NEWS: LG charts OLED TV roadmap - 8K in 2019

Discussion in 'LG TVs Forum' started by Mark Hodgkinson, Nov 3, 2017.


    1. Mark Hodgkinson

      Mark Hodgkinson
      Reviewer & News Writer

      Joined:
      Aug 8, 2005
      Messages:
      14,009
      Products Owned:
      3
      Products Wanted:
      4
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Ratings:
      +4,398
    2. BigD18t

      BigD18t
      Distinguished Member

      Joined:
      Sep 5, 2012
      Messages:
      6,457
      Products Owned:
      1
      Products Wanted:
      3
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      Somerset
      Ratings:
      +3,059
      Did they say anything about smaller Oled tv's ? not everyone can home a 55'' screen so a 50'' would be ideal, I even have people who want 40'' sizes, the benefits of fantastic viewing angles and stunning blacks, people are willing to spend a little more.
       
      • Like Like x 2
      • Useful Useful x 1
      • List
      Last edited: Nov 3, 2017
    3. Pecker

      Pecker
      Distinguished Member

      Joined:
      Dec 26, 2004
      Messages:
      22,382
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      1
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      Huddersfield, People's Republic of Yorkshire
      Ratings:
      +4,495
      Shall we have a vote? Either 4K TVs with better motion handling and all other issues ironed out, or 8K TVs.

      You will not be able to spot any difference whatsoever (all else being equal) between 4K and 8K at anything like a normal viewing distance.

      The manufacturers already know this. They've already lumped HDR on to 4K as they knew resolution would be a barely perceivable upgrade over 1080p.
       
      • Agree Agree x 7
      • Like Like x 2
      • List
    4. Simon F

      Simon F
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Sep 20, 2016
      Messages:
      2,162
      Products Owned:
      2
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      116
      Location:
      Chester, UK
      Ratings:
      +1,346
      It's similar to the mobile phone market. Keep increasing the model number and followers will buy.
       
      • Like Like x 1
      • Agree Agree x 1
      • List
    5. Simon F

      Simon F
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Sep 20, 2016
      Messages:
      2,162
      Products Owned:
      2
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      116
      Location:
      Chester, UK
      Ratings:
      +1,346
      "LG Disaply also indicated that we would see the first ‘roll-up’ OLED screens as early as 2020"

      Dear Lord o_O
       
    6. Simon F

      Simon F
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Sep 20, 2016
      Messages:
      2,162
      Products Owned:
      2
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      116
      Location:
      Chester, UK
      Ratings:
      +1,346
      • Like Like x 1
      • Agree Agree x 1
      • List
    7. kinggo

      kinggo
      Member

      Joined:
      Feb 27, 2015
      Messages:
      563
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      46
      Location:
      Zagreb
      Ratings:
      +131
      I'll wait for 16k............ In 2020.
      Because heavilly compressed streaming content will look even better on 16k. And 720 or 1080 terestrial also. :rolleyes:
       
      • Like Like x 1
      • Funny Funny x 1
      • List
    8. Blupetros

      Blupetros
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Mar 26, 2013
      Messages:
      720
      Products Owned:
      4
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      66
      Location:
      Garden of England
      Ratings:
      +388
      Suggest you re-read paragraph three ;).
       
    9. dmw3

      dmw3
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Oct 7, 2016
      Messages:
      389
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      66
      Location:
      uk
      Ratings:
      +272
      No difference because most TV is still made and broadcast in 1080p or less.

      8k, there's not a lot to watch in 4k if your viewing isn't sports n movie based.

      It doesn't matter how many pixels your Tv has, it's how many pixels the content you actually want to watch has, that counts.

      The silence from the main terrestrial UK broadcasters on offering a proper 4K service is deafening, and now were are told 8k TVs are on the way. Of course subscription services offer some 4k because like the Tv manufacturers it's a great way to get consumers to part with more cash.

      This is pixels to sell Tvs, I mean in 2020 will there be any 8k content? At the rate we are going we will be lucky to have enough 4k content to fill our panels by then
       
    10. Pecker

      Pecker
      Distinguished Member

      Joined:
      Dec 26, 2004
      Messages:
      22,382
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      1
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      Huddersfield, People's Republic of Yorkshire
      Ratings:
      +4,495
      All else being equal, there will be no difference between 4K and 8K with native 4K/8K content from any reasonable viewing distance.

      Optimal viewing distance for 1080p is 3 x screen heights. For 4K it's 1.5 x screen heights. For 8K it's be 0.75 x screen heights.

      Even on my large projector screen (140cm tall) I'd have to sit closer than 2.1m to see any difference at all between 4K and 8K, and around 1m to get the full 8K benefit.
       
    11. google

      google
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Dec 31, 2006
      Messages:
      2,891
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      133
      Ratings:
      +1,530
      Aren't the TV manufacturers/content providers trying to get as close to a real life image on TV by increasing the resolution? I mean if I sit 12 feet from a real life 2D (if this is possible?) bowl of fruit on a table and to the right of it have an oled TV with the same image of that bowl of fruit in 4K, HDR and WCG would I be able to pick out the real image? I think I probably would.

      Perhaps 8K or higher will allow HDR and WCG to be used to create an image that you would be hard pressed to tell the difference from real life? In a way that 1080p or 2160p won't allow?
       
    12. jmacc

      jmacc
      Distinguished Member

      Joined:
      Jan 31, 2004
      Messages:
      11,667
      Products Owned:
      4
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      Highlands
      Ratings:
      +12,742
      Oled tiles at 40" = sweet pc monitor.
      Can't wait to burn my taskbar into one of them little beauties :clap::D
       
    13. dmw3

      dmw3
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Oct 7, 2016
      Messages:
      389
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      66
      Location:
      uk
      Ratings:
      +272
      Well If I had a 4k TV, I would notice an improvement on 4k content from where I sit, just, on a 55".

      Except I didn't buy a 4k last year because there is sweet Fa available in 4K, I want to watch and a year later there still is. PQ is more than just pixel count, depth of colour, etc, It's why I bought a LG 910 V OLED. (early 2007 full 1080p adopter here and within a year I was watching 50% of my viewing in HD with a 10 quid top up on my Sky subscription thanks to the BBC HD channel)

      Viewing tables are irrelevant if there's no actual 4K content you want to sit down and watch! if like me, you don't watch sport and don't watch the latest blockbusters and prefer Bafta type dramas, and BBC4 documentaries, alongside indie films and even when your tastes move towards popular TV like, The Walking Dead it's still a 4K/HDR void, with little concrete promises of future content.

      Plus the cost of upgrading subscriptions services to maximise UHD content across multiple platforms is ridiculous. I calculated that even if I watched sport and blockbusters, and I paid out to maximise UHD content, I'd be spending £1000, yes a grand a year on top of a mid range Sky/Virgin subscription across multiple platforms, to still only have a third of my viewing in either 4k or HDR and that's assuming I suddenly wanted to start watching blockbusters and sports!

      So instead of examining viewing charts, or the merits of HDR formats, I researched UHD content, both current and future delivery and spent my 1100 notes on a TV that delivers the best PQ on the content I do watch a 1080p OLED.

      I suspect there are many people who have UHd Tvs and don't watch any UHD content on it, it' either doesn't exist or they aren't prepared to shell out the ££s needed to watch it. It's that void that needs filling, not moving sofas closer to the TV IMHO that needs addressing and it's one the TV manufacturers are, for obvious reasons don't shout about.

      ETA: I do agree with your point about viewing distances, just that's not the real issue for many, it's a complete lack of content
       
    14. raduv1

      raduv1
      Distinguished Member

      Joined:
      Mar 24, 2006
      Messages:
      12,579
      Products Owned:
      1
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      167
      Location:
      kent
      Ratings:
      +7,865
      Do not see the point of 8K myself but it does seem to imply that 8K = 80" plus screen size and greater and will be out of almost all on price range for many years.

      More important is the ramping up on production and other manufacturers adopting OLED as their flagship displays to me . This for me spells good times ahead for the consumer as prices will only fall .
       
