8K is available yet 4K hangs on like a disease that killed someone dear to you. Why?

[Canada]

Unless they do a higher colour depth it won't be worth it. Also you will damn near have to have a projector to see the resolution increase that 8K would afford the watcher.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Vilya

4K UHD discs are over 6 years-old now, actually. They were first released in the U.S. on Feb. 14, 2016.

, etc.

Ok, still in its infancy especially in this landscape. Of course it is not like it is in bad shape at all. The amount of releases have actually been quite stellar.

Look at the comment above. VHS were "designed to be rented" and DVD wasn't? I just take anything like that seriously.

[mastadge]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

It was inevitable. 8K is just too big a step up. 32 MB per frame. Well suited for 100" or greater sized displays. So how many consumers are in the position to buy displays of that size? 2%? Surely no more than 5%.

Likely under 1%. The average is still 47.5, with recent growth in the 65" over the last few years. But even 85" accounts for a small minority of sales.

[Vilya]

I love my 85" 4K TV, but I see no reason to want 8K at this or any size.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I love my 85" 4K TV, but I see no reason to want 8K at this or any size.

While many of us are reluctant (and I feel that 4K is my last stop), the human eye can see detail beyond 8K. How much in the ranges we are talking about is another matter. 70mm content, yes there are small amounts of detail, but not enough for me to justify. The data shows that we are reaching the end.

Now for virtual reality stuff right next to your eyes, then 8K makes sense. Actually much more than that. But for me, who wants to experience some world that is like the Matrix crap? The movies are scary enough for me.

[BluLobsta]

8K is available?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by BluLobsta

8K is available?

8K TVs and projectors are indeed available.

8K content not so much.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by slimjean

While many of us are reluctant (and I feel that 4K is my last stop), the human eye can see detail beyond 8K. How much in the ranges we are talking about is another matter. 70mm content, yes there are small amounts of detail, but not enough for me to justify. The data shows that we are reaching the end.

Now for virtual reality stuff right next to your eyes, then 8K makes sense. Actually much more than that. But for me, who wants to experience some world that is like the Matrix crap? The movies are scary enough for me.

For me to buy an 8K TV, it would need to really "wow" me and I very much doubt that a mere increase in resolution will do it. It has to offer something far more than just that.

[BluLobsta]

Originally Posted by Vilya

8K TVs and projectors are indeed available.

8K content not so much.

Yup I was thinking content.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

It was inevitable. 8K is just too big a step up. 32 MB per frame. Well suited for 100" or greater sized displays. So how many consumers are in the position to buy displays of that size? 2%? Surely no more than 5%.

The TV industy revolves around the lowest common demoiniator: Joe & Jane Sixpack. Just like there are way more MacDonalds then there are Ruth Chris Steak Houses.

HNK's Super Hi Vision has already been considered a flop. Oh, technically - it is superior to any other TV format - it's just too expensive to implement.

In all honesty I am surprised that 4K has made as many inroads as it has. Because HD is really . . . good enough.

Its because 4K TVs were ridiculously cheap when being cleared out. The 48" LG C1 OLED was going for $799 recently on clearance. see this pricing chart on URL. The same model 55" was down to $1064 per URL.

These were better deals than you use to ever use to get on those BF walk in specials, and those were crap B stock models as you know mostly.

[Petite Bourgeoisis]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Remember that in the still photography world, Nikon's D810 is 36.3 MP (7360 x 3912), Sony's A7RII is 42MP and Canon's 5DSR is 50.6MP (8688 x 5792). So we're already at 8K in still photography for images that are generally displayed at much smaller sizes than TV/Movies, except when blown up to billboard size. In another five years, they'll probably be 100MP.

Yet nothing comes close to Kodachrome no matter how much resolution is "improved". They took our beautiful Kodachrome, which even the working class had access to, bankrupted the company, sent the machines away for pennies, and handed us slave labor sourced digital cameras!

