8K discussion thread

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

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.

Please look at these prior posts. Your discussing stuff based on those display size versus distance charts which are are not factual.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=442

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=443

[LordoftheRings]

• https://www.tomsguide.com/reviews/lg...nch-8k-oled-tv

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

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!"

Why is "full benefit" being used as an argument? Shouldn't "any benefit" be more important? It's about the bottleneck. That you are sitting at a distance beyond the point where the pixel structure is already fully resolved. Even if you aren't seeing everything the set is capable of, you are still having an increased benefit with the higher resolution set.

So you have to choose between a CPU that is too slow for the use you want and an enthusiast level CPU that will do what you want but you won't be using 100% of its processing power....and you choose to be crippled by the slow one.




That said, with 35mm content, I am not so sure an 8K format will be justifiable. There's so little difference in fine detail between the standard HD releases from 4K masters to the actual 4K releases outside of the color improvement, that given diminishing returns (thinking 4K to 8K), I probably won't bother unless they once again improve color gamut. I think it would be with 8K sourced 'digital' content where 8K would shine. As far as display technology, that will always improve! Just my opinion.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

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....

the whole issue is a bit more complex than only considering simple Snellen acuity as she (https://www.ewha.ac.kr/mbs/ewhakr/js...yNDE2&tab=TAB2)
presented in the study involving 120 observers (using a Likert-type 7-point rating scale for evaluation)
which is why -> https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...n#post16861116

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

Fighter Pilot Vision

comes in handy for UAPs – https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-them-n1056201
(WSO - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...o#post16759895
stands for Weapon Systems Officer)

[LordoftheRings]

1. Upscaling everything to 8K (480p, 1080p, 2160p, ...) is better than upscaling everything to 4K.

The rest will come as the prices for 8K come down (I'm talking large screen TVs).
...Including the video processor chips and the flat panel technologies...MICRO LED.

Sports are big in America, TV watching included.

[Blu-rayNut51]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Please look at these prior posts. Your discussing stuff based on those display size versus distance charts which are are not factual.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=442

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=443

John, instead of arguing about whether certain charts are factual in indicating that human visual acuity prevents people with normal vision from being able to perceive certain sized details, at particularly defined distances, it's probably more useful to discuss research that companies such as Sony, and testing organizations like Consumers Union (the non-profit organization that publishes Consumer Reports) have done using ACTUAL people, in real world viewing situations, to find out just what increases in the resolution of video images can still be seen by real people as the distance of these viewers from video displays is gradually increased.

Back about 2013 or 14, Sony had a promotional article on the internet that was obviously intended to help sell its new line of SXRD 4k movie projectors that were designed for use in America's commercial movie theaters. And in that article, Sony discussed the performance superiority, and visual advantage for movie audiences, of theaters being equipped with 4k SXRD projectors, as opposed to theaters using the lower resolution 2k commercial movie projectors.

But before detailing the fascinating comparison of those 2 types of movie projectors that Sony made in its sales info, let me just quickly review (for the few people here who might possibly be unaware of it) what the small difference is between the resolution of commercial movie theater 4k, compared with the resolution of 4k equipment & video material that's aimed at the home market.

We all know that the resolution that's displayed by 4k TVs results from a pixel structure that's displayed on its screen, which actually consists of a grid that's made up of rows which each contain 3840 pixels, placed across the horizontal plane of the screen, in combination with rows containing 2160 pixels each, arranged vertically, from the top, to the bottom, of the screen.

BUT, with a commercial movie theater 4k projector, while its vertical resolution of 2160 pixels is IDENTICAL to the 2160 found in home 4k, the commercial 4k projector's horizontal resolution is a little HIGHER than that found with a 4k TV because the commercial 4k standard calls for a horizontal resolution of 4096 pixels rather than the 3840 pixel horizontal resolution of a home 4k display.

I only mentioned the above so that folks who've heard that commercial 4k resolution is different than the home 4k standard, but don't know the precise difference, can see that commercial 4k ONLY has about 6.7% more resolution than home 4k does, as can be determined by multiplying the horizontal pixel count by the vertical pixel count, contained in each system, and then seeing that the 8.847 million total pixel resolution of commercial 4k is not very much higher than a 4k TV's total resolution.

