8K discussion thread

[Blu-rayNut51]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

TBH I don't give a crap about more spatial resolution when it comes to sports, what I want is more temporal resolution e.g. HFR.

But Geoff, there's a very basic problem that will preclude TV executives from becoming interested in telecasting sports events at a higher frame rate than the standard that all American telecasters of sports hew to today.

And that insurmountable problem is that since a very large majority of the TVs now found in American homes cannot handle high frame rate TV signals, any network, or station, that presents NFL games, for example, would have to produce and telecast 2 separate video signals of each event being covered, with those signals then being shown on 2 separate channels, or subchannels.

It's unfortunate that HFR telecasts would not enjoy the universal compatibility with the existing population of TVs, that really aided the the major TV networks in their transition from black & white to color broadcasts. Because back during the 1960s, when the 3 major TV networks began showing some of their early color programs on a regular basis, though most Americans didn't yet have color TVs, a MAJOR factor encouraging TV executives to go ahead with transitioning to color, was the ability of the huge number of existing black & white TVs to be compatible with broadcasted color video signals, by just presenting the picture that the color signal contained as a quite clear (for that era) black & white TV picture. However, in the case of trying to present sports events in HFR, tens of millions of the TVs that Americans are now using, would not be compatible with any sports telecast that is sent out as high frame rate video.

And very few TV executives would have a positive reaction to the thought of having to produce, and telecast, 2 separate high definition versions of every sporting event, in order to be able to keep all of America's TV viewers happy, especially since it's those viewers who also watch the televised advertisements which actually finance the salaries of these television executives.

[smoothbutter]

There won't be much point for 8k for about 5 years when I assume 8k blu ray could come out, except for people who have way too much money and time to justify buying a huge 8k tv, and an expensive pc with the top end hdmi 2.1 gpu this year or in the future just for gaming

Who is going to pay a big premium for an 8ktv just to play random video montages shot in 8k? Micro LED tv's selling for modern prices in 2023, will be a way bigger deal at the time than 8k will be..

[Scottishguy]

You'll probably see UHD players with 8K upscaling. Which will remain a feature only on high end players for a long time.

[Robert Zohn]

The value in getting an 8K TV is not only about the increased resolution. I'm outlining four advantages that 8K TVs offer today.

First, Sony, Samsung and LG 8K TVs have new and very powerful 8K video processors that do a superior job in the performance of up-converting all content with all resolutions. Other than premium video up-conversion the new processors deliver better color fidelity.

In my showroom we have all three (Sony 85" Z9G, LG's 88" Z9P and Samsung's 82
Q900R) 8K TVs, all lined up on our TV Shootout wall. We also have Sony's 77" A9G, LG's 65" E9 and Samsung's 75" Q90R. All of our TVs are connected to AVPro's 18Gbps 8x8 matrix switch. Feeding the 8x8 matrix switch are two DIRECTV receivers, three BD players, and Kaleidescape.

I can tell you without any question, all of the 8K TVs outperform the 4K TVs. The image is sharper, and visibly more detailed.

Second, All of the 8K TVs have enhanced A1 processing that looks at each frame and on the fly they apply the best and proper attention to every anomaly, for example, rendering a straight line or making a curve or circle. This highly publicized "AI" really works in real life to again improve the overall video performance and quality.

Third, for today with little 8K content available, a buyer of these premium 8K TVs would be best served on larger screen sized 85"+.

Forth, 8K TVs can future proof consumers for when 8K content becomes more available. In fact, remember my CES 8K session where I'll announce information that will benefit all current and future 8K owners.

I say all of this because I see it every day in my showroom and work closely with the TV engineers and product development management to learn and contribute to this new category of video. We'll see a lot of new advancements in the development of 8K video at CES 2020.

