Discussion in 'General TV Discussions Forum' started by Phil Hinton, Feb 12, 2019.
What is 8K Ultra HD, do we really need it, and will we ever get it here in the UK?
Read the article.
I stood in front of a 75 inch 8K Samsung in John Lewis Glasgow yesterday. I don't know what the video source was but it wasn't particularly impressive - no more than a native 4K set. With 4K, we're already at a point where you need screens over a certain size to view the benefits at 'normal' viewing distances. Many UK living rooms cannot take much bigger panels - we can see that in the clamour for 49inch and below OLED screens. I wonder what size panel I would need to see a noticeable difference between 4K and 8K in my living room. There is a gain from HD to 4K on my 55 inch OLED but it's not huge, not like SD to HD and I don't think I could go any bigger than a 65 inch TV.
More important for me than 8K is sport content in 4K with HDR & HFR and the upgrade of all SD channels to HD.
Nice article Steve. I have to admit the Q900R is not as expensive as I thought it would be for such as early 8K model, so the prices of 8K TVs in the next couple of years should become quite more affordable. I'm still keeping my KS7000 for a good few years yet though.
Nice write-up. While lack of content is up there in terms of reasons to think twice, I would have liked to have seen some additional emphasis on the fact you can't actually 'see' 8K at a distance where you can actually see the entire screen. You can only see it by close-up pixel-peeping. This, in an even more fundamental way than lack of content, undermines the existence and utility of 8K as a desirable consumer technology.
Perhaps I am being ignorant, but surely upscaled content will never be as good as when the source and destination match each other pixel for pixel? That being the case, is there any point in buying a 8k TV to watch HD or 4k content?
As @Scotland11 said the jump from SD to HD has been more noticeable in consumer's eyes than from HD to 4K. When you see slow-mo demos of 4K content in shops it does catch the eye. Even if 8K is "competitively priced" it is a bit of a red herring at the moment.
I "only" have a DX802 and a sub with Netflix so can get my 4K / HDR content that way along with a PS4 Pro.
As the article states, the amount of bandwidth required for 8K streaming would be pretty huge, considering that 4K on Netflix appears similar data (bar HDR/DV) to a Blu Ray disc.
The next generation of consoles may be able to run 4K 60fps content, although if 8K TV does get traction, I wonder what faux resolution we will get in gaming land, ie Checkerboarding, which admittedly looks really good for Sonys 1st party titles this generation ie Horizon Zero Dawn and God of War
Watching BT Sport in 4K along with the World Cup last summer was pretty damn awesome though.
The only upside to all this 8K nonsense is perhaps some good deals on very good 4K sets. I'm all for foolish consumers jumping on the latest bandwagon if it means price drops elsewhere.
I honestly think that the law of diminishing returns very much applies to 8K, especially considering the average UK living room probably couldn't accommodate a large enough TV to come anywhere close to the size required to make a discernible difference between 4K and 8K. How often do you read on these very forums people saying that they don't see much of a step up from HD to UHD, the real difference being HDR?
I have a 55" 4K LG E6 and have absolutely no intention of moving up to 8K as the difference would be so infinitesimal that it, to my mind anyway, could never justify the costs involved. I reckon the manufacturers are purely looking for another way to get punters to spend their hard earned cash.
My tuppence worth anyway.
It is a real shame that the one place the extra resolution would make a difference is being ignored - projectors with screen sizes of >=100inch - sadly though manufacturers conclude there is just not enough demand to justify aggressively pursuing.
Perhaps the government should introduce legislation that all new house builds must have not only adequate parking but also be badged as “projector ready” with at least one wall capable of reflecting a +100inch image
This article worries me: it's basically parroting industry propaganda without examining it critically.
For someone with normal eyesight, sitting 2.5m from the screen, to get any benefit at all from 8K, you need a screen size bigger than 130 inches. Who actually uses a screen that size, that close?
If you want to reproduce an IMAX cinema experience in your home, I suppose it could be useful; and Virtual Reality headsets could certainly benefit from a boost to 8K; but otherwise it's ABSOLUTELY USELESS. The article should begin by saying that, and reiterate the point more than once.
Some might want smaller screens but the trend is to go bigger.
Do we really need 8K TVs yet? | TechRadar
In fact, 55-59-inch TVs are the biggest-selling size of TV in Europe right now, and it’s a sector that’s grown by almost a quarter over the last year alone.
Unlikely to happen. A lot of the TV programmes broadcast on the other channels is old stuff that wasn't recorded in HD. Shopping channels don't need it either.
If that was the case surely the answer is this:
If I have a piece of A4 paper and colour it red, if I then cut it into four and still colour them all red, nothing has changed. I've "increased the pixels" but the result is the same. I could keep cutting the paper smaller but if I colour each piece the same, nothing is changing. The A4 paper is still red no matter how many times I cut it smaller.
Or I could use the extra pieces for anti-aliasing or upscaling. If that's better than not doing it then it is worth it.
1. If the price is no different, what's the issue?
2. If you put a 4K TV and an 8K TV side by side and the 8K TV "looks better" regardless of size, whether you can see individual pixels, whether the screen is 130", whether it is fed 8K content, then it's still better to have the 8K TV.
Yes but while there is a trend for bigger screens there is still demand for smaller screens, especially those who want to go OLED but do not have the space for a 55 inch panel. I'm pretty sure it's been covered several times on the podcast that Philips and others are looking at introducing OLED in smaller panel sizes for smaller homes/2nd screens.
Agreed but I would still prefer if the TV channels output SD video on an HD feed with black bars either side as upscaled SD transmissions look terrible.
Bitrate will make more of a difference to content than this stupid resolution game.
It was. But it's not where the largest growth is and "looking at it" isn't the same as "doing it."
