8K discussion thread

[JohnAV]

Well that one way to promote VR see this article

Still looks like a digitization of recorded plays in a game with peoples uniforms and heads approximated.

[Blu-rayNut51]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You know that slow motion works by having a HIGHER frame rate at point of capture, right?

Yes, you make a good point.

Now related to my title for this post, yesterday I read an article in Forbes Magazine that was utilizing vision charts to back up it's claim that viewing 8k material on 8k TV's would present a picture improvement that extremely few people would ever see, considering the way that people view TVs at home.

According to the chart that the magazine published, for people having 20/20 vision, the optimum distance to watch a 65 inch 8k TV to notice its full improvement in detail compared to 4k is 2.0 feet. And that figure agrees with the oft repeated claim, seen in certain video magazines, that 3 fourths of an 8k TV's screen height is the ideal viewing distance for people with 20/20 to be able to see the smallest details than 8k can show.

But I'm willing to go along with the idea that some fellow forum members have expressed here, which is the notion that those conducting studies that defined the distance limits at which folks with 20/20 vision can still see very tiny details, may have reached some flawed conclusions.

Maybe 2 feet from 65" 8k TVs really does EXAGGERATE HOW CLOSE folks should sit from such screens to get most of the benefit of 8k's higher resolution, so the thought occurred yesterday about simply adding 50% to the distances that these vision charts give, resulting then in a recommended 3 foot viewing distance for people with 20/20 eyesight to watch 65" 8k TVs. Because it seems very doubtful that the people who did the research on which these vision charts are based, could have arrived at final answers that are in a greater degree of error than adding 50% to the numbers that those charts list as optimal distances for appreciating 8k's superior resolution, with TVs of various sizes.
So IMO, adding 50% to those viewing distances on vision charts, is very generous.

Some folks on this thread have recently opined that 8k will really make sense as screens get much larger. But if people need to sit as close as 3 feet from a 65 inch screen to derive much of the benefit from 8k, that means they'd have to sit 6 feet from a 130 inch screen, or 9 feet from a 195 inch screen. I certainly can't speak for any of my fellow forum members here, but I tend to doubt that even people who are hardcore IMAX fans, if setting up a projector/screen combination in a theater room, will have the front row of seats 6 feet from a 130 inch screen. Gee, that kind of viewing situation would be as bad as sitting in the front row in a very large movie theater. Call me crazy, but spending 2 hours watching something on a 130 inch screen, from 6 feet away, would not be a comfortable experience for me.
It's interesting to note that a couple years ago, one of the editors for C-NET wrote that at home he watches a 102 inch screen from just 9 feet away, but that many of his friends and family members consider that kind of viewing to be insanely close. So since most people seem to consider 9 feet to be too close to sit to a 102 inch screen, just imagine how far people would sit from a 130 inch screen that's mated to an 8k projector. I would guess that very few people would even want to sit as close as 11 feet from a 130 inch screen, but at that distance they just won't be able to see an increase in detail with 8k, compared to 4k, unless they have unusually good eyes, giving them vision that's far better than 20/20. And studies by the University of Iowa found that only about 30% of Americans even have uncorrected vision that's as good as 20/20.

BTW, under specialized conditions, I believe that people with 20/20 eyesight COULD see the smallest details that 8k can display on a 65" screen from EVEN FURTHER than 3 feet. For instance, if you had a bright white human hair, several inches in length, but so thin that its thickness equals the width of a single pixel on a 65" 8k screen, and that hair was placed on a jet black shirt, and a still photo of that shirt, in good light, was then shown on a 65" 8k TV so that the shirt was exactly life size, just as it would appear if being held up in your room, in that special type of case I'd expect that people with 20/20 vision could easily still notice that white hair at a distance well outside of the limit that these vision charts usually list as the farthest distance that those people could still see something that tiny. But of course, my example is that of a still photo being shown, not motion video, with the white hair providing about as much of a contrast as possible, to the black of the shirt.