Very respectfully I ask the membership to think about and let's discuss some of the 8K advantages I've outlined above and reduce the comments of content being the only element of value in your next TV purchase. Why not embrace all video upgrades? We need and want the TV Manufacturers, content providers and content delivery partners to continually upgrade and improve the performance or audio and video so we can benefit by more natural, real to life and the creators intent, and immersive entertainment experiences.

[Geoff D]

"Sharper" being a good thing depends on whether it's supposed to be sharper or whether the screen is just amping it up for the sake of it. Still, that's not solely an 8K thing as people have long gravitated towards certain brands because of what they do/don't do to the image as part of their processing.

[Lee A Stewart]

Samsung 2019 8K TVs first to get 8K HDMI 2.1 certification

Samsung, LG, and Sony have, in 2019, been selling 8K TVs equipped with one or more HDMI 2.1 ports. However, none of these were certified (until now), meaning that TV makers were unable to tout HDMI 2.1 support.

That is because the certification process for HDMI 2.1 has seen several delays. HDMI certification occurs through an authorized test center (ATC) and the certification tests are being rolled out in stages. One of the first tests involve HDMI 2.1 support for higher-bandwidth video signals, while later tests will certify optional HDMI 2.1 features.

Samsung's 2019 8K TVs (Q900RB in the US, Q950R in Europe) are the first 8K TVs to get the HDMI 2.1 certification.

- "The certified version is related to the new HDMI 2.1 video transmission format, which includes 4K 120Hz as well as 8K 60Hz, allowing Samsung to officially announce the 2019 TV with HDMI 2.1 capability," the company said.

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.ph...&id=1577961294

[Robert Zohn]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

"Sharper" being a good thing depends on whether it's supposed to be sharper or whether the screen is just amping it up for the sake of it. Still, that's not solely an 8K thing as people have long gravitated towards certain brands because of what they do/don't do to the image as part of their processing.

Can't agree more and when I refer to a sharper image I am always referring to the image being closer to the original source.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

"Sharper" being a good thing depends on whether it's supposed to be sharper or whether the screen is just amping it up for the sake of it. Still, that's not solely an 8K thing as people have long gravitated towards certain brands because of what they do/don't do to the image as part of their processing.

Well Sony will always maintain it's design philosophy of having the most natural image possible.

The problem with 8K as I see it, is if hypothetically AI is so advanced in upscaling 4K UHD sources, that a film made in the 80s on 35mm looks indistinguishable from real life. Enthusiasts will lambast that as breaking the medium. Something akin to motion interpolation.

So I hope the industry is prempting this by engineering a variety of source specific upscaling algorithms, or something.

[Archivy]

I think the consumer is more informed now than ever before, so TV manufacturers should adjust their marketing approaches. Orienting the next wave of TVs around the 8K moniker seems self-defeating to me, because consumers know they won't see the uptick in resolution at TV sizes they are currently accustomed to, namely 49 - 65 inches. The immediate struggle for manufacturers, then, is to convince consumers to buy into larger screen sizes, such as 85" and 98" and up. Ultimately, this leads to a primary hurdle on the consumer end: the practical reality that lots of people simply don't have the necessary amount of real estate to dedicate to a large-size appliance (TV) in their home. This is a practical issue consumers must overcome before manufacturers can work on getting consumers comfortable with large screen sizes on a psychological level. For example, my parents feel a large screen size will overwhelm their living room space, so they're not interested in one. Thus, it's both a matter of room aesthetics (that a large TV has to look good in the space) and having space to physically accommodate such large appliances. I admit roll down/up TVs are a step in the right direction to address these two issues.

But let me zoom outward. If the real benefit of 8K TVs is not the additional lines of resolution provided by 8K over 4K, then why are marketing teams still marketing this imminent next wave of innovation through the prism of 8K? I don't know enough about the details to suggest marketing alternatives other than to recommend focusing marketing plans around increased color volume, brightness, etc. That is to say, move away from the "# of Ks" as a totem of TVs' consumer benefit, because consumers aren't buying that marketing pitch. They know better; they know they won't see the additional lines of resolution, so stop making that the focus of the marketing pitch. I know, I get it -- people intuit that 8k is a higher number than 4k, which makes it easy to market. But this intuition is undermined by the consumer knowledge that they can't SEE the intuited better resolution. Besides, alternative marketing concepts like color volume, brightness, etc. themselves have numbers associated with them that can be marketed in quantitative terms if that's so necessary.

Another issue is that content creators are not driving these TV advancements any longer; TV manufacturers are. It used to be the creative community wanted better displays that more faithfully displayed their art. No longer, pretty much. These days, it is exceedingly rare for any filmmaker to state that currently-available displays aren't good enough to display his/her work. Yes, you might have an outlier like Ang Lee or Jim Cameron who craves higher temporal playback, but on the whole, the community is not collectively advocating for more powerful displays, not when they are simultaneously just coming around to the idea of creating content for streaming platforms, which they know in their heart is a quality compromise from the big screen experience that has driven exhibition for the past 120 years.

---

What's my bottom line? Change the marketing. Don't market the next wave of TV as 8K. Reorient the next wave of TVs around something else.

Let me create an analogy: When I was young, there was a concerted effort by the video game industry to push the number of bits in video game systems. Sega and Nintendo had 8-bit systems, so Sega and Atari upped the ante with their 16-bit system (Atari's system even advertised the number of bits in the system's name for crying out loud!). Then came the short-lived 32-bit era, before the 64-bit systems (e.g. N64) usurped them. Each phase's marketing strategy revolved around advertising that its systems were better than the last because they had more bits. Ultimately, though, the video game industry stopped marketing their systems around bits because it became irrelevant to consumers. TV manufacturers should take heed.

I've said this before, but I think it was a mistake purely from a marketing perspective to advertise 4k UHD around the resolution uptick over regular BD. This is because consumers 1) accept BD's resolution to be quite fine as is, and they didn't clamor for something better and 2) they don't really see the added spatial resolution benefit that 4k provides anyway. Instead, the powers that be should have marketed the format around HDR and wide color gamut, both of which are benefits that consumers immediately perceive. Yes, I know 4k came before HDR, so it's not quite as clean an example as I'm making it out to be, but my point is to focus on product benefits that consumers care about, and stop focusing on things that consumers don't care about. In this case, it's the number of lines of resolution. TV manufacturers can keep increasing them, but it should be taken for granted and TV should not be sold based on it anymore. It's become irrelevant.

What else are TVs bringing to the table? Take the answer and make THAT the focus of your marketing pitch, and it better be something that consumers care about.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

Second, All of the 8K TVs have enhanced A1 processing that looks at each frame and on the fly they apply the best and proper attention to every anomaly, for example, rendering a straight line or making a curve or circle. This highly publicized "AI" really works in real life to again improve the overall video performance and quality.

Funny about that typo, that reminds me of a past visit many years ago to a upscale restaurant on New Years eve that served superb filet mignon, which usually patrons ordered it as medium rare. Well these two young people walked in and they both order a filet mignon only well done, so the waiter brought it to them and snidely commented here's your roast, and they both doused the cuts with A1 steak sauce. This is a true story, all the other patrons gasped when it happened.

HERE’S WHAT’S NEXT FOR GADGETS IN 2020 - Verge

TELEVISIONS: ALL FLASH AND SOME SUBSTANCE, TOO
At the beginning of each year, ambitious and wildly expensive TVs at CES always steal the spotlight. Last year, LG showed off an OLED TV that rolled down into a compact box when not in use, while Samsung had a revamped version of its stunning modular TV it calls “The Wall,” which uses MicroLED display technology to create an image that rivals OLED with almost none of the downsides.

But those big splashes didn’t really mean much for regular consumers. Samsung’s Wall is prohibitively expensive, and LG’s rollable TV has yet to ship in the United States. That’s often the way with CES’s splashiest TV announcements: they’re concepts masquerading as real consumer products.