But HERE'S the THING. Back in 2013 or 2014, in promoting its new models of 4k projectors to potential buyers, the owners & operators of commercial movie theaters, Sony stated a couple interesting facts about modern movie theaters, while also saying bluntly, that even moviegoers possessing 20/20 vision, if choosing the WRONG seating area in a theater, WOULD NOT derive a visual benefit from the additional resolution displayed by a Sony SXRD 4k projector, compared to the best images provided by 2k projectors, that Sony was seeking to make obsolete.

(And BTW, since commercial 2k projectors have a resolution of 2048 X 1080 pixels, compared with 1080p displays having 1920 X 1080 pixels, then, just as commercial 4k has only 6.7% more resolution than home 4k has, a commercial 2k projector has ONLY 6.7% more resolution than a 1080p TV, or Blu-ray has.)

Anyway, Sony stated in its promotional material, that in most cases, America's modern, stadium seating movie theaters, are designed so the people who are sitting at the BACK of the theater, in its last row, are at a distance from the screen that is equal to 3 times the screen's height. And Sony bluntly stated that at that far of a distance from the screen, people with 20/20 vision CANNOT distinguish the difference between native 4k movie images and native 2k movie images, unless something OTHER than a resolution difference between them is present, such as one of them having an image that has greater dynamic range.

BUT, since Sony WAS promoting the advanced design and visual benefit that its 4k projectors can provide, the company DID POINT OUT that its 4k devices will present movies that look ABSOLUTELY terrific to people, ESPECIALLY allowing people who are seated in the FRONT HALF of a movie theater, to really be able to appreciate the stunning level of fine detail that 4k is capable of reproducing.

One last thing, because I'd indicated with my title that this post would concern how actual people respond to highly detailed images in real world situations.

Well unfortunately, for one reason or another, when we go to the movies, my wife always insists that we sit in the last row, with no people behind us. And the presentations of movies with 4k projectors that I've seen, simply haven't struck me as being more detailed than watching excellent looking 1080p Blu-rays, such as Skyfall, Planet Earth II, or Wonder Woman, on the 1080p 80" screen of our home theater. So Sony's own warning that people with 20/20 vision can miss out on the resolution advantage provided by the company's 4k SXRD movie theater projectors, if those folks choose to sit at the back of the theater, just makes perfect sense to me, because even with my good long distance vision, 4k movie theater presentations have not looked more detailed to me, than the images we see with well produced Blu-rays, that we view at home. Well, I sure can't complain that I wasn't informed of the fact that sitting in the back row of most movie theaters will result in a viewer who has 20/20 vision, seeing a movie which WON'T appear to be ANY more detailed than a high quality transfer of that movie to 1080p Blu-ray, is going to look to him, when that Blu-ray is released, and he sits close enough to his 1080p TV, to get the most out of the disc while viewing it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

John, instead of arguing about whether certain charts are factual in indicating that human visual acuity prevents people with normal vision from being able to perceive certain sized details, at particularly defined distances, it's probably more useful to discuss research that companies such as Sony, and testing organizations like Consumers Union (the non-profit organization that publishes Consumer Reports) have done using ACTUAL people, in real world viewing situations, to find out just what increases in the resolution of video images can still be seen by real people as the distance of these viewers from video displays is gradually increased.

Back about 2013 or 14, Sony had a promotional article on the internet that was obviously intended to help sell its new line of SXRD 4k movie projectors that were designed for use in America's commercial movie theaters. And in that article, Sony discussed the performance superiority, and visual advantage for movie audiences, of theaters being equipped with 4k SXRD projectors, as opposed to theaters using the lower resolution 2k commercial movie projectors....

In terms of ACTUAL people, the details of the focus group research (materials and methods, etc.) were not ever described by Sony and no real side-by-side comparisons were offered (unlike when the DCI specs were hammered out at thee old Digital Cinema lab at ETC - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...s#post10295245, ) only promotional simulations. Plus, and I’ll quote from the now rather outdated white paper to which I think you are referring –

“One arcminute of visual acuity means that human observers can discern
60 digital pixels per degree. This is also called 30 dark-to-light cycles per
degree or 30 line pairs per degree. This reference for visual acuity has
been used by motion imaging engineers for decades.

Some argue that this reference is too conservative. For example,
researchers at NHK, the Japanese national broadcaster have reported
that viewers can distinguish between pictures that present 156 and 78
cycles per degree. This equates to 312 and 156 pixels per degree
respectively—acuity far greater than 20/20 vision would imply.”

And Sony admitting in footnote #3 – “Stars visible to the naked eye represent powerful contrast against the night sky and can be smaller than one arcminute in diameter. Humans are also an order of magnitude more sensitive to misalignment (vernier acuity).”

To the bolded ^ above, INDEED - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...a#post11089290 as many (ray0414, etc.) with 4K tvs can attest to on this and other forums.
Additionally, keeping in mind the footnote #3 caveat - “Stars visible to the naked eye represent powerful contrast against the night sky and can be smaller than one arcminute in diameter. Humans are also an order of magnitude more sensitive
to misalignment (vernier acuity).”

Flash forward to today, years since that 4K Cinema white paper was written, I'll say that higher nits TVs and content have produced an evolution in the thinking on the matter as to causes for increased picture quality seen with modern day televisions. Later when I have more time I’ll see if I can hunt down a layperson’s article on the 120 observer scientific study by Park et al. as I am brand agnostic.

You’ve got to think beyond the simple notion of only quantizing human visual acuity with regards to the picture quality of television and think more in terms of the co-factors of better color and especially luminance representation levels (which 8K tvs purport to facilitate) with regards to producing a superior image. Kind of like people with cataracts commonly can have good visual acuity (e.g. 20/20, 20/25) but not realize that they can lousy contrast sensitivity manifesting itself in trouble seeing the letters of street signs at night, etc. if you only take into consideration BCVA.

[Lee A Stewart]

Unfortunately "better color" is not one of the things humans are good at seeing. That attribute is "baked into" the human eye/brain. That's why Chroma Subsampling has always been 4:2:0 (from SD all the way up to 8K)

[Blu-rayNut51]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

In terms of ACTUAL people, the details of the focus group research (materials and methods, etc.) were not ever described by Sony and no real side-by-side comparisons were offered (unlike when the DCI specs were hammered out at thee old Digital Cinema lab at ETC - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...s#post10295245, ) only promotional simulations. Plus, and I’ll quote from the now rather outdated white paper to which I think you are referring –

“One arcminute of visual acuity means that human observers can discern
60 digital pixels per degree. This is also called 30 dark-to-light cycles per
degree or 30 line pairs per degree. This reference for visual acuity has
been used by motion imaging engineers for decades.

Some argue that this reference is too conservative. For example,
researchers at NHK, the Japanese national broadcaster have reported
that viewers can distinguish between pictures that present 156 and 78
cycles per degree. This equates to 312 and 156 pixels per degree
respectively—acuity far greater than 20/20 vision would imply.”

And Sony admitting in footnote #3 – “Stars visible to the naked eye represent powerful contrast against the night sky and can be smaller than one arcminute in diameter. Humans are also an order of magnitude more sensitive to misalignment (vernier acuity).”

To the bolded ^ above, INDEED - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...a#post11089290 as many (ray0414, etc.) with 4K tvs can attest to on this and other forums.
Additionally, keeping in mind the footnote #3 caveat - “Stars visible to the naked eye represent powerful contrast against the night sky and can be smaller than one arcminute in diameter. Humans are also an order of magnitude more sensitive
to misalignment (vernier acuity).”

Flash forward to today, years since that 4K Cinema white paper was written, I'll say that higher nits TVs and content have produced an evolution in the thinking on the matter as to causes for increased picture quality seen with modern day televisions. Later when I have more time I’ll see if I can hunt down a layperson’s article on the 120 observer scientific study by Park et al. as I am brand agnostic.

You’ve got to think beyond the simple notion of only quantizing human visual acuity with regards to the picture quality of television and think more in terms of the co-factors of better color and especially luminance representation levels (which 8K tvs purport to facilitate) with regards to producing a superior image. Kind of like people with cataracts commonly can have good visual acuity (e.g. 20/20, 20/25) but not realize that they can lousy contrast sensitivity manifesting itself in trouble seeing the letters of street signs at night, etc. if you only take into consideration BCVA.

Good Evening: Penton-Man!


This statement you quoted in your post: "Stars visible to the naked eye represent powerful contrast against the night sky and can be smaller than one arcminute in diameter. Humans are also an order of magnitude more sensitive
to misalignment (vernier acuity)."--served to remind me of a case in which half the members of a panel of viewers judging a bunch of 50" to 52" high def displays, in a flat panel shootout for Home Theater magazine, back in 2008 or 2009, got the impression, because of a certain panel's far superior contrast ratio, that the particular panel, a 50 inch model, was the sharpest and most detailed panel of the whole bunch, though what none of the judges was aware of, was the plain fact that though every other flat panel was a 1080p model, and the test videos being used to judge the TVs were 1080p resolution scenes, that 50" panel that looked so sharp and detailed, was actually the only 720p TV of the bunch, featuring just HALF the resolution possessed by the other TVs.

Of course, that 50" flat panel with the unmatched contrast ratio happened to be the 720p version of one of Pioneer's famed Kuro 50 inch plasmas. Being a home theater enthusiast, Penton-Man, you probably already know that Kuro is a Japanese word that means black, and before OLED flat panels came along, there were no flat panel displays available to consumers that could match the deep black level of a Kuro.

And back in 2008 I was among a *group of people being trained on Verizon Wireless tech by a really sharp minded technician from Verizon, who was a fanatic about quality, and who had recently bought a 720p Pioneer Kuro.

But when I asked the man why he hadn't bought the 1080p version of Pioneer's famous Kuro, he told me that even with such quality Blu-rays as "No Country For Old Men", it would be the rare person who could tell the difference between the 720p and 1080p versions of the vaunted 50 inch Kuros from across the 10 foot distance that separated his living room's viewing area from the Kuro. And some months after I heard that claim, C-NET seemed to confirm it when stating that a group of C-NET picture quality judges had compared a 50 inch 720p flat panel with a 1080p flat panel, with both panels having almost identical contrast ratios & color balances (I bet they were Kuros) so the only major difference between them was that the 1080p panel could display almost exactly 2 times the number of pixels that the 720p panel was capable of.

Yet, when those 2 flat panels were compared at a viewing distance of 10 feet, with 1080p material being shown on the TVs, NO member of C-NET's group of viewers was able to reliably identify which was the higher resolution panel, or which possessed lower resolution, as various things kept being changed around so *that people would be reintroduced to the 2 flat panels, while having no idea about which one had been placed in what position, in relation to the viewers.
And I specifically remember that the C-NET write up about that comparison also stated that even displaying stationary pictures on the 2 TVs that included fine details, with strands of human hair being specifically mentioned as being in those pictures, even doing that did not enable viewers to reliably identify which TV was displaying more resolution.

Now Penton-Man, I won't bore you by launching into a long tirade about visual acuity charts. But the experience of C-NET's staff having personally taken part in that comparison of 50 inch 720p and 1080p flat panels, certainly agrees with a well known chart that I know you're familiar with, which states that folks with normal 20/20 vision can be NO further than 6.5 feet from a 50" 1080p TV to be able to see the smallest details that it can display, and that also, if someone with 20/20 vision moves back to having his eyes 10 feet from that relatively small 50 inch 1080p TV, *the detail contained in a 1080p video image presented by that properly calibrated 1080p TV, will seem to be identical, at that distance, to the detail observed in that same video image being displayed on a properly calibrated 720p TV, *of that same modest size.*

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

• https://www.tomsguide.com/reviews/lg...nch-8k-oled-tv

And it's the new 8K LG OLED trend ...
• https://www.digitaltrends.com/tv-rev...led-tv-review/

And why not, the best TVs are from LG OLED. They cost less than Panasonic and Sony OLED and that's mostly where you notice the biggest difference...in your wallet, not your eyes.

Amazing, ten years ago Kuro plasma was @ the end, today LG OLED is @ the beginning ...
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Kuro

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Unfortunately "better color" is not one of the things humans are good at seeing. That attribute is "baked into" the human eye/brain. That's why Chroma Subsampling has always been 4:2:0 (from SD all the way up to 8K)

Lee, the thinking is that the greater pixel density of 8K displays reduces color banding.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

Good Evening: Penton-Man!
.....Now Penton-Man, I won't bore you by launching into a long tirade about visual acuity charts. But the experience of C-NET's staff having personally taken part in that comparison of 50 inch 720p and 1080p flat panels, certainly agrees with a well known chart that I know you're familiar with....

Good evening.

You keep referencing old TVs and investigations. Let me make it simple for you. If you go to an optometrist or ophthalmologist office where the tech projects a chart to test your BCVA with for instance one of these - https://www.veatchinstruments.com/Re...Unit-Projector
and the bulb is worn out, then your ability to see the lowest line accurately will be diminished. Think of those old TVs in that light as opposed to modern day UHD HDR televisions and what we’re discussing here in terms of their capabilites.

As I said, I’ll try to hunt down a paper or article in easy to understand language documenting Park’s well participated (>100 observers) current scientific study, meanwhile if you’re a Sony fan consider even Toshi from Sony’s TV division has doubled his viewing distance recommendation for 8K tvs since those olden times about which you speak.

[Blu-rayNut51]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Good evening.

You keep referencing old TVs and investigations. Let me make it simple for you. If you go to an optometrist or ophthalmologist office where the tech projects a chart to test your BCVA with for instance one of these - https://www.veatchinstruments.com/Re...Unit-Projector
and the bulb is worn out, then your ability to see the lowest line accurately will be diminished. Think of those old TVs in that light as opposed to modern day UHD HDR televisions and what we’re discussing here in terms of their capabilites.

As I said, I’ll try to hunt down a paper or article in easy to understand language documenting Park’s well participated (>100 observers) current scientific study, meanwhile if you’re a Sony fan consider even Toshi from Sony’s TV division has doubled his viewing distance recommendation for 8K tvs since those olden times about which you speak.

Hi Penton-Man.


First off, to respond to a comment you made, I referenced old TVs and investigations, merely to make my main point that certainly applies to the new 8k TVs, which is that many people are too obsessed with the resolution of the TVs that they are thinking about buying because: 1. There are aspects of a TV's video performance which are much more important than resolution in determining how good a TV's overall picture quality is. And 2. Most Americans think of a 65 inch TV, for example, as being big (I don't) so when positioning their new TV in their living room they end up locating it at least 9 feet from where viewers will sit, which is too far, beyond question, for the vast majority of people to see even 10% of the ADDITIONAL detail that a 4k 65" TV provides, compared to a 1080p TV of the same size.

And to back up point #2 above, I'm NOT depending on vision charts, but instead, on a real world comparison that Consumer's Union did for a special Consumer Reports publication which was the 2014 or 2015 Electronics issue. What CU did was to take the then new Sony 65" UHD 4k flat panel that most video enthusiasts considered to be the BEST 4k display then available, and compare it with a top rated 1080p 65" flat panel. And since those were the days before UHD Blu-ray was available, CU's video testers used 4k movies on a hard drive as the material to display on the Sony 4k TV, with the 1080p TV placed right alongside its 4k counterpart, with the lower resolution panel showing the Blu-ray versions of the exact same movies that the 4k panel was showing.

And I'll always remember a main conclusion that CU stated about that comparison they conducted using their experienced group of video testers viewing both TVs, at the distance that most consumers sit from a 65" TV. Because what was directly stated in that annual Consumer Reports issue on electronics was that the TV comparison resulted in most of the viewers of the test group being unable to see any greater amount of detail with the 4k versions of movies, than they saw with the 1080p versions, as both TVs were viewed at the distance at which most consumers would position themselves for watching a 65" TV at home.

Yup, that revealing Consumer Reports viewing test conducted by real people actually comparing 2 displays, side by side, (side by side was the precise term CU used) seems much more meaningful to me than referencing some chart.

Finally, I think that few video or home theater enthusiasts who are well versed on the performance of video displays would argue with my contention that in spite of its higher resolution, Samsung's new 65" 8k flat panel is a display that will be beaten in OVERALL PICTURE QUALITY by one of LG or Sony's highly rated 65" 4k OLED displays.

It's hilarious that Samsung is trying to sell very expensive (as in overpriced) 8k flat panels that are all based on OUTMODED LCD/LED backlit technology which is so compromised in attempting to achieve the TRUE BLACK that OLED tech can easily produce.

What Samsung is basically doing by using the LCD/LED backlit design as the platform for their 8k displays, which OLED basically renders obsolete, anyway, is sort of like GM designing a brand new model of its Corvette sports car, but instead of using the latest fuel injection technology, GM equips that car with that obsolete little device known as a carburetor.

What a sad joke it is, indeed, that Samsung is now trying to palm off on consumers, a 65 inch 8k TV, for $4,000, which is soundly beaten in overall PQ by LG and Sony 65 inch 4k OLED TVs, that can each be obtained for less than $2,500.

And as most video enthusiasts know, OLED's ability to do true black means that those LG and Sony OLED panels will have superior color saturation compared to any Samsung flat panels that use the outmoded LCD/LED backlit tech. Because having excellent black level performance is the foundation that enables a display to reach the highest performance level, and that superior black level also allows colors to really "pop".

So if Samsung actually wants to make high performance 8k TVs, the company had better speed up its development of Micro-LED, so that Samsung will finally be able to drop its LCD crap.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Lee, the thinking is that the greater pixel density of 8K displays reduces color banding.

I was under the impression that UHD/4K had finally conquered color banding. I guess not from your response P-M.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I was under the impression that UHD/4K had finally conquered color banding. I guess not from your response P-M.

No it has not. You need at least a 12 bit video signal from the source (in the case of consumer media today, only a full Dolby Vision encode - FEL or Full Enhancement Layer - can do 12 bit) and a video processor capable of at least 12 bit video data handling.


Dolby had originally published a paper that proved 12 bit or higher video pixel depth would help overcome HDR's tendency to exacerbate banding artifacts. 10 bit was inadequate. ICtCp sampling was also necessary for wider color gamuts.


Of course, the BDA and the ATSC 3.0 committee promptly said "screw that" and went with 10 bit instead with only Dolby Vision FEL - as mentioned above - being allowed to encode in 12 bit using a core + enhancement layer mechanism on UHD Blu-ray.



When you have an OPTIONAL feature... studios will rarely if ever use it. If 12 bit with higher ICtCp chroma subsampling source encoding had been MANDATORY rather than 10 bit, 4:2:0 with older chroma encoding... things might have been different.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

I'm NOT depending on vision charts,

In this case, it may be helpful to understand how the 8K proponents are linking things together, so google Pelli-Robson.

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

It's hilarious that Samsung is trying to sell very expensive (as in overpriced) 8k flat panels that are all based on OUTMODED LCD/LED backlit technology which is so compromised in attempting to achieve the TRUE BLACK that OLED tech can easily produce.

Look, I can’t influence TV manufacturers as to what type TVs they offer us, just like I can’t influence my insurance company as to what type of coverage it offers me. And I try to avoid comparing brands of this or that TV or player – too political, I’ll let you guys bang out that stuff. Until independent 4K/8K shootouts are performed in a scientific manner with detailed transparency to the process I will critique the science presented by the proponents of new tech, e.g. –
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...age_Resolution

Edward Reuss #SMPTE2017 @smpteconnect - YouTube

(never having worked for Samsung, Sony, LG, etc. ^ but Ed presents credible science with no mention of LCD, OLED, etc.)

[Robert Zohn]

Just want to remind everyone that the new 8K TVs are not just about the increased resolution. The real story about the new 8K TVs are the upgraded video processors, premium and exclusive panels and the largest screen sizes.

I had a very active conversation with Joel Silver about some other advantages of 8K resolution and one item that Joel spoke about was that you can see at the normal viewing distance; how much better the higher resolution of an 8K display can reproduce curves and circles as it literally looks more detailed without jagged edges as a result of the smaller pixels and more dense pixel array.

I posted this video before, please take a look at the 8K panel discussion I participated in at CE Week.

https://youtu.be/fXIrE0rNnHo

[JohnAV]

IBC2019 Conference: Beyond the pixel race: Preserving creative intent from UHD and HDR to 8K and beyond
40:52
Create & Produce: Creating Disruption, The Forum, 11:15 15 Sep 2019. Speakers: Mike Zink (Warner Bros), Maria Rua Aguete (IHS Markit) and Gail Jenkinson.

to see video go to https://ibc.gallery.video/vod/detail...autoStart=true

[JohnAV]

From Personal View - Vitaliy_Kiselev - video captures from the above IBC2019 8k video.









The interesting thing still is how Japan with NHK pushing 8K is the worst marketplace for this technology for their respected consumers as seen in this images of IHS presentation.