8K discussion thread

[JohnAV]

This fellow produced this rather good YouTube video earlier and got a response from LG as seen on the following video.

Are we 8K ready? - YouTube

Have you noticed that 2019 seems to be the start of a big push to make us want to buy 8K TV’s? Samsung, LG, Sony and Sharp are all showing large shiny UltraHD sets with pictures designed to extract our wallets…. but are they worth it? Do you really want something that’s 16 times the resolution of HD, and what does it actually mean for film makers?

Can 4K be better than 8K? – LG OLED C9 vs Samsung QLED Q950R - YouTube

Following the video where we discuss if it’s possible to see 8K with our eyes… we’re now wondering if 4K can actually look better than 8K… with surprising results!

Obviously, the only fair way to test this is with a totally ‘blind’ test, where our judges don’t even know why we’re doing a test or what the differences between these flagship Smart TVs are.

LG OLED C9 vs Samsung QLED Q950R, both 65 inch screens, with our judges sitting the ideal 50 degrees away from the width of each TV

To be fair he refused getting samples directly from LG, he instead talked LG into allowing this to be done from a local dealer so that there was no chance of being calibrated or altered settings.

Very pleasant speaker IMHO.

[REPLAY]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

This fellow produced this rather good YouTube video earlier and got a response from LG as seen on the following video.

Are we 8K ready? - YouTube



Can 4K be better than 8K? – LG OLED C9 vs Samsung QLED Q950R - YouTube



To be fair he refused getting samples directly from LG, he instead talked LG into allowing this to be done from a local dealer so that there was no chance of being calibrated or altered settings.

Very pleasant speaker IMHO.

8k is not for 55" TV's. Only 85" and larger!

[jibucha]

respectively (and, i understand your point & reasons) :: i disagree

personally (and it will happen someday) :: i intend to acquire the smallest 8K (asap) that is available (currently it's 55")

Originally Posted by REPLAY

8k is not for 55" TV's. Only 85" and larger!

[LordoftheRings]

Forget Samsung and 8K QLED, go Panasonic or Sony or LG 8K MicroLED instead.
If we can't do that right now because it's too expensive, might as well stick with 4K OLED (LG is super affordable today), and they got 77" OLED...C8 & C9.

For more money ... Sony A9G 77" OLED, 4K ... till 8K becomes more affordable from Sony.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Can 4K be better than 8K? – LG OLED C9 vs Samsung QLED Q950R - YouTube

I’m not really that much of an 8K supporter (actually, probably far from it) but to be fair, the methodology ^ is flawed if one is to then extrapolate from that the generalization that 8K tvs show absolutely no picture quality increase over 4K which I think the author is implying given his 8K skepticism on the prior video. To answer that question better would be to compare 4K/8K LCDs or 4K/8K OLEDs from the same manufacturer – like here - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/cookieAbsent
(79-2: Hyperrealism in Full Ultra High‐Definition 8K Display in ^ Volume 50, Issue 1 of the SID journal)

but independently, with no funding, etc. from the manufacturer.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

This fellow produced this rather good YouTube video earlier - "where we discuss if it’s possible to see 8K with our eyes…"

Not K’s, a more proper way to discuss/term it would be what is the maximum PPI pixel per inch a human eye can see?
PPI list - https://www.noteloop.com/kit/display/pixel-density/

And even then, beyond simply counting pixels, again to be fair to the 8K proponents, until disproven, (Robert Zohn where are your side-by-side tests to prove or disprove?) one now has to consider the proposition recently introduced that given 8K tvs have substantially more bands than a similar sized 4K tv and the Mach bands effect in 8K screens result in smoother luminance gradient and thusly a stronger perceptual intensity attribute (better looking)….at least according to Park's tests with many more than 2 observers.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

This fellow produced this rather good YouTube video earlier and got a response from LG as seen on the following video.

Are we 8K ready? - YouTube



Can 4K be better than 8K? – LG OLED C9 vs Samsung QLED Q950R - YouTube



To be fair he refused getting samples directly from LG, he instead talked LG into allowing this to be done from a local dealer so that there was no chance of being calibrated or altered settings.

Very pleasant speaker IMHO.

Besides for the bad contrast on the Q950R, the overall test is actually invalid because the creator was not aware That the samsung isn't actually capable of displaying 8k content from YouTube so it was displaying 4k content the entire time. But 8k in my opinion, is still a big waste and a money grab too.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Besides for the bad contrast on the Q950R, the overall test is actually invalid because the creator was not aware That the samsung isn't actually capable of displaying 8k content from YouTube so it was displaying 4k content the entire time. But 8k in my opinion, is still a big waste and a money grab too.

And if you are correct . . . where does that leave the OEM TV manufacturers?

They have painted themselves into a corner. They HAVE to make 8K successful because they have nothing else waiting in the wings like they did when 3D TV tanked . . . they immediately brought out UHD/4K.