CES is a TV show, though, and so the less-flashy announcements really do turn into real products that real people can buy later in the year. While Apple and Samsung and even Google save their big phone hardware announcements for their own events, TV technology still happens at CES.

Look at the weird rolling TVs for sure, but don’t let them distract you from the real technology that gets announced. For the TVs that most people are actually going to buy, some of the upgrades we expect to see in 2020 will future-proof your next TV for years and years to come.

At CES: The time has come for manufacturers to fully embrace HDMI 2.1 and, by extension, release 4K HDR televisions that are optimized for the next generation of game consoles from Microsoft and Sony. Features already seen in gaming monitors (like variable refresh rates) are coming to the biggest screen in your home, and 4K at 120Hz will usher in a new level of gameplay smoothness.

On the software side, the biggest TV announcements from CES 2019 were Apple-related. Several manufacturers announced support for AirPlay 2, and Samsung announced support for iTunes itself (which ultimately wound up being the Apple TV app). Expect more of the same in 2020, and with Disney+ now on the scene, it’s very likely we’ll see it as a built-in option on many sets. Plus, standards like ATSC 3.0 (which could allow for 4K reception via antenna) could also start to see more uptake from TV makers.

Bonus prediction: Another year of 8K hype with very little to show for it. Without huge gains in 8K content availability (and there are no signs of that happening), we think it will continue to be a niche technology throughout the course of 2020 — no matter how good AI upscaling gets.

That last paragraph will be the main counterweight to all the AI marketing 8K TV manufacturers can muster. I hope CES 2020 gives us videophiles a bit of fine dining to enjoy rather then steak sauce.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

But Geoff, there's a very basic problem that will preclude TV executives from becoming interested in telecasting sports events at a higher frame rate than the standard that all American telecasters of sports hew to today.

And that insurmountable problem is that since a very large majority of the TVs now found in American homes cannot handle high frame rate TV signals

Give me one reason this doesn't apply just the same way to 8K.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Well Sony will always maintain it's design philosophy of having the most natural image possible.

The problem with 8K as I see it, is if hypothetically AI is so advanced in upscaling 4K UHD sources, that a film made in the 80s on 35mm looks indistinguishable from real life. Enthusiasts will lambast that as breaking the medium. Something akin to motion interpolation.

So I hope the industry is prempting this by engineering a variety of source specific upscaling algorithms, or something.

If I had a TV that got rid of all the grain and uprezzed everything so it was like looking through a window (although we're getting into rather fanciful territory of what 8K can do, I'll play along) then it'd be going straight back. No matter how fancy the TV gets I want the content to look like how the content should look, it's as simple as that. Extra colour/sharpness/brightness over and above what it's designed to convey is for people who need to justify their expensive purchases by cranking everything to the max and stop the creeping fear of buyer's remorse.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

But Geoff, there's a very basic problem that will preclude TV executives from becoming interested in telecasting sports events at a higher frame rate than the standard that all American telecasters of sports hew to today.

And that insurmountable problem is that since a very large majority of the TVs now found in American homes cannot handle high frame rate TV signals, any network, or station, that presents NFL games, for example, would have to produce and telecast 2 separate video signals of each event being covered, with those signals then being shown on 2 separate channels, or subchannels.

“A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again…..”

