Quantcast

NEWS: 8K detail unnoticed by most TV consumers says study

raymondo77

Distinguished Member
In other news, bears do indeed sh*t in the woods.
 

swiftpete

Distinguished Member
They were only watching on an 88 inch display. Put it at 150 inches and see what happens.
 

larkone

Distinguished Member
What a surprise!!
....and of course we all have room for 150" displays :facepalm:
 

kinggo

Member
.......or money.

But 4k on 8k TV is still upscaled so.... Sadly, they will force that crap just like they did with 4k.
 

xxGBHxx

Well-known Member
While not surprising, it's still interesting and good to see a study where they've attempted to put some scientific rigour behind it. As has been said many times, I doubt 8k will ever be adopted mainstream for a long long time, if ever, but it does have its trickle down benefits. It's not about the direct benefits of 8k, it's all about how the indirect benefits affect what we currently have.

First it pushes bandwidth. If the industry want to push this as a standard for streaming then they need to work on the infrastructure to be able to stream at that rate. That means better codecs, faster internet and lower contention to ensure it can be delivered. With that they might increase the bitrate and quality of 4k streams.

Secondly it pushes processing. The higher the resolution, the more processing power you need and while it might not be a linear increase the more power you have the faster TV OS's will be and the more you can do with a 4k signal. This allows them to be more creative and should result in better performance at 4k.

Thirdly it is likely to push the entire pipeline to a higher overall quality with footage being filmed at 8k or higher and DI's being at least native 4k (as I'm guessing a 2k DI will not scale too well to 8k). This means 4k will benefit from a higher overall quality throughout the pipeline and result in a complete 4k+ workflow.

Lastly it means for those of us with home cinemas when (if) we get microLED screens of a decent size at a price that's affordable to mortals and they can be made at 8k it means we'll be able to get a huge stunning display where the extra resolution might actually matter.

I'd say we're at least 10 years away from all that being in place though.

G
 

keithwiggins

Active Member
is it not a surprise that manufactures have embraced in the main the newest and shiniest tech to persuade us all that the products we bought last month, are now crap and what we all need to do is replace it with this later panacea for all ails.
Once every set is replaced with 8k, we will then be told, well ok those tvs are pretty good but really to complete our journey to video nirvana we need the newest 16k jobbies. And so it contines.
the bit that does make me laugh is think of all the reviewers who tell us these new 8k sets are great compared to the 4k units most have bought, now that we have strong evidence confirming that you cant bloody see a difference.
 

dms

Active Member
Interesting read but I wonder what these people would have said at lower resolutions too... Well to be honest there is a lot of 4k footage I couldn't tell apart to 1080p on my 120" screen at 3m. The only material I'd be quite sure to get right in a double blind us planet earth 2.

Yes some material I know very well (blade runner) I can see the difference if looking for it but if just sitting back and chilling.... I doubt it.

Then again most people who visit wouldn't know if they had watched dvd, Blu-ray or 4k at mine if they sat down to watch a film and I asked afterwards. For me dvd Vs blu is a light and day difference to the extent I avoid dvd like the plague.

Sure it's down to vision that only makes sense but not noticing a dvd Vs Blu-ray on my size screen means people don't even care or aren't looking for detail... Not all my visitors are half blind!

Anyways. I'm sure I couldnt tell 8k Vs 4k under any circumstances and wouldn't care to upgrade and rebuy films (again!) but technology will march in regardless!
 

keithwiggins

Active Member
must admit when watching 4k hdr find it dull as ditch water and try to seek out 1080p alternative, think its the hdr treatment that spoils it for me.
 

fortyfive

Standard Member
Its the quality of the source images I need to improve. The brand new Amazon series 'Picard' is only in 1080P for some reason even though 'The Expanse' really benefited from 4K.
 

kenfowler3966

Active Member
Try watching an SD source on an 8k tv! I did in John lewis, and it is totally unwatcheable, whereas just bad on a 4k tv, and reasonable on an HD one.

