Sony, Panasonic, NHK Form 8K Consortium - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 81Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 04:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
hernanu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston Suburbs
Posts: 4,934
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1370 Post(s)
Liked: 2250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas2 View Post
No, I'd agree with that - 1080p blu-rays look great on my Sony 4K set. Alas, I don't have a UHD player, so I can't compare disk content, only UHD movies that I've streamed - that look stunning (to me) - bet disks look even better (ACTUAL 4K discs, none of this converted stuff 4K-2K-4K or whatever I've been reading about.....).

And you could be right - 1080p really should only be compared on a 1080p display - like for like, might be a better comparison. But I do not see how details can be there - the higher resolution of 4K allows those details to manifest - detail that would otherwise be there in lower resolution content, but simply can not be captured and resolved at those lower resolutions. Yes - at some point I agree the details become far too fine to be seen period at comfortable/realistic viewing distances - but the sharpness of the image I believe to be a different story, especially as the screen size increases. Where does that end? What is the resolution of life? (Seriously, are our eyeballs 2K, 4K, 8K?? ) I would think at some point we get to the end - we can't see better than real life can we?

But the whole Full HD vs. 4K thing - I'm not agreeing with the claims, at least not for my situation.
We are far away from that. If we assume we have one eye and take a small 90 degree view through it, we see 324 megapixels (approximately). A more real idea of what we really see is 120 degrees, which would be 576 megapixels.

A 4K display outputs 3840 X 2160 = 8.3 megapixels, while an 8K display will put out 7680 X 4320= 33.2 megapixels.

So even for the small single eye 90 degree example, at 8K we are at 1/10th of the ability of the eye to see. Especially at larger screen sizes.

What complicates matters is that we're acting like the eyes are a single point. We don't have one eye, we have two, which allows us a wider range of vision, more ability to see which is immediately processed by the brain into a larger view than one point will allow.

Human eyes also don't just focus on one point - we scan over an area rapidly, creating a larger view than if we were just looking at one area and doing nothing else.

So 324 megapixels @ 90 degrees or 576 megapixels @ 120 degrees is really just a gross simplification of what we can actually see. Even that is ten times what 8K can deliver. We can probably see much more.

So we can take pride in our displays, but we are not pushing our ability to see at all.

Reference: Clarkvision photography.
oneeyeblind and Jonas2 like this.

Last edited by hernanu; 08-28-2016 at 04:48 PM.
hernanu is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 05:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernanu View Post
We are far away from that. If we assume we have one eye and take a small 90 degree view through it, we see 324 megapixels (approximately). A more real idea of what we really see is 120 degrees, which would be 576 megapixels.

A 4K display outputs 3840 X 2160 = 8.3 megapixels, while an 8K display will put out 7680 X 4320= 33.2 megapixels.

So even for the small single eye 90 degree example, at 8K we are at 1/10th of the ability of the eye to see. Especially at larger screen sizes.

What complicates matters is that we're acting like the eyes are a single point. We don't have one eye, we have two, which allows us a wider range of vision, more ability to see which is immediately processed by the brain into a larger view than one point will allow.

Human eyes also don't just focus on one point - we scan over an area rapidly, creating a larger view than if we were just looking at one area and doing nothing else.

So 324 megapixels @ 90 degrees or 576 megapixels @ 120 degrees is really just a gross simplification of what we can actually see. Even that is ten times what 8K can deliver. We can probably see much more.

So we can take pride in our displays, but we are not pushing our ability to see at all.

Reference: Clarkvision photography.
This is unnecessarily complex, especially since your eyes are far from static when you're watching a presentation. Mine move all over the place! A better metric is to measure human visual acuity in terms of angle of acuity. Then size, distance, pixel count... that's all taken care of. 20/20 corresponds to detecting pixels at .6 to .9 arc minutes and that leads to graphs like this. The graph may or may not be correct but it shows the simplification afforded by looking at visual acuity in terms of angles and not sizes:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/25-hdt...8k-beyond.html
oneeyeblind likes this.
erkq is offline  
post #33 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 05:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
hernanu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston Suburbs
Posts: 4,934
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1370 Post(s)
Liked: 2250
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
This is unnecessarily complex, especially since your eyes are far from static when you're watching a presentation. Mine move all over the place! A better metric is to measure human visual acuity in terms of angle of acuity. Then size, distance, pixel count... that's all taken care of. 20/20 corresponds to detecting pixels at .6 to .9 arc minutes and that leads to graphs like this. The graph may or may not be correct but it shows the simplification afforded by looking at visual acuity in terms of angles and not sizes:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/25-hdt...8k-beyond.html
I think that's what I stated. If you read the reference, you'll see that it's based on arc angles.
oneeyeblind likes this.
hernanu is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 05:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,535
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
Dithering isn't great. 1:1 pixel mapping with the source is always the best.
When dithering is done inside a high resolution camera (as it is in 4K 8-bit cameras when the sensor works at 10 bit depth and dithers that down to 8 bit depth), then the increased colors can be done with 1:1 pixel mapping. Similarly for bit depth, since, for example, an 8 bit signal may be expanded by interpolation to 10 bits to be shown on a 10 bit display. So this is not a genuine difference between the two techniques of expanding the number of shades.