[jibucha]

interesting - i cannot comprehend that film makers thoughout the past century would agree

that - they would 'desire' the limitations of film (grain specifically) is incomprehensible

that - eliminating 'technical limitations' of previous technologies (film) somehow 'compromises original intent' is furthermore 'incomprehensible'

question - did not the director/camera operator 'see through a window' to the extent of the lenses used?

seriously - so many seem to think film imperfections are 'desirable' (i am not one of the 'so-called' supporters of this 'seriously flawed thinking')

i expect 'many' to disagree, and i am well-informed with regard to the 'film grain controversy' and the recent information specific to sharpness (as it relates to post production work) which is evolving/relevant to current confusion regarding grading/mastering/etc.

note - yes i am aware of this not being related directly to display performance, rather to recent developments in post production, which 'should' eliminate this topic in the future

note - furthermore, i am quite aware of the dialogue (many threads) regarding the issues (pros/cons) of how 'perceived processing' of 'original content' are 'improved' with 'undesirable image effects', that can cause harm to intended picture performance

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If I had a TV that got rid of all the grain and uprezzed everything so it was like looking through a window (although we're getting into rather fanciful territory of what 8K can do, I'll play along) then it'd be going straight back. No matter how fancy the TV gets I want the content to look like how the content should look, it's as simple as that. Extra colour/sharpness/brightness over and above what it's designed to convey is for people who need to justify their expensive purchases by cranking everything to the max and stop the creeping fear of buyer's remorse.

[PaulGo]

I believe manufactures could put the same advanced chips in 4K sets to improve picture quality. The reason they won't is that it is not profitable since 4K has become a commodity item. One other thing I remember about 4K TVs when they first came out manufactures talked about the increased picture quality (which as true). But several years later as the 4K technology improved along came HDR which greatly increased the performance of 4K TVs. I would expect something similar with 8K TVs as the technology matures.

[Waboman]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

“A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again…..”

7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch,
eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch.
You know that old children's tale from the sea.
It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese
when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jibucha

interesting - i cannot comprehend that film makers thoughout the past century would agree

that - they would 'desire' the limitations of film (grain specifically) is incomprehensible

that - eliminating 'technical limitations' of previous technologies (film) somehow 'compromises original intent' is furthermore 'incomprehensible'

question - did not the director/camera operator 'see through a window' to the extent of the lenses used?

seriously - so many seem to think film imperfections are 'desirable' (i am not one of the 'so-called' supporters of this 'seriously flawed thinking')

i expect 'many' to disagree, and i am well-informed with regard to the 'film grain controversy' and the recent information specific to sharpness (as it relates to post production work) which is evolving/relevant to current confusion regarding grading/mastering/etc.

note - yes i am aware of this not being related directly to display performance, rather to recent developments in post production, which 'should' eliminate this topic in the future

note - furthermore, i am quite aware of the dialogue (many threads) regarding the issues (pros/cons) of how 'perceived processing' of 'original content' are 'improved' with 'undesirable image effects', that can cause harm to intended picture performance

Whatever the filmmakers saw "through the lens" was done so with the express intent of capturing it on the format of the time and its limitations therein, be it grain, be it black and white, be it 1.37 or whatever. I would no more want the film grain summarily removed for every movie I watch, or have every black and white movie colourised, or every 1.37 show cropped to widescreen than I would have Van Gogh's Sunflowers be replaced with a photo of some sunflowers. After all, Van Gogh was looking at real sunflowers right???

What people like you simply don't understand, and never will, is that the medium ends up informing the art. I'm a firm believer in technical limitations being a creative asset and not a hindrance, and while there are some people who always hated working with film they were more on the VFX side of things rather than filmmakers on the ground who got on with what they were given.

As for finding it "incomprehensible" that people would desire the limitations of film there are several filmmakers who still insist upon shooting on film. And more than that, I find it rather amusing that so many digitally shot movies these days are having film emulation LUTs applied in order to put IN some of that dreaded graininess and texture that some see as an anathema. Why? Because several filmmakers actually WANT that look and I'll be goddamned if I ever have to put up with a TV that blitzes it all away in the name of making it 'pop'. **** that shit.

[Scottishguy]

Geoff saids the cutest things.

[MechaGodzilla]

Geoff fighting the good fight.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

Geoff fighting the good fight.

That or 20 year's of selling TVs has made him go full blown Colonel Kurtz.