8K discussion thread

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Not sure why people are kvetching so much about 8K (and no actual content).

8K displays will (should) do what the early 4K displays did for 1080p - provide the best possible performance for previous format.

Yeah, there's currently no native 8K stuff to buy but 4K material should look amazing.

The early (non HDR) 4K displays were basically useless to me. Some additional processing and upscaling wasn't enough reason for me to "upgrade". That was just a transition fase. It wasn't until HDR/WCG became a thing and with the introduction of UHD (= physical media), that it became interesting. That's when I jumped aboard.

I'm not seeing the same thing will happen with 8K though...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

no, we can’t know that for sure unless down the pike someday manufacturers did carryover these same upgraded processors and premium screens to their 4K tvs, which might then refute some of this study - https://pid.samsungdisplay.com/en/pr...-8k-resolution
for to be fair to the 8K side of the aisle, Professor Park is no slouch in the field of color science – https://www.ewha.ac.kr/mbs/ewhakr/js...NDE2&tab=TAB2#

I will say though, it sounds like there is a great variability in the product as I was surprised to hear this from Zink…. https://ibc.gallery.video/vod/detail...=true#t=39m20s

Yes, I know you're intrigued by the prospect of better handling of gradations in 8K displays but, in all honesty, that's just not enough to blow my skirt up.

Originally Posted by DJR662

The early (non HDR) 4K displays were basically useless to me. Some additional processing and upscaling wasn't enough reason for me to "upgrade". That was just a transition fase. It wasn't until HDR/WCG became a thing and with the introduction of UHD (= physical media), that it became interesting. That's when I jumped aboard.

I'm not seeing the same thing will happen with 8K though...

Bingo. As much as I liked the upscaling on the first non-HDR 4K TV that I had (it'd been filtered a little but no visible 1080p pixels was nice, though I don't need to worry about that when moving from 4K to 8K ) I bought it for the cracking 3D first and foremost, as well as the awesome sound ('twas one of the 'dumbo ears' Sony 4K's).

But just buying a 8K set for potentially better gradations - itself not a guarantee as it will surely vary from manufacturer to manufacturer - and all the AI processing under the sun isn't something that's worth spending another three or four grand on IMO.

If Sony put out an 8K 65" tomorrow with at least the same level of backlight performance as the ZD9, full P3 coverage and better motion response in the panel then I'd be first in line if the ZD9 went bang, but then I would still be champing at the bit if all those specs were the same and the 8K was changed to 4K

[TravisTylerBlack]

I suppose it's ultimately unavoidable that display resolution will continue to increase as technology advances but that doesn't necessarily mean Hollywood and other entertainment providers will step in line to keep up. It's still the rare blockbuster that's natively mastered with a 4K DI even though the tides are steadily moving in that direction.

As things stand HDR is simply the most wonderful/impactful thing to happen in the home viewing world in many, many years. That being said, it's been slow to catch on with the Joe six-pack crowd (and ultra-thrifty millennials) who are mostly still rocking 1080p Vizio sets from 2011.

I'm not sure how much of a chance 8K really has amid a market that seemingly indicates almost zero demand. Then again, I felt the same way in regards to 4K before finally witnessing HDR on a capable display.

Personally, I'm waiting for the eventuality that will be fully immersive glasses free 3D + HDR at whatever resolution is the norm when it happens. Until then I have a sneaking feeling good ol' 4K will suit me just fine.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by TravisTylerBlack

That being said, it's been slow to catch on with the Joe six-pack crowd (and ultra-thrifty millennials) who are mostly still rocking 1080p Vizio sets from 2011.

Vizio "quality" leads me to think not too many people are still rocking their 2011 sets...

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Not sure why people are kvetching so much about 8K (and no actual content).....

One reason being because rightly or wrongly (yet to be determined) 8K tv skeptics are unwilling to accept the notion of a far greater potential of AI upscaling over traditional methods.

Fortunately, science and medicine – https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06776
are more open minded and will continue to investigate.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yes, I know you're intrigued by the prospect of better handling of gradations in 8K displays but, in all honesty, that's just not enough to blow my skirt up.

Given the various HDR format (DoVi, HDR10, HDR10+) comparison nit picking some of you guys do on the internet on nearly a daily basis with your movies, your skirt should be blown up if the following is anywhere near to being accurate - “8K displays performance was rated 35% higher—with perceived image quality increasing by 30% and depth perception increasing 60% from 4K to 8K.” The later being especially attractive in that you get the increased depth perception without the hassle of wearing 3D glasses. This claim is what needs to be investigated before so quickly chastising the value of increased pixel density.