Quote:
And dithering can't create colors that are outside the media's color capabilities.
True. Neither can increased bit depth.

Quote:
Dithering can't add saturation where none already exists.
True. Neither can increased bit depth.

Quote:
Dithering can't create more dynamic range either.
True. Neither can increased bit depth.

Quote:
Dithering may help with banding if done properly, but overall dithering is not a substitute for bit depth.
Is.

Greg Lee
GregLee is online now  
post #35 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 05:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
DamageMcRamage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Charlestown, RI
Posts: 896
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post
I sure wouldn't want to sit 2.5 feet from a 70" 8k display. Heck I wouldn't want to sit 5' from it. But I do see potential value for 8k in the developing category of VR headsets/displays. In fact...that is the only place I see viability if the price is right. But even in that genre, modern GPU's are wheezing and gasping just to drive optimal 1080p 60/120 fps in VR. And even the next gen GPU's can barely handle 4k VR. So maybe the 8k consortium is pushing this way too fast for normal-big screen panels. 4k isn't even mainstream with market yet.
Agreed. Until people can dedicate whole walls to rolling out not yet invented super thin OLED screens, 8k is simply not a marketable thing in a typical person's home. This will make wonderful commercial theaters coupled with HDR and Atmos - in 10 years.
oneeyeblind likes this.

I like Ice Cream!
DamageMcRamage is offline  
post #36 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 05:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
When dithering is done inside a high resolution camera (as it is in 4K 8-bit cameras when the sensor works at 10 bit depth and dithers that down to 8 bit depth), then the increased colors can be done with 1:1 pixel mapping. Similarly for bit depth, since, for example, an 8 bit signal may be expanded by interpolation to 10 bits to be shown on a 10 bit display. So this is not a genuine difference between the two techniques of expanding the number of shades.
Except the camera is at the "source" end and has the whole of mother nature's information on its sensor while the projector is at the "sink" end and has only what's encoded to work with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

True. Neither can increased bit depth.

True. Neither can increased bit depth.

True. Neither can increased bit depth.

Is.
Increased bit depth supports the encoding that's required for BT.2020 and DCI P3. All the HDR, WCG stuff needs increased bit depth. More resolution isn't going to allow the necessary encoding.
oneeyeblind likes this.
erkq is offline  
post #37 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 05:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jonas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: South Bay Area
Posts: 5,982
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2948 Post(s)
Liked: 1911
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernanu View Post
So 324 megapixels @ 90 degrees or 576 megapixels @ 120 degrees is really just a gross simplification of what we can actually see. Even that is ten times what 8K can deliver. We can probably see much more.
So when we get 80-90K displays, then we're talking! Of course with the way my eyes are going these days, none of this will matter soon.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
It depends on your angle of view.
Do you mean point of view, or literally viewing angle....?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post
When the cow is milked dry, you have to find another cow to milk ...
Look, the AV industry mid-long term plans, 5-8 years, shows diminished ROI because new sales/conquests are rightly so ending as things mature, so of course they are planting seeds for "the next best thing" now....

Sorry, but I won't drink the 8k Kool-aid for HT usage.
But I guess the question is, why wouldn't it be the next best thing, the next evolution? I'd imagine a lot of folks said the same thing about 4K, and many still saying it. But drink the Koolaid or not, ultimately it seems like we don't have a choice as the industry makes standards and tech. obsolete - unless you detach from the hobby altogether!