What does all this have to do with 8k? I dunno, but I'm sure it relates in some way.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Petite Bourgeoisis

Yet nothing comes close to Kodachrome no matter how much resolution is "improved". They took our beautiful Kodachrome, which even the working class had access to, bankrupted the company, sent the machines away for pennies, and handed us slave labor sourced digital cameras!

What does all this have to do with 8k? I dunno, but I'm sure it relates in some way.

This is why I like the Star Wars captured version of the kodachrome 35mm print that used a DSLR for every frame as opposed to the 4K scanned version of the technicolor print.

The former used 12 megapixel vs the 9 megapixel equivalent of 4K.

Kodachrome has a particular reddish look that is unmatched to me.

*update* I made a mistake. Star Wars Eastman print was not Kodachrome. My mistake.

[Jegærn]

8k?? Djeez! Even 4K is damn near pointless and people want 8k?

[K9 Mark V]

As some have noted earlier in one way or another, 4K's jump in popularity wasn't just about the resolution, partially explaining why 8K still hasn't taken off. Really, the only market that seems to consider it an option is the 'projector screen sized' TV market, which only then would you even notice a difference, if minimal. What won many people over with 4K was HDR and the decline in price for OLED screens. Both of these aren't related to resolution yet they kind of went hand and hand. For a lot of people, this was when they upgraded their TVs (at least I remember it was around this time when people buying new TVs on Black Friday really became a joke), many having kept their screens from the early 2000's, sometimes even earlier, up to this point.

In theory, the only way I can see 8K even remotely taking off like 4K did is if there's a new 16 Bit color space introduced, upscaling technology improves, there are better streaming options (thinking about your average Joe here, who can't even stream 4K sometimes due to poor internet), and, this is the big one, if everyone's new 4K TVs somehow break down all at once. Only then would I see people making this kind of jump to 8K.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by K9 Mark V

As some have noted earlier in one way or another, 4K's jump in popularity wasn't just about the resolution, partially explaining why 8K still hasn't taken off. Really, the only market that seems to consider it an option is the 'projector screen sized' TV market, which only then would you even notice a difference, if minimal. What won many people over with 4K was HDR and the decline in price for OLED screens. Both of these aren't related to resolution yet they kind of went hand and hand. For a lot of people, this was when they upgraded their TVs (at least I remember it was around this time when people buying new TVs on Black Friday really became a joke), many having kept their screens from the early 2000's, sometimes even earlier, up to this point.

In theory, the only way I can see 8K even remotely taking off like 4K did is if there's a new 16 Bit color space introduced, upscaling technology improves, there are better streaming options (thinking about your average Joe here, who can't even stream 4K sometimes due to poor internet), and, this is the big one, if everyone's new 4K TVs somehow break down all at once. Only then would I see people making this kind of jump to 8K.

16 bit color space would push the size of each frame to somewheres around 128MB. Not ever going to happen.

The only way 8K can make inroads is to bump the frame rate to 120 and use the format solely for sports. Problem then become the necessary 100+Mbps internet speed requirement.

[avs commenter]

They have barely scratched the surface with 4K and people want 8K? Lol

[Petite Bourgeoisis]

As a projector guy with a 3-year-old Optoma HD143x, I just installed an aftermarket bulb (original had 9k hours on it) and I'm counting on that bulb lasting another 24 months. At that point (late 2024) I will look at 4k projectors and a 4k player. Also I hope at that point Star Trek TOS has been remastered and issued on 4k.

[Doomhunter]

Plus I really wouldn’t describe 4k UHD discs as a ‘niche market’, seems to me they are becoming pretty mainstream these days

[avs commenter]

Originally Posted by Doomhunter

Plus I really wouldn’t describe 4k UHD discs as a ‘niche market’, seems to me they are becoming pretty mainstream these days

No

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Doomhunter

Plus I really wouldn’t describe 4k UHD discs as a ‘niche market’, seems to me they are becoming pretty mainstream these days

You consider 10% to 13% of a market a mainstream product versus niche product? Cause that's what their sales have been.