When do you suppose 8K will be available?

[Pizzamorg]

I know it's going to make me sound old, and foolishly nostalgic, but things just move so damn fast these days. Unless you're earning a very decent wage, I don't know how any consumer is supposed to keep up - and they wonder why Bluray never caught on like DVD and VHS did before that? This technology is almost as erratic as Apple's release schedule.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Pizzamorg

I know it's going to make me sound old, and foolishly nostalgic, but things just move so damn fast these days. Unless you're earning a very decent wage, I don't know how any consumer is supposed to keep up - and they wonder why Bluray never caught on like DVD and VHS did before that? This technology is almost as erratic as Apple's release schedule.

I agree and I'm not too old I don't think lol. Anyway, yeah our regular NTSC was in place over 60 years. HDTV'S started to come out in the late '90s, only 15 years ago. Now we have 4K on the way. What's wrong with just enjoying good 'ol 2k blu-ray. I love blu-ray and it still hasn't dominated the home video market. DVD still out sells it. We have 4K blu-ray coming out late next year which I'm excited about because 4k does look beautiful but, I don't see it being nothing but a niche format for us collectors. Cable and satellite are still broadcasting in 720p, 720p!!! No 1080p broadcasting still and everyone's talking about 4k. It needs to slow down a tad I think or just go straight to 8k and skip all this other crap. At least then it would give folks time to appreciate the collection of blus that they've/I've been building without worrying about when our setup is going to be obsolete.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

...8k will be the next generalized leap forward for broadcast and home video, we will all buy new TVs for 8k the same way we did for 1080p, with early adopters for 4-6 years from now, followed by mass adoption in the 6-9 years-from-now window. 72" displays will hold the same niche that 55" does now and 40" did 8 years ago; the suburban middle-class big screen will be either 96" at the low end or 120" at the high end, ultra-curved-screen and passive 3d, perhaps without glasses.

I am skeptical of 8K resolution for consumer applications since for the average person to even start to see the benefit, at the average viewing distance, it would require at least a 100" display and to fully benefit from 8K resolution it would require a 200" display. Based on the cost of making such flat panel displays (and the cost of shipping them) I am very skeptical that 8K resolution will make sense in 10 years. For IMAX theaters 8K resolution might happen if the frame rate of movies goes beyond 24 fps but in my opinion there are many aspects of video that should be perfected (bit depth, color space, frame rate, etc...) before 8K resolution is even considered. Considering the cost 8K resolution would need to provide a noticeable benefit and I don't see how it could do that in the average home.

[bailey1987]

I have heard 8K being here as early as 2016 and as late as 2032, 2020 seems to be the most repeated date.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

I have heard 8K being here as early as 2016 and as late as 2032, 2020 seems to be the most repeated date.

I really doubt that unless there is already content being generated in 8K using some cameras which have not been announced. From what I gather 8K is only being generated at the moment using experimental cameras. Of course initially upscaled 6K content could be used, at ~19MP a frame its twice the resolution of 4K. The only other potential source I could see would be 65/70mm film and Imax to really show off its potential.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

I really doubt that unless there is already content being generated in 8K using some cameras which have not been announced. From what I gather 8K is only being generated at the moment using experimental cameras. Of course initially upscaled 6K content could be used, at ~19MP a frame its twice the resolution of 4K. The only other potential source I could see would be 65/70mm film and Imax to really show off its potential.

Or they could just scan film at 8K like they do when they scan film at 1080p or 2K or 4K. Even with Rec. 2020 we still wont see all the colours of film so there's bound to be a difference.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

Or they could just scan film at 8K like they do when they scan film at 1080p or 2K or 4K. Even with Rec. 2020 we still wont see all the colours of film so there's bound to be a difference.

Which is what I posted, though I don't think there would be any advantage in scanning 35mm, after all with some movies they are beginning th fall off at 2K never mind 4K or even 8K. So IMO to justify 8K you are in 65mm/ 70mm and Imax territory.

[Al_The_Strange]

Eh, whatever. Somebody wake me up when they invent something that plugs movies directly into your brain with infinite resolution.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

I am skeptical of 8K resolution for consumer applications since for the average person to even start to see the benefit, at the average viewing distance, it would require at least a 100" display and to fully benefit from 8K resolution it would require a 200" display. Based on the cost of making such flat panel displays (and the cost of shipping them) I am very skeptical that 8K resolution will make sense in 10 years. For IMAX theaters 8K resolution might happen if the frame rate of movies goes beyond 24 fps but in my opinion there are many aspects of video that should be perfected (bit depth, color space, frame rate, etc...) before 8K resolution is even considered. Considering the cost 8K resolution would need to provide a noticeable benefit and I don't see how it could do that in the average home.

The exact same words were often spoken of 4k, several years ago.

[Pizzamorg]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

The exact same words were often spoken of 4k, several years ago.

And people are still sceptical of it now, even though the launch is foolishly imminent.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

The exact same words were often spoken of 4k, several years ago.

It is a bit early to say that 4K UHDTV has done well since it hasn't truly been released yet. The CE companies are rushing to sell 4K resolution because it was cheap/easy to add and several of them did that before HDCP 2.2 was even included.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

It is a bit early to say that 4K UHDTV has done well since it hasn't truly been released yet. The CE companies are rushing to sell 4K resolution because it was cheap/easy to add and several of them did that before HDCP 2.2 was even included.

Who said anything about 4k (or 8k) doing well? That was never a parameter of the discussion. The question was "when will 8k be available?", not "when will 8k be a success?"