It might be it appears, and there is a market, but most are buying bigger TVs.
It's still upscaled. Whether your TV does it or the HD feed does it.
That's not going to be decided by a TV manufacturer. Samsung isn't going to be sending its engineers home as "4K is good enough." If they can produce 32K Panels you will get 32K panels. Whether you want them is irrelevant.
I'd hazard that the majority of bigger TV's are not being bought in the range that makes 8K a visible benefit.
I still prefer the source to have performed the upscaling and force black bars around the image than have my TV try to fill in the gaps. And my original point mainly refers to channels such as Freesports & Premier 2 where the content owner has the rights/ability to broadcast in HD but only has an SD channel - I am fully aware of bandwidth limitations and additional costs of HD over SD but it's something that for me would enhance the viewing experience at home far more than an 8K screen.
Obviously manufacturers are looking for the next big selling point but what I was trying to state is that my TV viewing experience would improve far more from better utilisation of existing technology at HD/4K rather than a further increase in resolution.
Which means you are still focusing on, "8k means big TV."
See post 13.
Great. But nothing to do with TV manufacture. How does Samsung etc have a hand in it?
Great. But nothing to do with TV manufacture. How does Samsung etc have a hand in it?
Perhaps it's far easier to keep improving the resolution so it's a quick win.
Also you get both.
The jump from 1080p to 4K wasn't just resolution.
There was also HDR, Dolby Video etc.
Improvements in technology is constant. Screen resolution is just one aspect of it.
You seriously think that 8K and 4K screens of otherwise-equivalent image quality will cost the same amount of money to manufacture?
"Like it or not, 8K resolution is here to stay."
Whether you need it, want it, can see it, or whatever else, it's not going away. Like it or lump it.
"But, in the interim, it'll be advanced upscaling processors that will take full HD and 4K content and make them ready for the 8K big time, redefining the sharpness possible from existing sources."
Once you switch manufacture to 8K panels and the initial switchover costs are gone, it actually becomes more expensive to keep the older line going.
If you make a TV, most of the costs are the same. It's still a rectangle panel, sat on legs, with software, sockets and speakers that needs building and distributing to stores. Those costs are the same.
See the thread here.
Five years and 4K TVs went from premium down to budget.
Question about 4K Tech - What does it mean for us?
Note. Five years ago, 4K was not only premium but also "pointless."
You've totally ignored my point. All I'm saying is the move to 8K resolution offers no visual benefit to myself and I suspect most people who will buy a TV in the next few years. There is no HDR, Dolby Vision etc of the 8K generation as yet that can't be delivered with HDMI 2.1 on a 4K set. You seem to be suggesting people aren't accepting 8K is here to stay, of course it is. What some of us are saying is there is yet to be any tangible benefit shown to suggest we need it.
In regard to the things I suggested re improvements to current gen TVs, at no point have I said the TV manufacturers are responsible for producing this. I am saying these things would provide more of a tangible benefit to my viewing than an increase in screen resolution from 4K to 8K.
Unless you own a projector, it still is. The limits of human vision haven't changed in that time.
I'm not ignoring the point, it's a tangent. Improving TV channels to HD is out of the scope of the TV manufacturers. They might be improved or maybe it just isn't viable. I imagine that the most popular channels are those already in HD. Most available money will probably go to TV programme development and trying to improve old episodes of Morse isn't going to be there. Apparently CBS spent a lot of money on trying to improve Star Trek TOS
to HD and found it wasn't worth it to do TNG. Not enough interest was there to improve the old TV programmes. Even with Star Trek. I don't think there's sufficient interest to improve SD channels which effectively show a lot of repeats. I watch little terrestrial TV. Of what I watch it's mainly the HD channels and I'd rather they were in 4K if there's any bandwidth going. There isn't.
All the same that has little to do with the TV manufacturers who are trying to sell another generation of TV.
Buying a new TV isn't compulsory. If you don't want one yet, don't buy one yet. At some point you will buy one though. Even if it's for no other reason than your old TV died. I'd be rather disappointed if fifty years from now TVs were still 4K as everyone thought 4K was enough and all the engineers quit.
True. And there will be still other developments just as a higher resolution is.
What about this. You bought a 1080p TV years ago. You want a new TV now. You don't have HDR, HDR+, Dolby Video or anything else. You want a new TV which you expect to have for the next ten years. Buy a new 4K TV? Or how about an 8K TV when the price now isn't much more. Some will buy 8K because it is a degree of future proofing.
The article does point out why the 8K TVs are coming out. TVs are sold globally and some TVs are going to be showing 8K content and if one manufacture does it, they all will. For now it's down to their upscaling. Or buy an 8K camera and film your own. Or watch stuff like this.
They probably would. I'd love to see all TV broadcast in Dolby Atmos and delivered in 32K. Or lasered to my eyes.
And yet I can see the improvement from 1080p to 4K. I've seen all the charts. I think they are b******s. I can see the difference. I haven't seen an 8K TV in operation yet, but if I see it next to a 4K TV and I can pick which is better, I'll go off that. Whatever the little graphs say.
4K is just a stepping stone in the event of evolution.
Bottom line , its got to sell or it will be dropped.
You cannot sell TVs to the average public without a very obvious benefit to the tech.
4K would be dead at this stage except HDR saved it .... 8K has nothing to sell it .... not yet anyway.
Ultra HDR maybe?
It will be interesting to see how far this goes. The demo in the usual suspect shop did look very good and at the same distance I sit now, OK it's bigger. If the price was right and it had content it is a contender for me. Which probably means a few years time, 3-5?
I will be watching the means to deliver more than the actual panels for now. Various camera's etc. and production kit getting 8K capability. Going to be interesting.
Separate names with a comma.