With 8K TVs, More Pixels Make a Better Picture - Page 6 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 199Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 172 Old 05-17-2019, 10:26 AM
Senior Member
 
Todeseng3l's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 310
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRAC View Post
I think you would be in the minority with that observation, unless you are talking about the native 8K content demo. I have not seen that at all while comparing 4K or lower content. And, I’ve actually seen an 82” Q90 up close, so no assumptions on my part.
It was most notable for me on the video game demo reel playing (not 8K). In the movies they showed from their internal server feed (resolution unknown to me) the advantage was less evident but still tangible in my opinion. It was not a blow your socks off difference but to me it was existent.
Todeseng3l is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 172 Old 05-18-2019, 11:25 AM
Member
 
lbjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 60
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 33
In a previous post I said the cynics are wrong, that 8K isn't a gimmick number or a resolution for non-existent content, but a necessity for large screen sizes. The only trump card projection has vis-à-vis panels is size. Panels are aiming to eliminate that trump card by building panels that can give the same size-to-viewing-angle as projection. But to do this, panels approaching 100" MUST have a finer grain to be viewed from ordinary living room distances. 8K solves the problem, but until recently there were no processors powerful enough to drive so many pixels across such large screen real estate. Now there are. Sony has the best upscaling algorithms and motion handling, so its Z9G should tell the tale. And at a not-outrageous $13K launch price for the 85," if the Z9G delivers its promise, then it should become everybody's "last TV I'll ever own." (Except for the no-static-content OLED user.)

And, no, 8K is not just another iteration. 16K truly is superfluous.

Sony 55W905A, Dahquist DQ10 (x4), BW sub, McIntosh MC-2150/2200, OPPO BDP-105D
lbjack is offline  
post #153 of 172 Old 05-18-2019, 11:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Liked: 1063
Quote:
Originally Posted by lbjack View Post
In a previous post I said the cynics are wrong, that 8K isn't a gimmick number or a resolution for non-existent content, but a necessity for large screen sizes. The only trump card projection has vis-à-vis panels is size. Panels are aiming to eliminate that trump card by building panels that can give the same size-to-viewing-angle as projection. But to do this, panels approaching 100" MUST have a finer grain to be viewed from ordinary living room distances. 8K solves the problem, but until recently there were no processors powerful enough to drive so many pixels across such large screen real estate. Now there are. Sony has the best upscaling algorithms and motion handling, so its Z9G should tell the tale. And at a not-outrageous $13K launch price for the 85," if the Z9G delivers its promise, then it should become everybody's "last TV I'll ever own." (Except for the no-static-content OLED user.)

And, no, 8K is not just another iteration. 16K truly is superfluous.
We'll just hafta wait and see.

Panasonic TC65CX850U Yamaha RX-V1079 Technics SU-V650 Panasonic DMP-UB900 Sony UBP-X800 Polk Audio SDA-2B
Panson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #154 of 172 Old 05-18-2019, 01:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,513
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1093 Post(s)
Liked: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Stittle View Post
Maybe a dumb question, but according to that chart extra pixels don't matter at certain distances.

So if I had an image that was alternating colour every pixel; black, white, black, white, etc. and it was a 4k image that I wanted to display @ 1080p. Would the 1080p image not just ignore every other pixel and I'd either get all white or all black? But in 4k I'd have a different experience, regardless of distance from the screen?

You make a very good point. Regardless of what we may think of whether 8k gives us better picture detail than 4k, it should be obvious that it will give us better color depth. Through mixing pixels to make new color shades, the more pixels we have, the more shades we can make.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #155 of 172 Old 05-18-2019, 01:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 309
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 42
I believe in a few years when the 12-bit panels come on the market we will find out how good 8K can be...
musicman777 is offline  
post #156 of 172 Old 05-18-2019, 02:08 PM
Newbie
 
skiis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Question Upscaling hardware in 8K TVs underpowered

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todeseng3l View Post
I was interested in this as well. Rendering 3D graphics (video games/modeling etc) is much different that displaying/upscaling video where the burden is much less. Samsung claims that it is powered by a 'quad core processor'. This is the same specification listed for the 4K upscale engine as well.
That probably means hardware only capable of upscaling to 4K and simple interpolation to 8K. It's barely distinguishable by eye between "true 8K" and interpolated 4K. Certainly manufacturers will not disclose details.
skiis is offline  
post #157 of 172 Old 05-19-2019, 09:58 AM
Member
 
lbjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 60
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panson View Post
We'll just hafta wait and see.
Ha, true. We'll see if someone has the cheek to bring out 16K, etc. down the road.

Panson likes this.

Sony 55W905A, Dahquist DQ10 (x4), BW sub, McIntosh MC-2150/2200, OPPO BDP-105D
lbjack is offline  
post #158 of 172 Old 05-19-2019, 10:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Liked: 1063
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman777 View Post
I believe in a few years when the 12-bit panels come on the market we will find out how good 8K can be...
My cup's half full, when the technology comes together with focused quality control.

Panasonic TC65CX850U Yamaha RX-V1079 Technics SU-V650 Panasonic DMP-UB900 Sony UBP-X800 Polk Audio SDA-2B
Panson is offline  
post #159 of 172 Old 05-19-2019, 10:19 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by lbjack View Post
Ha, true. We'll see if someone has the cheek to bring out 16K, etc. down the road.
I predict there will be a significant span of time between 8K and 16K. So much bandwidth, such a jump in pixels, and the cost of producing such panels will give 8K a comfortable position as the standard for a longer time than even 1080p.
Diocletian is offline  
post #160 of 172 Old 05-19-2019, 11:15 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,932
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3578 Post(s)
Liked: 2767
The law of diminishing returns continuously makes increased resolution less relevant to more people. The noticeable jump in image quality from 1080p to 4k was less than from 720p to 1080p, from 4k to 8k is less than from 1080p to 4k and from 8k to 16k would be less than from 4k to 8k. At some point it simply won't be worthwhile to invest all the R&D expense to keep increasing resolution beyond the point where people can see enough difference with their own eyes to be willing to pay for it.
scionracing likes this.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #161 of 172 Old 05-19-2019, 11:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
brazen1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 895
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 578 Post(s)
Liked: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
The law of diminishing returns continuously makes increased resolution less relevant to more people. The noticeable jump in image quality from 1080p to 4k was less than from 720p to 1080p, from 4k to 8k is less than from 1080p to 4k and from 8k to 16k would be less than from 4k to 8k. At some point it simply won't be worthwhile to invest all the R&D expense to keep increasing resolution beyond the point where people can see enough difference with their own eyes to be willing to pay for it.

That's all fine and dandy right up until you toss larger displays with larger pixels into the mix. You probably won't notice much if any difference using a 15" laptop screen 720p to 2160p. The moment you play your 720p source on your 85" you'll be begging for 4k (at least). At 110" 16k. At 150" 32k. Etc. Resolution advancement goes hand in hand with display size advancement.
pilotart likes this.

HOW TO - Kodi 2D - 3D - UHD (4k) HDR Guide Internal & External Players
W10 1903 / MPC-BE\HC / PotPlayer / PowerDVD 19 / DVDFab Player 3 / KODI 19 videoplayer
GTX960 4GB / RGB Full 4:4:4 / 8bit Desktop mode =60Hz / 10/12bit Video mode = Matched Refresh rates IE 23,24,25,60Hz
65JS8500 UHD HDR 3D / Denon S720W
brazen1 is offline  
post #162 of 172 Old 05-19-2019, 12:08 PM
Member
 
lbjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 60
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todeseng3l View Post
I was interested in this as well. Rendering 3D graphics (video games/modeling etc) is much different that displaying/upscaling video where the burden is much less. Samsung claims that it is powered by a 'quad core processor'. This is the same specification listed for the 4K upscale engine as well.
On the consumer front, ideally there should be one screen that fills all roles: TV, video, gaming, pc monitor. For almost 10 years I've used my TV as a pc monitor, hooked up to an Asus gaming tower. I'm not a gamer or video editor, so haven't needed low latency or fast rendering. Gaming monitors tend to be intimate screens—27" from 2–3 feet. Such a monitor can deliver low latency, high sync rate, QHD, etc. Different story with a big screen across the room. The processing in sets like the Z9G must transport faithfully millions of pixels around the vast real estate of an 85" (or 98"!) screen. Meanwhile, the processor will be working to "render" upscaling and frame-by-frame or scene-by-scene HDR metadata. Of course, video processing and 3D graphics rendering are different tasks, so in terms of raw power, a processor with the power to move and process pixels on an 8K screen might also have the power for 3D rendering on an 8K screen. But I think these TV/video processors, powerful as they are, are too specialized for the former to do the latter equally well. (Latency will be in the 20 ns range, I think.) Though Sony has state-of-the-art processors/algorithms and may do acceptable gaming and modeling, I don't see these huge screens delivering monitor-quality rendering yet. That said, I do a lot of Photoshop on my 55" Sony, and my output is as good and work flow as efficient as any monitor I've used. I feel spoiled, not compromised! If they hold the line on screen size and 8K and concentrate on processor power, then we may eventually have a wall-size 3D rendering TV/monitor.

Sony 55W905A, Dahquist DQ10 (x4), BW sub, McIntosh MC-2150/2200, OPPO BDP-105D
lbjack is offline  
post #163 of 172 Old 05-19-2019, 12:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,513
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1093 Post(s)
Liked: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman777 View Post
I believe in a few years when the 12-bit panels come on the market we will find out how good 8K can be...
I predict that's not going to happen. 12-bit panels will not give any appreciable improvement in picture quality, because 8K already gives improved color depth. Going to 12 bit color depth panels is redundant, because the greater number of pixels in 8K already increases the number of available color shades by using dithering techniques.
scionracing and lbjack like this.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #164 of 172 Old 05-19-2019, 04:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,932
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3578 Post(s)
Liked: 2767
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazen1 View Post
That's all fine and dandy right up until you toss larger displays with larger pixels into the mix. You probably won't notice much if any difference using a 15" laptop screen 720p to 2160p. The moment you play your 720p source on your 85" you'll be begging for 4k (at least). At 110" 16k. At 150" 32k. Etc. Resolution advancement goes hand in hand with display size advancement.
Nothing I said contradicts that. Of course screen size/viewing distance is always a factor when considering image resolution and as long as screen sizes continue to increase there will be a market for increased resolution. But screen size hasn't been increasing at the same rate as pixel count has so the law of diminishing returns still applies. There's a limit to screen size that will fit in a typical home, and when that point is reached and further resolution increases cease to offer visible improvement to viewers they will cease to be a marketable feature. While we can only speculate now what that point will be, consumer demand will let manufacturers know when it's eventually reached.
scionracing and lbjack like this.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #165 of 172 Old 05-19-2019, 05:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Luke M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,027
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 389 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazen1 View Post
That's all fine and dandy right up until you toss larger displays with larger pixels into the mix. You probably won't notice much if any difference using a 15" laptop screen 720p to 2160p. The moment you play your 720p source on your 85" you'll be begging for 4k (at least). At 110" 16k. At 150" 32k. Etc. Resolution advancement goes hand in hand with display size advancement.

It really doesn't though, because you sit farther away as the display gets larger. For a solitary viewer, there's not much reason to get a giant display. It's more for accommodating multiple viewers, as in a theater.
Luke M is offline  
post #166 of 172 Old 05-21-2019, 01:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Zzz..oltan!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles, sunny California
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I actually find the ongoing "pixel wars" quite silly, though entertaining to a certain degree, hence the reading of this thread.