My brother in law and his family are typically watching the sd channel on say itv or bbc, even though they have a hd set, when pointed out they claim they can't notice any difference? I can't see him ever buying a 4k set unless he has to let alone an 8k, and then he is likely to complain about the picture quality of his SD source.
 

gadget man

Active Member
4K would have failed without HDR, resolution i find very difficult to distinguish between blu ray and UHD. So 8K has nothing else to offer just resolution that unless you have your nose up to the screen will be no difference. Remember 3D this will go the same way and i am looking forward to the 8K reviews this year because you can guarantee will be raving about it.
 

Robothamster

Distinguished Member
8k projectors on 100"+ screens I can see the point in, but TVs 4K is enough, we just need more proper 4k content to be available to all.
 

Nostromo71

Well-known Member
Shocker, eh? :rolleyes:
 

kenshingintoki

Well-known Member
Its cheaper and better marketting wise to increase resolution from 4k to 8k than to improve the actual quality of TVs, including banding, clouding, halo effect, burn in (in OLEDs case), quality assurance and control, image processing algorithms for better motion etc.

From an LCD point of view, I think most consumers would so more benefit from companies trying to impliment more FALD-type tech or micro-LED. From an OLED perspective, a fix or more protection from burn in (such as panny's heat sink) would probably be favourable to jumping to 8k.

Bigger screens will probably benefit (75+ inches) but then we run into issues of content. Upscaling will not deliver a better image (4k/1080p on an 8k screen).

Our content is currently really struggling at 4k outside of blu-rays. PC gaming (the highest end gaming) struggles to do 4k/60 on £1000 graphics cards for newer games like RDR2 and most would rather probably 4k/120fps once the gpu horse power is available; especially now that we have VRR. Netflix can just about stream 4k content to everyone and it already has a hell of a lot of compression compared to the blu-ray counterparts. 4k and 8k blu-ray I can venture a guess won't have much difference as the bit-rate and quality of information from them is already phenomenal. Television broadcasting still hasn't got widespread 4k adoption.

I wish they'd just drop this 8K BS but we all know its not geared towards enthusiasts. Its geared towards the person in the shop who will see an 8k tv with max contrast/brightness/sharpness saying omg look how gud that tv luks11!!

The only other people who I think benefit from 8k displays will be productivity users who want more screen real estate and edit videos.
 

IWC Dopplel

Well-known Member
Could we simply have better quality 4K material please. With good scaling on a good recording 2K material is pretty much there in any case

I sit just under 11’ from a 134” diagonal screen 121” wide and film quality is a greater difference than if it’s 2k or 4K. My other half doesn’t know if we are watching 2k or 4K

Perfect 4K is much more interesting than any 8k fluff
 

Sloppy Bob

Distinguished Member
If 4K is more than good enough for a monster screen in a cinema (many cinemas are still just over 1080p) then it's more than good enough for anything you'll ever need in your home.

Newer technologies like HDR and it's multiple iterations, a wider colour gamut etc make more difference than a barely, if at all noticeable, resolution bump.
 

SteveAWOL

Distinguished Member
If 4K is more than good enough for a monster screen in a cinema (many cinemas are still just over 1080p) then it's more than good enough for anything you'll ever need in your home.

Newer technologies like HDR and it's multiple iterations, a wider colour gamut etc make more difference than a barely, if at all noticeable, resolution bump.
Yup, FullHD with HDR would be ideal for most homes.

The only time I really notice the lack of resolution at multiplexes is when there’s been some screen-door effect at a 2K LieMAX, which is not a problem at IMAX with Laser 4K system.

Otherwise an uncompressed high bitrate 2K DCP is sufficient for most movies and I prefer the superior dynamic range and colour gamut of local Odeon Luxe’s new 2K laser projectors over Vue cinemas older Sony 4K xenon setup.
 

maverick177uk

Distinguished Member
They should concentrate on glassless 4k 3D
 

Trending threads

Latest News

BenQ launches new Home Cinema and Gaming projectors
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Acorn TV streaming service to launch in UK
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
LG UK 2020 TV rollout and prices revealed
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
TV shipment forecasts slashed for Q2 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung Display to quit LCD production
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom