World’s first 8K TV broadcasts begin for Rio Olympics

Unless you have an 8K TV (£120,000) you'll have to attend a special viewing theatre.

Read the whole story

 

[NoiseBoy]

I have a 4K TV and honestly, in a double blind trial I doubt I could tell the difference between up scaled 1080 and true 4K. Plus I'd rather have high bitrate 4K than heavily compressed 8K. I just don't see this technology being necessary in the home, even on an 85" screen.

 

[CircleBreaker]

I believe 8K actually will be the highest resolution reached for screens in the home. It just doesn't seem plausible that their will be a higher resolution. 8K is the end of the road.

 

[maehara]

circle.breaker[/url]":3p580x2z]I believe 8K actually will be the highest resolution reached for screens in the home. It just doesn't seem plausible that their will be a higher resolution. 8K is the end of the road.

Oh, give screen manufacturers a few minutes, they'll find a flimsy marketing pitch for something higher.

Just to concur with NoiseBoy, I have a 4k screen & have a hard time spoting the difference between 4k and 1080p. Although granted my screen is as small as 4k goes (40") and pretty much on the border of where the eye would be able to discern.

 

[mrseb]

circle.breaker[/url]":3a5gzixo]I believe 8K actually will be the highest resolution reached for screens in the home. It just doesn't seem plausible that their will be a higher resolution. 8K is the end of the road.

I bet you £10 that there will be a home TV with higher-than-8K resolution. Actually, £100!

But yes, whether you can actually see the difference between 8K and 16K... that's another question entirely.

My guess is that the other pixels will be used for something else, rather than just adding more detail.

 

[maehara]

mrseb[/url]":2z5y30or]
My guess is that the other pixels will be used for something else, rather than just adding more detail.

Permanent L-bar with 'carefully selected offers for our valued TV owners', with the show you're actually watching relegated to a 6k-res corner.

 

[Ushio]

So future TV ad will be

"Buy the new Smart LED 8K ultimate HD TV with HDR, HFR, 3D, AR and VR features"?

 

[Fritzr]

mrseb[/url]":bqmc08ru]

circle.breaker[/url]":bqmc08ru]I believe 8K actually will be the highest resolution reached for screens in the home. It just doesn't seem plausible that their will be a higher resolution. 8K is the end of the road.

I bet you £10 that there will be a home TV with higher-than-8K resolution. Actually, £100!

But yes, whether you can actually see the difference between 8K and 16K... that's another question entirely.

My guess is that the other pixels will be used for something else, rather than just adding more detail.

One concept of what "something extra" is
http://www.patentsfactory.eu/Gigapixel_television.html

I haven't heard of this company before or seen any mention of their HD3 compression scheme, but their writeup is definitely an interesting concept.

 

[MightyGorath]

NoiseBoy[/url]"3qts0p1]I have a 4K TV and honestly, in a double blind trial I doubt I could tell the difference between up scaled 1080 and true 4K. Plus I'd rather have high bitrate 4K than heavily compressed 8K. I just don't see this technology being necessary in the home, even on an 85" screen.

The biggest difference is the dynamic range and colour gamut.
I suspect you'd find it much harder to differentiate between 1080 and 4K, if the only difference was the resolution.

 

[THavoc]

And people wonder why I said 4k was dead consumer tech.

It's too soon after the HD revolution and 8k wasn't too far away.

 

[sryan2k1]

MightyGorath[/url]":1irgc4j8]

NoiseBoy[/url]":1irgc4j8]I have a 4K TV and honestly, in a double blind trial I doubt I could tell the difference between up scaled 1080 and true 4K. Plus I'd rather have high bitrate 4K than heavily compressed 8K. I just don't see this technology being necessary in the home, even on an 85" screen.

The biggest difference is the dynamic range and colour gamut.
I suspect you'd find it much harder to differentiate between 1080 and 4K, if the only difference was the resolution.

I have a 55" Samsung 4k (2015 model). 4k Netflix is immediately noticeable. It looks significantly higher quality.

 

[Wickwick]

8k doesn't make too much sense in a 2D, 16:9 screen that is only in front of the viewer. However, in an immersive display experience I can see the extra pixels being worthwhile. I'm thinking of the room-of-video from Fahrenheit 451 or the room panels that appear to switch to windows in the original Total Recall movie.

The other option is that such a high resolution might actually allow for glasses-free 3D using lenticular displays that don't suck. The windows above might actually show a different scene from different angles.

