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

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by KRW1

It's a joke but 8k will definitely come. You can giggle about it, and moan about it, but it will come. Not soon, but eventually.

Why "eventually" when the technology is already available? Since we're upgrading, we might as well go all the way right away.

[Joce]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Why "eventually" when the technology is already available? Since we're upgrading, we might as well go all the way right away.

Currently, you have no public sources in 4K (only some compressed movies on Netflix, and demos on Youtube), and UHD blu-ray aren't there yet.

What's the deal with 8K TV seriously ?

[thunderforce]

Probably going to need 100 plus k once people start to get their eyes removed so they can get new robotic zoom infra red night vision updates lol .

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

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

Why is 4K talked about so much when 8K technology is already available? Can't we skip this over and avoid the inevitable while we can? 8K broadcasts are already starting in Japan. The hilarious thing is that we keep talking about 4K like it's the future when in fact 8K is already the present.

Just wondering, did you and scorpiontail (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=239540) take the same classes in high school?

One challenge is, if not planning on purchasing a larger display or going front projection, in order to get much benefit out of viewing it, consumers should plan on moving their couches even closer to the screen than they would have to for 4K.

For example, if you’re watching 4K now on your 55” 4K tv at about 8 ft. screen-to-eye distance…..with 8K displays, plan on moving your couch 4 ft. from the screen. Consider the WAF on that....but perhaps you're not married.

Personally, I’m not really a fan of 8K, because the bandwidth requirement is so much that it robs the ability of the industry to offer WCG, HDR and HFR along with it. My view is that next gen video should be a proper mix of static resolution, temporal resolution, color gamut and dynamic range. 8K just doesn’t fit well into that equation for a long time.

[batman2000]

removed

[Derb]

Originally Posted by wally06020

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html

Thanks, that's about right.

324 mill pixels.

22,000 x 15,000 (158K)

So people should wait until 158K displays are on the market.

[pEgLeG]

I'll stick with my 5k until I can afford 8k.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Why is 4K talked about so much when 8K technology is already available? Can't we skip this over and avoid the inevitable while we can? 8K broadcasts are already starting in Japan.

The NHK has said that they will start testing 8K broadcasts next year and that they are hoping to have a channel by 2018. Also the NHK promoted analog HDTV for years before switching to digital HDTV so they sometimes underestimate the importance of cost.

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Why "eventually" when the technology is already available?

Where is it available? No company has announced an 8K resolution consumer TV. Prototype displays can cost tens of thousands of dollars per unit and it isn't a problem if they use 16 HDMI inputs. A company would lose a lot of money if they tried to release an 8K resolution consumer TV this year and even the Japanese companies working with the NHK aren't willing to do that.

Originally Posted by Derb

Sharp is making them & 8K will broadcast in Japan sometime this winter.

Sharp is releasing a 4K TV with 8K video processing and it has a price of $13,000.

[Brightstar]

There are only a hand full of films shot in 8k so why are you all complaining?

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

Sharp is releasing a 4K TV with 8K video processing and it has a price of $13,000.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...60&postcount=1

Ok so it was a prototype.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by wally06020

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html

Originally Posted by Derb

Thanks, that's about right.
324 mill pixels.
22,000 x 15,000 (158K)
So people should wait until 158K displays are on the market.

That’s a lot of Ks!

The reason the number is so large compared to what one would think for BCVA (best corrected visual acuity) is because the author’s calculation assumes optimal visual acuity everywhere…covering the entire surface of the retina, i.e. he assumes a human having one GIANT fovea, when in fact, the fovea makes up only ~1.5mm. of a 5x5 cm. retina.

But he does make some practical valid points, for example - “Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina.” – which introduces the concept of Vernier acuity (hyperacuity) –
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/1203...srep00300.html

Which, for the umpteenth time to cnet bloggers and such, means that all those pretty colored charts posted over the internet which simply extrapolate out viewing distances based upon ‘20/20 Snellen vision’, underestimate the true visual acuity for the typical human….at least I think up until we all get to the seasoned ages of 60–80 years old.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

That’s a lot of Ks!

Yeah I don't know how many K's that res would be.

You forgot the human eye constantly streams more like video even if you stared at a picture.

Basically, the whole TV upgrade will not rest until the "physical" & "real" are indistinguishable.


Many more K's to go.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Derb

You forgot the human eye constantly streams more like video even if you stared at a picture.

It does?
Then I’m in trouble – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...g#post10813477

[Brightstar]

why don't they give us a Cinemascope tv? that would be nice

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

It does?
Then I’m in trouble – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...g#post10813477

If you could record that, you'd see resolution fluctuations in the picture because the Human eye can't retain a specific Resolution fluently.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Derb

If you could record that, you'd see resolution fluctuations in the picture because the Human eye can't retain a specific Resolution fluently.

When I go to thee docteur, the only thing I care about is that it retains a normal IOP. I say the hell with fluent resolution recording.

[sperezmore]

It's all about money.
Re-release everything (VHS - Laserdisc - DVD - Blu-ray - Ultra HD 4k Blu-ray - Stream 8k HD.... etc) at higher resolution in 6 - 10 years span so consumers will buy again and again and again....

Regards,

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by sperezmore

It's all about money.
Re-release everything (VHS - Laserdisc - DVD - Blu-ray - Ultra HD 4k Blu-ray - Stream 8k HD.... etc) at higher resolution in 6 - 10 years span so consumers will buy again and again and again....

Regards,

The whole point is you get to see your favorite films as close to a 35mm print as you can

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

The whole point is you get to see your favorite films as close to a 35mm print as you can

Edit, wrong K thread.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Derb

Edit, wrong K thread.

why do you think it is the wrong thread? In the 70s/80s when tapes were king the tech that we have today was not possible. Yes there is a benefit to the studio like sperezmore said, getting us to re-buy the same film every generation but the simple fact is that today an 8K player would be impossible (imagine streaming or DL an 8K file or having to flip the disk every 30 minutes) and prohibitive in cost. Like Brightstar points out we also reap the benefits, if that was not the case people would not upgrade.