8K discussion thread

[Geoff D]

I'm just surprised that NHK aren't already looking at 16K and no, I'm not joking.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm just surprised that NHK aren't already looking at 16K and no, I'm not joking.

You think the James Webb Space Telescope is a 16K camera?

[RalphoR]

Everest IMAX is playing in Cleveland in 16k. Gonna have to check it out.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

I do not use WI-FI but I know people that use very expensive Cisco access points that are either WI-FI version 6 or 5 and they cannot get anymore then 490Mbps per each RF stream download when no one else is using the Internet. Now if 10 people are using the Internet at once then while doing a speed test all 10 devices show 490Mbps and using around 5,000Mbps on a 10,000Mbps connection. Where as wired would have access to the full 10,000Mbps on a wired connection during the Internet speed test.

But I can not verify the above results since my building and location is limited to 100% wired with the ISP only being able to offer 100Mbps upload and 1,000Mbps download.

lol all you prove is that neither you nor those people know what is happening.


assuming they don't want that limit they need to go into the settings and remove it. That is part of QOS where you can set-up (in different ways) top speeds.

also QOS is not just limited to WIFI it is also used on wired networks.

It is all about the settings.

P.S. I am not recommending removing QoS throttling, that is dumb. Someone obviously went to the trouble of adding those limits for some reason. and unless you are 100% sure why you should assume there is a good reason for them. And if you are the type of person that likes playing expert on forums while you don' know QoS and throttling is possible you should definitely not remove it, because you can mess up something else.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm just surprised that NHK aren't already looking at 16K and no, I'm not joking.

LOL - why? Because 8K has been such a huge success?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

LOL - why? Because 8K has been such a huge success?

Because the Japanese were doing HDTV broadcasts and HD discs while I was still in short trousers, they’ve always been way ahead of whatever we think is a current trend.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Because the Japanese were doing HDTV broadcasts and HD discs while I was still in short trousers, they’ve always been way ahead of whatever we think is a current trend.

Pssst . . . . The Law Of Diminishing Returns

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Pssst . . . . The Law Of Diminishing Returns

That hasn’t stopped the Japanese thus far WINKY FACE ROLLEYES

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

lol all you prove is that neither you nor those people know what is happening.


assuming they don't want that limit they need to go into the settings and remove it. That is part of QOS where you can set-up (in different ways) top speeds.

also QOS is not just limited to WIFI it is also used on wired networks.

It is all about the settings.

P.S. I am not recommending removing QoS throttling, that is dumb. Someone obviously went to the trouble of adding those limits for some reason. and unless you are 100% sure why you should assume there is a good reason for them. And if you are the type of person that likes playing expert on forums while you don' know QoS and throttling is possible you should definitely not remove it, because you can mess up something else.

On my 100% wired network there is no bandwifth limits set on my 100% wired 1,000Mbps home network. The 1GB router and 1GB switches are set to offer the full bandwidth at each port with load sharing. So plugging in at any wall jack gives each device access to the full 1,000Mbps (946Mbps with a Internet speed test since due to error correction and other factors 1,000Mbps is always a maximum of 940-946Mbps over ethernet). So each wall jack has access to the full 1,000Mbps and with load sharing if a lot of family members started using 1,000Mbps bandwidth at once the routers and switches will intelligently manage the speed so everyone can use the Internet.

Now someone that has 10,000Mbps routers and switches on their network with 10,000Mbps Internet will have a maximum of 10,000Mbps speed from each RJ45 ethernet wall jack that is wired with CAT6A, CAT7A, or CAT8 up to 328 feet away (with a router and switch needing to be placed every 328 feet unless one does fiber that can run for several miles). Even though I do not have or use WI-FI, it was verified that a Cisco WI-FI access point was set to receive the full bandwidth for RF stream with load sharing. And when one was a few feet from the access point around 490Mbps download speed was possible, but as soon as one walked 10-20+ feet away the speed went down to 246Mbps over WI-FI since WI-FI loses both speed and signal quality as one walks further away from the access point. This is why many businesses down a long hall or in a large room places several WI-FI access points within 5 to 10 feet from one another, since then everyone on a WI-FI access point will have access to around 490Mbps for each RF stream instead of being limited to around 250Mbps for each stream.

This long conversation started because someone brought up the topic of WI-FI version 7 coming in the future around 2024-2026. My point is that the reason why consumers need new and improved WI-FI is because the existing WI-FI 6e technology is slow and less reliable when compared to a wired network. WI-FI is limited to each RF stream being around 490Mbps. So hopefully WI-FI 7 when released will offer RF streams at 600Mbps and higher. Many WI-FI 5 and WI-FI 6e devices claim to handshake at 1,300Mbps, but in reality most only offer speeds of around 280Mbps under real world testing. Once and a while WI-FI can offer speeds as high as 490Mbps per RF stream when doing a Internet speed test, but that is far below the stated 1,300Mbps handshaking that is occurring between the WI-FI device and access point.Wired Internet can offer the full 10,000Mbps, 6,000Mbps, 2,000Mbps, and 1,000Mbps per connected PC, and wireless needs a lot of improvement. The latest WI-FI access points have 10,000Mbps ethernet jacks but each RF stream for connected device is most likely limited to 490Mbps. Now if one has 20 connected handheld devices and each device is using around 490Mbps for file upload and download that would be acceptable. But if one is uploading or downloading 16TB size files on the home network or over the Internet, that is when one wants their connected device to be able to use the full 10,000Mbps speed.

