8K discussion thread

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If anyone reads my reviews they'll know about how much extra 'depth' I perceive with HDR as it stands at the moment, the sheer amount of pixels on show is very much secondary to that.

No offense Geoff, but I rarely read your or anyone else’s reviews for that matter anymore other than to get a quick idea of the subject matter of the movie to see if I would be inclined to spend 2hr. or more of my time watching it because said reviews, one way or another, spoil the experience for me and I’d prefer to go in completely unbiased as to plot or proposed image quality by somebody else. They do probably make for great discussions/debates and back slapping on the forums with everyone offering their 2 cents. But you’ll note that Park also reported a 30% increase in 'image quality' (separate from the explicitly stated depth perception benefit) by the 120 observer study.

To play devil’s advocate, let’s say that figure is embellished due to the design of the study or even overt disingenuous influences. Perhaps it was closer to 5, 10 or say 15%. In your or anyone’s HDR analysis favoring Dolby Vision or HDR10 or vice versa (or HDR10+ as I don’t know what you guys are favoring these days), with these movie reviews is said increase in the picture quality you’re seeing with your preferred HDR format/TV tone mapping as much as 5, 10 or say 15% over the lesser option? If so, shouldn’t you also be interested in such a gain no matter what parameter is being introduced with newer technology.

Until someone in a Robert Zohn-like shootout event disproves Park’s findings rather than the anecdotal one or two guys sitting in a room or standing at some show and then spouting off on some blog, I’m willing to give Park the benefit of the doubt regarding some sort of increase in image quality with higher pixel density. My question is truly how much and what will the TV cost me.

[LordoftheRings]

Three years from now...8K OLED 75" Class...$3,000

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

No offense Geoff, but I rarely read your or anyone else’s reviews for that matter anymore other than to get a quick idea of the subject matter of the movie to see if I would be inclined to spend 2hr. or more of my time watching it because said reviews, one way or another, spoil the experience for me and I’d prefer to go in completely unbiased as to plot or proposed image quality by somebody else. They do probably make for great discussions/debates and back slapping on the forums with everyone offering their 2 cents. But you’ll note that Park also reported a 30% increase in 'image quality' (separate from the explicitly stated depth perception benefit) by the 120 observer study.

To play devil’s advocate, let’s say that figure is embellished due to the design of the study or even overt disingenuous influences. Perhaps it was closer to 5, 10 or say 15%. In your or anyone’s HDR analysis favoring Dolby Vision or HDR10 or vice versa (or HDR10+ as I don’t know what you guys are favoring these days), with these movie reviews is said increase in the picture quality you’re seeing with your preferred HDR format/TV tone mapping as much as 5, 10 or say 15% over the lesser option? If so, shouldn’t you also be interested in such a gain no matter what parameter is being introduced with newer technology.

Until someone in a Robert Zohn-like shootout event disproves Park’s findings rather than the anecdotal one or two guys sitting in a room or standing at some show and then spouting off on some blog, I’m willing to give Park the benefit of the doubt regarding some sort of increase in image quality with higher pixel density. My question is truly how much and what will the TV cost me.

No offense taken, hence the "if anyone reads my reviews" qualifier riiiiiiiiiight at the start there. But you say you don't go into the threads yet seem happy enough to generalise as to what is actually going on in them - funny how we're all capable on jumping on one assumptive bandwagon or another without seeing evidence, isn't it? FYI there really isn't much of a debate over what format's mapping is best these days, most people are firmly entrenched on side of the divide or the other and not much will change their minds - some despise anything with Dolby's name on it, others think Dolby walk on water - so there's not much in the way of assigning a percentage figure to those kinds of gains you mention as there's so much bias it's hilarious.

But point taken, I've always been the sort of AV enthusiast (though I'm less about the A these days, hearing loss and all) who's chased after the extra 1 percent of performance if I can get it, yet here's the thing: HDR is my jam and it's damned sure given me more than 1 or "5, 10 or 15%" improvements in most cases. There's also a limit to chasing after those extra percentage points though, I'm NOT going to dump what is possibly the finest consumer LCD TV ever made and spend another three, four, five grand just for a "5, 10, or 15%" increase in one perceived area of quality which may well come with accordant compromises in other areas of quality e.g. the backlighting on the latest 8K Sony apparently doesn't even have the per-zone control of the ZD9, what the fudge is that about? And you couldn't pay me to take a Samsung TV no matter how many k's it's got, sorry but no.

[Fendergopher]

"Prior to joining Ewha University, Park was a Senior Engineer at Samsung Display, working in the LCD division." Seems like it might introduce a conflict of interest in a scientific study, but I'm not a scientist so what do I know?

[Geoff D]

Did she test some LG 8K's as well? They may have been even betterer according to LG's science people!

[Waboman]

I likes me some betterer. When I tell the wife you betterer get me a pizza. Sadly, it never goes over as planned.

[hatchet man]

I just don't think I'm going to re-invest in replacing my movie collection again even tho it's kinda small right now but growing. I think 4K may do it for me

[TravisTylerBlack]

Originally Posted by hatchet man

I just don't think I'm going to re-invest in replacing my movie collection again even tho it's kinda small right now but growing. I think 4K may do it for me

I don't think you or anyone else need worry about any optical disc format beyond UHD. Not only is it unlikely that the niche film collector market will be be able to support another physical format, 99% of existing films will see little, if any, improvement beyond what 4K resolution and HDR can potentially provide. Material shot on anything beyond 35mm does technically have an organically higher resolution but whether or not the difference would be perceptible in motion is debatable.