    15. Pecker

      Pecker
      Distinguished Member

      Joined:
      Dec 26, 2004
      Messages:
      22,382
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      1
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      Huddersfield, People's Republic of Yorkshire
      Ratings:
      +4,495
      No, they're not.

      This isn't guesswork, it's science.

      Scientists have proven that, at the distances I described, it is not possible to tell the difference.

      It's not some theoretical science, either. It's the science on which eye tests are based, which determine whether or not you can drive, and on which the eyesight of airline pilots, brain surgeons and astronauts, is based.

      In other words its science which is tested on a daily basis, all over the world. It's a science on which depends flying equipment, 777s, and space shuttles worth millions, if not billons of dollars depends, not to mention the lives of countless people.

      If it's scientifically not possible to tell the difference, the lack of content is completely and utterly irrelevant.

      If I place a line 1mm wide 100m from you, can you see it? No. The fact that there are no actual pieces of paper with 1mm lines on placed 100m from you really doesn't matter. The science is absolutely solid and well tested.

      What is more, the science wouldn't have to be slightly inaccurate to make a difference. It's have to be completely wrong to the point that there'd be people out there driving cars who should have milk bottle bottomed glasses on, and brain surgeons currently in employment who shouldn't be allowed near a scalpel.

      You cannot tell any difference at all difference between 8K and 4K unless you're sat closer than 1.5 the height of the screen, or you have better than 20/20 vision.

      That's not opinion, it's scientifically verified fact. And you don't need to have any video content to know it's true.
       
    16. NicolasB

      NicolasB
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 3, 2002
      Messages:
      6,514
      Products Owned:
      1
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      136
      Location:
      Emily's Shop
      Ratings:
      +920
      I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there is exactly one situation where an 8K display would be useful, and that's inside a VR headset.

      Things that would be much more interesting than 8K:

      - Better near-black performance.

      - Increase peak brightness to the point that you can display 1000 nits without clipping, and display 100% of DCI colour gamut at that brightness level without losing saturation.

      - Better motion handling (possibly including black frame insertion - that, again, requires more brightness).

      - Non-uniform frame-rate for gamers.

      -120Hz refresh rate for NTSC DVDs.

      - Better brightness and colour uniformity (eliminate the "panel lottery").

      - Passive 3D.
       
      • Like Like x 2
      • Agree Agree x 1
      • List
    17. NicolasB

      NicolasB
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 3, 2002
      Messages:
      6,514
      Products Owned:
      1
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      136
      Location:
      Emily's Shop
      Ratings:
      +920
      To make the two indistinguishable would require a glasses-free 3D system that correctly handles parallax as you move your head around. That's not going to happen any time soon.
       
    18. dmw3

      dmw3
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Oct 7, 2016
      Messages:
      389
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      66
      Location:
      uk
      Ratings:
      +272

      I know the charts are scientific that wasn't my point. I am not debating the scientific empiricism in the charts, the charts are valid if you have 4k content. The charts are irrelevant (note, I chose that word specifically irrelevant, not wrong, not disputing the charts just their relevance to the consumer) if there is no 4k content being fed to your panel, you can't benefit from the science.

      My point is a viewing chart that says I will benefit from 4k at X distance means diddly squat, if there is no 4K content I want to watch, so I can benefit from all those extra pixels as a consumer, if I don't have them either from hardware or content.

      BTW I know Tvs upscale but it's never as good as true 1080, 4k or 8K content

      My point is, that so many consumer focus on the charts, use them as they should be used and choose a screen size accordingly and seating distance and then watch 1080p content because that's how their viewing tastes are delivered.

      the charts are meaningless for people like me, not because they are wrong, they are empirically correct, I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is the availability of content and how that gets lost within the context of debates and people buying TVs over what are often, fruitless debates about viewing charts.

      the first question isn't am I sitting too far away, the first question should be is the content I want to watch available in 4k and if it is, am I willing to pay extra for it.

      the next question is, do I sit too far away to benefit, and then use the charts to decide.

      If you answer to the first question is no, there is no 4K content for me now or in the near future, then question 2, charts and viewing distances and whether I would notice 4k are irrelevant. That is because I am not watching 4k, the science still exists but the benefit doesn't exist for the consumer. I can't benefit from something I don't have (in this case) 4K content.