 

[GuardrailSouffle]

circle.breaker[/url]":29bon3ck]I believe 8K actually will be the highest resolution reached for screens in the home. It just doesn't seem plausible that their will be a higher resolution. 8K is the end of the road.

"640k ought to be enough for anybody"

 

[atomt]

At a given output resolution you need about double the resolution from the camera sensors to make the output look really good, so this is good news for 4K displays primarily. 1080p did not reach its maximum potential until we got recording/mastering in 4K, and 4K wont reach its maximum potential until we use 8K on the backend.

 

[Peevester]

THavoc[/url]":3ae5thm9]And people wonder why I said 4k was dead consumer tech.

It's too soon after the HD revolution and 8k wasn't too far away.

Well, I wonder, because 4k TVs are absolutely everywhere, to the point that you rarely see a big 1080p TV on the wall displays anymore. Admittedly most of the wow-factor on 4Ks is actually HDR and not entirely the resolution, but there's definitely wow factor to be had.

8K sets are where 4K were in their first months of making the scene - tens of thousands of dollars to buy, and no content other than tech demos. I don't think we'll see 8K content broadcast widely until we've all got gigabit internet (at the rate we're going, that'll be about another couple decades in the US, faster elsewhere), but with upscalers getting better every generation, I would not bet against 8K getting down to the low thousands price point in the next 3-5 years.

Someday, when we have smart paint and turn entire walls into displays, we're going to appreciate the pushes to raise resolution we're getting now.

 

[vcsjones]

8K for Rio? Those dead bodies on the beach never looked so sharp.

 

[daarong]

It's always interesting to see what 1st-world countries are up to...

I'm still waiting to be able to consistently stream 1080p on my "50Mbps" Comcast service (hurry up and come to Houston, GOOGLE FIBER)

 

[AHvivere]

Ugh marketing assholes renaming shit. 4k should be called 2160 and 8k 4320. Why go and rehash how everything's called after years of 720 and 1080? The fuck they think they are, Intel?

Edit. Fat finger cell typo

 

[atomt]

sryan2k1[/url]":2hejqotq]
I have a 55" Samsung 4k (2015 model). 4k Netflix is immediately noticeable. It looks significantly higher quality.

Well, if you are comparing to Netflix 1080p
OK seriously, Netflix 4K is not bad (when they are not using up most of the codec bandwidth on artificial grain)

 

[SuperDave]

daarong[/url]":2fdr2ysh]It's always interesting to see what 1st-world countries are up to...

I'm still waiting to be able to consistently stream 1080p on my "50Mbps" Comcast service (hurry up and come to Houston, GOOGLE FIBER)

There's the true holdup.

 

[atomt]

daarong[/url]":a62o9eoz]It's always interesting to see what 1st-world countries are up to...

I'm still waiting to be able to consistently stream 1080p on my "50Mbps" Comcast service (hurry up and come to Houston, GOOGLE FIBER)

Works fine in Europe, 4K too, any time of the day.

 

[arkiel]

circle.breaker[/url]":2q2mkcvs]I believe 8K actually will be the highest resolution reached for screens in the home. It just doesn't seem plausible that their will be a higher resolution. 8K is the end of the road.

I know its probably an Apple property, but I think "Retina" should be the new display standard. Resolution for maximum clarity scaling with the size of the physical screen and use. But that would make pointless the relentless iteration of television hardware, so it probably won't happen.

 

[THavoc]

Peevester[/url]":33jdxnol]Someday, when we have smart paint and turn entire walls into displays, we're going to appreciate the pushes to raise resolution we're getting now.

It's good tech, but like 3D, isn't long for this world for consumers.

The 8k push will start in earnest now and 4k will quickly die off. A lot of people invested in a good HD TV aren't going to want to go to 4k so soon and will hold off until 8k becomes more affordable.

 

[mmiller7]

Am I the only one who didn't know sizes over 4K exist?

Also...I already can't see past 720P from where I sit...

 

[THavoc]

vcsjones[/url]":3joqixyq]8K for Rio? Those dead bodies on the beach never looked so sharp.

It's to allow the viewer to see the swimmer's skin being eaten away as they are racing.

 

[doubledeej]

sryan2k1[/url]":1yjatws9]I have a 55" Samsung 4k (2015 model). 4k Netflix is immediately noticeable. It looks significantly higher quality.