I totally get your point. Kinda like smart phones - "they" do a great job of combining incremental improvements with sly marketing, and the next thing you know, you have a new iPhone of Galaxy at least every other year!
hernanu likes this.
Jonas2 is offline  
post #38 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 06:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas2 View Post
So when we get 80-90K displays, then we're talking! Of course with the way my eyes are going these days, none of this will matter soon.....



Do you mean point of view, or literally viewing angle....?



But I guess the question is, why wouldn't it be the next best thing, the next evolution? I'd imagine a lot of folks said the same thing about 4K, and many still saying it. But drink the Koolaid or not, ultimately it seems like we don't have a choice as the industry makes standards and tech. obsolete - unless you detach from the hobby altogether!

I totally get your point. Kinda like smart phones - "they" do a great job of combining incremental improvements with sly marketing, and the next thing you know, you have a new iPhone of Galaxy at least every other year!
Yes, I meant viewing angle.

It's not the "next best thing" because a wider color gamut and high dynamic range offer much more eye candy than just more resolution beyond 4k. I haven't put the new 4k, WCG, HDR sources though my projector yet (a JVC RS500 capable of all that), but those that have are blown away. Teething problems for sure with standards and meta-data sometimes needing and HD Integral Fury to sort out, but, still... when they get it to work they wax poetic!
oneeyeblind and Jonas2 like this.
erkq is offline  
post #39 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 06:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,535
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
Except the camera is at the "source" end and has the whole of mother nature's information on its sensor while the projector is at the "sink" end and has only what's encoded to work with.
I guess I haven't been clear. Increasing the number of shades that can be displayed can improve picture quality. You can either increase the number of shades by (1) capturing a greater number of shades from the original scene and encoding them in the video signal, or (2) approximating them by interpolating from values from the original scene. Naturally, (1) is expected to give greater fidelity than (2).

I'm saying that the two techniques we're comparing, increasing bit depth versus increasing resolution combined with dither, are the same in this respect. You can (1) capture more bit depth in the scene and encode it, or you can (2) fake it by getting extra shades by interpolating from neighboring parts of the scene. You can (1) use a camera with a high resolution sensor and use dither inside the camera to reduce the encoded bit depth in the signal, in which case the greater number of shades were taken from the scene, but you can also (2) fake the extra color shades by deriving them from the colors of surrounding pixels.

You're saying that real is better than fake. Of course. But this does not distinguish the two methods for getting extra color shades.

Quote:
Increased bit depth supports the encoding that's required for BT.2020 and DCI P3. All the HDR, WCG stuff needs increased bit depth. More resolution isn't going to allow the necessary encoding.
I thought we were talking about whether 8K is expected to produce greater picture fidelity over 4K. I'm saying it is, even if we can't see any extra picture detail. The greater number of pixels can carry information about extra color shades.

Greg Lee
GregLee is online now  
post #40 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 07:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I guess I haven't been clear. Increasing the number of shades that can be displayed can improve picture quality. You can either increase the number of shades by (1) capturing a greater number of shades from the original scene and encoding them in the video signal, or (2) approximating them by interpolating from values from the original scene. Naturally, (1) is expected to give greater fidelity than (2).

I'm saying that the two techniques we're comparing, increasing bit depth versus increasing resolution combined with dither, are the same in this respect. You can (1) capture more bit depth in the scene and encode it, or you can (2) fake it by getting extra shades by interpolating from neighboring parts of the scene. You can (1) use a camera with a high resolution sensor and use dither inside the camera to reduce the encoded bit depth in the signal, in which case the greater number of shades were taken from the scene, but you can also (2) fake the extra color shades by deriving them from the colors of surrounding pixels.

You're saying that real is better than fake. Of course. But this does not distinguish the two methods for getting extra color shades.

I thought we were talking about whether 8K is expected to produce greater picture fidelity over 4K. I'm saying it is, even if we can't see any extra picture detail. The greater number of pixels can carry information about extra color shades.
It's really not the same. I'm not talking more shades between colors within the current color gamut. That doesn't really bring much to the table. I'm talking colors and saturation levels well beyond the current gamut, outside of rec.709. Faking shades beyond Rec.709 is a poor substitute for DCI P3 or rec.2020.
erkq is offline  
post #41 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 07:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,535
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
I'm not talking more shades between colors within the current color gamut.
In that case, you're changing the subject. Bit depth is bit depth and color gamut is color gamut. Increasing bit depth is precisely getting more shades, and it does not imply any change in color gamut.
I was talking about bit depth, and I did not imply anything about a relation between increased resolution and color gamut.