      The What TV should I buy section is full of consumers with good TVs less than 5 years old thinking that if they upgrade to UHD, they will get a better picture and they are not considering all the factors, availability of content and charts.

      If I sit at the optimum distance for 4k from a panel of a given size according to the charts, and I am watching SD or even HD broadcasts, the charts are meaningless because I am not watching 4k. That's the reality for consumers because they are not benefiting from the science.

      It's like buying a microwave and using it to store spare tupperware in rather than using the science of microwaves actually cook food.

      So will anyone benefit from 8K Tvs if, there is no 8K content even if they are viewing from the optimum distance for 8K? the answer is no

      ETA: I understand your frustration because of some of the daft stuff spouted about charts being incorrect. they are correct but if I am not watching 4K content, on a 4k TV at the correct distance, I am still not benefiting from 4k am I?

      What we have is TV manufacturers asking us to upgrade for a better picture with more pixels, to part with our cash without there being enough stuff with all those pixels being delivered to our screens. That's economics, not science
       
      Last edited: Nov 3, 2017
    19. Buckster666

      Buckster666
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Feb 2, 2006
      Messages:
      1,302
      Products Owned:
      8
      Products Wanted:
      8
      Trophy Points:
      86
      Location:
      West Bromwich
      Ratings:
      +393
      Porn in 8K, nuff said!!! Lol
       
    20. NicolasB

      NicolasB
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 3, 2002
      Messages:
      6,514
      Products Owned:
      1
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      136
      Location:
      Emily's Shop
      Ratings:
      +920
      Sorry, but I never pass up an opportunity to nit-pick on this topic. :)

      There's a chance you could see a 1mm thick line at 100m; and certainly, if it was a very bright line on a dark background, in dark viewing conditions, then you absolutely could.

      The key question is, if you had two lines, 1mm apart, viewed from 5 or 6 metres away, would you be able to see them as two separate lines, or would you be unable to tell whether it's one line or two?
       
      • Like Like x 1
      • Funny Funny x 1
      • List
    21. BRAKKUS1

      BRAKKUS1
      Banned

      Joined:
      Jun 11, 2006
      Messages:
      3,609
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Ratings:
      +2,446
      Also they have no intention in developing OLED monitors, or screens intended for PC use, so that basically means that image retention/screen burn issues are not something they are tackling anytime soon :(
       
    22. kinggo

      kinggo
      Member

      Joined:
      Feb 27, 2015
      Messages:
      563
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      46
      Location:
      Zagreb
      Ratings:
      +131
      sure. Except 3D :D But stuffing more pixels is THE cheapest thing to sell as the next big thing. Everything else requires more money for R&D and QC and it's a hard sell from marketing PoV.
       
    23. Paul7777x

      Paul7777x
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Jul 23, 2016
      Messages:
      1,891
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      116
      Location:
      North east. U.K.
      Ratings:
      +516
      Does anyone actually watch broadcast tv anymore?
       
    24. raduv1

      raduv1
      Distinguished Member

      Joined:
      Mar 24, 2006
      Messages:
      12,579
      Products Owned:
      1
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      167
      Location:
      kent
      Ratings:
      +7,865
      Not sure it is something that can be tackled for PC moniror use as the tech shares the same strengths and weaknesses as plasma did.
       
    25. BRAKKUS1

      BRAKKUS1
      Banned

      Joined:
      Jun 11, 2006
      Messages:
      3,609
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Ratings:
      +2,446
      Pioneer fixed it with the 8 and 9 gen Kuro's.
      I used the LX-508D for heavy PC and gaming use for 6 years, and there was literally zero burn in when I sold it!! Pioneer were incredible really.
       
    26. Pecker

      Pecker
      Distinguished Member

      Joined:
      Dec 26, 2004
      Messages:
      22,382
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      1
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      Huddersfield, People's Republic of Yorkshire
      Ratings:
      +4,495
      NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

      My apologies, that sounds both rude and impatient. I'll try to explain better (my fault for not doing so before).

      I think you've missed the point here.