Until proven otherwise, I will pay attention to someone familiar with Helmholtz just like I’ll pay attention to someone taking command.

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Bingo. As much as I liked the upscaling on the first non-HDR 4K TV that I had (it'd been filtered a little but no visible 1080p pixels was nice, though I don't need to worry about that when moving from 4K to 8K ) I bought it for the cracking 3D first and foremost, as well as the awesome sound ('twas one of the 'dumbo ears' Sony 4K's).

But just buying a 8K set for potentially better gradations - itself not a guarantee as it will surely vary from manufacturer to manufacturer - and all the AI processing under the sun isn't something that's worth spending another three or four grand on IMO.

If Sony put out an 8K 65" tomorrow with at least the same level of backlight performance as the ZD9, full P3 coverage and better motion response in the panel then I'd be first in line if the ZD9 went bang, but then I would still be champing at the bit if all those specs were the same and the 8K was changed to 4K

I remember back in early 2015, I was looking forward in getting a new and bigger Sony TV to replace my then current 65HX920 (65HX929 in the US). So CES 2015 arrives and I'm checking out the Sony 75" 1080p panels and none of them were premium high end, they were all low tier models with frame dimming only. All of the high end specs were reserved for the 4K models.

At that moment I had zero interest in 4K because I knew it was still in its infancy and more importantly, there was no actual physical 4K content to speak of. And I wasn't just going to buy a 4K TV for its upscaling capabilities, not to mention they were quite pricey at the time too and I really wanted something bigger (I then dropped the idea of getting a 75" TV and decided to get into front projection, buying my first Sony projector instead ).

So now almost 5 years later, I think I might be in the same situation again more or less. I'm looking for a larger Sony LCD TV but it will have to outdo the 75Z9D meaning BMD is an absolute must (either that or perhaps MiniLED). Ofcourse pricing will also have to be taken into consideration... Seeing as the current top of the line Sony LCD is 8K, chances are their next top model will be so too. I just hope this time they won't cram in so certain features that are useless to me...

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Given the various HDR format (DoVi, HDR10, HDR10+) comparison nit picking some of you guys do on the internet on nearly a daily basis with your movies, your skirt should be blown up if the following is anywhere near to being accurate - “8K displays performance was rated 35% higher—with perceived image quality increasing by 30% and depth perception increasing 60% from 4K to 8K.” The later being especially attractive in that you get the increased depth perception without the hassle of wearing 3D glasses. This claim is what needs to be investigated before so quickly chastising the value of increased pixel density.

Until proven otherwise, I will pay attention to someone familiar with Helmholtz just like I’ll pay attention to someone taking command.

I'm skeptical of this.

And I don't believe you will ever get as much depth perception with a 2D image, be it 4K, 8K or 16K, as you get with good ol regular 1080p 3D. If they want to enable more depth perception, they shouldn't have dropped 3D.

Then again, I'm all for 8K if that means passive 3D with glasses is being brought back again!

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by DJR662

I'm skeptical of this.

And I don't believe you will ever get as much depth perception with a 2D image, be it 4K, 8K or 16K, as you get with good ol regular 1080p 3D. If they want to enable more depth perception, they shouldn't have dropped 3D.

Then again, I'm all for 8K if that means passive 3D with glasses is being brought back again!

The problem with increased depth perception with 8k videos is that image even if it razor sharp is still a series of static images which give no room for the eyes to gauge depth with slight different offsets views going to both eyes. You can fool yourself when viewing large presentation immersive motion scenes such as flying through a canyon fast that your senses loose that lock on the static imagery, but yeah it’s not a process of presenting to the eyes two different offset views like 3D was.

How can the same static view on a flat screen create a 3D effect no matter the resolution unless each eye discerns some degree of different distance or placement in what is presented to you?

You would think 8k would be the next step in realism, but how can it be if it’s missing the depth aspects?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DJR662

I'm skeptical of this.

Nothing wrong with that. But I’ll remind you of some other skepticism expressed by leading engineers back in the day….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...m#post12602993 .

Keep an open mind at least until further investigation/proof or disproof.

Originally Posted by DJR662

And I don't believe you will ever get as much depth perception with a 2D image,

They're not making that claim.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

How can the same static view on a flat screen create a 3D effect no matter the resolution unless each eye discerns some degree of different distance or placement in what is presented to you?

Perhaps kinda like for the same reason someone with one functioning eye still has depth perception (i.e. dee eye and da brain). You guys do realize that one can legally obtain a driver’s license with one good eye, right?