That's interesting, because subjective analysis in a few reviews I've read says that Blu-ray discs provides a higher quality (including higher resolution) image than 4K streaming Netflix (or any other streaming service) does. It doesn't make sense that you claim to see a difference, because when tested, subjectively Blu-ray still provides a higher quality picture. Any perceived resolution advantage is completely placebo.

The only practical advantage UHD has over HD is the increased color gamut and HDR. At normal viewing distances with a typical consumer television, viewers will never see the resolution advantage. 4K resolution may improve the perceived picture quality on a projector (not that you can even buy a 4K model without breaking the bank today), but most people's TVs are just too small and too far away for it to even be possible for the human eye to distinguish the difference.

With a 65" TV you'd have to sit less than 6 feet away to be able to *barely* see the difference, and at 4.5 feet to see it for real, assuming 20/20 eyesight. Nobody sits that close. For most people, even 1080p is a waste. Here's a chart based on the resolving power of the eye... http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

 

[Milo_Hoffman]

Fritzr[/url]":28yiz0aa]
One concept of what "something extra" is
http://www.patentsfactory.eu/Gigapixel_television.html.

MUCH MORE likely illustration of what will happen to the extra pixels.

http://i948.photobucket.com/albums/ad330/tvgeekarmy/idiocracy.jpg~original

 

[desenfoque]

How many DECADES with NTSC (480i) and now the top resolution can't keep the throne for 5 years...

 

[actiongold]

MightyGorath[/url]":6fqwbxpe]

NoiseBoy[/url]":6fqwbxpe]I have a 4K TV and honestly, in a double blind trial I doubt I could tell the difference between up scaled 1080 and true 4K. Plus I'd rather have high bitrate 4K than heavily compressed 8K. I just don't see this technology being necessary in the home, even on an 85" screen.

The biggest difference is the dynamic range and colour gamut.

I suspect you'd find it much harder to differentiate between 1080 and 4K, if the only difference was the resolution.

The only difference is the resolution.

You can get 1080p displays with HDR and better color coverage than some 4K TVs. There's nothing about "4K" that makes HDR or better color range possible. Both 4K resolution and better panels just happen to be present in high end TVs.

 

[doubledeej]

actiongold[/url]":3h6b8i33]

MightyGorath[/url]":3h6b8i33]

NoiseBoy[/url]":3h6b8i33]I have a 4K TV and honestly, in a double blind trial I doubt I could tell the difference between up scaled 1080 and true 4K. Plus I'd rather have high bitrate 4K than heavily compressed 8K. I just don't see this technology being necessary in the home, even on an 85" screen.

The biggest difference is the dynamic range and colour gamut.

I suspect you'd find it much harder to differentiate between 1080 and 4K, if the only difference was the resolution.

The only difference is the resolution.

You can get 1080p displays with HDR and better color coverage than some 4K TVs. There's nothing about "4K" that makes HDR or better color range possible. Both 4K resolution and better panels just happen to be present in high end TVs.

Except that the specs for HD video don't support HDR or a wider color gamut. You'd have to have a UHD signal, and the TV would have to down-sample it. Nobody is doing that. To take advantage of a higher dynamic range or wider color gamut you have to buy a UHD set.

 

[arkiel]

At 8K, we'll be able to literally see the mega-bacteria that live in Rio's waters seeping into the ears and noses and mouths of the Olympic participants. At first, these huge microbial colonies will look like oily patches of water mixed with feces, thrown into the surf by the motion of the Olympian's efforts. It will only be later when we notice how the black seems to flatten out and move unnaturally, guiding itself to splatter across a patch of exposed skin. The wind will appear to just coincidentally be pushing those dark patches in the direction of the major orifices. We won't see the deliberate inching of gargantuan cellular cilia until careful review of the footage.

I'd give the contenders three days before their brains are converted to more of that oily water. They'll die screaming, black oozing from their eyes and ears.

They'll die in 8K.

 

[ConLawHero]

NoiseBoy[/url]":1xo8wmhn]I have a 4K TV and honestly, in a double blind trial I doubt I could tell the difference between up scaled 1080 and true 4K. Plus I'd rather have high bitrate 4K than heavily compressed 8K. I just don't see this technology being necessary in the home, even on an 85" screen.

