- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is there any point in buying an 8k tv right now?
Posted on 4/12/21 at 10:00 am
Posted on 4/12/21 at 10:00 am
With TCL coming out with 85 inch 8k tv’s I was thinking, does it even make sense to buy an 8k tv in the next few years? 8k contest doesn’t even exist yet... if it does, there certainly isn’t enough to justify paying an extra 5,000 for a tv.
Anyone else have an opinion on 8k tv’s right now?
Anyone else have an opinion on 8k tv’s right now?
5
Posted on 4/12/21 at 10:34 am to Woolfman_8
Wait for 12k
Posted on 4/12/21 at 10:06 pm to Woolfman_8
Get you a Canon EOS R5. Shoot your own 8k porn.
Profit!
Profit!
Posted on 4/12/21 at 10:35 pm to Woolfman_8
No. Zero. None.
Except maybe that 8k porn.
Except maybe that 8k porn.
This post was edited on 4/12/21 at 10:36 pm
Posted on 4/14/21 at 6:56 pm to Woolfman_8
TLDR; no, unless it's "free".
8K is almost 100% marketing hype. Except for very specific situations it's just beyond the level of detail that human eyes can perceive at the distances most humans watch TV. Even 4K resolution is in that ballpark - with a HUGE caveat though. 4K ushered in HDR and Wide Color. Those 2 things both make a bigger difference in picture quality, most of the time. 8K isn't doing any of that, it's just a resolution jump so far.
8K is almost 100% marketing hype. Except for very specific situations it's just beyond the level of detail that human eyes can perceive at the distances most humans watch TV. Even 4K resolution is in that ballpark - with a HUGE caveat though. 4K ushered in HDR and Wide Color. Those 2 things both make a bigger difference in picture quality, most of the time. 8K isn't doing any of that, it's just a resolution jump so far.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 7:44 pm to pheroy
Actually, you're pretty far off from being right. The eye itself constantly shifts. Even reading this, your eyes perceive everything around what you are reading but it's all blurry. An 4k TV has approximately 8 million pixels, but there is an area the eye can focus on that is about 7 million pixels in capability. Problem is, when you watch TV or a movie, let's say, in 4K, you are only focusing on about 1.5 million pixels right in the center of where your vision is directed. You look and focus your eyes all across the screen at different times and the mind sort of tricks you into perceiving the overall image as a higher resolution.
But an 8k set has over 33 million pixels compared to the 8 million in 4k. Now, in the same area of focus, you have an available 6 million pixels to fill that 7 million pixels in focus capability. This means you are very close to perceiving in the 8k video what you can normally see in the real world, and that is a highly significant leap in imaging capability, not marketing hype.
I work with NASA on testing and evaluating technologies that they plan to take to the moon for the Artemis program. 8k is a requirement for video capture. If it were marketing hype, NASA would not be spending millions to make sure they capture 8k on the moon.
But an 8k set has over 33 million pixels compared to the 8 million in 4k. Now, in the same area of focus, you have an available 6 million pixels to fill that 7 million pixels in focus capability. This means you are very close to perceiving in the 8k video what you can normally see in the real world, and that is a highly significant leap in imaging capability, not marketing hype.
I work with NASA on testing and evaluating technologies that they plan to take to the moon for the Artemis program. 8k is a requirement for video capture. If it were marketing hype, NASA would not be spending millions to make sure they capture 8k on the moon.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 7:49 pm to Woolfman_8
To bring some perspective on the media you’re watching , most 4K stuff streamed (ESPN / Netflix ) is coming in around 2k.
You’d have to have physical media like 4K disc or a 4K download on a local media server to really get the quality. So nah I’m not seeing the need for 8K
You’d have to have physical media like 4K disc or a 4K download on a local media server to really get the quality. So nah I’m not seeing the need for 8K
Posted on 4/14/21 at 8:17 pm to deltadon
quote:
So nah I’m not seeing the need for 8K
You sound like those people that used to say, "HD us good enough. 4k TV is a gimmick." You fail to understand what the human eye can actually see and how it resolved visual data. You are correct about non 4k being made to appear as 4k, but you're not involved in what 8k means to video production moving forward. I'm working with 250mp sensors now because the sensors can cover a very large wide area and using what's called an "area of interest" on the sensor, you can pull out a highly detailed 8k, 4k or HD image. In terms of ISR for the military, AI using large format ultra high resolution can take a sensor like that and with one camera monitor an area at 10-15km away that is 20km wide, and if anything of interest is detected, in many places across that sensor, it can bring up multiple HD or 4k images in highly detailed imaging that much better than any current 4k camera on its own can provide.
But I'm veering away from the discussion. You have not seen 8k native footage on a true 8k reference display. I have. It's phenomenal. Like looking into another world.
It's not ready as far as consumer products go, but when it is, it will be a monumental increase in capability. Much higher than the leap from hd to 4k.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 9:17 pm to HubbaBubba
You went off on a tangent for no reason.
OP asked if it was worth the extra money. I gave factual examples of when you’d get actual 4K content , and factual examples of 2k content.
I never argued the fact anything about the human eye and whatever the hell else you went into.
OP asked if it was worth the extra money. I gave factual examples of when you’d get actual 4K content , and factual examples of 2k content.
I never argued the fact anything about the human eye and whatever the hell else you went into.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 9:41 pm to HubbaBubba
HB, that is really cool stuff, truly. Wish I could experience that.
I said "except for very specific situations", and you brought one up. Congrats. For commercial TV and broadcasting in the next several years I don't think that is applicable. What's the bandwidth required to stream that kind of data? Is the Netflix advanced video group looking at any reasonable way of doing that any time soon that would be within the practical logistical/business constraints they would be limited by? I think we're in "c'mon man" territory there in terms of consumer use. NF and others are going to provide "good enough" video. Hell, we can't even get lossless audio and that would make a much more discernible difference at a far lower bitrate cost.
I said "except for very specific situations", and you brought one up. Congrats. For commercial TV and broadcasting in the next several years I don't think that is applicable. What's the bandwidth required to stream that kind of data? Is the Netflix advanced video group looking at any reasonable way of doing that any time soon that would be within the practical logistical/business constraints they would be limited by? I think we're in "c'mon man" territory there in terms of consumer use. NF and others are going to provide "good enough" video. Hell, we can't even get lossless audio and that would make a much more discernible difference at a far lower bitrate cost.
This post was edited on 4/14/21 at 9:42 pm
Posted on 4/14/21 at 11:46 pm to pheroy
Right now, you'd be looking at 200 Mbps and that's pretty basic, no enhanced color algorithms or premium sound. I mentioned the Canon R5 earlier. It's an incredibly versatile camera for a $3600 cost, but there are others already in production, but that cost much more, such as from Red and Arri. Lenses also have to designed to accommodate the higher resolution and provide good MTF across the lens.
Newer phones are soon going to incorporate 8k and in the broadcast and video production world, it's rapidly developing the mixers, editors and production-grade video displays to shoot in 8k.
The issue with NASA is we are working in solving some complex solutions including issues around sensors and radiation degradation in communications systems and that includes the moon and Mars. In space there's no air to conduct heat away from electronics and these cameras, running the processors required to process that much data, create a lot of heat. Resolving how to draw away heat and minimize SWaP to keep 8k cameras running on the surface of the moon, plus resolve battery life issues, are really challenging us right now. But NASA is determined to send back, maybe not live, but at least archival footage in 8k, but we're being told the data throughput from the moon won't be a problem, so we'll all eventually see.
Newer phones are soon going to incorporate 8k and in the broadcast and video production world, it's rapidly developing the mixers, editors and production-grade video displays to shoot in 8k.
The issue with NASA is we are working in solving some complex solutions including issues around sensors and radiation degradation in communications systems and that includes the moon and Mars. In space there's no air to conduct heat away from electronics and these cameras, running the processors required to process that much data, create a lot of heat. Resolving how to draw away heat and minimize SWaP to keep 8k cameras running on the surface of the moon, plus resolve battery life issues, are really challenging us right now. But NASA is determined to send back, maybe not live, but at least archival footage in 8k, but we're being told the data throughput from the moon won't be a problem, so we'll all eventually see.