[R3P0]

I think the average user is impressed by big numbers and does not care about quality. 8K is going to be the absolute Max I go as a consumer but my home theater is still 3-5 years away.

My family does not care that 4K isnt true 4k, or that streaming does not give the same bitrate compared to physical media they want convenience. I think 4K will be the standard and 8K will be the high end market for those of us that want it. I dont see the prices of 8k Tvs on 100" OLED or Microled + panels dropping to affordable rates for a very long time.

This is one of those situations where I have no intention of upgrading my media library again, what I have in 4k with HDR can stay in 4k with HDR so be it.

[Lee A Stewart]

5G Powers Wireless 8K Video Streaming Demo at CES 2020

LAS VEGAS—A team effort between Keysight Technologies and MediaTek offered CES attendees a chance to see just how 5G can help power 8K video streaming content during a special presentation.

In a joint demonstration, Keysight and MediaTek uses 5G wireless connectivity to showcase 8K video streaming to a smart TV. Using Keysight’s 5G emulation solutions with MediaTek’s Dimensity 1000 5G mobile system-on-chip, the demonstration delivers data rates of up to 1 gigabit per second, which helps ensure continuous 8K video streaming to an 8K smart TV without a wired connection.

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/5g...mo-at-ces-2020

[Blu-rayNut51]

One interesting rule of thumb that I've found to be true regarding about where almost all people, except for a few video fanatics, seem to draw the line in feeling that they're getting too close to a screen for comfortable viewing, is if a given screen isn't at least one foot away from them for every 10 inches of diagonal screen size. So, to give a few examples that means sitting no closer than 5 feet from a 50 inch screen, 6 feet from a 60 inch screen, 6 and a half feet from a 65 inch screen, 7 feet from a 70 inch screen, 8 feet from an 80 inch screen, 9 feet from a 90 inch screen, or 10 feet from a 100 inch screen. And those viewing distances would all be much too far to notice 8k's superiority over 4k because even if using my suggestion of adding 50% to the viewing distance that vision charts indicate as the point where those with 20/20 vision can appreciate 8k resolution, the viewing distances that I just gave above for TVs of different sizes, are still over double of the figures you get if adding 50% to the recommended distances that vision charts list for being able to see the extra detail and clarity that 8k is capable of offering to us.

Because, let's be honest with ourselves, folks, if any of us could buy a nice 100 inch 8k OLED flat panel for a bargain price of $9,000, and then mount that new TV on the front wall of a 14 X 20 foot theater room, neither we, nor our guests would be likely to want to sit any closer than 10 feet from that big of a screen.

In my own theater room, a good Blu-ray, like Planet Earth II, has amazingly pristine picture quality at 10 feet from our 80 inch screen. But a number of people have preferred watching material, like that nature video, from our 2nd (and last) row of seating, which places people at about a 13 and a half to 14 foot viewing distance from an 80" screen, where they feel more comfortable.

I've long dreamed of someday moving up to having a 100 inch screen in our theater room. That's been a constant daydream of mine ever since about 5 years ago, when I happened across some article on the internet written by a man who said he was a Samsung rep. That guy predicted that within 7 years from that time, consumers would be able to buy a 100 inch Samsung flat panel for ten thousand dollars, which will exceed the quality of OLEDs. But my hopes of such a thing being available to us, at that price, just 2 years from now, are hopes that have become greatly faded, in view of the fact that the largest flat panels now on the market, are two 98 inch 8k flat panels, one from Samsung, & the other from Sony, which both carry retail prices of $70,000, which is just insane! And that price for such flat panels, is especially crazy when we stop to consider the fact that those TVs just use LCD panels with LED backlighting, so they have black level performance that's inferior to what OLED panels can do.

Plus, Samsung recently dropped the price, at Best Buy, for its 82 inch 8k flat panel, by $2,000, taking that TV from its former $6,999 retail price, all the way down to its present price of $4,999. Guess that TV wasn't selling that well.

