8K discussion thread

[JohnAV]

What to expect from the TVs of CES 2020: Bigger, brighter and 8K-er - CNet

Here's a sneak peek leavened with insights from Stephen Baker, vice president of Industry Analysis at NPD Group, a market research firm.

8K will get cheaper, but remain expensive
In 2019 8K televisions hit the market from the likes of Samsung, Sony and LG, but they remain ridiculously expensive (the cheapest, a 65-inch Samsung, is $3,500). In 2020, numerous manufacturers will introduce more 8K TVs and it's safe to assume they'll reach new pricing lows.

The market share of 8K TVs in 2019 was "too small to report," Baker says. "On a unit basis we don't expect 8K to exceed 1% of volume until 2022." He goes on: "8K will migrate down in price but it will face a stiffer challenge than 4K, for example, as the price points and the market for very large TVs are now highly established and very price competitive."

OLED: Will there be another?
I don't think 8K TVs are worth buying, but OLED TVs are another story. They're my favorite high-end models and reached new pricing lows during Black Friday this year. Baker says those price drops helped contribute to a 20% year-over-year increase in sales of OLED TVs this year.

In 2020 we could finally see another TV maker (ahem, Vizio) join LG and Sony in selling OLED TVs in the US. We may also find out about Samsung's entry into the OLED market. And if nothing else, I expect LG's B10 OLED TV to be one of my favorite high-end models again next year.

[Blu-rayNut51]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Totally agree , but you see common sense will impede the discussion and sustainability of this thread.
Anyway as a nuanced factoid, back in 2018, Lowry Digital got a shoutout (“this was the most encouraging”) at the Academy’s Linwood Dunn Theater in Hollywood - https://www.etcentric.org/the-reel-t...scans-of-film/

Of course, keep in mind Lowry Digital is a part of Prime Focus and they don’t frown on sharpening.

Penton-Man, I'm certainly fully in favor of using common sense in considering what 8k resolution can mean to actual humans, possessing good vision, in real world situations.

Back when 4k TVs were introduced to the American market, articles in the magazines Sound & Vision, Home Theater (a now defunct mag.) and other video enthusiast publications, as well as some brochures for Sony's early UHD 4k TV models, all stated that for people with so-called normal 20/20 vision, or whose vision is corrected to 20/20, via lenses, in order for such people to be able to see the tiniest details that 4k resolution can provide, those folks must be no further than 1.5 screen heights from a 16x9 aspect ratio UHD 4k TV.

Now the screen height of a 16X9 aspect ratio TV is calculated by multiplying its screen's diagonal measurement by .49 So, for example, a 65 inch TV has a screen height of 31.85 inches. But for simplicity's sake, let's round up 31.85 to 32 inches. And when we multiply that 32 inch screen height by 1.5, of course the result is 48 inches, or exactly 4 feet.

Now I'm sure some fellow forum members of mine here will want to argue that people with 20/20 vision, if presented with stationary test patterns made up of various sized lines, can actually perceive differences in various lines from somewhat greater distances than certain visual acuity charts have indicated. But that is with still images, not with motion pictures.

But to me what's important is that studies by Sony itself, as well as the real world experience of the video editors of the publications I named, had them all agreeing that people tested as having 20/20 vision simply cannot see the finest detail that true native 4k is capable of presenting at distances greater than 1.5 screen heights from 16X9 ration 4k capable TVs.

I really wish I'd saved a Sony brochure that I'd picked up at either Best Buy, or at my local Home Theater specialty shop. But I remember thinking that its statement about folks with 20/20 vision needing to be within 1.5 screen heights to be able to fully perceive 4k's resolution was a VERY BAD statement from a marketing standpoint, because extremely few, if any, people will position a couch 4 feet from a 65 inch TV. (So not surprisingly, marketing people at Sony evidently realized that such blunt honesty would not help in selling its newly introduced 4k TVs, so info concerning 1.5 screen heights was discontinued)

BTW, according to University of Iowa studies, only 30% of Americans have vision as good as 20/20, without correcting eyesight with glasses.

Of course, some folks here might actually have exceptional 20/15 vision, meaning that such people can see details at a 20 foot distance, which folks having 20/20 vision must be within 15 feet of, to see the same level of detail. So that basically means that people possessing 20/15 vision can be at a distance ONE THIRD GREATER than those with 20/20, and still be able to see the smallest details that folks with 20/20 can only see at the closer distance.

So if the studies of actual people, in real world situations, which Sony, and others, have done, are close to accurate, then, as opposed to folks with 20/20 eyesight needing to be within 48 inches of that 65 inch 4k TV to see its finest detail, people with terrific 20/15 vision must be within 64 inches of that same size TV to be able to perceive the finest details that native 4k can present.