Posted on 5/8/21 at 11:00 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
HubbaBubba
Bumping this thread b/c I came across YA8KDT (Yet Another 8K Discussion Thread) elsewhere (topic actually started about possibility of 8K disk players - blu-ray.com thread) which had a reference to something I thought was not only highly credible but important as it was conducted by Michael Zink, the VP for Technology at Warner Brothers in conjunction with Pixar, Amazon Prime Video, LG, and the American Society of Cinematographers. That's a group I would expect to be very interested in the outcome of a serious, well conducted study.
https://www.techhive.com/article/3529913/8k-vs-4k-tvs-most-consumers-cannot-tell-the-difference.html
139 people participated, all tested for visual acuity with most hitting 20/20 and 27% at better. Even with a full uncompressed video stream (the writeup above doesn't mention the rate but does say it required a 3 GB/s file-read rate from the drive - that implies a rate WAY higher than the mentioned 200 Mbps so it seems well beyond a best case consumer scenario) and sitting just 5' from an 88" screen, most people with good eyesight couldn't tell. Just 1 of 7 clips used got a noticeably enough better result in 8K vs 4K. If you break out the 20/10 respondents, a 2nd clip got that result. But this is under the most ideal, advantageous circumstances currently available for 8K.
Zink made the obvious conclusion that 8K just doesn't result in a significant difference.
This post was edited on 5/8/21 at 11:06 pm
Posted on 5/8/21 at 11:16 pm to HubbaBubba
For intelligence or archival purposes, yes, higher resolution, basically, always matters.
But there is next to zero reason to own an 8k television at home for at least the next half decade. And by time we get to that point, the technology in a TV someone buys today will probably be outdated.
But there is next to zero reason to own an 8k television at home for at least the next half decade. And by time we get to that point, the technology in a TV someone buys today will probably be outdated.
Posted on 5/8/21 at 11:23 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
I work with NASA on testing and evaluating technologies that they plan to take to the moon for the Artemis program. 8k is a requirement for video capture. If it were marketing hype, NASA would not be spending millions to make sure they capture 8k on the moon.
Yeah, because the resolution NASA captures raw footage of the moon at is definitely has some kind of relation to the resolution of the sets consumers should put on their wall... that makes a lot of sense...
Posted on 5/9/21 at 8:53 pm to deltadon
quote:
ESPN
We wish it was 2k (1080P). Every cable service is 720p today. Some are 1080i but that is not the same thing as 1080p.
I wish we got most tv in 1080p. But more than likely it will get skipped and we will have 4k as the norm. Maybe 5-10 years from now?
Posted on 5/10/21 at 7:16 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
It's not ready as far as consumer products go, but when it is, it will be a monumental increase in capability. Much higher than the leap from hd to 4k.
In other words the answer to OP is NO.
Posted on 5/10/21 at 1:37 pm to SG_Geaux
To me the problem with 8K is that it just doesn't solve any problem *for consumers*. 4K brought not just more pixels but HDR and WCG for higher contrast and deeper, more accurate colors. With the move to streaming technology as the prime source of movies for most people, the extra detail afforded by 4K is rarely seen. It's more akin to well optimized 2K (1080p) in most cases I've seen analyzed.
Even on physical media we aren't even getting full 4K unless it's coming from a UHD Blu-Ray which was sourced from a higher than 2K master (rarer than you'd think).
As one of the articles about the study I mentioned above ended up pointing out, it would be nice to see the industry focus on getting some other aspects of picture quality better instead of just the easy marketing number of 4K vs 8K.
Even on physical media we aren't even getting full 4K unless it's coming from a UHD Blu-Ray which was sourced from a higher than 2K master (rarer than you'd think).
As one of the articles about the study I mentioned above ended up pointing out, it would be nice to see the industry focus on getting some other aspects of picture quality better instead of just the easy marketing number of 4K vs 8K.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News