8K discussion thread

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by unberechenbar

The former but either one would be great.

Why? You won't see much of a difference. Change for the sake of change is pointless. And that change comes with a cost - bandwidth.

Hollywood is not eager to make professional use specs available to the general public. Nor can consumers take advantage of it because how many consumers have a 70 foot screen in their home?

That's why Hollywood uses JPEG2000 and 12bit color space and 256 Mbps transfer rate. Their product is shown on huge screens.

[Jason One]

Originally Posted by unberechenbar

5 feet away is hardly "way too close" for resolutions above 4K. I sit 4 feet away from a 65-inch screen.

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by mkozlows

I said five feet away from an 88" screen, which is much closer than the "40 degrees of arc" THX recommendation (which is itself closer than the 30 degree SMPTE recommendation).

For a 65" TV, six feet is the recommendation. If you enjoy sitting closer, cool, have fun with it, but also be aware that you're doing something more than a little weird. (And even at that, the chart that you posted shows that you won't see a difference at that distance even on perfect content!)

Yeah, 4 feet from a 65" screen is a 60 degree viewing angle. I don't know how you do it, unberechenbar. At that close distance I'd be moving my head back and forth constantly, and missing any action happening offside of where I was looking.

I tried moving from 40 degrees up to 43 and found even that small increase to be too much. Especially when there are extreme close ups, or lots of movement. It's actually uncomfortable. 40 degrees is the sweet spot IMO, and that's where 4K is basically maxing out your eyes already.

[LordoftheRings]

70-foot screen @ home is for the the higheel filmmakers, the rest (us) we go from smartphone size to 200" front projectors, somewhere between.

Bandwidth will expand with time; it's inevitable.

Anyway 3D in 4K (glasses-free) before 2D in 8K (except for those 70-foot screens @ home).

LianTronics Glasses-free 3D “Star Trek� LED Screen in Chengdu Has Been Trending in China’s Twitter - YouTube

FINAL FANTASY VII REMAKE INTERGRADE「レッドXIII 巨大3Dæ˜*åƒ�ã€� - YouTube

ã€�Flint Walk燧石行】Wuhan Donde Tianyu - Lion | æ*¦æ±‰å¤©èª‰ç‹®å*�裸眼3D | Naked-eye 3D - YouTube

[LordoftheRings]

Some people here live in New York; how do you prefer your billboards, in 3D without glasses or in 8K flat sharp?

Public Media Art "Whale #2" by a'strict - YouTube

[unberechenbar]

Originally Posted by Jason One

Yeah, 4 feet from a 65" screen is a 60 degree viewing angle. I don't know how you do it, unberechenbar. At that close distance I'd be moving my head back and forth constantly, and missing any action happening offside of where I was looking.

I tried moving from 40 degrees up to 43 and found even that small increase to be too much. Especially when there are extreme close ups, or lots of movement. It's actually uncomfortable. 40 degrees is the sweet spot IMO, and that's where 4K is basically maxing out your eyes already.

I have my surround speakers about 4 feet from my screen so it works out well since they're basically right next to me. I think too close would be if I had to turn my head to look at parts of the screen and at 4 feet I don't need to do that.

Before I got a 4K TV I wouldn't have sat so close to the screen but I want to maximize my viewing experience. And it's cheaper than getting a bigger TV (although I'm definitely getting a bigger screen size for my next one).

[Rick Grimes]

Sitting closer to the TV is an ideal way to ensure 2160p is good enough (PQ is brilliant, pixels can’t be seen by the naked eye, your brain perceives the picture as lifelike).
Even with a 43” 1080p display, sitting back at 5.5ft is ideal (enough room to have cinema chairs with the footrest out and the seat right back, and my wife and I can walk past each other easily). I find that the PQ is fantastic, and as far as I’m concerned. Going up to a 55” 4K screen would be enough to make the viewing experience even better.