But seriously, a Samsung 82" 8k TV can now sell for 5 thousand bucks, or less, but just moving up 16 inches in screen size, to 98 inches, means that people have to spend more than 14 times as much to have the privilege of owning the larger flat panel, yet it's not even up at an OLED level of video performance! Man, what's up with that!?

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

OK, so realistically, what are the chances that the TV networks which cover sporting events, like NFL games, are suddenly going to start telecasting those games at a higher frame rate which the current tuners of almost all of America's TVs could not handle? Because unfortunately, a switch to higher frame rates would not be a comparable situation to when America's TV networks changed from black & white to color broadcasting, with all of the millions of black & white TVs that Americans then owned, still being able to display color signals as b & w pictures.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why this applies to HFR but nor 4K or 8K.

[JohnAV]

Getting back to 8k news topic
Showing some of the new TVs from CES 2020 including 8k models

Here's Sony's 2020 4K and 8K TV Lineup from CES 2020 - YouTube

Skyworth 4K, 8K, Rotating TVs from The Skyworth Booth Walkthrough At CES 2020 - YouTube

Here Are TCL's 8K TVs For 2020 : From CES 2020 - YouTube

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

I attended Skyworth's Press Conference and recorded video.

We'll need to see and review these when they launch in the USA.

I hope Robert can give first impressions of Skyworth 8k models as well as other new 8k vendors models as he soon as he gets samples to evaluate.

[R3P0]

I thought Sony was supposed to show off the 100+" OLED model this year as thats what i want for my media room or 8k projector on a 160" screen

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by R3P0

I thought Sony was supposed to show off the 100+" OLED model this year as thats what i want for my media room or 8k projector on a 160" screen

Not a OLED, I don't believe any vendor could even sell one given the pricing for just a 88" OLED (currently $30k) .

Sony does sell a XBR-98Z9G which is a 98" LCD/LED TV. You can more info at https://www.sony.com/electronics/tel...xbr-z9g-series

Pricing on Z9G master series is
85" model = $12,999
98" model = $69,999


Give it another year.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Not a OLED, I don't believe any vendor could even sell one given the pricing for just a 88" OLED (currently $30k) .

Sony does sell a XBR-98Z9G which is a 98" LCD/LED TV. You can more info at https://www.sony.com/electronics/tel...xbr-z9g-series

Pricing on Z9G master series is
85" model = $12,999
98" model = $69,999


Give it another year.

Are 65" and 77" inch OLED expected to be cheaper this year?

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Are 65" and 77" inch OLED expected to be cheaper this year?

Bit too soon for the crystal ball, Time frame to watch is 4Q 2020.

[REPLAY]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Not a OLED, I don't believe any vendor could even sell one given the pricing for just a 88" OLED (currently $30k) .

Sony does sell a XBR-98Z9G which is a 98" LCD/LED TV. You can more info at https://www.sony.com/electronics/tel...xbr-z9g-series

Pricing on Z9G master series is
85" model = $12,999
98" model = $69,999


Give it another year.

They had the 85" Z9G for $9999.99 a week before Christmas on their web site.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by REPLAY

They had the 85" Z9G for $9999.99 a week before Christmas on their web site.

Just briefly on Amazon I can see late December see the camelcamelcamel.com tracker graph.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

Previous statements I made which had claimed that higher frame rates than the present standard used in today's telecasts, would be incompatible with most of today's existing TVs, and therefore wouldn't work with most TVs, were merely cases of me speaking from ignorance, and dishing out pure baloney.

Because my reading up, this afternoon, about high frame rates and telecasts, had me learning that America's transition to fully digital broadcasting, as well as the digital TVs that most Americans now have, enables broadcast television to support frame rates up to 60fps, with most TVs currently in American homes being able to take advantage of such a high frame rate, if the producers of telecasts ever choose to utilize it.

I regret having been such a source of spreading misinformation regarding HFR!

Study more. In the broadcast sports business, 60fps, is not considered ‘HFR’ whereas 100 or 120fps is (which is what members like Geoff were referring to/are yearning for as in his past post) one way or another – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=1393

[JohnAV]

The Road Ahead to 8K UHD - YouTube

Please note the recording parties device could not capture the conversation cleanly for some speakers, have to strain your ears to listen. At 13:00 Robert showed off a coming soon from Sharp DSLR camera capable of 8K shots and video if I heard correctly.

Hope Robert can provide a better video.

Looking online its likely their Sharp 8K Micro Four Thirds camera thats he holding.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

So in spite of Penton-Man's statement that "In the broadcast sports business, 60fps is not considered 'HFR', whereas 100 or 120fps is." it still seems that going by the sources discussing HFR and broadcasting that I've seen, there are precious few (if any) American TV stations which are presenting sports coverage in frame rates of 100 or 120fps.

Not really sure what you're quibbling about now.

Again, Geoff's post (which started this whole thing and your response to it) was referring to frame rates GREATER than 60fps with his future wishes as to increased temporal resolution, no matter the country.
To understand the entirety of the topic from the get-go it appears you need to use better sources, skip to ~ the 3m15s timestamp of the ‘High Frames Explained’ YouTube here – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...z#post17218647

flash forward in time from that ^ YouTube beyond the candidate deciding stage, as we then had 120, 120/1.001, 100 being finalized as the high frame rate frequency parameters, 60 and lower have essentially been considered standard frame rates (can’t tell you for how many years ESPN has done 720/60, gkolb or Wendell may know)

b.t.w., the ITU is the premiere international organization which has many ‘American’ broadcast entities contributing to the WGs, as did for that matter Dolby before PQ was deployed in the U.S.

[JohnAV]

I'm pretty sure Robert had a more recent sample to try out of the this 8K camera in the The Road Ahead to 8K UHD CES conference


Sharp 8K Micro Four Thirds Camera – Prototype First Look and Footage - Cinema5D

This new Micro 4/3 sensor camera can record 8K/30p in H264, Long GOP, 8Bit 4:2:0, 200Mbps wrapped in an mp4 container to an internal SD card.

Its was shown at NAB2019 in April , this video shows Kaino-san from Sharp discussing the Sharp 8K camera

Sharp 8K Micro Four Thirds Camera – Prototype First Look and Interview - YouTube

[Robert Zohn]

Correct, I had Sharp's new native 8K HDR camera at CES! It was on loan from my friends at Sharp and my daughter, Lianne and I walked up and down Las Vegas Blvd shooting 8K HDR video with 10bit, BT2020 color and we had the most fun imaginable.

This world's first affordable Prosumer native 8K HDR camera will launch in the USA the second half of this year and I'm projecting we'll have a retail price of under $4k.

I saved stills and video on the built-in removable SD card and I took the SD card home so I can display the beauty of Las Vegas with all of it's color, sights and sounds on our showroom 8K TVs.

My comments on the 8K panel discussion was that this breakthrough native 8K HDR capture device will provide native 8K HDR content and bring value to the 8K market in the following ways:

- YouTube will explode with content from around the world for all of us to see and enjoy in the comfort of our homes with our 8K TVs.

- Professional videographers will be able to record weddings and other special events in native 8K HDR so clients can watch special events at home on their 8K TVs now and forever.

- It will also appeal to video and photography enthusiasts so we will now have the ability to enjoy our pictures and video like never seen before on 8K TVs

This beauty feels comfortable in my hands and is easy to operate. It has a quality feel and the controls are all placed perfectly to make it a pleasure to work with.

[JohnAV]

I am curious if the 8K discussion concerned the competing HEVC, AV1, VVC codecs?

Intel was highlighting at CES 2020 that Netflix is utilising the latest video compression technology, AV1, to enhance its media streaming service. HEVC is quite established with HW decoders as you know.