Sony, Panasonic, NHK Form 8K Consortium - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 81Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 113 Old 08-27-2016, 07:40 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 3,258
Mentioned: 95 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1881 Post(s)
Liked: 4913
Sony, Panasonic, NHK Form 8K Consortium

According to a recent article on the Nikkei Asian Review website, Sony and Panasonic have joined Japan's national broadcaster, NHK, in a consortium to develop 8K technology in the next few years. As you might already know, NHK shot some of the 2016 Olympic games in 8K—about 100 hours—and beamed that footage to public-viewing screens in Japan. It was also downconverted to 4K and made available elsewhere via satellite and streaming.



NHK says it will begin regular 8K transmissions in 2018, and Sony is planning to have 8K TVs on the market in time for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo. A chipset developer called Socionext—formed in a merger of the chip divisions of Fujistu and Panasonic—will help create the processors necessary for 8K content. As you might expect, NHK will oversee development of the required broadcast standards, while all members of the consortium will work on data compression and even audio technology; I suspect that NHK's long-demonstrated 22.2-channel system could be part of the equation.

The Nikkei article asserts that the consortium will include only Japanese companies in an effort to reclaim that country's dominance in consumer electronics. Last year, Sony and Sharp were the only Japan-based companies among the top 10 TV makers by sales, and Sony and Panasonic hope that 8K TVs will help turn that tide around.

I'm not so sure about that. For one thing, 4K is just getting started, and it has a long way to go before it matures. Plus, 8K (7680x4320) has four times the pixel count of 4K (3840x2160), which means the data compression must be way more efficient than today's HEVC/H.265. And if you think there's little native 4K content available now—which is true—it's positively voluminous compared with 8K and will likely remain so, at least for a while. There are cameras that can capture 8K, but they are very expensive, and most content creators are unlikely to invest in them, especially if they've just upgraded their cameras to 4K. Then there's the production and post-production infrastructure, which is only now starting to accommodate 4K.

But the main reason I think 8K isn't all that important has to do with human perception. After all, 4K exceeds the human visual system's ability to resolve that much detail at normal seating distances from normal-sized displays in the home. To put this in perspective, the optimum seating distance from a 70" display—the distance at which most people with normal vision can see all the detail in the image without seeing individual pixels—is 10 feet for HD/1080p, 5 feet for 4K/UHD, and 2.5 feet for 8K. Would you want to sit 2.5 feet from a 70" display? I sure wouldn't.

Of course, higher resolution makes more sense with larger screen sizes. But at 8K, you need a really big screen—that is, a commercial cinema-sized screen—to take full advantage of that much resolution, and few people can afford something like that. While the prices of 4K displays up to 65" are falling like stones, much larger screens are still very expensive, and 8K screens that big will be even pricier—the one 8K flat panel available today is the Sharp LV-85001 85-incher for $133,000!

So don't worry that the new 4K display you just bought will soon be obsolete—it won't, at least not in terms of resolution. High dynamic range (HDR) and wide color gamut (WCG) are a different story, since they are still a moving target, and each year's displays have different capabilities in that regard. As I've said many times, HDR and WCG are much more important than resolution in the quest to improve picture quality, and we already have those attributes in many 4K displays today, so I see no need to move to 8K.

In my view, the headlong rush toward 8K is ill-advised right now. It will only add to consumer confusion, which is already high with 4K/UHD. And it might even slow sales of 4K TVs as people decide to wait for 8K. Finally, 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. (On the other hand, can you imagine what 8K streaming might look like, even with enough online bandwidth—say, 100 Mbps—to support it?)

Other than ginormous public-viewing screens for big global events like the Olympics, the only real benefit of 8K is capturing images at a higher resolution than the content will eventually exhibit when it's viewed at home. As with other digital media, downsampling from a high resolution to a lower one usually offers better results than capturing at the final resolution to start with.

Of course, there's no stopping technological progress, which continues to accelerate at an ever-increasing pace. And Japanese technocrats are among the most driven in the world, so the announcement of a Sony/Panasonic/NHK 8K consortium makes some sense from that perspective. But I think the effort would be better expended in helping to nail down worldwide standards for HDR and WCG in 4K.

Please do not click on the Quick Reply button at the bottom of this article, which will quote the entire article in your comment without you knowing it. Wading through the entire article in the comments is quite annoying! If you want to quote a portion of the article, click on the Quote button and delete everything that does not pertain to your comment. Otherwise, use the Quick Reply comment editor at the bottom of each page, which does not quote the original post. Thanks!

Last edited by Scott Wilkinson; 08-27-2016 at 07:44 PM.
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 113 Old 08-27-2016, 08:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
ttnuagmada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked: 281
8k? Why?

Wish someone would dump money into figuring out how to manufacture LCD panels without uniformity issues.
ttnuagmada is offline  
post #3 of 113 Old 08-27-2016, 09:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
Witchboard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 192
I'm holding out for holographic displays.
theSteam likes this.
Witchboard is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 113 Old 08-27-2016, 10:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,508
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 426 Post(s)
Liked: 512
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.
barrelbelly is offline  
post #5 of 113 Old 08-27-2016, 10:34 PM
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,567
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2104 Post(s)
Liked: 1520
Well needed or not 8K is probably coming, but only on the display end. Just like 4K really doesn't cost much more to manufacture once mass production ramps, neither will 8K cost that much more to produce. Hisense is set to release a 65" 8K display for around $4000 in China. It will mostly be a marketing gimmick, but the up-scaling of 4K and native 8K on the 80"-120" size range should be slightly noticeable. Doubt there will ever be much commercial 8K infrastructure. Just not feasible or worth it at this point. Just the few odd sporting events and special produced features.
sytech is offline  
post #6 of 113 Old 08-27-2016, 11:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,499
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5535 Post(s)
Liked: 3938
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.
nathanddrews likes this.
wxman is online now  
post #7 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 01:16 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
Don't forget projectors. Projectors will be able to produce an 8k image considerably larger than 85" for considerably less than $133,000!

But, I for one, think 8k is a waste of bandwidth better spent on bit depth, HDR, Rec.2020 color and fewer compression artifacts.
dnoonie, Ted99, Frank714 and 2 others like this.
erkq is offline  
post #8 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 01:28 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 387
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 336 Post(s)
Liked: 107
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.
You are 100% a fool, but for different reasons.
Fuzalert is offline  
post #9 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 01:34 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 Fuzalert View Post
You are 100% a fool, but for different reasons.
I think he's kidding.
wxman likes this.
erkq is offline  
post #10 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 02:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
kucharsk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 6,465
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1777 Post(s)
Liked: 1051
Thrilled with 8K as an acquisition medium - it will be nice to finally have something with the promise of exceeding the resolution of 35mm film, though probably not quite reaching IMAX/70mm levels.
kucharsk is offline  
post #11 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 05:39 AM
Senior Member
 
classicrecording's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 95
What about 16K?
ComradeBrehznev likes this.
classicrecording is offline  
post #12 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 05:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 4,283
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 666 Post(s)
Liked: 405
I agree. Seems like a waste for consumer home viewing, which is limited to not much more than an 80" screen.
RWetmore is online now  
post #13 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 05:56 AM
Senior Member
 
JamesVG81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Winston Salem NC
Posts: 414
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by kucharsk View Post
Thrilled with 8K as an acquisition medium - it will be nice to finally have something with the promise of exceeding the resolution of 35mm film, though probably not quite reaching IMAX/70mm levels.
This is what I was thinking. We will finnaly be at the same level as film. Have all the detail as the movie was originally shot. Only issue I can see is the same one we are seeing today with 4k. Movies are being shot in 4k or even higher but mixed down to 2k the up converted back to 4k and then sold to us as 4k. That's the biggest lie ever oh it says 4k on the box it must be 4k. Then you have to find a way to get it into homes. Here in the US with our slow Internet speeds I don't see that happening on anything but physical media. That's something that every one keeps saying is going to die out. With the increase in bandwidth needed to provide these new higher resolutions and HDR, true multi channel loss less audio. I just don't see everything being streaming for some time if ever. Hell vynal lives again. But I do think 8K would be great for archives of all the movies that are film. Have a full digital copy , that won't degrade or get damaged over time all with no loss in quality.
oneeyeblind and MikeSVO like this.
JamesVG81 is offline  
post #14 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 08:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
kleenex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,026
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 371 Post(s)
Liked: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicrecording View Post
What about 16K?
Next Decade if we are really lucky, but at under 100 inches will you even be able to see the pixels.