Hope no one here thinks that my post lacks common sense, especially since I was an A+ student, in logical argument, when in college.

BTW, here's a VERY GOOD EXPERIMENT that we can all easily do. Take an UHD 4k TV and freeze its picture, simply to stop the changing of scenes so that such changes won't distract you from focusing on the pixel grid of the screen, which will be in obvious view at very close distances. Then keep moving further back until you are about a foot further than the distance at which you'd totally lost your ability to see the pixel structure. At that distance, (which is closer than many imagine it would be) where you've passed the point where pixels are no longer visible, at all, you've arrived at the place where 8k's finer resolution, cannot reveal any finer, or smaller, details to you, than 4k does.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

Penton-Man, I'm certainly fully in favor of using common sense in considering what 8k resolution can mean to actual humans, possessing good vision, in real world situations.

Back when 4k TVs were introduced to the American market, articles in the magazines Sound & Vision, Home Theater (a now defunct mag.) and other video enthusiast publications, as well as some brochures for Sony's early UHD 4k TV models, all stated that for people with so-called normal 20/20 vision, or whose vision is corrected to 20/20, via lenses, in order for such people to be able to see the tiniest details that 4k resolution can provide, those folks must be no further than 1.5 screen heights from a 16x9 aspect ratio UHD 4k TV.

Now the screen height of a 16X9 aspect ratio TV is calculated by....

tediously, we’ve been thru all this before - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...y#post16866655
as I am quite familiar with the white paper and footnotes upon which those promotional brochures were based.

I’ll also remind you as previously discussed, video engineers’ thinking with regards to the HVS and watching screens has evolved over time –

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

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.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

or whose vision is corrected to 20/20, via lenses,

just so you know, the acronym is BCVA, only magazine writers and such actually type out the whole concept

[rachaeldeckard]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Totally agree , but you see common sense will impede the discussion and sustainability of this thread.
Anyway as a nuanced factoid, back in 2018, Lowry Digital got a shoutout (“this was the most encouraging”) at the Academy’s Linwood Dunn Theater in Hollywood - https://www.etcentric.org/the-reel-t...scans-of-film/

Of course, keep in mind Lowry Digital is a part of Prime Focus and they don’t frown on sharpening.

“at full frame, viewing on a 4K 55-inch monitor, there was not significant visible difference in resolution between the 4K and 10K scans.”

Well that was a pointless comparison wasn't it. And they were scanning 35mm which makes it double pointless. What are they trying to prove? This is nothing we don't know already.

And for the millionth time in this thread: 8K content will not come from Hollywood Movies.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by rachaeldeckard

“at full frame, viewing on a 4K 55-inch monitor, there was not significant visible difference in resolution between the 4K and 10K scans.”

Well that was a pointless comparison wasn't it. And they were scanning 35mm which makes it double pointless. What are they trying to prove? This is nothing we don't know already.

lol, since they apparently didn’t have an 8K UHD tv at their disposal to investigate the question(s) which actually prompted their burdensome project, then to –
promote the Lowry Digital process and/or validate the continued manufacture of film scanners?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Which IMAX theaters still show 15/70 prints? The cost of a single print is $93,000! For those IMAX theaters which showed 3D, that would be two prints. This was the reason for IMAX going to twin digital projectors and abandoning 15/70 prints.

It is one thing to shoot in 15/70 and a whole different cost in projecting 15/70.

You didn't say anything about projecting 15/70. Nolan will make sure that there are 15/70 prints for Tenet. But how does projecting large format film *on* large format film have anything to do with 8K video versions? I'm confused, because if they at least SHOOT on proper IMAX film then you could potentially have the 8K movie footage that you crave, although you moving into 4K viewing at some point might be a start.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Totally agree , but you see common sense will impede the discussion and sustainability of this thread.
Anyway as a nuanced factoid, back in 2018, Lowry Digital got a shoutout (“this was the most encouraging”) at the Academy’s Linwood Dunn Theater in Hollywood - https://www.etcentric.org/the-reel-t...scans-of-film/

Of course, keep in mind Lowry Digital is a part of Prime Focus and they don’t frown on sharpening.

I recall reading that piece and have referred to it before in discussions like this. Point being, for those whose common sense is less developed than others, is that even if viewing the 10K supersampled Lowryfied transfer in 8K yielded appreciable benefits it'd be mightily expensive for the average 35mm show to undertake such a process.

[Blu-rayNut51]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

tediously, we’ve been thru all this before - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...y#post16866655
as I am quite familiar with the white paper and footnotes upon which those promotional brochures were based.