My point was, a few years ago, folks were saying the exact same things about 4k: needs too big of a screen to see the difference, no native 4k media source. And yet here we are with 4k displays. For whatever the reasons may be, progress marches on in spite of doubters.

Whether you consider it "truly released yet" or not, the fact is that 4K is available, I can go to the store and buy a 4k display, and I can use it now for 4k output from my PC, or upscale 1080p content, and next year there will be 4k disc media. And going back just a few years, it's not as if the 1080 HD generation waited until 2006 for Blu-ray before hitting market, those sets were already in stores by the late 90s. So that argument is meritless.

I think you might want to do some investigation regarding 8k display technology. It's not just some ethereal concept, it's been prototyped and developed for years now, it actually already exists, it's just not ready for market yet. It's simply not as "out-there" or far-fetched as you seem to think it is.

[Suntory_Times]

I wonder if people in this thread know that watching a film in 4k from reference as per SMPTE and THX standards actually goes beyond humans ability to see. 8k displays and above may have applications for glasses free 3d displays and so on, but not so much for film watching at home in terms of effective resolution.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I wonder if people in this thread know that watching a film in 4k from reference as per SMPTE and THX standards actually goes beyond humans ability to see. 8k displays and above may have applications for glasses free 3d displays and so on, but not so much for film watching at home in terms of effective resolution.

And 5 years ago we saw the same technical claim from those same people regarding 1080p screens smaller than 50" at more than a 5' viewing distance. As with those claims, a simple firsthand demonstration debunks it. It's like saying you can't see the difference between 35mm and 65/70mm film.

8k has been demonstrated at expos, and deemed to be very impressive.

8k may have been initially designed as a cinema display, but it will find its way into homes, just like digital projectors did.

[Mansinthe]

did enjoy a couple of 4k movies in a DLP 4k Cinema in singapore in my holidays. and i was really surprised how good 4k really looked in a cinema.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

And 5 years ago we saw the same technical claim from those same people regarding 1080p screens smaller than 50" at more than a 5' viewing distance. As with those claims, a simple firsthand demonstration debunks it. It's like saying you can't see the difference between 35mm and 65/70mm film.

8k has been demonstrated at expos, and deemed to be very impressive.

8k may have been initially designed as a cinema display, but it will find its way into homes, just like digital projectors did.

Everything finds its way into the home, doesn't mean that it's needed. 4k is already overkill for the home market. 8k for home use? Give me a break man!! Not unless you have an 80 foot screen to enjoy it on.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

Everything finds its way into the home, doesn't mean that it's needed. 4k is already overkill for the home market. 8k for home use? Give me a break man!! Not unless you have an 80 foot screen to enjoy it on.

Who said anything about it being "needed"? I think that's a very odd objection. Dolby Atmos isn't needed, high frame rate isn't needed... so what? When did "need" ever enter into the discussion? We're talking about the imminent availability of future consumer tech, not need-fulfillment. You seem to be arguing for why you personally don't want 8k display, and I just don't see what that has to do with whether or not we will see 8k for the home market in the future.

[Pizzamorg]

We talk about need because it isn't like these things come out as an option, they come out to replace what we had beforehand. One day new releases will ONLY be released in the newest format, and that newest format wont be playable on your existing player or watchable on your existing TV, forcing you to buy new tech that you don't need.

Then again if Bluray bombed then making it even more niché, expensive and arbitrary then 4k is going to bomb even harder so I'm hoping it doesn't consume the market and stops 8k dead in its tracks.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Pizzamorg

We talk about need because it isn't like these things come out as an option, they come out to replace what we had beforehand. One day new releases will ONLY be released in the newest format, and that newest format wont be playable on your existing player or watchable on your existing TV, forcing you to buy new tech that you don't need.

Then again if Bluray bombed then making it even more niché, expensive and arbitrary then 4k is going to bomb even harder so I'm hoping it doesn't consume the market and stops 8k dead in its tracks.

I find this perspective very peculiar. You want progress to stop, so your stuff will stay "the bestest" forever. Sorry, I can't support your paradigm, and like I already said, I don't think it has anything to do with whether or not 8k will happen, it's just negativity for its own sake. It's a good thing grumpy VHS collectors didn't get their way with this type of thinking.

4k displays are on the market, and it hasn't caused my 1080p display to abruptly stop working; and I'm pretty sure that the release of 4k BD will not cause my BD collection to abruptly stop working. My DVDs still work, too, as does my 30-year-old 20" 4:3 Emerson CRT. Nobody came to my door with a clipboard of forms "forcing" me to take delivery of a 4k display, I've been allowed to keep my current setup. I don't understand why you would be afraid of such things happening if 8k hits the market.

BTW, not sure if I'm understanding you clearly, but did you just say that Blu-ray "bombed", making it "niche, expensive and arbitrary"? If so, then I don't believe we are occupying the same reality at all.

[Pizzamorg]

I want them to perfect what they have, before moving onto something else. They are abandoning Bluray, not advancing from it. Things like VHS and laserdisc were inherently flawed so the huge leap to DVD was mindblowing. The same could be said for Bluray, DVD was as best as we could imagine and Bluray exceeded that.

But there are vast bodies of work which have still not made it from DVD, or have made it from DVD poorly. There is still so much potential for Bluray, despite being nearly a decade old it still feels so new because there are still so many places to go for it and yet we're already being forced to move on.

One day your player wont be able to play 4k discs, one day your TV wont be able to show 4k resolution and I know that sounds pessimistic but if the studios have their way, it'll be in the next two to three years that you're buying everything all over again.

I said that 4k is niche but yeah Bluray bombed, why do you think so many companies are so butthurt they release everything DVD only?