8K discussion thread

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don't know about that. The issue IMHO is no real distribution model for 8k content.

Still, when you're trying to sell an 8K set someone's going to ask "So what can I watch in 8K?" - you're not going to have an answer.

The enthusiast already knows there's no content so he's not going to buy it for that if he does. But the mainstream market can't really survive on the enthusiasts the same way projectors do.

So I'd say yes, it's a big problem right now.

[Lee A Stewart]

JANUARY 26, 2023

8K Association names Mike Fidler as its new Executive Director

Fidler will be responsible for furthering the adoption and implementation of 8K and its entire ecosystem – including the growing number and variety of compatible products – in a strategic manner, while conveying the 8K message effectively to all industry stake holders, including content creators, delivery platforms and the production community.

https://8kassociation.com/industry-i...tive-director/

Well Mike - it's been almost 10 months since you came aboard. What are you waiting for? Not getting the commitments you need from content creators? Getting resistance from the production community on the time required to finish content at 8K? Time is money. How many 8K TVs have AV1 or VVC installed on them? You can't do it with H.265. You need H.266.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

How many 8K TVs have VC1 or VVC installed on them? You can't do it with H.264. You need H.265.

VC1? The Blu-ray Microsoft codec?

Also VVC is H.266

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

VC1? The Blu-ray Microsoft codec?

Also VVC is H.266

Oops! I meant AV1. And I fixed the codec numbers.

[Dragun]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Still, when you're trying to sell an 8K set someone's going to ask "So what can I watch in 8K?" - you're not going to have an answer.

The more fundamental question is "with 8K can I detect a drastic improvement (or any improvement) over 4K?" and the answer is likely to be "no." Unless we're talking about screen sizes way bigger than what most people will have in their homes.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Still, when you're trying to sell an 8K set someone's going to ask "So what can I watch in 8K?" - you're not going to have an answer.

The enthusiast already knows there's no content so he's not going to buy it for that if he does. But the mainstream market can't really survive on the enthusiasts the same way projectors do.

So I'd say yes, it's a big problem right now.

I agree there is a big problem right now (manufacturers jumped the gun, no question in my mind about it), I just did not think your assessment (native content) was the issue.

If today there is an announcement "New format agreed by all studios will be coming out in 6 months and these are the specs for output...." I will be able to start shopping for a TV with those specs right now. But if I buy an 8K TV right now and in 6 months there is an article "new format coming out that supports 8K but needs HDMI 2.3 for the best experience " I will need to re-buy a new TV, so it would suck to buy an 8k TV just for a bit of upscaling.

[nick4Knight]

There won't be a new format that all studios agreed to. Again. It's clearly been tried to form a pathway to 8K disc. No support was found beyond there merely being an association entity trying to form it.

I'm still waiting to hear what the selling point of 8K would be. It's not like 4K where we have the advancement of HDR and WCG to make it compelling. Resolution is a snore fest for consumer sentiment.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

There won't be a new format that all studios agreed to. Again. It's clearly been tried to form a pathway to 8K disc. No support was found beyond there merely being an association entity trying to form it.

I did not mean to insinuate that it had to be a physical format (but personally I would most likely prefer that). and I did not mean that it literally had to be all studios, but the history of av tech is full of "formats" that went no where fast in different markets (VCD here in NA, Dtheatre, WMV....) I want something with real support, For example if K where to give their specs for a new 8k digital server it would be a lot more interesting, if a big subscription streaming provider like Netflix where to bring out a Ultra 8k package I am sure that will get people to buy in. But a few YouTube videos of scenery films , a special deal for a handful of titles with a given manufacturer is not enough to say "those are the specs for the TV needed."

I'm still waiting to hear what the selling point of 8K would be. It's not like 4K where we have the advancement of HDR and WCG to make it compelling. Resolution is a snore fest for consumer sentiment.

I don't know, we will need to wait for the specs, isn't that the point


I think in my HT the resolution will help a bit, might be able to scoot my front row a 1/2' forward. But for me though "new formats" need a hook and 8k is needed as that. we won't get for example UHD BD 2 with newer CODEC and higher bitrate when needed. I don't think streaming provider X wil risk braking many of their playback devices unless they can add a premium tear, I don't think DL will risk braking stuff unless they can advertise what the change brings.