A 128GB of DDR4 memory in a desktop computer has a transform speed of 35,200MB/s which is much faster then 10,000Mbps Internet. Consumer solid state drives in the year 2021 usually max out at a write speed of 7,000Mbps, however some professional business solid state drives can do speeds of 15,000Mbps and higher. While both DDR4 memory is in both desktop computers and Notebook computers, those type of computers can use a RJ45 ethernet jack to have access to the full 10,000Mbps Internet service. As more and more handheld tablets and devise start using faster memory with DDR5 or DDR4 performance, then having the RF streams being able to reach as high as 10,000Mbps becomes important.

[RalphoR]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Because the Japanese were doing HDTV broadcasts and HD discs while I was still in short trousers, they’ve always been way ahead of whatever we think is a current trend.

Exactly. Hell, the digital screens they have at nearly every intersection in Tokyo are truly amazing. Not sure we need 16k but if they want to bring it to market I'll certainly check it out.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That hasn’t stopped the Japanese thus far WINKY FACE ROLLEYES

It will now. They spent years and millions of dollars on their Super Hi Vision 8K format and it has gone absolutely nowhere. It's nothing more than a "Blue Sky" format . . . what could be. Not what is.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

On my 100% wired network there is no bandwifth limits set on my 100% wired 1,000Mbps home network.

I get it but that is the point. If you wanted you could on your wired network limit people to 10Mbps if you wanted. It has nothing to do with wired and wireless it has to do with the settings on different equipment and how one decides to manage their network. In your case you decided you don't want to manage it, your friend that has WiFi whoever decided to set it up decided they did want to throttle it.

This long conversation started because someone brought up the topic of WI-FI version 7 coming in the future around 2024-2026. My point is that the reason why consumers need new and improved WI-FI is because the existing WI-FI 6e technology is slow and less reliable when compared to a wired network.

I won't disagree on the merits of wired. For example when I built my HT I wanted to make sure it was audibly tight. You can turn all the audio to the max and still not hear anything outside the room. A byproduct of it is that it works like a faraday cage (i.e. no wire less signal can go in or out of the room), but wired can work.

But your point does not really make sense. If someone has a 10Gbps internet connection one Wifi-6 wireless router won't be enough, but except possibly for you I doubt anyone else here has a 10 Gbps connection, My ISP does not even come close to offering that and I, like most people, don't feel like paying the exorbitant monthly rates for their ISPs top speed.

If someone has a 1Gbps connection(I am sure that is way more than most here have and like I showed with speed tests data about 10x faster then most people's connection in general) 6G can easily handle that speed even for just one user so the bottle neck will be the ISP connection not Wi-Fi.

But even if we go with your example of 490Mbps and we pretend that is the top speed of Wi-Fi for a single user at this point in time, can you show me one cloud gaming service or internet movie streaming provider that offers anything near that speed for a single stream? None of them do so it is a moot point if 7 is needed or not based on the ISP speed.

PS if you have a cell phone and a good Internet connection then you are better off adding Wi-Fi to your home so your phone can benefit from the higher throughput even 5G cell service

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

It will now. They spent years and millions of dollars on their Super Hi Vision 8K format and it has gone absolutely nowhere. It's nothing more than a "Blue Sky" format . . . what could be. Not what is.

You seem to think I'm saying it's already a formal reality. I'm not, I said I'm surprised that NHK aren't already making noises about it. Though from a quick Google it's had some commercial applications for video signage already, and is part of the Displayport 2.0 standard...

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You seem to think I'm saying it's already a formal reality. I'm not, I said I'm surprised that NHK aren't already making noises about it. Though from a quick Google it's had some commercial applications for video signage already, and is part of the Displayport 2.0 standard...

I get what you are saying. Not that I am complaining, but I think we went too fast from HD to 4k and neither consumers nor most industries in a rush and moving to it as fast as it could. I think this NHK waiting for 16k is part of it until 8k becomes some kind of reality pushing forward just because in theory we can just does not make sense. Most people don't want to replace Tvs..... that fast.

[sapiendut]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I get what you are saying. Not that I am complaining, but I think we went too fast from HD to 4k and neither consumers nor most industries in a rush and moving to it as fast as it could. I think this NHK waiting for 16k is part of it until 8k becomes some kind of reality pushing forward just because in theory we can just does not make sense. Most people don't want to replace Tvs..... that fast.

What I was very surprised of the fact that I didn’t see 4K coming. From the news (at the time) NHK started working on 8K right after HD, but not 4K. So when the industry released 4K, it coming out of nowhere to me.