I have the 65" Samsung HU9000 UHD 4K TV. I decided to see if I could tell the difference, on Netflix (since I have no physical 4K media), between HD and UHD. I popped on some 4K Netflix, and assuming that it was not throttled down to HD, which I don't believe it was because my internet traffic had a huge spike, I could tell a little difference between UHD and upscaled HD. However, I was looking for it.

I think that's the major difference. If you're sitting down watching TV for the content, you'll barely notice a difference, if you notice one at all. However, when I got about 6 inches from the screen, I could definitely see a bit more pixelation in the HD content. From about 7 feet back, there was basically no discernable difference.

So, you can tell, but you either have to be really looking for the differences or you have to be about 6 inches from the screen.

That's my experience with 4K. Though, I have to imagine 8K would be substantially better. I read somewhere that with VR, once they're able to do 8K at 120 FPS, it will be virtually indistinguishable from actual reality. We're quite a ways off from that. Maybe in 10 years.

 

[gweedoz]

Hearing how things have been going in Rio, I hope that camera equipment is heavy.

 

[MightyGorath]

actiongold[/url]":3g6zh077]

MightyGorath[/url]":3g6zh077]

NoiseBoy[/url]":3g6zh077]I have a 4K TV and honestly, in a double blind trial I doubt I could tell the difference between up scaled 1080 and true 4K. Plus I'd rather have high bitrate 4K than heavily compressed 8K. I just don't see this technology being necessary in the home, even on an 85" screen.

The biggest difference is the dynamic range and colour gamut.

I suspect you'd find it much harder to differentiate between 1080 and 4K, if the only difference was the resolution.

The only difference is the resolution.

You can get 1080p displays with HDR and better color coverage than some 4K TVs. There's nothing about "4K" that makes HDR or better color range possible. Both 4K resolution and better panels just happen to be present in high end TVs.

I'm not aware of any 1080p content that also has HDR and the increased gamut.
HDR is a part of the UHD spec, not "full HD" spec.

So I stand by my comment, that given the same image, but different resolutions, you'd be hard pressed to identify the difference between 1080 and 4K.

 

[atomt]

doubledeej[/url]":7m0j6w3k]

sryan2k1[/url]":7m0j6w3k]I have a 55" Samsung 4k (2015 model). 4k Netflix is immediately noticeable. It looks significantly higher quality.

That's interesting, because subjective analysis in a few reviews I've read says that Blu-ray discs provides a higher quality (including higher resolution) image than 4K streaming Netflix (or any other streaming service) does. It doesn't make sense that you claim to see a difference, because when tested, subjectively Blu-ray still provides a higher quality picture. Any perceived resolution advantage is completely placebo.

A compounding factor in the 4K vs 1080p debate is that 4K has yet to reach its potential, for that to happen you need 8K on the camera/production side. 1080p reached its potential when recording/mastering in 4K became common.

4K Netflix do look way better than 1080p Netflix though, but thats mostly down to the higher (but still not quite sufficient) bitrate.

 

[Wickwick]

jimlangrunner[/url]":2mnjexgg]I cringe. It's NOT 8k. it's 16k. that's 16x the number of pixels in a standard (1080) display.

Sheesh.

/pedantic rant.

No, it's 8k not 8x.

It's 4k not 2X.

1080p was the number of lines and a note that it was progressively scanned vs. interlaced. The standard widescreen 16:9 ratio gives 1920 x 1080 pixels.

4k sounds cool because it's a nice round number. But that's the number of columns. If you double 1080p in both directions it's 3844 x 2160. The 3844 is almost 4k and hence the name.

Double both directions again and you're at 7688 x 4320 which rounds to 8k.

 

[Coriolanus]

Wasn't there a special demonstration theatre at the 2012 London Olympics that demonstrated 8K footage of the games? I seem to recall that the specialized cabling used to transfer 8K footage to the very experimental 8K display were immense.

 

[flat otter]

vcsjones[/url]":mhrsrrzf]8K for Rio? Those dead bodies on the beach never looked so sharp.

At 8k resolution, you can actually see the staph infections taking hold.

 

[daarong]

jimlangrunner[/url]":x6oxsrfd]I cringe. It's NOT 8k. it's 16k. that's 16x the number of pixels in a standard (1080) display.

Sheesh.

/pedantic rant.

Every doubling of the width is quadrupling the total pixel count. The naming is referring to the width, not the pixel count (which is confusing because at first we experienced the coincidence that 2+2 and 2*2 give the same result).

I think the decision makes sense, because area increase is much less intuitive... since it's exponential.