However, the viewing distance that many people like to sit at is a personal thing.
I like to sit in the very back of a cinema or at least in the back third. So, then I find that my TV (using the “hand held out in front of your vision” method of measuring), is bigger then what I am used to. And I feel you really shouldn’t be sitting so close to your TV or cinema screen that you have to adjust your gaze to be able to take everything in. So, IMO, unless your going for a 100” screen for a garage sized media room, why would you even need to go 8K. I’d rather get an expensive Sony 4K OLED, then an garden variety 8K television. ‘Cos they are pretty goddamm expensive.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Bandwidth will expand with time; it's inevitable.

Sure - but how will content providers use it?

Will they show a single 4K program with their allotted bandwidth, or 3 HD and 4 SD programs using the same bandwidth.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The interest in owning an 8K TV will have to grow exponentially from their current 0.15% of global TV sales if 8K TVs are ever to be commonplace in our homes even a decade from now.

That's kind of the point of that statistic; the percentage is minuscule because of a lack of consumer interest in 8K. Most people do not see any benefit in 8K and unless something remarkable happens to make them into believers, 8K will continue to be a non-starter.

the problem is they always do. There was a time when 4k was 0.15% and when HD was 0.15% and flat panels where 0.15% and color was 0.15%

companies invest in technological improvement new sets are ridiculously over priced to recoup the investment in research, and so limited appeal, prices drop more and more people are interested.

Do you think the companies making 8k panels will go and re-tool those lines to make 4k panels and stop making 8k TVs?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Sure. Niche markets can be very profitable when they have enough enthusiastic supporters to keep them viable and worthwhile.

But where is that enthusiasm for 8K? Even here at blu-ray.com where movie and home theater s and geeks dominate the discussions, where is the enthusiasm for 8K? If you can't find much love for 8K, here at blu-ray.com of all places, where else will you find it?

there is a thread (OK more than 1) dedicated to it that is why I am here in this thread

I remember similar discussions for 4k and HD.

Some people feel a need to be on the bleeding edge some on the cutting edge, some a safe distance from the edge and the rest just get dragged along. Do you think the guy that said "I will never buy a HD TV has a choice to stick with an SD TV if his TV broke and he needs to buy a new one?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

the problem is they always do. There was a time when 4k was 0.15% and when HD was 0.15% and flat panels where 0.15% and color was 0.15%

companies invest in technological improvement new sets are ridiculously over priced to recoup the investment in research, and so limited appeal, prices drop more and more people are interested.

Do you think the companies making 8k panels will go and re-tool those lines to make 4k panels and stop making 8k TVs?

The first 8K TV was shown at the 2013 CES Show by Sharp. Two years later they offered the first consumer 8K TV. So here we are 7 years later and 8K TV have failed to make any kind of a noticeable dent in World Wide TV sales. Even in Japan who has 8k content, 8K TVs just aren't selling.

The difference between HD and 4K was large: resolution, WCG & HDR. The difference between 4K and 8K is nothing more than resolution. Something you can only appreciate if you are sitting at the proper seating distance which 95% of people do not.

You really need to brush up on your history as far as HD and 4K. Both had Hollywood behind them - something that 8K lacks. That's why it's going nowhere as a consumer format.

[mkozlows]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I remember similar discussions for 4k and HD.

I understand this reaction -- that we're seeing a repeat of a pattern we've seen play out before, and it'll play out the same way again this time -- but I think it's wrong.

Like, to start with, let's all admit that it would eventually be wrong to keep expecting that pattern to hold. Even if 8K turns out to follow the HD/4K pattern, and takes over, you wouldn't expect 16K to, right? Or if you think 16K might, then surely you don't think 32K would. "Increasing resolution eventually becomes pointless and counter-productive" is a proposition that every single person in this discussion agrees with.

So now that takes "this is what happened with 4K and HD" off the table, and we need to answer the specific question of: Does the pattern stop with 4K, or does it continue to 8K?

And here the "stops at 4K" arguments look very strong. They are:

1. There is no room for dynamic range to exceed current 4K standards. DV supports up to 10K nits brightness. Displays can't even get close to that today, but if they could, there's no reason to think that "brighter than 10K nits" would be meaningful or desirable to viewers.