Why haven't they learned the lesson that showed them that more pixels aren't enough. Without HDR/WCG UHD/4K would have been the biggest consumer electronic device flop in history. The same lesson needs to be applied to 8K: More nits, 12 bit color depth, getting closer to 95% of Rec 2020, HFR . . . . BETTER pixels . . . not just more of them on a bigger display.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

And if you are correct . . . where does that leave the OEM TV manufacturers?

They have painted themselves into a corner. They HAVE to make 8K successful because they have nothing else waiting in the wings like they did when 3D TV tanked . . . they immediately brought out UHD/4K.

Why haven't they learned the lesson that showed them that more pixels aren't enough. Without HDR/WCG UHD/4K would have been the biggest consumer electronic device flop in history. The same lesson needs to be applied to 8K: More nits, 12 bit color depth, getting closer to 95% of Rec 2020, HFR . . . . BETTER pixels . . . not just more of them on a bigger display.

I've seen articles too that 8k sales have been much worse than projections.

The terrible part is that Samsungs top 4k TV Q90R has a better picture than it's 8k TV that costs roughly 25% more? The overall contrast, color vibrancy, and viewing angles are all better on the 4k Q90.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

. . . . BETTER pixels . . . not just more of them on a bigger display.

Without getting deep in the weeds with regards to Mach band and Cherveul’s illusion, the notion put forward by 8K proponents is that 8K tvs, by way of their increased pixels over that of 4K tvs, provide increased luminance and color representation levels appreciated cognitively, which results in superior picture quality in that the images appear more real and 3D-like. A scientific study showed observers rated the 8K tv’s performance 35% higher than the 4K one.

Still waiting to see if this assertion can be reproduced at Value Electronics or other independents with real world video material.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ray0414

But 8k in my opinion, is still a big waste

not in this sense - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...e#post16856274
plus, the machine learning upscaling attribute could prove beneficial or even life saving on medical applications such as MR scans (https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06776 )

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Without getting deep in the weeds with regards to Mach band and Cherveul’s illusion, the notion put forward by 8K proponents is that 8K tvs, by way of their increased pixels over that of 4K tvs, provide increased luminance and color representation levels appreciated cognitively, which results in superior picture quality in that the images appear more real and 3D-like. A scientific study showed observers rated the 8K tv’s performance 35% higher than the 4K one.

Still waiting to see if this assertion can be reproduced at Value Electronics or other independents with real world video material.

It has to encompass the method of how those pixels are able to individually light with black pixels directly adjacent with 8K, not just the resolution. I used to feel that increased pixels going to higher resolutions would give more real and 3d like you said, but then you see for example Samsung still utilizing Direct full array backlighting allows for improved control over contrast with their Q950R 8K. (Yes I have looked at 4k content on the Q950R 8K)

I just think as we perfect 8K displays compared to 4K, why is this old technology still being used compared to microLED, OLED and similar emissive individual pixel emitters yielding high picture contrast, fine detail rendering?

[JohnAV]

And away we go
Battle for 8K TV hegemony escalating - Korea Times

LG files complaint with Samsung's 'false' TV ads

By Baek Byung-yeul

The tit-for-tat fight for the hegemony of TV technology has continued to escalate as the world's No. 2 TV maker LG Electronics has filed an anti-trust complaint against the leader Samsung Electronics, claiming the latter misled consumers with false ads.

LG announced Friday that it filed the complaint with the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) saying Samsung's advertisements about QLED TVs may cause confusion among consumers as they could be interpreted as the TVs being equipped with self-emitting backlighting systems even though they actually are not.

"We reported Samsung to the FTC and the complaint states Samsung has misled consumers in a deceptive manner because their QLED TV is a sort of LCD TV that does require a separate backlight to illuminate the display," an LG official said.

LG added Samsung should be punished for conducting deceptive marketing practices. "Due to the advancement of technology, consumers are not able to make rational consumption choices unless manufacturers offer correct information on their products," the official added.

In response, Samsung downplayed the claim saying it has led the global TV market for 13 straight years, being recognized for its product quality by consumers.

"At a time when companies are facing growing business uncertainties at home and abroad, being engaged in a time-consuming debate could create turmoil for consumers and on markets. Samsung will stand firm against this groundless claim," Samsung said.

On Tuesday, the two TV rivals each held a tech session to explain why their TVs are better than the other.

Nam Ho-jun, director of LG's home entertainment research center played down the quality of Samsung's 8K TV saying "it cannot be categorized as 8K TV in terms of resolution because Samsung's products failed to have a certain number of contrast modulation values."

In response, Yong Seok-woo, vice president of Samsung's visual display division, said "8K TV's quality should be evaluated considering various factors, including brightness, color and signal processing capabilities."

[JohnAV]

Cheap 8K TVs Are Ready But Where Are They - FOMO on tech

As he commented on this is a basic panel price comparison with the extras that vendors offer to justify markup

Cheap 8K TVs Are Ready But Where Are They? |CB#12 - TCL 8 Series, Hisense Dual Layer LCD - YouTube

[JohnAV]

Samsung creates their own issues.