During media consumption I find a quality 1080p source fully satisfying, with quality surround sound track being a MUST for movies.

(Addendum... In my 20s I was starting out, with other priorities such as establishing a home. My 30s, a devote early adopter. Now in my 50-s I couldn't care less for the "latest and greatest". Right now in my dedicated HT I have a 115" 1080 FP/ Atmos setup and in my living room a 75" 1080 LCD/2.1 setup, both with cherry picked components. With these I am perfectly satisfied, occupying IMO an audio/video "sweet spot" in current tech - which is debatable, I know...)

Too many to list. ;)
Zzz..oltan! is offline  
post #167 of 172 Old 05-21-2019, 05:57 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 24
i guess samsung ponied up for another native content ad. this "post" reads like straight ad copy, total nonsense. this is the last post i'll ever make on this site and the last time i'll ever visit this site. shame on you, mark.
mike_carton likes this.
Chebzin is offline  
post #168 of 172 Old 05-21-2019, 08:20 AM
Member
 
mike_carton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuSoardGraphite View Post
I would just tell people to do the math:

1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400 pixels

7680 x 4320 = 33,177,600 pixels

Pretty simple really.

The only question is at what screen size does the pixel count no longer matter.

At what screen size and viewing distance.


The answer is provided by the chart that has been posted earlier in the thread.
mike_carton is offline  
post #169 of 172 Old 05-21-2019, 08:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Liked: 1063
I predict homes' open concept will eradicate kitchens and dining rooms to accommodate bigger and bigger screens.

Go big, or go home? We are home!

Panasonic TC65CX850U Yamaha RX-V1079 Technics SU-V650 Panasonic DMP-UB900 Sony UBP-X800 Polk Audio SDA-2B
Panson is offline  
post #170 of 172 Old 05-21-2019, 10:38 AM
Newbie
 
SKORPI0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Orland Park, IL
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Can't wait for a 8K wiide angle dashcam/security/IP camera and videos taken by it so I can view it on TLC/Xiaomi/Changhong 75" 8K screen.


But seriously, we still need 4K broadcast/OTA be made widely available and affordable. Imagine watching The Olympics/sports in glorious 4K.....hopefully in 3D too (please bring it back).

And yes, releases of compatible hardware ... HDMI 2.1 cables, 8K AV Receivers, 8K UHD-2 disc players, 8K Amazon FireTV/Roku, etc. Don't forget those James Cameron movies, True Lies and The Abyss in upscaled 8K disc. Neflix, Amazon Prime streams too.


Why is 7680x4320 not called "16K"? Having 16 times the number of pixels compared to FHD (1920x1080).


.

Last edited by SKORPI0; 05-21-2019 at 10:43 AM.
SKORPI0 is offline  
post #171 of 172 Old 05-21-2019, 12:14 PM
Member
 
Timobkg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
I'm just going to post this here and then back out slowly...

I think that chart may be slightly off. At about 14' away with a 65" screen, I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, with the 1080p image looking sharper and clearer - particularly if there's text, such as in the opening credits. But aside from maybe needing to be shifted a bit, I think it's spot on. I'm already sitting far enough away that I can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4K, so 8K does nothing for me.
Timobkg is offline  
post #172 of 172 Old 05-26-2019, 07:17 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
AI is a fiction at this point in time and it grates when people use this term. There is machine learning but even this does not apply to the process of upscaling video which depends on the decompression and additional algorithms that are going to be proprietary to each individual equipment maker. What will help is faster processors to allow for less efficient image processing code to be used.



For me more than half the value of a movie is in the soundtrack and a good of the remainder depends on a good script and good direction of talented actors. The video processing is the least important element.
Calsun is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply LCD Flat Panel Displays

Tags
8k upscaling

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off