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by TravisTylerBlack

I don't think you or anyone else need worry about any optical disc format beyond UHD. Not only is it unlikely that the niche film collector market will be be able to support another physical format, 99% of existing films will see little, if any, improvement beyond what 4K resolution and HDR can potentially provide. Material shot on anything beyond 35mm does technically have an organically higher resolution but whether or not the difference would be perceptible in motion is debatable.

And this is exactly why 8K holds no true value for me. I do some casual gaming every now and then, but all I really care about is movies on a physical format. When (non HDR) 4K TVs dropped, we had UHD along with HDR/WCG to look forward to. Now 8K TVs have dropped, but we don't have a new format to look forward to (not that I wanted to at this point, way too early ). Btw I have zero interest in any of the HDMI 2.1 features so again, the only real worthwhile improvement I think 8K could bring for me is 3D.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally Posted by DJR662

...Btw I have zero interest in any of the HDMI 2.1 features so again, the only real worthwhile improvement I think 8K could bring for me is 3D.

For me, eARC is the most interesting feature. As it means the TV can act as the A/V device selection switch instead of an over-bloated AVR.

Personally I'd quite like to have a multi-channel amplifier that does not perform any video processing and that can be hidden from sight

[Fendergopher]

Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital

For me, eARC is the most interesting feature. As it means the TV can act as the A/V device selection switch instead of an over-bloated AVR.

Personally I'd quite like to have a multi-channel amplifier that does not perform any video processing and that can be hidden from sight

A handful of TVs already support eARC on at least one HDMI input, even though they're only HDMI 2.0.

[Gremal]

I would think 8k would mainly be offered on very large screens, such as the 88" LG described below, to offer upscaling and increase the pixel density. The lack of 8k material is moot.

https://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-OLED88Z...ure-oled-8k-tv

[JohnAV]

Gears 5 at 8K demolishes $2,499 Nvidia Titan RTX graphics card - TechRadar

Gaming at 8k is a long way off

It looks like gaming at ultra-ultra-high resolutions like 8K (7,680 x 4,320) is a long way off, with even the world's most powerful consumer graphics card, the $2,499 Nvidia Titan RTX, struggling to run Gears 5 – Microsoft's latest entry in the Gears of War franchise.

The good folks over at TweakTown gave the game a spin on a number of GPUs at a number of resolutions, and found that even with the Nvidia Titan RTX's incredible 24GB of GDDR6 memory, Gears 5 at 8K resolution is pretty much unplayable.

That means that no GPU on the market today aimed at gamers can handle Gears 5 at 8K. While many gamers are still happily running games at 1080p or 1440p, if you were hoping that 4320p (8K) gaming hardware would be coming soon… you'll be disappointed.

8K gaming – is it possible?

Technically, it is possible to play Gear 5 at 8K resolution with reasonably playable results – but there are a lot of compromises that need to be made.

TweakTown found that Gears 5 at 8K resolution and medium graphical settings, with motion blur and vertical sync disabled, seriously challenged the mighty Titan RTX, with the GPU managing 27.4 frames per second.

While that’s not a great result, it's still playable. However, the fact that a $2,499 (around £2,000/AU$3,700) struggles to hit 30 FPS on medium settings shows you how intensive 8K gaming is.

Impressively, the Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti, which at $1,049 (about £837, AU$1,390) is a lot cheaper (but still very expensive) than the Titan RTX, managed 25.6 FPS in the same tests – not too far off the Titan's performance.

Meanwhile, AMD's flagship GPU, the Radeon VII, managed only 18.4 FPS for Gears 5 at 8K on medium settings.

However, whacking Gears 5 up to Ultra settings (but with motion blur and vertical sync still disabled), the Titan RTX really begins to struggle, with just 19.1 FPS – which leads to a juddery and unpleasant gaming experience.

[JohnAV]

For more background even at 4K this is the most photorealistic game out there.

4K Gears 5 Insane Graphics! most Photorealisitc graphic scenes on PC - YouTube

[Robert Zohn]

LG's first allocation of 88"8K OLED TVs are scheduled to arrive in our showroom this Friday, 9/27. We're wall mounting one next to Sony's 85" Z9G 8K TV and Samsung's Q900R 8K TV.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

LG's first allocation of 88"8K OLED TVs are scheduled to arrive in our showroom this Friday, 9/27. We're wall mounting one next to Sony's 85" Z9G 8K TV and Samsung's Q900R 8K TV.

Per this webpage LG OLED88Z9PUA is not wall mountable. Do I have the right model? It says this in the Note below Warranty.

[JohnAV]

A QLED next to a 8K OLED looking at 8k content from Sept 24th Youtube from Korea

LG 8K TV- 8K �� 재�기능 시연 - YouTube

Still even at 1080P playback it shows some PQ differences.

[Robert Zohn]

@JohnAV, correct, technically LG's 88" 8k OLED is not wall mountable, but it can be done.

We may not wall mount our first store shipment as after filling all of orders through the end of August we still have a wait list so after our calibration and review we'll likely deliver it to one of our waiting clients.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No offense taken,

Well that’s good to know, I wouldn’t want to lose a fellow utility pole aficionado as a friend.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

yet here's the thing: HDR is my jam

Believe me, I understand your affinity to HDR (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ar#post9754213).

Hopefully, after being introduced into grading suites, eventually a home version of the Gargantuan - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...d#post16674000 will become available when years from now, you’re feeling your Z9D has become long in the tooth.

As I think you’ll agree on this that one can’t have too much luminance display capability, at least to show highlights –

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

LG's first allocation of 88"8K OLED TVs are scheduled to arrive in our showroom this Friday, 9/27. We're wall mounting one next to Sony's 85" Z9G 8K TV and Samsung's Q900R 8K TV.

why not next to a large 4K tv for a preliminary comparison?