Greg Lee
GregLee is online now  
post #42 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 08:25 PM
Member
 
denslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 37
I'm still waiting for a reasonably priced 4k tV that doesn't have any issues
oneeyeblind likes this.
denslayer is offline  
post #43 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 08:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
kucharsk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 6,474
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1784 Post(s)
Liked: 1059
Quote:
Originally Posted by denslayer View Post
I'm still waiting for a reasonably priced 4k tV that doesn't have any issues
(Emboldening mine.)

Every TV has issues of some type.

The important thing is to find one whose limitations you find least objectionable.

For example, to me banding is far less offensive than blooming, so I would take near-black banding over light bleed on letterbox bars or blooming around white end credits on a black screen any day; others have other priorities.
oneeyeblind likes this.
kucharsk is offline  
post #44 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 09:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Kressilac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 47
I'm still trying to figure out why we need 8K. If the industry is only processing in 2K and broadcast is only 1080i/720p then what good does an 8K standard do us? Maybe it pushes 4K stuff cheaper down the cost equation? I doubt it because computers, processing equipment and bandwidth struggle with 4K today. We need fiber everywhere and a decent materials science boost from chips to get to the point where we can do 4K as well as we do 1080p these days; nevermind 8K.

There's mountains of stuff that's going to take decades to change just to enable 4K and I can't believe that the government and municipalities are going to anticipate 8K in the process. In the US, our Internet infrastructure is treated like our highway system, just enough to alleviate the present after there's been years of suffering to prove expansion is needed. Too little, too late is par for the course. Google is moving at a snails pace; 1 new city per year. Great, we'll be on gigabit everywhere in 50 - 60 years just about when we need 100Gbit. AT&T is still reeling from a FTTN strategy that was about as good as WiMax was for Sprint. Verizon signed a deal with Comcast killing its FIOS deployments. Yet somehow we think there will be bandwidth to send 8K video.

Forget that you can't see the difference in your TV and that WCG and HDR do far more for the TV experience, we're still being fed less than 4K today from the studios that process in 2K and upconvert to 4K for delivery. Do we really think they are going to skip 4K intermediaries and move straight to 8K, especially considering that processing 8K requires specialized state-of-the-art computing equipment whereas 4K can largely be done slowly with off the shelf stuff?

I just don't see it happening or it happens everywhere but the US and the US falls farther behind as a technological leader in the world. Hmm, maybe tech is the next space race. Maybe that'd be good for our country. Good ole competition.... Nah, wishful thinking. We'd rather implement more social welfare programs and argue about white/black race relations than compete like we did during the space race. So why is 8K important again?

I can't see it.
oneeyeblind likes this.
Kressilac is offline  
post #45 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 11:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Post #7:

Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
...
But, I for one, think 8k is a waste of bandwidth better spent on bit depth, HDR, Rec.2020 color and fewer compression artifacts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
Dithering isn't great. 1:1 pixel mapping with the source is always the best. And dithering can't create colors that are outside the media's color capabilities. Dithering can't add saturation where none already exists. Dithering can't create more dynamic range either. Dithering may help with banding if done properly, but overall dithering is not a substitute for bit depth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
In that case, you're changing the subject. Bit depth is bit depth and color gamut is color gamut. Increasing bit depth is precisely getting more shades, and it does not imply any change in color gamut.
I was talking about bit depth, and I did not imply anything about a relation between increased resolution and color gamut.
I didn't change my subject. The expanded capabilities offered by more bit depth have been my subject from post #7. I think we just talked past each other, which happens. I see your point given your premise. But for me 4K comes with HDR and P3 color. It's part of the package so 8K would come with that or possibly more. Rather than go to 8K I'd rather see them get even more fidelity in color and dynamic range.
oneeyeblind and fierce_gt like this.
erkq is offline  
post #46 of 113 Old 08-29-2016, 06:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Saint Paul, Minnesota.
Posts: 2,817
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 567 Post(s)
Liked: 517
Bravo Sony, Panasonic, and NHK because now you have made my decision to hold off buying a 4K tv that much easier and I feel a whole lot better. I knew 8K was coming and with this announcement from Sony, Panasonic and NHK I will wait and pass on a 4K set and wait until the 8K sets come out. I can hold out with my top of the line Sony 1080p 55w900a for a few more years no problem and it will make my wife that much happier because she love's our current W9 as much as I do. So take your time on the 8K thing Sony, Panasonic ect because like I said I can wait. I aint in no hurry because honestly 8K has been what I have been waiting for. I'm sure the cost's will be high for the sets in the beginning just like they were for 1080 sets and 4K sets but but prices will drop and for me price wont be an issue when the time comes to replace my W9 with an 8K set. I'm happy as hell Scott that you posted the article and thank you because you just made my day!