      You don't need to test with 2k, 4k, 8k, 16k content.

      Whatever you test with 4k content, for 8k content you only need to halve the seating distance for the same size display (or double the display size for the same distance).

      Letters on the eye charts used for this look like this:

      Single-E-Test-Card.jpg

      Note that the black 'arms' and 'back' of the 'E' are the same size as the gaps between the arms. For the purposes of what we're discussing here, each 'arm' would be one line of pixels. Scientists have found that, at what would be 2k, 4k, 8k, 16k, the viewing distance is exactly proportionate to the height of the 'arms'. If the cut off point is a set resolution, then if you exactly double the resolution (arms half the size), you exactly halve the distance you need to sit to see it.

      In other words, if you've checked it for 4K (yes, with native 4k content), you don't need to test an 8k display with native 8k content to know the seating distance. You just divide your seating distance by 2.

      There are exceptions, but these make it worse for 8k, not better. After a certain resolution, you need a larger display to be able to the detail, irrespective of seating distance.
       
      Last edited: Nov 4, 2017
    27. Pecker

      Pecker
      Distinguished Member

      Joined:
      Dec 26, 2004
      Messages:
      22,382
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      1
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      Huddersfield, People's Republic of Yorkshire
      Ratings:
      +4,495



      Well done for noting that, Nic. You're absolutely right.

      However, it's important to point out (in relation to what we're discussing here - resolution on a TV display) that the eye test we're discussing uses pitch black lines on a brightly back-lit background. In tests the display is made up of a bright, pure white backlight, shining through/around solid black letters through which no light can pass. The standards to which these light boxes and letter displays are made is pretty high; it's not just black paper cut out and placed over a 60w lamp in cornflake box.

      The contrast will be greater than on an HDR display. Subsequently, what is measured by the eye tests will be the maximum you'll ever see on a telly.

      That's right. As in the 'E' in the eye test (above). It's not whether you can see any one of the black or white lines which makes up the 'E' - the black arms/back of the letter, or the white spaces in between - it's whether you can make out the letter 'E' that they form.
       
    28. dmw3

      dmw3
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Oct 7, 2016
      Messages:
      389
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      66
      Location:
      uk
      Ratings:
      +272

      Yep and its a shame that most broadcast Tv can't even reach proper uncompressed 1080p.

      the average Avforum user is a lot more sussed, than Joe Pop down Currys Bloggs. I mean what 8K content will we be watching sitting 2 feet away from 80" screens in 2020? Zilch I suspect.

      Of course Joe Currys Bloggs, will see the 8K sticker on these shiny new sets and take one home, turn on BBC and not benefit from those extra pixels. The TV manufacturer benefits, the retailer does too, nice profits on people upgrading for stuff they can't actually use/benefit from.

      perhaps I'm too cynical but
      Yes I get that
      I know how they work

      However I don't need to test for 4k or 8k content if I don't have any 4k or 8k content do I

      There is no benefit to the Individual. The science still exists but I don't need it.

      IF I buy an 8k tv but theres no 8k content then I'm not actually benefiting from 8k.

      From a cost benefit analysis it is waste of time and money to buy an 8k TV use a chart to determine where I should sit then watch 1080 on it.
      In economics we are talking direct benefit to the consumer, in this context. The direct benefit to the consumer of an 8k tv with no 8k content is zero.
       
    29. ryanvincent

      ryanvincent
      Banned

      Joined:
      Jul 26, 2017
      Messages:
      464
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      46
      Location:
      Stoke/London
      Ratings:
      +176
      4k 120hz for 2018 no doubt with HDMI 2.1 then 8k in 2019, the people who say they have 'upgraded' from the 2016 to 2017 models will feel terrible when they realise little improvements to brightness and near black is not a upgrade at all :laugh: Still the same panel peeps!
       
    30. 1080 jawbreaker

      1080 jawbreaker
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Nov 30, 2004
      Messages:
      3,149
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      136
      Ratings:
      +787
      8k screens with passive 3d - 4k per eye :)

      to this day the best image quality ive seen was on Sonys first 4k TV which used passive 3d delivering 1080p to each eye.
       

    Share This Page

    Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice