8K discussion thread

[Lee A Stewart]

https://displaydaily.com/article/dis...ade-turbulence

[gkolb]

I guess I’m shocked to see where Sony is in these charts.

I’ll just summarize with mostly every customer looking for the cheapest TVs, instead of quality, or best bang for the buck.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

You don’t want to debate is because you can not debate it. Do you see Samsung display product in professional world? no. You see mostly Sony or Panasonic with some exceptions here and there, but never Samsung.

This is NOT to say that their products are crap, but top of the top tier in terms of picture quality is not their target market. All they care is to dominate the marketshare and they are doing a very good job at that.

I don't own a Samsung, however others swear by them. I'm sure there are many Samsung owners that would be more than willing to debate you on the quality of Samsung displays. Also, my focus was on consumer displays are not so much on the professional world.

Samsung have market share because they have products for more segments of the market. Sony and Panasonic, which you seem to love, are getting beat to a pulp by Samsung. Panasonic don't even have a market in the USA. Panasonic is not even a factor, they will eventually go the way of the Do Do bird.

[Lee A Stewart]

Be careful about "all inclusive" statements. There is more than one definition for "Market Share:"

LG is leading the European market for premium TVs with its OLED TVs, while Samsung is leading the US market for premium TVs with large-size LCD TVs, according to IHS Markit and a report by Business Korea.

The two Korean TV makers are dominating the market for premium TVs, according to analyst firm IHS Markit. Premium TVs are defined as displays costing more than $2500 US dollars.

In the first quarter of 2019, OLED TVs accounted for 65.1% of the European premium TV market. In the US, LCD TVs accounted for 63.8% of the premium TV market.

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.ph...&id=1561462057

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by gkolb

I guess I’m shocked to see where Sony is in these charts.

I’ll just summarize with mostly every customer looking for the cheapest TVs, instead of quality, or best bang for the buck.

I'm not surprised at all, I've been seeing this sort of data for years as I was selling their TVs twenty years ago, and as things transitioned from CRT to flat panel their market share dropped off a cliff. They didn't see Samsung coming who've since bossed the LCD market for years, and because they jumped ship on OLED (despite releasing the first consumer OLED set, that diddy little 11-incher) they let LG corner that market too. It still wouldn't shock me if Sony sold off their consumer TV division if things get tougher in the years ahead.

[edit]
That said, anyone notice the difference between the two graphs? Sony are nowhere to be found on the units shipped figures but are there on the revenue, this has basically been their strategy for a while now: they know that they're never going to get that major market share back, nor are they going to make a load of pitiful portable picnic players just to make up the numbers, they're sticking to the pricier end of the market and it's working for them thus far.

[sapiendut]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

I don't own a Samsung, however others swear by them. I'm sure there are many Samsung owners that would be more than willing to debate you on the quality of Samsung displays. Also, my focus was on consumer displays are not so much on the professional world.

Samsung have market share because they have products for more segments of the market. Sony and Panasonic, which you seem to love, are getting beat to a pulp by Samsung. Panasonic don't even have a market in the USA. Panasonic is not even a factor, they will eventually go the way of the Do Do bird.

There is no debate. Quality in terms of accuracy is easily measured, nothing subjective about it. As anybody can see quality has little to do with market share, just like more people use soundbars as opposed to full fledged 7.2.4 dedicated home theatre.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by puddy77

John Archer does some 8k justification/defense: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...8k-tvs-matter/

Smaller screen in "looks sharper than bigger" one shocker. And as for the people pushing the 8K research happening to reside in Korea, well colour me surprised. You'd think it'd be the Japanese at the forefront of all that, but instead it happens to be the land of Samsung making those academical strides.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by puddy77

John Archer does some 8k justification/defense: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...8k-tvs-matter/

from ^ “The test subjects rated the 8K screen’s performance 35% higher than the 4K one, with the sense of depth in the picture increasing by a huge 60%.”

How? https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...w#post16545740

[Robert Zohn]

Japan and South Korea are leading the 8K research, development, as well as the best panel technologies and processing advancements and they are already beginning to deliver daily and special event content. The UK and EU are not far behind.

[sapiendut]

I beg to differ Robert, South Korea have done nothing but a huge disservice to the world by creating panels that can’t even be calibrated properly below 40 IRE without creating some wonky image even post calibration. I’m sure it’s not because they can not, but because it’s cheaper and it’s easier to “educate” the market that those erroneous panels are good. Their panels are all about their own intent although they market them as being able to reproduce the directors’ intents.

[Lee A Stewart]

I don't see any real effort, here in the USA, to deliver 8K content due to the current inefficient compression codecs. It will be at least 2 years before newer more efficient codecs can be implemented. And when they are, they will require much higher bandwidths then current 4K content does. That will be another hurdle that has to be dealt with.

And the elephant in the room . . . ATSC 3.0. It can not handle 8K. Was never designed to.

Are broadcasters really going to take advantage of the full specs of ATSC 3.0 and give us 2160P @ 120 FPS with HLG HDR? Does HDR even matter when it comes to sports? Do any of todays 4K TVs meet those specs?

If we are to believe that TV evolution for the "next big thing" is on a 7 year cycle, will 8K TVs be so cheap (as todays 4K TVs are) that the TV manufacturers will be introducing 16K in 2027?

Will 8K be the first consumer format not to have any real native content available?

EDIT: ATSC 3.0's current specs do not include provisions for 8K but, it can be added at a later date

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Will 8K be the first consumer format not to have any real native content available?

You know, that actually does sound plausible if you think about it.

Personally I don't give a damn about any potential 8K streaming content (or any apps and other "smart" related stuff for that matter). I'm only interested in movies and they have to be on a physical format. I doubt there will actually be 8K UHD though...

Looks to me 8K is going to be about upscaling for bigger TVs (>80") more than anything else.

It still surprises me that the industry is putting so much emphasis on and effort into 8K when 4K/HDR hasn't even fully matured yet. Let alone the fact the general consumer doesn't even care since the majority was probably content with DVD and HD TVs anyway.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by DJR662

You know, that actually does sound plausible if you think about it.

LOL . . . there is an old adage . . . "the measure of a Man's intelligence is if he agrees with you."

Personally I don't give a damn about any potential 8K streaming content (or any apps and other "smart" related stuff for that matter). I'm only interested in movies and they have to be on a physical format. I doubt there will actually be 8K UHD though...

Like it or not I firmly believe that the last consumer physical format will be UHD-BD. IF 8k content does appear it will come in the form of streaming. Which based on today's streaming quality will probably look like 4K just as 4K looks like 1080P and HD looks like anamorphic DVD. We would need to take a GIANT leap forward to something like 150 mbps to truly appreciate 8K in it's full (and compressed) glory. I know some IPs offer 100 mbps. What is the monthly charge for such a high speed?

Looks to me 8K is going to be about upscaling for bigger TVs (>80") more than anything else.

That is how it is being marketed today and for the foreseeable future.

It still surprises me that the industry is putting so much emphasis on and effort into 8K when 4K/HDR hasn't even fully matured yet. Let alone the fact the general consumer doesn't even care since the majority was probably content with DVD and HD TVs anyway.

It isn't the industry, it's the TV manufacturers. They are on a 7 year cycle. 4K is in it's 6th year? The only money being made is on high end UHD TVs. Those charts I posted a few posts ago prove that.

I have a feeling that 8K TVs will not enjoy a robust growth cycle. I believe the "industry" has had enough of their "resolution upgrades" and will concentrate on 4K content. There is so much that can be done with 4K today . . . using today's technology. No reason to chase 8K.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by DJR662

You know, that actually does sound plausible if you think about it.

Personally I don't give a damn about any potential 8K streaming content (or any apps and other "smart" related stuff for that matter). I'm only interested in movies and they have to be on a physical format. I doubt there will actually be 8K UHD though...

Looks to me 8K is going to be about upscaling for bigger TVs (>80") more than anything else.

It still surprises me that the industry is putting so much emphasis on and effort into 8K when 4K/HDR hasn't even fully matured yet. Let alone the fact the general consumer doesn't even care since the majority was probably content with DVD and HD TVs anyway.

That's why I said 8K is a joke. If you have a 90 inch screen, you must sit as close as 2 feet to see the benefits of 8K, who does that? I don't believe 8K UHD blu ray is the future, I don't see it happening.

That doesn't mean that the sets being marketed as 8K aren't great TV's worthy of being purchased.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

There is no debate. Quality in terms of accuracy is easily measured, nothing subjective about it. As anybody can see quality has little to do with market share, just like more people use soundbars as opposed to full fledged 7.2.4 dedicated home theatre.

I agree and there are some Samsung sets with good measurements and some that measure poorly, just like most brands. We can go over to Rtings and look up some comparisons ourselves.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

That's why I said 8K is a joke. If you have a 90 inch screen, you must sit as close as 2 feet to see the benefits of 8K, who does that?

You need to back up a bit. The recommended seating distance for 8K is 1.0 to 1.5 X picture height. You CAN sit as close as 2 feet away (or even closer) from an 8K TV showing 8K content and not see the pixels.

I don't believe 8K UHD blu ray is the future, I don't see it happening.

I agree 100%

That doesn't mean that the sets being marketed as 8K aren't great TV's worthy of being purchased.

LOL - just not at today's prices. $70,000 for the Sony 98" 8K TV

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Will 8K be the first consumer format not to have any real native content available?

There will be stuff streamed, YouTube videos and the like - there's already native 8K videos there (as posted earlier).

I think of it like those ginormous projection TVs or large CRTs that were just NTSC/PAL. A bigger display for lower resolution content. We'll see 200-inch screens in the coming decades being the new normal.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

There will be stuff streamed, YouTube videos and the like - there's already native 8K videos there (as posted earlier).

I think of it like those ginormous projection TVs or large CRTs that were just NTSC/PAL. A bigger display for lower resolution content. We'll see 200-inch screens in the coming decades being the new normal.

When I said "8K content" I mean things like TV shows and Hollywood movies.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by DJR662

You know, that actually does sound plausible if you think about it.

Personally I don't give a damn about any potential 8K streaming content (or any apps and other "smart" related stuff for that matter). I'm only interested in movies and they have to be on a physical format. I doubt there will actually be 8K UHD though...

Looks to me 8K is going to be about upscaling for bigger TVs (>80") more than anything else.

It still surprises me that the industry is putting so much emphasis on and effort into 8K when 4K/HDR hasn't even fully matured yet. Let alone the fact the general consumer doesn't even care since the majority was probably content with DVD and HD TVs anyway.

It's all about the upgrade cycle this time around. Not that any upgrade was ever done out of the goodness of the manufacturers' hearts but this one is particularly cynical.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

There will be stuff streamed, YouTube videos and the like - there's already native 8K videos there (as posted earlier).

I think of it like those ginormous projection TVs or large CRTs that were just NTSC/PAL. A bigger display for lower resolution content. We'll see 200-inch screens in the coming decades being the new normal.

200 inch screen will never be the norm.