[Geoff D]

Streaming/TV is where it'll be. Wasn't the new Das Boot finished out to 8K? Huh. But as a physical disc format? Literal non-starter. Never gonna happen as physical media dies its slow, slow death, it'd take too much money to create in a world where disc is yesterdays news. Even during disc's heyday there's a reason why studios and manufacturers alike collaborated on making the format(s) a reality, it's too expensive for one entity to enter into. The disastrous HD format war saw them take sides, sure, but Toshiba never recovered as a serious player in the AV game after that debacle and that's partly what made the relevant parties so hesitant to get into 4K disc in the first place.

[edit] What "specs" are we waiting for though? HDR already caters for up to 10000 nits and uses the 2020 gamut which essentially covers the entirety of the human visual spectrum re: colour (there still aren't any monitors, pro or otherwise, that can even cover the entirety of that gamut!). There is nothing that 8K can add apart from more resolution. Which is ehhhhh at best. As for newer codecs, the general public could not give a shit. Heck, even the cognoscenti can't see shit compression when it's staring them in the face so what difference would it make?

[mrtickleuk]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

[edit] What "specs" are we waiting for though? HDR already caters for up to 10000 nits and uses the 2020 gamut which essentially covers the entirety of the human visual spectrum re: colour (there still aren't any monitors, pro or otherwise, that can even cover the entirety of that gamut!). There is nothing that 8K can add apart from more resolution. Which is ehhhhh at best. As for newer codecs, the general public could not give a shit. Heck, even the cognoscenti can't see shit compression when it's staring them in the face so what difference would it make?

Absolutely right. Also, SDR HD could have looked fantastic (or "even better"), if they had used decent bitrates. HD was the first resolution in my life that I've never seen in fully uncompressed high quality analogue form (for television). I've only ever seen it decompressed from whatever parsimonious bitrate the broadcaster deemed to give me. But I do remember that when the BBC's single stand-alone HD channel launched, it wasn't even full HD, and they dropped the bitrate more as time went on.

Very high bitrate HD counted against the case for 4K resolution though, so we can't have that. The answer is to lower the bitrate of HD to accentuate the difference between it and 4K and force the issue. Of course, it's hard to prove these things. And I welcome HDR with open arms.

[joenostalgia23]

I couldn’t care less about 8K. As it is, I can barely tell the resolution difference between 4K and 1080p, it’s the expanded color range and HDR that is obvious on my 65 inch set. Also the inclusion of 60fps support has been awesome for the 2 movies that support it.

But if 8K fails, I’d love to see a shift back towards 4K/3D TVs. I really love my 2016 OLED that supports 4K with Dolby Vision, but also has fantastic looking passive 3D. I always fear the day my set starts to really show wear as it’s kind of irreplaceable with anything currently offered.

[BLMN]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

I couldn’t care less about 8K. As it is, I can barely tell the resolution difference between 4K and 1080p, it’s the expanded color range and HDR that is obvious on my 65 inch set. Also the inclusion of 60fps support has been awesome for the 2 movies that support it.

But if 8K fails, I’d love to see a shift back towards 4K/3D TVs. I really love my 2016 OLED that supports 4K with Dolby Vision, but also has fantastic looking passive 3D. I always fear the day my set starts to really show wear as it’s kind of irreplaceable with anything currently offered.

They would go together. If they were to introduce passive 4k 3D TV sets, it would need an 8k display to achieve this. So you cant really cheer on 8k failing.

[nick4Knight]

No they meant current tech... They want 3D to be included in 4K displays again.

In 2016 some that had the capability it was using the full bandwidth 1080p (for both eye) to do passive 3D. Whereas on 1080p displays you needed 'active' implementations to do 1080p. Otherwise if you had passive it delivered 720p per eye.

There is no "4K 3D" and I highly doubt there would be. Though a return to combining 3D back into 4K displays would be neat

[Dragun]

I'm not even a big 3D fan, but at this point, 3D is a far more noticeable feature than increased resolution. So maybe TV manufacturers will try it again as a selling point. Would be cool to see a 4K 3D HDR format.

[BLMN]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

No they meant current tech... They want 3D to be included in 4K displays again.

In 2016 some that had the capability it was using the full bandwidth 1080p (for both eye) to do passive 3D. Whereas on 1080p displays you needed 'active' implementations to do 1080p. Otherwise if you had passive it delivered 720p per eye.

There is no "4K 3D" and I highly doubt there would be. Though a return to combining 3D back into 4K displays would be neat

There is but not on the consumer side yet. If there was to be a push for 3D again i would prefer a true 4k 3D HDR as mentioned in the post above, the one like in Dolby Cinema i.e instead of the old 1080p 3D format. The 1s possibility for this on the consumer side (not a TV set) is the upcoming apple vision headset.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Dragun

I'm not even a big 3D fan, but at this point, 3D is a far more noticeable feature than increased resolution. So maybe TV manufacturers will try it again as a selling point. Would be cool to see a 4K 3D HDR format.

Who will develop this new consumer format? Not the BDA. They had the chance and passed on 3D when they finalized the specs for 4K UHD Blu-ray.

MVC adds 50% more data. What codec will be used?

8K TV is a dud for the TV OEMS. But 4K TV is paying off especially premium sets. Lots of room for improvements in PQ and reducing energy use.

[Trekkie313]

Bringing back 3D for premium sets seems like a no brainer to sell to those of us who have a big collection of releases and aging non-4K displays. Most UHD players already support 3D Blu-Ray output.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Bringing back 3D for premium sets seems like a no brainer to sell to those of us who have a big collection of releases and aging non-4K displays. Most UHD players already support 3D Blu-Ray output.

As always, collectors represent a tiny fraction of the total marketplace. When your goal is to sell millions of a specific model, do you really believe there are that many 3D collectors who will spend the big bucks to buy one? Remember, your 3D BDs are only going to be upscaled. How will that affect the 3D PQ?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Bringing back 3D for premium sets seems like a no brainer to sell to those of us who have a big collection of releases and aging non-4K displays. Most UHD players already support 3D Blu-Ray output.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

As always, collectors represent a tiny fraction of the total marketplace. When your goal is to sell millions of a specific model, do you really believe there are that many 3D collectors who will spend the big bucks to buy one? Remember, your 3D BDs are only going to be upscaled. How will that affect the 3D PQ?

I think there are a number of stumbling blocks that will prevent 3D as we knew it in the 3D BD times from returning.

The first, is that there simply is not enough content that is well made for 3D. When I think back to all the 3D movies that were released, there are no more than 5-10 I can think of and say "this is definitely the best way to watch this movie." On the other hand, for the majority of 3D movies, I can say "there is a better way to watch this movie." 5-10 movies is all I can think of as movies that are really best in 3D vs any other presentation, out of thousands and thousands of movies - thats pretty bad.

I think this is because at first native 3D productions were expensive, and by the time it became more affordable studios were afraid to do any aggressive 3D due to complaints of people with headaches, eyestrain. So most 3D releases are either artificial paper-cut-out conversions, or so mild 3D it's not worth the brightness hit for 3D. Avatar set the bar high, and pretty much the only thing that truly met that bar was Avatar 2.

Even when the 3D is good though, people would complain about the glasses, or the upcharge (for upcharges, seems IMAX 2D is more desirable to most than standard screen 3D)

So then, thinking about that, if there are really only like 5-10 films where 3D definitely tops the all other versions, its a hard sell to consumers to buy multiple pairs of $50+/ea 3D glasses, as well as a hard sell to manufacturers to bundle in the extra stuff needed for 3D - extra RF transmitter, 3d firmware, and a pair of glasses, when most people don't care or don't want it and will buy their competitors TV that is $250 less without it.

I think the best chance for re-emergence of 3D is if they find a way to do it reliably without glasses for multiple people, but it seems that is a long way off in the future. The other option is headset-based 3D, like VR, but that in general is also an uncomfortable way to watch movies.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Streaming/TV is where it'll be. Wasn't the new Das Boot finished out to 8K? Huh.

Samsung actually streamed Das Boot in 8K to consumers who bought their 8K TVs. So yeah, there is some streaming content.

The only problem is that it was only a peak 40mbps stream. So, while there are technically 8K pixels being streamed, I would not be surprised if the overall picture is (including even sharpness) substantially worse in motion than a 4K disc @ 60-80mbps due to the high compression ratio.


Instead of 8K, we would benefit much more from TVs that tap the full potential of HDR, paired with HDR grades that take advantage of that potential.