Read more.Quote:
Logo program will require certain minimum performance specs to be met or exceeded.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Logo program will require certain minimum performance specs to be met or exceeded.
8k is pure delusion if they actually think it's going to make "big inroads".
It's nothing more than a way to jack up TV prices for a pointless resolution increase that no-one wants or uses, most of the world has barely even begun a move to 4K and there is no 8k content other than a few test demos all of which are very underwhelming because we are at the point of diminishing returns.
Of course the AV industry if filled with idiots who see a bigger number and thinks it's better so expect plenty of brain dead pieces extolling the virtues of 8K.
What Kato said. ^^^
when your dealing with 80" screens, bring on the 8K :-) yes 8K screen on a 24" display waste of time but big screens esp for home cinemas pretty much a must if nothing else benefits from dithered scaling of 4K content to look half decent.
What Kato said.
+ They would have better time investing in people actually getting proper 4K content.
Some movies are still made in 2K. 4K content is missing (compared to 720p and 1080p content).
Pretty much agree with Kato, it's completely pointless. We have very little in the way of 4k content let alone moving to 8k. Most of our tv channels are still not even HD!!
We've got a 4K TV and finding content for that, which actually warrants the increase in screen technology and resolution, is few and far between. A typical 4K Blu Ray costs £25, for instance.
This is delusional.
you wont notice the difference, only place where can see extreme resolutions useable is in eg. stuff you need to enhance in size to see with eg. a microscope or the likes. where it would be useable, with the physical eye and the likes you wont be able to see the difference really..
I agree, I have a 4K TV as well plus the HD Blu-Ray player and trying to see the extra detail is quite hard, a normal blu ray looks just as good as 4K.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonigan
The only time I could really see the quality was with the Planet Earth 4K Blu ray, that looked amazing, other than that most if not all films I have watched have not really seemed any different and I think you would be hard pressed to tell which one is 4K and which one is a normal blu ray
So much hate...
I like to see it happen from various reasons.
Our mobiles are usually FHD+. why? It's not only the marketing, rather for having smooth-clear fonts is hard to live without.
Now when 4K is closer to mainstream we can see improvements in handling greater densities of pixel without introducing much more load on the GPU. This has to improve for 8K screens and further.
You need content - therefore more consumer rank products that will be able to deliver 8k recordings.
That mean better adaptation of codecs that support great bandwidths.
My eyes are not the same, yet i still can see clear difference between 90PPI (usual FHD) vs 110PPI (usual QHD) vs 160PPI(usual UHD) vs 300PPI(usual phone) in all normal scenarios (40 cm up to 1 meter). And the most clear difference is with fonts.
4k TV content is another topic I get preaty agitated with, so I will skip it :P
I really hope to see more big monitors with great visual properties and ergonomics that will replace the need for multi-screen. Some of use like to use the space.
How often do you sit 40cm to 1m from your TV? This isn't about a need or otherwise for 8k display technology to exist. It's about its specific useage in TVs which are viewed from much greater distances.Quote:
Originally Posted by DevDrake
The standard is firstly made for TVs, yes. Then it is adopted to PCs/other. Wasn't that always the case for successful technologies?Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vaderHow often do you sit 40cm to 1m from your TV? This isn't about a need or otherwise for 8k display technology to exist. It's about its specific useage in TVs which are viewed from much greater distances.Quote:
Originally Posted by DevDrake
Answering your question - not much anymore cause I have monitor of the size of TV. In the past I had TV instead of a monitor (which had lots of drawbacks but that another story) and i was siting in front of it like 80 cm everyday for an hour at last. In that special use case scenario it was quiet often.
Again it is about the adoption of technology and it goes first where most money are.
The biggest issue is 8K content. The costs involved in scanning old media and bringing it to 4K were/are substantial. They're not gonna do that for 8K, which, if I remember right, is the absolute ceiling of resolution you can get from scanning film. That's a rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishton of work for a very VERY niche market.
The bigger problem however is a for quite a while now all media has been recorded digitally..by 4K cameras. So there is going to be a huge gap of content available, unless you want upscaled stuff. And 8K recording is still a way off; the live storage for 4K recording already is quite silly. It's literally 4x as much for 8K.
There'll be a market for it, but it'll be super niche. Huge TVs, home cinema, things like that. But I sit ~2ft away from a 43" 4K screen and don't see any artifact/noise, and on my 55" sitting 5-6ft away, same.
I seem to remember the exact same kerfuffle about 4k when it was announced. These things have to start somewhere, so why not have some standards for manufacturers to attain?
It'll be super-niche to start with, but once 8k cameras become more common, more stuff will be filmed with them
I fully understand and appreciate that we can't just stand still and constant innovation is good, but 4K is nowhere near commonplace yet, that's my argument. We shouldn't be developing 8K standards with 4K being so under used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smudger
Hell, Sky and Virgin Media are still charging a premium for 1080p for crying out loud!
Ah, I worded my post quite badly. What I meant was, finding 4K content that isn't through Netflix or Amazon, where compression is high and overall quality is low, is very difficult to find. The only content I enjoy watching in 4K is on UHD Blu Rays but they're not cheap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonj1611
Sky charge a ridiculous sum of money for the SkyQ and Virgin Media offer barely any channels in 4K.
We need to see the industry adopt 1080p and 2160p fully before we even think about 8K, IMO.