2. There is no room for color gamut to exceed current 4K standards. DCI-P3 is what everything is mastered in today, and Rec.2020 is much broader than that. A standard with a larger-than-2020 color space would not particularly useful or meaningful to viewers.

3. There is no room for resolution to exceed current 4K standards. At recommended/desirable viewing distances for any given display size, 4K outresolves the human eye. Notably, this was not true of the SD->HD or HD->4K transitions, where the human eye at THX recommended distances could outresolve SD and HD.

Those all seem like very compelling things to me! They indicate that the UHD standard has gotten to a place of technical perfection, where we're now limited just by the limitations of display devices and video capture/transmission technologies. As those things improve, UHD will get better, but the limits on what the UHD standards can handle are large enough that there's no space for things to meaningfully improve beyond them.

Against those arguments, in favor of 8K, we have:

1. If you sit extremely uncomfortably close to a screen (5 feet away from 88"!) and are viewing perfect 8K content shot specifically to be demo reel material, you may think that it's very slightly better than 4K.

2. 8 is more than 4, and I like bigger numbers.

Seriously, what are the other arguments in favor of 8K? Not the technical capability ones -- I agree that if there were a reason to make 8K TVs, tech would be able to do it -- but the "benefit to the viewer" arguments. They don't exist. And that's the reason why the "numbers go up" trend stops with 4K.

[Lee A Stewart]

The numbers are the problem. HD: 2MB/frame. 4K: 8MB/frame. Then you have 8K: 32MB/frame. That is a MASSIVE jump. And it's not easy to deal with bandwidth wise.

Movies/TV shows are only half of what people watch. The other half is sports. And 8K has a problem. As the resolution increases, so does motion blur when panning the cameras. The only way to deal with this is to go to either 120 or 240 FPS. 60 FPS just isn't fast enough. Those HFRs eat up bandwidth.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by mkozlows

Unless you're a "sit in the first row in the movie theater by preference" weirdo, that's just never going to be meaningfully true for a 4K vs 8K difference.

I don't like sitting in the first row of theatres (screen placement is all too wrong for that) and to be honest I am not a big fan of theatres in general. I am definitely a weirdo and everyone that knows me knows that and I have no problem with that moniker. But if you think there is something wrong with someone being interested in 8k why are you even in a thread made for that discussion.

If you're annoyed by picture quality, it's almost certainly compression artifacts that are bothering you, and 8K won't help improve that situation one bit.

I know he difference between compression artifacts and resolution limititions but thanks for caring.

you are assuming I want to be far from a small screen while I would like to be closer to a big screen in my HT

Most of the best practices us HT enthusiast get are stuff for real theatres, but because the rooms are much smaller they don't necessarily apply. For example my first row can be much close in relation to screen size because I can afford a floor to ceiling image while in theatres the image is way too high for the first row because the bottom needs to be high enough so all the people in the final row can see the bottom.

Which gets at the great irony of "8K is better" nonsense: Far from being in a world where 4K image quality is maxed out and we're struggling to find a way to get better than perfect 4K, we're serving up garbage 4K on streaming services, stuff that's clearly and inarguably inferior to what you get on a disc, and most people think it's already great.

fully agree with you on that, that is why I don't stream. Geoff might be OK with a fake 8k stream that looks terrible because most people don't care if it looks terrible but that is why I will never stream.

You're right that there will continue to be a "weirdos who super care about quality" niche, but that niche will be served by lower-compression, high-bitrate 4K (whether physical or in niche digital form like Kaleidescape).

don't agree with you on that it just does not make sense in any way shape or form IMHO. Do you honestly think when stream.com offers crappy 8k and the weirdo's all have 8k displays they will be happy watching their high bit rate 4K? there are many films I have bought on UHD BD and before that on BD and before that on DVD... do you think they can get me to buy them again if thy don't have something more to offer?

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Sure - but how will content providers use it?

Will they show a single 4K program with their allotted bandwidth, or 3 HD and 4 SD programs using the same bandwidth.

Lossless compression. That's for streaming.

I am certain (almost) that a new disc format will come, the size of a quarter and with rainbow multilayers. ...No compression, raw. The next 8K Blu-ray player could fit inside a smartphone, perhaps.