I saw a clear difference up real close with a 1080P vs 4K TV at 70 inches.
kleenex is offline  
post #15 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 08:25 AM
Member
 
MikeSVO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 15
"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.
oneeyeblind likes this.
MikeSVO is offline  
post #16 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 08:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
BNestico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Elysburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 784
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Liked: 336
8K? Why don't they figure out how to upgrade live sports from 1080i and 720p to at least 1080p OTA and then move on from there.

Vizio M75
Denon AVR-X4300, Adcom GFA 5006
Polk Audio RTi8's, CSi5, RTi6's, OWM3's
SVSound PB13 Ultra x 2 (Rosenut).
PC-Ultra(TV12), PC12+
BNestico is offline  
post #17 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 09:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
the7mcs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 696
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 492 Post(s)
Liked: 221
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.
Looks like you were a fool not once but twice!!?? If what I'm seeing is what I think it s....... looks like you have Two LG OLEDs?
the7mcs is offline  
post #18 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 09:29 AM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1409
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.

Foveated rendering to the rescue then.

Only a relatively small area of each eye's view needs to be rendered at full res, exactly where the player is looking, and the rest can be much lower res, like 1/2 or 1/4 or less without noticing the difference.

So 8K is definitely possible for VR even in the near future on current GPUs like Pascal.

And even if you're only rendering at a lower res everywhere, upscaling it means that you avoid screen door effect at least, and that's great too. I work in VR all day and the Rift has major pixel density issues. They all do. You can increase the pixel density then do some clever upscaling and that will look better.
barrelbelly likes this.

Last edited by RLBURNSIDE; 08-28-2016 at 02:48 PM.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #19 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 10:02 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 RWetmore View Post
I agree. Seems like a waste for consumer home viewing, which is limited to not much more than an 80" screen.
Consumer home viewing is definitely not limited to 80". I have a 145" 16:9 screen and it is stunning!
erkq is offline  
post #20 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 10:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jonas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: South Bay Area
Posts: 5,766
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2859 Post(s)
Liked: 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by kleenex View Post
Next Decade if we are really lucky, but at under 100 inches will you even be able to see the pixels.

I saw a clear difference up real close with a 1080P vs 4K TV at 70 inches.
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 and it might not be a good apples to apples comparison, but when I watch 4K material say on Youtube, and then dumb it down to 1080p, you can readily see loss of finer detail, it's pretty apparent.

Watched a showroom demo of two Sony TVs side by side (one 1080p, one 4K), running the same content (a Sony 4K video) - again, at seating distance, the difference was strikingly clear. Everything just appears more crisp and clean when the pixels get smaller. Maybe I and my eyeballs don't understand how all of this is supposed to work, but I see what I see. Like I said, maybe it's not apples to apples.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by BNestico View Post
8K? Why don't they figure out how to upgrade live sports from 1080i and 720p to at least 1080p OTA and then move on from there.
AMEN. I guess it's a bit ironic, but I subscribe to TVJapan through Comcast, much of which contains NHK content, and despite the claim of it being a 1080p channel, it looks more like 720p - LIKE CRAP on my TV, when I know the original content is probably really tight. So maybe by the time NHK is broadcasting 8K in Japan, TVJapan will hit a real 1080p.....
harveybirdman15 likes this.
Jonas2 is offline  
post #21 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 11:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,996
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1925
my memory could be off, but this kind of reminds me of the 720p/1080i(HD) followed by 1080p(full HD) transition, which is hindsight, worked out pretty well for 1080p....

of course, it's different this time, as many ppl are questioning the need for 4k, i'm sure almost all will question the point of 8k. and has already mentioned, resolution is probably the least in need of a upgrade. color, contrast, screen uniformity, viewing angles, etc are all far more problematic for typical tv viewers. to me this is akin to coming out with a sports car that has 4x as much HP, but still can't turn a corner. they aren't fixing anything, just trying to distract you from it.

instead of adding more pixels, fix the ones your got already! never would have guessed LG would be my favourite tv company...
erkq and harveybirdman15 like this.