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Nothing wrong with that. But I’ll remind you of some other skepticism expressed by leading engineers back in the day….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...m#post12602993 .

Keep an open mind at least until further investigation/proof or disproof.

They're not making that claim.

I think having higher brightness and deeper black levels is something else than just higher resolution. But like I said before, l'll probably find out for myself though what the 8K resolution in itself can really do. I'm just not convinced it will be that important and it will be the game changer HDR/WCG was.

...The later being especially attractive in that you get the increased depth perception without the hassle of wearing 3D glasses.

They shouldn't have mentioned 3D glasses in there. By doing so, you're basically saying depth will be as good.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Perhaps kinda like for the same reason someone with one functioning eye still has depth perception (i.e. dee eye and da brain). You guys do realize that one can legally obtain a driver’s license with one good eye, right?

While true that is based on several things with someone with only one eye, such as being able to move you head side to side to get a better impression of distance, life experience with common object sizes at various distances, also a familiarity of how far away a object would be that moves across your vision field. But it means you are by far more attuned to your optical handicap.

I doubt if I moved my head side by side I would get any more depth perception with a 8k demo running then remaining immobile.

[LordoftheRings]

Three to five years from now with our 8K TVs in our homes we'll be looking back @ this thread as a prehistoric dino, not all of us ...

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Three to five years from now with our 8K TVs in our homes we'll be looking back @ this thread as a prehistoric dino, not all of us ...

8K flat panels doesn’t make a 8K ecosystem. Perhaps in 3-5 years some content might manifest, but suppose mostly 2K DI and some 4K DI source content is still the same in that future, now what?

[jibucha]

agreed :: however, 'definitely ' an improved picture quality' (SD/SDR - HD/SDR - UHD/HDR - and .... )

myself :: can't wait for owning an 8K display at home, and while i will certainly appreciate watching native 8K content (possibly), i will happily enjoy 'all content' and whatever 8K display that i acquire (gladly)

Originally Posted by JohnAV

8K flat panels doesn’t make a 8K ecosystem. Perhaps in 3-5 years some content might manifest, but suppose mostly 2K DI and some 4K DI source content is still the same, now what?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by jibucha

myself :: can't wait for owning an 8K display at home,

To add to Archer's bit - https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc.../#50f311c35a21
Sony BVM X-300 = 156 ppi
65” 4K UHD tv = 67.78 ppi
65” 8K UHD tv = 135.56 ppi (you’ll note not that far from 156 ppi)

The proposed synergism of increased ppi with color and luminance as presented by Park and her team is intriguing.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by jibucha

agreed :: however, 'definitely ' an improved picture quality' (SD/SDR - HD/SDR - UHD/HDR - and .... )

myself :: can't wait for owning an 8K display at home, and while i will certainly appreciate watching native 8K content (possibly), i will happily enjoy 'all content' and whatever 8K display that i acquire (gladly)

I kind of see it like owning one of these -
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/bri...netta-supercar
- yeah they recently raised the speed limits to 80 on some highways around the country but it's nowhere near the 200 mph capability - and there's no infrastructure to support 200 mph. But at 65 or 80 you can bet it's a smoooooth ride.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

To add to Archer's bit - https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc.../#50f311c35a21
Sony BVM X-300 = 156 ppi
65” 4K UHD tv = 67.78 ppi
65” 8K UHD tv = 135.56 ppi (you’ll note not that far from 156 ppi)

The proposed synergism of increased ppi with color and luminance as presented by Park and her team is intriguing.

I remember reading it ... https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=554

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Given the various HDR format (DoVi, HDR10, HDR10+) comparison nit picking some of you guys do on the internet on nearly a daily basis with your movies, your skirt should be blown up if the following is anywhere near to being accurate - “8K displays performance was rated 35% higher—with perceived image quality increasing by 30% and depth perception increasing 60% from 4K to 8K.” The later being especially attractive in that you get the increased depth perception without the hassle of wearing 3D glasses. This claim is what needs to be investigated before so quickly chastising the value of increased pixel density.

Until proven otherwise, I will pay attention to someone familiar with Helmholtz just like I’ll pay attention to someone taking command.

If anyone reads my reviews they'll know about how much extra 'depth' I perceive with HDR as it stands at the moment, the sheer amount of pixels on show is very much secondary to that.

As for all this revelatory info about pixel density, 'twas ever thus: when I'm looking at HD on my 16" PC monitor it always looks sharper than seeing it on my main TV. More PPI is great, knock yourselves out, but personally I can't wait for 16K displays so we can start this whole cluster**** over for the umpteenth time.