steve1971 is offline  
post #47 of 113 Old 08-29-2016, 07:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 2,032
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1037 Post(s)
Liked: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post
the importance of terrestrial over-the-air (OTA) broadcasting is waning as people turn more and more to online streaming, so it seems a bit silly to invest heavily in the old paradigm.
Indeed. 20 year ago this would have practically been a "who's who" in the AV industry, but nowadays there's a different alliance that's arguably the "who's who" of today's streaming-based media: Alliance for Open Media

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post
On the other hand, can you imagine what 8K streaming might look like, even with enough online bandwidth—say, 100 Mbps—to support it?
One thing that is very important to note is that Japan has something like the second to third fastest internet connections worldwide on average - a 100Mbps connection costs you all of around 20 USD a month there.
oneeyeblind likes this.

Last edited by NintendoManiac64; 08-29-2016 at 07:08 AM.
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #48 of 113 Old 08-29-2016, 09:40 AM
Member
 
Wolfy701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 68
If history is of any indication, the porn industry will be the first adopters/popularizer of 8K.
oneeyeblind likes this.

Source: Thinkpad running iTunes/Oppo driver upsampled to 24/192
DAC/SACD: Oppo 105D
Amp: Pathos Aurium (home), LG V30 running Onkyo HF Player (portable)
Headphone: AKG K812, AKG N5005 IEM's, Bowers & Wilkins PX7 Wireless
Wolfy701 is offline  
post #49 of 113 Old 08-29-2016, 10:13 AM
Member
 
James Jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 29
I would love to have an 8K display for viewing of my photography. I'm capturing at >8K so it would be a near perfect match. I agree that video will take a long time to use this resolution.
oneeyeblind likes this.
James Jimmy is offline  
post #50 of 113 Old 08-29-2016, 10:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,997
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2032 Post(s)
Liked: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbwiscfan View Post
I agree completely with the writer of this article; 4K is just getting started right now. To think 8K will be viable on the market by 2020 is way too soon. As a matter of fact, I think 8K will have a hard time capturing the home market even many years beyond that; if anything 8K will be used for businesses with need for large screens, for example football stadiums with the need for a large replay screen or something of that nature. It will be for a very specific market. 4K is going to be around for at least 10 years and beyond so I wouldn't worry for those considering getting a 4K TV now or in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post
Ugh.

Why not let 4K/UHD mature for a few years?

8K....we'll have you in in 2025. No earlier, thank you.
the thing is, we have to remember that WE do not control the market. the money we spend is a drop in the bucket compared to the general population of non-enthusiasts.

and i suspect, the hold off on 4k is even stronger for them than it is for us. there are certainly a good portion of enthusiasts that are waiting out 4k(some because we lost our precious plasmas, some because we don't need it on 'small' tv's, some because it's still too expensive and sources are scarce). Whatever the reasons we have, the general population has as well. i'm not sure if this is a psychological thing or what, but i know i feel more 'secure' waiting to buy into 8k than 4k right now.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1130K, 7.1/5.1.2 audio
Sources: HTPC, PS3, XBOX360, Wii
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #51 of 113 Old 08-29-2016, 10:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1888 Post(s)
Liked: 1301
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeSVO View Post
"Then you have to find a way to get it into homes."

^^^ Exactly what I was thinking. The data bottleneck is something that's hard for people to visualize. When I think about the upgrade to 8k, I don't picture simply going to Best Buy and picking up a new TV. I imagine backhoes, excavators, construction delays and detours as they're installing fiber.
They won't need to install more fiber. Fiber can carry an insane amount of bandwidth and they'll be able to use better compression as the decoding chips inside of consumer electronics will get better.
KidHorn is offline  
post #52 of 113 Old 08-29-2016, 10:44 AM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 21,509
Mentioned: 204 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5986 Post(s)
Liked: 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
the thing is, we have to remember that WE do not control the market. the money we spend is a drop in the bucket compared to the general population of non-enthusiasts.

and i suspect, the hold off on 4k is even stronger for them than it is for us. there are certainly a good portion of enthusiasts that are waiting out 4k(some because we lost our precious plasmas, some because we don't need it on 'small' tv's, some because it's still too expensive and sources are scarce). Whatever the reasons we have, the general population has as well. i'm not sure if this is a psychological thing or what, but i know i feel more 'secure' waiting to buy into 8k than 4k right now.
The broadcast industry can barely get it's hold on 1.9K let alone 4K yet let's move on up to 8K asap.