I’ll also remind you as previously discussed, video engineers’ thinking with regards to the HVS and watching screens has evolved over time –

Well Penton-Man I won't go into much more of those tedious facts. But I can say that Robert A Harris's film restoration work has probably had him studying the look of extremely high quality large format films shown in a greater number of different projection venues than the number of different theaters that you or I are likely to have even viewed movies in. And after all that experience, for Mr Harris to have stated that 4k digital projection can produce results of such high quality that moving to a higher resolution for the screens of even very large theaters, will offer no usable increase in quality for movie audiences, is a judgment that Mr Harris is probably much more qualified to make than those of us commenting on this forum. Because that man isn't comparing a few lines on some projected still picture, but instead, is basing conclusions on how movies really appear to people under the actual conditions in which people see movies.

It probably won't be until boosters of 8k are able to someday compare a movie produced in native 8k, to that same movie downconverted to a resolution of native 4k quality, to make such 8k fans realize that to see a detail advantage with the 8k version would require someone with good vision to position his eyes about 2 and a half feet from a 65 inch 8k TV. No sane person could enjoy a movie like that. Just as Robert A Harris knows that 8k isn't practical for movie theaters because people would have to basically position themselves in the front row to have 8k looking substantially more detailed that 4k.

But there's just one LITTLE problem with front row movie theater seating, 95% of moviegoers just hate it, which explains why the front row sells out LAST!

That's why I must wish good luck to those who are hoping to see Hollywood make 8k movies, since, if Robert A Harris's judgment is correct, men & women landing on Mars, will already be old news, well before the heads of the movie studios ever decide to produce movies in native 8k. (Here in late 2019, even HBO, which presents such quality, big budget, made for HBO productions, is STILL presenting its programming in good old 1080i resolution on the 2 satellite services that carry HBO, as well as every single cable TV system that features HBO, ALSO still only presenting HBO's shows in 1080i, instead of 4k with HDR)

But since some of my fellow Blu-ray.com Forum members obviously must have visual abilities that allow them to see a single grain of sand on the wood floor of a living room, from 16 feet away, maybe folks with such unusual visual gifts, really will see a genuine quality increase with full length 8k movies (when such things exist) by sitting at a relatively far 4 feet from a 65" 8k TV, instead of being at the closer 2.5 foot point, where most will need to view them to really appreciate the quality of full length 8k movies, if such movies are ever made.

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by rachaeldeckard

...
And for the millionth time in this thread: 8K content will not come from Hollywood Movies.

[Blu-rayNut51]

I hope that everyone here has a very Merry, and safe, Christmas!

Sorry if I've annoyed some folks with my long posts. But in that spirit of peace on earth, and good will toward others (that I hope we all wish for), this post will avoid any sarcastic statements, (that I later regretted) & instead, state some basics which are hard to dispute.

1. Almost all Americans, when choosing TVs to place in the typical sized living rooms found in American homes, consider 65 inch flat panels to be quite large TVs. (though I don't)

2. So, if choosing TVs of the 65 inch size for their living rooms, almost without exception, people install those TVs at a distance of least about 9 feet, or further, from where their viewers will be seated.

3. People replacing 65" 1080p TVs with 65" UHD 4k TVs, almost always locate the new 4k units in the EXACT SAME places that the older 1080p TVs were located. (But they should put the newer UHD units closer to the viewing area, so at least SOME of 4k's higher resolution can be seen!)

4. According to studies from The University of Iowa, a low 30 percent of the population even has vision as good as 20/20, uncorrected. (So, even better 20/15 vision, is unusual.)

5. Joe Kane is the man who personally developed the video parameters that calibrators of video displays, as well those testing video displays for reviews, all use as their standards for adjusting those displays to reach their top performance. Mr Kane who created the Video Essentials tool that allows home video enthusiasts to adjust their displays to get high performance from them, is the person who is almost universally regarded as being THE expert on video display quality. Mr Kane's column in WIDESCREEN Review has also shown him describing how various aspects of video display performance, sure need to be improved by TV makers to allow the creation of even better displays than today's current 8k TVs.

6. One aspect of video performance, resolution, is a performance area that Mr Kane feels will offer no benefit for users of home video displays, if it is increased ABOVE 4k. Because Joe Kane agrees with the research done by Sony (which, for marketing reasons, Sony no longer publicizes) in which the company's researchers found that people with 20/20 vision need to be within 4 feet of a 65 inch UHD 4k TV to be able to see the maximum level of very fine detail that native 4k video material can present. That indicates, beyond ANY doubt, that people watching 65 inch UHD displays at a 9 foot distance, simply can't approach seeing the finest details that native 4k video can display. So Mr Kane laughs at the idea that even people with 20/15 vision, will see any added detail with native 8k material, compared to the level of detail that native 4k can present, if both 8k and 4k versions of the same video, are viewed on 65 inch displays, placed side by side, at the same 9 ft distance. Because viewing tests using native 4k video, have shown, that even a person with 20/15 vision, loses sight of the smallest details that native 4k can present on a 65 inch screen, when that viewer is still a few feet short of that 9 ft distance. So basic common sense leads to the undeniable conclusion that when a person is at a distance where he can no longer see the smallest details that 4k can present to him, he will certainly be incapable of seeing the EVEN SMALLER details of 8k, which are the details which define 8k resolution as being superior to 4k.