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 #22 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 11:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,996
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1925
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 and it might not be a good apples to apples comparison, but when I watch 4K material say on Youtube, and then dumb it down to 1080p, you can readily see loss of finer detail, it's pretty apparent.

Watched a showroom demo of two Sony TVs side by side (one 1080p, one 4K), running the same content (a Sony 4K video) - again, at seating distance, the difference was strikingly clear. Everything just appears more crisp and clean when the pixels get smaller. Maybe I and my eyeballs don't understand how all of this is supposed to work, but I see what I see. Like I said, maybe it's not apples to apples.....
i'm wondering(not sure if this is still true with 1080p vs 4k since it's a 1:4 pixel mapping) if this is because of the conversion.

i recall when i bought my first plasma, the store had local 'HD cable' playing on the tv's, and the 720p displays looked just noticeably better than the 1080p displays. it wasn't until they put on a bluray and fed native 1080p that suddenly the 1080p ones looked drastically better than the 720p displays. some of what i was seeing was the improved resolution, but some was also the artifacts of converting resolutions.

i have not heard many people say that watching 1080p on a 4k set looks worse than 1080p on a 1080p one, i think this is because the pixels never need to get 'cut in half', it's just 1pixel becomes 4. but i do wonder if there might still be some artifacts that you are seeing? not saying you shouldn't be able to tell the difference, but maybe it's more drastic comparing 1080p vs 4k source on a 4k display than if you were comparing a 1080p display to a 4k display.

i also suspect that there's more to it than the ability to see pixels.

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 #23 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 11:56 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 fierce_gt View Post
...

i also suspect that there's more to it than the ability to see pixels.
Way more. That's the point Fierce and I are making. Let's not be pixel whores at the expense of other more important measures of quality... especially when we've already got 4k in production!
oneeyeblind likes this.
erkq is offline  
post #24 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 12:20 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I think 8K is very much a ways away..

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.
bbwiscfan is offline  
post #25 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 12:34 PM
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
Ugh.

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

8K....we'll have you in in 2025. No earlier, thank you.
dlbsyst and oneeyeblind like this.
Scott Simonian is offline  
post #26 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 12:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jonas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: South Bay Area
Posts: 5,766
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2859 Post(s)
Liked: 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
i have not heard many people say that watching 1080p on a 4k set looks worse than 1080p on a 1080p one, i think this is because the pixels never need to get 'cut in half', it's just 1pixel becomes 4. but i do wonder if there might still be some artifacts that you are seeing? not saying you shouldn't be able to tell the difference, but maybe it's more drastic comparing 1080p vs 4k source on a 4k display than if you were comparing a 1080p display to a 4k display.
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.
Jonas2 is offline  
post #27 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 12:49 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
...

But the whole Full HD vs. 4K thing - I'm not agreeing with the claims, at least not for my situation.
It depends on your angle of view.
erkq is offline  
post #28 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 01:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,527
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1105 Post(s)
Liked: 386
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.
If greater bit depth is good, then so is greater resolution. Increased bit depth lets you display more colors and shades in a given small area of the screen, but through dithering, increased resolution also has that effect.

Greg Lee
GregLee is online now  
post #29 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 01:13 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
If greater bit depth is good, then so is greater resolution. Increased bit depth lets you display more colors and shades in a given small area of the screen, but through dithering, increased resolution also has that effect.
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.
oneeyeblind likes this.
erkq is offline  
post #30 of 113 Old 08-28-2016, 01:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 1558
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.
erkq, dnoonie and Muza like this.
mtbdudex 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