Samsung 8K TVs Fail Standards Set by CES Organizers!? |CB#15 - YouTube

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Samsung 8K TVs Fail Standards Set by CES Organizers!? |CB#15 - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5fjfVTo42A#t=7m7s
what do I think?

note to chris@8KAssociation.com:
buy 100 of ‘em - https://www.amazon.com/Ninja-Future-.../dp/B07CWTQN2K

P.S.
Is that guy in the video between Costco white glove deliveries or what?

[LordoftheRings]

He makes subs @ Subway ...

[jibucha]

regardless :: he is making 'good points' and 'seems sensible'

additionally :: all three of his videos 'i found' both intelligent & informative

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

He makes subs @ Subway ...

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

He makes subs @ Subway ...

The white glove is probably a joke concerning extra careful delivery/setup that retailers make use of when dealing with cutting edge technology (example 8k displays) that relates to a gotta have it or you encounter the Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO). Clever.

But as jibucha pointed out he actually presents intelligent points on his video topics. The one about the 8k panel costs underlying various brands had a lot of linked source material to go though.

[Blu-rayNut51]

Originally Posted by REPLAY

8k is not for 55" TV's. Only 85" and larger!

Sorry REPLAY, but even an 85" screen won't make it practical for viewers with 20/20 vision to be able to appreciate the extra details that 8k can provide vs 4k. Because in order for such viewers to be able to perceive the improvement that the additional resolution of an 85" 8k TV can provide, the TV would have to be positioned at such a close distance from them, that viewers would find it necessary to have to constantly move their heads or eyes, from left to right, and quickly back again, in order to take in all the action of the full video image. In other words, almost no viewer would feel comfortable watching an 8k TV at the VERY close distance required for being able to notice its extra fine detail.

The science of visual perception, tells us for example, that to get the full benefit of seeing the finest details contained in 8k video material, a person with 20/20 vision, or who has his eyes corrected to 20/20, via glasses, must have his eyes NO FURTHER AWAY than 2.0 feet from a 65" 8k TV to be able to perceive the smallest details. And as he moves further and further back from that extremely close 2 foot distance, the advantage of 8k is gradually diminished, until it's COMPLETELY GONE at a 4.3 foot viewing distance, which is actually the farthest point that a person with 20/20 vision can be from a 65" 4k TV (showing native 4k material) to still just be able to see the finest details that 4k can provide.

So, since most Americans, when using the 65" 4k TVs that are popular today, have those TVs set up at least 6 feet (but usually more like 7.5 to 9 feet) from their couches, very few Americans watch their 4k TVs at distances that even come close to allowing them to see the finest details that 4k TVs are capable of.

And BTW, since the screen of an 85" TV is basically 1.31 times as wide as the screen of a 65" TV, then that 4.3 foot viewing distance where the visual advantage of a 65" 8k TV, compared to a 65" 4k TV, has been totally LOST for people with 20/20 vision, just means that if we multiply that 4.3 feet by 1.31, then, *that result: 5.63 feet, is the distance at which viewers who have 20/20 vision can NO LONGER SEE an 85" 8k TV's advantage in displaying fine detail, compared to an 85" 4k TV, at that LESS THAN 6 FOOT distance.

And since only people who are fortunate enough to possess the unusual visual acuity known as "Fighter Pilot Vision" would even get any substantial advantage from watching an 85" 8k TV vs an 85" 4k TV, at a close range of 6 to 6.5 feet, it sure looks like 8k will offer NO useful advantage in 99% of American homes!

Oh, and BTW, in the June/July printed issue of Sound & Vision magazine, video equipment tester Kris Deering, in discussing his comparison of 8k and 4k, says this: "I didn't see any clear benefit to the increase in onscreen pixels, despite viewing on an 11 foot wide screen." And Mr Deering also wrote: "At this point, I feel that 4k resolution is more than enough for even the largest home theater screens, and am inclined to chalk up 8k as marketing more than anything else."

I certainly agree with that statement about marketing, because advertising people know that it's very easy to impress many consumers, by simply being able to talk about larger numbers and more impressive sounding specs.

And we have all noticed, that thanks to greater manufacturing efficiencies in producing flat panel TVs, name brand 65" 4k TVs can now be purchased for LESS MONEY than 65" 1080p flat panels, from those same brands, could be bought for, *ONLY 2 years ago.

In other words, it adds surprisingly little to the manufacturing cost of flat panel TVs to just increase their resolution. That's not too much of a trick to accomplish with the type of LCD TVs with LED backlighting, which most people buy. (And anyway, a couple performance areas make more of a difference than resolution does, in determining a TV's overall picture quality)

And recently, when I was at Best Buy, here in NE Ohio, and saw a Samsung 82" 8k flat panel priced at $8,000, near to a Sony 85" 4k flat panel priced at $4,299 if only going by the video clips the store was demonstrating the 2 TVs with, (a comparison, I realize, could be deceiving) the Sony appeared to perform at least as well in overall PQ, as the Samsung did. So in spite of the Best Buy salesman raving about that 8k Samsung, I thought "Wow, this sales guy is sure trying to pull a fast one here, *with all of this 8k hype!"