People will simply REFUSE to sit at distances close enough to 8k displays to allow them to see smaller details in 8k motion videos, than they are capable of seeing with 4k versions of those same videos, when seated at the same distance, using the same size video display.

Well guys, that's it, but I attempted here to avoid presenting as complicated of a case, as was certainly done, in a few of my previous posts.

But someone here did request that we use common sense in our arguments, so I tried hard here, in this post, to present as solid an example of common sense & logic, as was possible with this controversial subject. (Though IMO, tests previously done with real people, viewing videos of various resolutions, already should have turned 8k into a non-controversial subject, quite a while ago.)

I mean, unless someone argues that the bounds of human perception still permit people to have almost unlimited ability to notice fine detail, regardless of distance (a silly claim that I think, NO one has been making here), then, without trying to get particularly political, it seems to me that my contention that very few Americans will ever seat themselves close enough to 8k displays to see a significant detail advantage compared to native 4k, is a claim which basic testing and human experience have already shown to be an argument that possesses unimpeachable common sense & logic.

Anyway, as I indicated before, I regret it if my expression in a previous post, or posts, was tinged with a note of sarcasm, because that's beneath the way that I can communicate.

But as I sincerely expressed before, I hope that everyone on this thread (as well as all of the people maintaining, and using, Blu-ray.com) will enjoy having a most Merry, and safe, Christmas, with their friends and loved ones. Take care folks.

[JohnAV]

I hope we have more at CES 2020

Meet the World’s First Large Format 8K Holographic Display

Looking Glass 8K Immersive Display - YouTube

[JohnAV]

Christmas Lights | A London TimeLapse Film | 8K - YouTube

Tis the time one wishes a extra special day to all.

[rachaeldeckard]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

I hope that everyone here has a very Merry, and safe, Christmas!

Sorry if I've annoyed some folks with my long posts. But in that spirit of peace on earth, and good will toward others (that I hope we all wish for), this post will avoid any sarcastic statements, (that I later regretted) & instead, state some basics which are hard to dispute.

1. <snip>.

None of this matters. 8K will be forced on consumers just like 4K was, and just like HD was before that, and just like Color was before that. There will come a point where you won't be able to buy a TV without it.

[HDTV1080P]

8K is a improvement over 4K when it comes to resolution. We just need native 8K content in the years to come and much bigger screens to take full advantage of 8K displays. There are many other improvements that need to be made to flat panel and projector technology, and resolution is the easiest improvement to make. Many people would like 3D which is only found on a select few high-end projectors now.

Some day we will have 16K resolution displays in theory available at Walmart, but after 16K the industry most likely will stop making improvements in static resolution (improvements in motion resolution needs to be made on all flat panels). I could be wrong but I really doubt we will see 32K resolution displays make it to market in the decades to come (unless passive 3D glasses are used so each eye sees 16K).

[Geoff D]

So you're saying that 8K has more resolution than 4K? For realsies? Woah.

On a less sarcastic note, the reason why it's the "easiest improvement to make" is because it's one that makes the least improvement to the picture quality for the largest amount of extra bandwidth. And it's still only one component of the viewing experience as you say; the industry came up with HDR to go with 4K resolution while 8K has no such extra wheeze to go with it. More pixel density? Sure, great if you're watching an 85" screen from 6ft away.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So you're saying that 8K has more resolution than 4K? For realsies? Woah.

On a less sarcastic note, the reason why it's the "easiest improvement to make" is because it's one that makes the least improvement to the picture quality for the largest amount of extra bandwidth. And it's still only one component of the viewing experience as you say; the industry came up with HDR to go with 4K resolution while 8K has no such extra wheeze to go with it. More pixel density? Sure, great if you're watching an 85" screen from 6ft away.

If I had an 85", I'd prefer to sit a bit closer than that. Not by much, but I like about a 50-60* viewing angle.

[Geoff D]

I'm the opposite, not that I like to sit on the other side of the room but in that I like having a complete sense of the frame I'm seeing. I'm 7ft from a 65" and that's perfick. Even when I go to the BFI IMAX I sit in the very last row at the back.

[renegadeviking]

Manufacturers are waiting on 8k ATSC broadcasts and bluray players until Versatile Video Coding (VVC) is available IMHO. It's been true since MPEG on VCD.

[Geoff D]

8K Blu? Nope.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

8K Blu? Nope.