Yeah, no.

This is AVS, btw so I'm posting this as a consumer-minded individual. I'm sure there is a SMPTE forum that might agree with you though.
oneeyeblind likes this.
Scott Simonian is offline  
post #53 of 113 Old 08-29-2016, 10:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
pgwalsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 2,504
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
In my view, the headlong rush toward 8K is ill-advised right now.
You don't say. Not that after the first couple paragraphs you didn't make clear how you felt about it.


You should just change the title to: My opinion on the Sony, Panasonic, NHK Form 8K Consortium.
steve1971 likes this.
pgwalsh is offline  
post #54 of 113 Old 08-29-2016, 11:43 AM
Senior Member
 
DDailey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicrecording View Post
What about 16K?
I am holding out for 1 million K - now that will be something
DDailey is offline  
post #55 of 113 Old 08-29-2016, 12:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 3,393
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)
Liked: 329
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 streamed|broadcast 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.




_

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is offline  
post #56 of 113 Old 08-30-2016, 10:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,997
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2032 Post(s)
Liked: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post
The broadcast industry can barely get it's hold on 1.9K let alone 4K yet let's move on up to 8K asap.

Yeah, no.

This is AVS, btw so I'm posting this as a consumer-minded individual. I'm sure there is a SMPTE forum that might agree with you though.
sorry, i didn't mean it as a debate, just as my opinion.

i do agree with you as far as content delivery though. unless we are talking physical media, it's just not practical to exceed 1080p.

this is probably being released by the japanese customers as a scare tactic to slow down sales to their competition...

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1130K, 7.1/5.1.2 audio
Sources: HTPC, PS3, XBOX360, Wii
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #57 of 113 Old 08-30-2016, 11:20 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicrecording View Post
What about 16K?
NHK did decades of research and reached the conclusion that 8K is the limit of human vision, that's partly why they decided to skip 4K and aim for 8K.
lukedriftwood is offline  
post #58 of 113 Old 08-30-2016, 11:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukedriftwood View Post
NHK did decades of research and reached the conclusion that 8K is the limit of human vision, that's partly why they decided to skip 4K and aim for 8K.
"8K" in and of itself can't be "the limit of human vision". It's not well enough defined, because our visual acuity is measured in angles. Both distance and size are left out of "8K" and both are necessary to come to a conclusion like that.
erkq is offline  
post #59 of 113 Old 08-30-2016, 12:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
CosmoNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas2 View Post
I see a clear difference between 1080p and 4K at my seating distance of 8-9 feet on a 65" display with "normal" vision. Yeah, I know the formulae and physiology say otherwise ...
Same here. I've watched a number of things in 4K and 1080p on my 65" Samsung JS8500 from about 9 feet and the difference is noticeable. In one shot of "Mad Dogs" that especially jumps to mind, the scruff on the character's face is quite different between the two. In 1080p upscaled, it ends up looking like brown blur. In 4K, it looks like HAIRS ... and that really is from 9 feet away, not with my nose to the TV.

As for 8K, if they want to develop it, bring it on. It can only help the development of 4K technologies that are already out there. When I build my home theater early in the next decade, my 140" picture will probably look much better for it.
pgwalsh likes this.

---
Striving to live life in high dynamic range and ultra high definition.
Samsung UN65JS8500 / Denon AVR-X4000 / 5.1 w/ Mixed Speakers / Oppo UDP-203 / TiVo Premiere XL / Apple TV (3rd gen) / Fire TV (1st gen) / Xbox 360 R2-D2 Edition
KC area / Father of 4 / Husband / Video Producer / Skeptic
CosmoNut is offline  
post #60 of 113 Old 08-30-2016, 12:13 PM
Senior Member
 
wiyosaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
All of us who bought 4K tv's are the fools. The tv industry is going to skip 4K and go directly to 8K. I am one of those fools.
I think that the tv industry are fools thinking that I am going to buy an 8K set at all. 4K will be my limit.
wiyosaya is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
8k tv , nhk , Panasonic , Sony

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