4K may still be a niche among TV users, but that's because they rushed out the screens before the content, however these days for a lot of people who are gaming, watching blogs/music videos on YouTube and yes... ...using Netflix/Amazon... 4K is now a pretty much every day thing.
We may not need 8K yet, but the fact is if people want huge cinema screens in their homes one day or VR headsets that are as clear as real life, then the tech WILL be useful eventually and I would rather them do the work in getting it all standardised BEFORE I go out and spend hundreds or thousands on a new TV, you know like many early adopters did with 4K who are now probably a bit disappointed.
I can see why people think the industry should focus on getting 1080p and 4K everywhere before working on something higher, but honestly I think at this point it looks like we may see the industry skip over a lot of these resolutions until we actually settle for something long term, which I think 8K is more capable of withstanding.
Deleted due to duplicate post / rant.
I do not see what the issue is. This is the release of the minimum specification for 8K certification. 4K is established and companies that stand still die, so they will be pressuring for the standards to be released so they can do R&D accordingly. There will be early adopters who demand the latest and greatest and will want 8K for whatever reason. This is the kind of low volume stuff you produce for people who are accepting they're buying into new tech or niche markets where they have a tech guy on hand and it gets the teething problems sorted. Then, if you have to recall, it's a low volume rather than waiting until there's massive demand, not having a mature product and suddenly your reputation is destroyed and the recall is huge.
The vast majority of stuff I watch is HD as it's streamed. I don't watch normal telly. I bought a 4K HDR TV pretty cheap (under £300) and it's a massive upgrade on the old TV. So now you can get something that will please the masses in 4K for a low outlay, the next premium product has to come along and that's 8K. Yes, there's still a dearth of 4K content but there's always people wanting the next big thing and to wave their willies saying "I've got". And when everyone, even me, has a 4K screen, they HAVE to have something better. It's like having a 1000cc motorcycle. Can you practically use that power on the road? No, it's a willy waving contest and they'll spend more time polishing it and showing it off at the local bike café than riding it.
I suspect the "big inroads" thing is optimistic but, you have to remember, customers are often idiots when it comes to tech and swayed by marketing speak and a high res, highly saturated, unrealistic demo in a shop. We are in the minority, we who understand what 4K and 8K actually means and can even decipher that specification in the article. All the sales guy has to do is say "oh yeh, everything is 4K now but if you don't want to have to buy a new TV in a couple of years, you want 8K". And the uneducated will look around, see everything on the shop floor is 4K and buy into it - I've stood there and watched this kind of thing happen. The sales staff will lie in teams to deceive the unwary. Most people do not spend their lunchtimes at work reading this kind of article. Hell, people buy "audiophile", cryotreated cables because of marketing junk. I just left my cables by the fridge. Works wonders.
So yes, this IS pointless right now (unless you want a panel that can show multiple inputs on one screen at a decent resolution - I can think of several applications for that). But 4K hardware is established and technology marches on. Standards being established is far from a finished product and is just the first step before low volume, high cost, early adopter / niche market production. Look back in 10 years time and 8K will likely be where 4K is now - cheap enough to get it into most new screen purchases which will then make it worthwhile to invest in large scale content.
If I'm producing content and it costs 30% more for 4K production Vs 1080P but it's not going to get me that kind of money back because the majority of people don't have the hardware and therefore won't pay the extra, why would I do it? You'd not develop a game for a console only a few people have if your intention is mass market.
I suspect "big inroads" has two intentions. One, it's relative compared to 8K demand in previous years. Two, it's to say to customers and producers "the next big thing is coming, better get on board".
/rambly rant
All the TVs in my house are 4K - the only one I'd consider upgrading to 8K would be the 82" Samsung TV in the cinema room. The other TVs are all 40-55" models and I don't think they'll be any compelling reason to change them - in reality, for most people 8K is just not going to mean anything.
Both times I've initially noticed this thread in listings, I misread it as "BK" and wondered what Burger King had to do with things. :P
While in theory I wanted to jump to 8K instead of 4K from 1080p, due to already knowing that it was coming at some point given mentions of NHK's broadcasts and work on it for a number of years, in practicality I'd assume it to be highly unlikely that I'd notice a difference between 4K and 8K.
I'm sure it will come in handy for video editors of course, allowing them to zoom even more into a picture without losing any quality if desired, but it's probably going to be more of a focus for specialist usage like that for longer, particularly given that 4K still has much further to go before it gets into the proper swing of things (namely more content regularly produced for the format).
I remember when Plasmas came out, they were about £12k for a 40" model - if memory serves me correctly. They didn't adhere to any HD Ready/FHD/UHD standard
So seeing that Samsung have launched a 55" 8k TV for about £2k recently, doesn't seem a huge stretch compared to when Plasma first came out. Yes, there's no content currently, but there will be, plus if they're that 'cheap', it may mean high-end 4k TVs come down in price.
I wonder what the intermediate step resolution for PCs will be? Like how 1440p ends up sitting between 1080p and 4k in reviews. Going straight from 4k to 8k would be challenging, we'd end up with GPUs capable of hitting 200 fps at 4k (in practical terms, CPU bottlenecked) but still not managing 8k60
+ inflation in the intervening time. The top of the line 82" model is just £9k, which is a lot nicer than the way GPU prices have gone over the same periodQuote:
Originally Posted by Smudger
I'll skip for 16K
I can't think of anything further to add, Kato-2 sums it all up really ^^^