) in 3D?
2. The specs game is already starting to shoot them all in the ass I think by scaring the public into the "wait and see" buying model. They might get wise to this pretty darn soon. Then again, perhaps that's the worst prediction of them all.

All true. But people are already excited about 4k with zero content. So you know some people will demand 3D upscaled to full UHD.

It might be a good time for a manufacturer to start advertising "4K? Screw that, we're going all in w/ 8K!!!"

Passive 8K is not "full" UHD, it's "Uber" UHD----double UHD horizontal resolution. Just as Passive 4K is double HD horizontal resolution.

OYE, this is a very odd speculation---makes me feel unclean even talking about it. I'm taking a shower.

Every piece of content I use my TV for today would be improved with a 4K display - whether that's native 4K (PC & Games) upscaled 1080p, or switching from active 3D to passive 3D.
Even better. 4K only gets your more workspace with a computer. 8K gets you expanded workspace in high DPI mode. ("Retina display")

Better direct to English pressrelease; NHK and Mitsubishi Develop First HEVC encoder for 8K Super Hi-Vision

and
NHK to showcase 8K SUPER Hi‐VISION content at Cannes Film Festival

So that Univac looking thing will be on a single board in, what, 3-5 years?

The prefix "Octo" means eight. Please stop calling it that.

If you want to shorten it, 8K or SHV (Super Hi-Vision) are the most appropriate terms.

8K does not mean 8×, it means approximately 8000 pixels wide. The terms 2K/4K/8K are borrowed from cinema where the formats actually are around 2000/4000/8000 pixels wide, rather than the consumer formats which are somewhat narrower and have fixed 16:9 aspect ratios.

Octo is a irkuck idiosyncrasy which he tries to impose single handed. The only man in the world that use the term.
Thread title should have been edited a long time ago.

UHD-2 is also a correct term for commercial applications used by UTI or some other standardisation body (don't remember which).

As I already mentioned, the 8 in 8K refers to the digital cinema format being ~8000 pixels wide. Cinema formats are defined by their width, and the height is variable depending on the aspect ratio.

Home formats are the other way around, where they are defined by their height, with a variable width. (thought they mostly seem to be fixed to a 16:9 aspect ratio now)


1080p or "Full HD" is 1920x1080 - 2 megapixel resolution, and close to 2000 pixels wide. This has retroactively been called "2K" by some people. I don't like this term.

The next step up is 3840x2160 - 4x 1080p resolution, or 8 megapixels. Very few people are calling this 2160p - it's usually called "Quad HD", Ultra High Definition TV/UHD, or 4K.
4K is an inaccurate term, but it's a lot better name than 2160p or UHD/UHDTV - that's approaching the ridiculous QWHUVGAXSBS naming scheme that PC monitors have. I don't mind 4K or QuadHD. When you are thinking ahead, 4K might be the best option, even if it's not completely accurate.

And then we have 8K which is 7680x4320 - 33 megapixels, 16 times the resolution of 1080p.
It gets even more stupid to stick with current naming conventions and call this 4320p.
This is also considered to be an Ultra High Definition TV format, which is why I don't like the UHD/UHDTV name at all - it can apply to two different displays that have significantly different resolutions.
Super-Hi Vision (SHV) is a good term because it's unique to the format, but 8K is probably the best fit. It's easy to say, and easy to understand.

It's either that, or we just start saying how many megapixels the display has like we do with cameras.,
That is probably the best way to illustrate the difference in resolution between the formats to a layman.


Nowhere in this does "Octo" apply. Please just admit that you made a mistake and move on.

I should have said better rather than good—itʼs better than Ultra HD, because Ultra HD covers both 4K and 8K—instantly rendering the term meaningless. Super Hi-Vision is reserved for 8K.
Octo-HD would be 5431x3055.

And how does putting an umlaut on the front make it “sophisticated”? You seem to lack a grasp on both mathematics and language. (I canʼt tell if the umlaut is a misunderstanding or a joke)

Are those names any worse than what you as a single entity with no influence in this propose?
Your Octo (Latin for eight) as name for 8K could as well be used for 4K referring to 8 megapixel.

All existing names are hooey, reminds me of VGA/SVGA/mumbleVGA from the computer world, and will only confuse the bejeebers out of the consumer, which is inevitable. I'm betting 4K is already an absurd marketing stretch because JQP has no clue what 4K could possibly mean, especially since they *barely* understood that 720 and 1080 refer to vertical resolutions.....and suddenly we're going horizontal. Aye yi yi.

Since nothing is going to make sense, then I'm putting my flag in for something equally obtuse but rolls off the tongue: HD8. Either that or stupidK, take your pick.

Is it true that the world will end when they film Wrestlemania LXIX in 13K?

What is the biggest screen that can fit through a seven foot door?

If you had a screen THAT BIG--HOW CLOSE would you have to sit to get the full benefit of 8K?

I agree and will add this . . . it may not be as long as some people think before 8K becomes a reality.
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/television/hdtv/sharp-dazzles-with-8k-tv-prototype-vp-says-production-about-4-years-off-1124330



.


.

If you read any of the forums/blogs on the internet there seems to be a great deal of resistance to 4K.
If 4K turns out not to be 'enough' of a difference for Americans to upgrade we could see a very quick leap frog to 8K and other superior technologies.
I think we will see the first 8K tvs by 2017.

I'd like to add this. Resolution alone may or may not be enough to sell new tvs, but combine these ultra-high resolutions with other advanced technologies and video processors and they should be able to recreate the 'WOW!!' factor we saw with HDTV.



.



.

I have the same reaction to both 4K and 8K. I still strongly suspect that when the world (somehow ) manages to have 8K everywhere, we'll look back on all this "can't appreciate it unless {bigger screen than / closer than}" as silly and devoid of personal experience.

You don't need to be a Kool-Aid drinker to realize that "imperceptible" things might become perceptible when looking at side by side comparisons, or when motion is involved, or....{we can't guess yet}...

It really is amazing the scope of reaction to 4K, even among so called professionals. Ranges from non existence and subtle to amazing and obvious. I think it comes down to 3 things. The reviewers eyesight, how close they prefer to sit and the size of the display.

They all agree the the 6MP passive 3D is they best they have seen and the added color bit and depth do help. So when prices come within 5-10% of a comparable sized 1080p set, the objections to it will become irrelevant.

6MP? Don't you mean 4? 3840x1080 pixels is 4 million of them.