8K discussion thread

[sapiendut]

LOL, the only reason it’s not the norm is due it’s exorbitant price. Remember 20 years ago when most people say “it’s crazy to think that 60” Tv will be the norm”. Yet here we are where 65” becoming the norm. Front projectors norm started at 40” screen and now the start is at 100” (the norm for projectors is 120” on the low end and 180” on the high end)

Again, you just don’t have enough historical background to claim this or that.

[darthtoon]

8K is cool, but by the time the world starts to support it, technology will support a higher resolution like 12K

[sapiendut]

The race of resolution will slow down. Within 8K they will then with HFR and perhaps scope ratio with 10K.

[PeterTHX]

The industry needs the DSP horsepower to catch up to 8K as it is.

End-to-end 4K production chains are still rare and expensive.
In the computer world it takes a LOT of video card muscle to render at 4K 60fps.

It's only in the last year 4K has become "mainstream" enough with displays and content available. I see 8K as a mid-2020s type thing.

[DJR662]

Why not concentrate on getting 4K Ultra HD/HDR right first, and realize its full potential by 1) sorting out the wild wild west that is HDR at the moment, 2) release as many catalogue titles from the pre-DI era as possible, 3) getting as many of the boutique labels to follow suit and 4) create 4K displays with next gen tech like Mini/MicroLED and/or dual layer LCD.

[Dragun]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

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

There will be NEW 8K content, but the potential to sell us catalogue titles again in 8K is limited, except for 65mm feature films and IMAX films. I guess they can sell true 4K content upscaled to 8K, but we already have people who can't see the difference between Blu-Ray and 4K. Are these folks going to care about 8K?

[sapiendut]

From the moment HD started until there was actual easily obtainable content took about 4 years. The same goes with UHD. So in my small little mind I’d say the same 3-4 years.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

From the moment HD started until there was actual easily obtainable content took about 4 years. The same goes with UHD. So in my small little mind I’d say the same 3-4 years.

Times have changed. Blu Ray players are on their way out, headed towards obsolescence. I don't see that trend changing because of 8K.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by DJR662

Why not concentrate on getting 4K Ultra HD/HDR right first, and realize its full potential by 1) sorting out the wild wild west that is HDR at the moment, 2) release as many catalogue titles from the pre-DI era as possible, 3) getting as many of the boutique labels to follow suit and 4) create 4K displays with next gen tech like Mini/MicroLED and/or dual layer LCD.

Absolutely.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

LOL, the only reason it’s not the norm is due it’s exorbitant price. Remember 20 years ago when most people say “it’s crazy to think that 60” Tv will be the norm”. Yet here we are where 65” becoming the norm. Front projectors norm started at 40” screen and now the start is at 100” (the norm for projectors is 120” on the low end and 180” on the high end)

Again, you just don’t have enough historical background to claim this or that.

In all due respects, what world do you live in. First of all, front projection isn't the norm, its niche. Most people don't have rooms large enough to fit 200 inch screen, so wont be norm for TV'S.

[sapiendut]

Whatever dude, as usual you talk and comment without any knowledge of real-life basis. It’s not like I’m saying there will be no content. It’s just won’t be prolific for at least another 4 years. You can believe whatever you want to believe. I have enough studio information to know full well the content won’t be prolific (content such as movies; YouTube and Netflix exclusives don’t count)

[sapiendut]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

In all due respects, what world do you live in. First of all, front projection isn't the norm, its niche. Most people don't have rooms large enough to fit 200 inch screen, so wont be norm for TV'S.

I live in the world that 65” TV is used to be called “unrealistic”. As usual, you only think in your narrow world. TVs in the future will be part of the wall, not just one slab of thing of today. The Wall and Cledis will be the norm. I’ll see you in 10+ years.

[Lee A Stewart]

The amount of people who would buy a TV 100" or larger now or even 10 years from now will be a very, very small fraction of all TVs sold. TVs may be getting bigger but living rooms aren't and that is where the lions share of large(r) TVs go.

Very large TVs have two issues: electrical usage and WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor). You may laugh at the second but it is a real concern for many.

[bruceames]

Fortunately my WAF is pretty high. A few years ago bought a 75" TV for the living room and the only place to mount it is right above the fireplace (a little higher than ideal but when watching from a recliner it's a non-issue). Well the fireplace wall is only about 54" wide so the TV protrudes about 6" from each side and the only comment she made was that the TV was "de verdad".

[Penton-Man]

Auditor, there are valid reasons to really question the value/need for 8K tvs until 8K content becomes common, e.g. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...s#post16524374

And it’s fine to take the lead as an anti-8K tv protagonist if you think you’re doing to service to people in saving their money for something better, but please don’t toss crap like this around –

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?

because some inexperienced readers may believe such misinformation. I’m beginning to think you’ve learned little since 2015 when at that time you took a stance against 4K tvs, which seems almost nostalgic now – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...g#post11005868

You want your mission to work?....then don't undermine it like that.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

The amount of people who would buy a TV 100" or larger now or even 10 years from now will be a very, very small fraction of all TVs sold. TVs may be getting bigger but living rooms aren't and that is where the lions share of large(r) TVs go.

Very large TVs have two issues: electrical usage and WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor). You may laugh at the second but it is a real concern for many.

(laugh) I'm at the point where 65" seems small-ish. 75" a few years ago would have been unthinkable. Wall sized screens are not out of the question here.

Power continues to get more & more efficient. My current set burns less energy than the 46" from a decade ago. No reason to think they won't continue on that path.

As far as the spouses go - they like watching their stuff on big screens too. They're more concerned about cost.

[sapiendut]

The spouses usually don’t want large Tv because when it’s turned off, all you see is a big black nothing. The two installations of The Wall TVs in their respective houses, the owners run literal wallpaper images when they’re not watching TV. They turn on forest images and the other one is running images of the mountains. It’s literally like looking through a window (albeit a blurry ones as 4K resolution is not enough for screens that huge.

Outside the cost, I don’t want to choose any screen larger than 65” for my living room. In fact I’m a bit annoyed with the size when turned off. Perhaps next year I’ll “upgrade” to a 55” instead?

[jibucha]

question :: come back in five years? (will be interesting to read your 'follow up' at that point in time)

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Times have changed. Blu Ray players are on their way out, headed towards obsolescence. I don't see that trend changing because of 8K.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Very large TVs have two issues: electrical usage and WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor). You may laugh at the second but it is a real concern for many.

Large TV's are very efficient now, so I say the two issues are cost and WAF. That takes in to account the sound system, because guys love big sound but wives not so much. For 75"+ you need CFO okay and WAF!

[DiscoDan]

I honestly thought 8K TVs still cost like $50,000 so I was confused to see commercials advertising them. But the Samsung one is less than $4500 which is doable for a large enough population. I won't be interested until they're priced down to normal or when 8K content becomes available, but it's still cool. Push on, technology, push on.