[Geoff D]

I'm not sure we even went "too fast" to 4K from HD, because as mr roboto mk.2 keeps saying it took ten years from Blu to UHD. The main problems are that HD media itself didn't take off because the average person didn't give a shit about higher quality (and still doesn't) and they'd just spent a lot of money replacing their VHS collections with DVDs, they weren't happy about doing it again just a few years later (as it wasn't until the early 2000s that DVD became as ubiquitous as it did). The format war didn't help either, that put a lot of doubt in people's minds.

So Blu never took over for a variety of reasons and UHD was always going to be further 'specialised' even if physical media was still the dominant force in the home video arena, which it isn't. So that means in all probability that 8K disc is simply never gonna happen. As a means of conveying a signal then 8K is already part of the display/interconnect ecosystem, with 10K and 16K in there as well on the interconnect side, but we've reached the end for disc.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm not sure we even went "too fast" to 4K from HD, because as mr roboto mk.2 keeps saying it took ten years from Blu to UHD...

Indeed, it was much the same time from DVD to 2K Blu-ray...

[Misioon_Odisea]

What's with the rush and hurry of some people here wanting and needing 8K Blu-ray right now? Why the mortification, when 4K Blu-ray as it stand is a completely capable and still relatively young format? Gee, what more can people be asking for, besides the return of 3D and the upgrade to ICtCp color space? 4K UHD Blu-ray is a milestone format that officially introduced several revolutionary features and tools to the physical home video landscape, beyond trivial things such as more resolution or a more efficient codec, that have brought breakthrough video performance and possibilities to the still competent Blu-ray format we never thought would be plausible; HDR (in static and dynamic metadata implementations), 60 frames per second (for the rare content that desires it) and 12-bit color depth (with the implementation of FEL Dolby Vision). What, afraid streaming is catching up, in the 12 years since YouTube introduced 1080p, while 4K streaming, no matter the codecs they employ, still struggles against 1080p AVC Blu-ray and almost none of it even does lossless audio yet? Also, especially considering the vast amount of catalog and new content still coming brand-new to 1080p Blu-ray today, why do we need to ponder about the possibility of a 8K physical format, when we need and have to focus right now on getting as much as possible on 4K UHD Blu-ray? Me personally, I prefer to not lose any sleep over the non-possibility of a 8K physical format, and rather gear my focus on the enjoyment and defense of the present 4K UHD Blu-ray format, which as far as I'm concerned, remains unrivaled to this day. That said though, I suppose the 8K option on select YouTube videos does help bring Blu-ray levels of video fidelity for 2160p and lower resolution displays on capable PCs, and in the impossible case a 8K physical format does actually happen for real and is officially released commercially for public purchase, then definitely sign me in on it as a supporter day one, I'll be all arms-wide-open for it and I will welcome it on my setup as early as possible. That would be swell.

Also, in case you continue to persuade 8K in general: What practical purpose does it actually serve that 4K displays can't perfectly accomplish today? What new does it brings to the table, beyond more resolution? Does it brings within a complimentary feature that is new and revolutionary, just like HDR came along with 4K and 3D attempted to establish itself during 1080p? With the vast majority of current commercially produced content being finished at 4K at most (with plenty being 2K or under!) and resolution practicality for <35mm film capping at around 6K, what implications would that bring for film and television content, both past and current? People aren't going to magically stop watching vintage/catalog content overnight and focus entirely on what was produced in the past three weeks, at least not yet. What considerations would that bring for the display's capabilities, if 8K display manufacturers can't keep touting upscaling forever, and upscaling can only do so much (saying this and someone who's not bothered by upscaling for UHD Blu-rays at all)? Haven't anybody considered the possibility of 8K remaining one of those nebulous things that will remain confined to computer, videogame and professional applications for the longest time, just like frame rates beyond 60 have been since times memorial, and with 24fps still being the universally accepted norm for film and anything higher an anomaly? I don't know, taking into account all these circumstances, and the fact that 4K UHD Blu-ray is the final physical format ever, I cannot for the sake of me muster up any excitement over 8K/4320p displays or support for them. Yes, I have already seen store demos in action in person, at Best Buy. No, I don't have the urge nor the temptation to buy one over a 4K display of comparable size, at least not yet. As a matter of fact, this Christmas I just bought a 1080p display (for computer usage, but I do have a Blu-ray player connected to it, because why not?), because for my budget, I only had to choose between a 2160p 60Hz or a 1080p 144Hz display, and I concluded that higher refresh rate is more useful for my needs than higher resolution! Effectively, I am on the camp that more pixels are not needed anymore, and the way forward must be better pixels from now on; higher color bit-depth, wider color gamut, widespread and universal HDR implementation, and so on. I also do advocate higher refresh rates for more frames per second (I play PC games too, got to admit), even though I just said it is wasted on film and television content, where applicability on said areas remains questionable, just like 8K, and is better employed and taken advantage of by, once again, computer, videogame and professional usage.

[Waboman]

Even tho I’m over the moon with my current HT setup, if Geoff D wants to buy me the 100” 8K tv I guess I’ll take one for the team.

[RalphoR]

I'm still rockin' a 1080p projector on a 110" screen that still looks great 10+ years in but I can't help but wonder what a native 8k projector would look like on that screen.