Hey, what about an infinity wall?

NEXEN UNIVERCITY "THE INFINITY WALL" ALL - YouTube

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by mkozlows

Like, to start with, let's all admit that it would eventually be wrong to keep expecting that pattern to hold.

agree. the problem with that argument is 8k (when it becomes to displays) is already here. what you are proposing is a step backwards[/QUOTE]

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

the problem is they always do. There was a time when 4k was 0.15% and when HD was 0.15% and flat panels where 0.15% and color was 0.15%

companies invest in technological improvement new sets are ridiculously over priced to recoup the investment in research, and so limited appeal, prices drop more and more people are interested.

Do you think the companies making 8k panels will go and re-tool those lines to make 4k panels and stop making 8k TVs?

The difference was that people saw the real benefits of upgrading to HD and, to a lesser extent, 4K. The consumer also saw more and more content being offered in HD and 4K to justify that upgrade. Consumers became interested in HD and 4K technology and so did the studios. Neither have happened with 8K.

8K only offers what amounts to an entirely academic increase in resolution that it is imperceptible in real world viewing conditions. People are not going to be willing to sit 5' or less from their screens just so that *maybe* they will notice a slight improvement in resolution.

8K TVs will continue to be offered to those who are curious, but the only way that they will become commonplace is if the TV manufacturers cease to offer 4K TVs as they essentially did with HD TVs before them. It amounted to forced obsolescence. If someday 8K TVs are the only type being offered people will be forced to buy them when they need their next TV, but it won't necessarily be because they *wanted* an 8K TV.

What we won't have is an 8K physical format. Consumers aren't interested. Studios aren't interested. Hardware and software manufacturers aren't interested.

The 4K physical format offered actual benefits that people could see and appreciate, but even so, it did not reverse the now eleven consecutive years of decline in physical media sales. We have less 4K disc players to choose from now, not more.

An 8K physical format is an example of the emperor having no clothes. It offers no benefit to the consumer. As 4K discs with their real advantages over HD did not revitalize the disc market (and they never captured more than 7.5% of the disc market after 6 full years of their existence) what possible chance could a new 8K physical format that offers no substantive improvements have?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

The first 8K TV was shown at the 2013 CES Show by Sharp.

the first HDTVs was 1998 https://www.zdnet.com/article/sony-shows-off-hdtv/

what is your point that it can take close to a couple of decades before demand builds up?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

the first HDTVs was 1998 https://www.zdnet.com/article/sony-shows-off-hdtv/

what is your point that it can take close to a couple of decades before demand builds up?

Eight years after that first HD TV we had blu-ray disc (2006).

Eight years after the first 8K TV all we have are 8K cat videos on youtube.

Demand built up because people could see the benefits of HD and the availability of HD content was growing fast. Studios backed HD, hardware and software makers backed HD, and consumers actually wanted HD.

[LordoftheRings]

24K SUPERVISION HDR [DEEP BLUE] Official Planetarium Film - 8KHDR - YouTube

[LordoftheRings]

You go into a video store to buy a new TV.
You use your TV mainly for cable (news, wildlife documentaries, movies on demand, sports, etc.). Oh, and you have a DVD movie collection with a DVD player.

You look for a 480p display TV. They don't have any.
So you look for a 720p one, no luck.
Ok, there's one 1080p in the back corner of the store but it has a cracked screen and it's full of dust. You passed.
Lots of 4K TVs, and one of them (55") is on sale for only $199. You buy it.

Tomorrow it'll be the same with 8K TVs.

Do you follow me? The technology and the markets won't stop advancing because of people without the need. Even if you're into DVD the tomorrow's TVs will eventually progress to 8K, along with better 4K TVs (Micro-LED) and all that jazz.

It's the same with electric cars, smartphones, smart watches, fast food, etc.
We don't need them but they are taking over our lives; it's just the way it is.
You'll be watching your DVD movie collection on an 8K TV, even if you don't want it and don't need it.

That's just an example; a common mortal one.

8K Discussion ...