This resolution is somewhat ridiculous when ESPN is still broadcasting at 720p. I think they should stop the resolution arms race and focus on getting HDR right and content distribution sorted. 4k noticably better than 1080p if you're close enough, I have a 65'' 4k TV. But 8K? This is getting crazy.
Not only HDR or other gizmos, FOCUS on image quality, better compression, use of HEVC.
Many so called "HD" 720p look like crap.
As you say what's the point of upping res when TV cable, where most people use their TV's for, is 720p or 1080i and most of the time still using MPGE2... and interlaced.
I bet the customers are Chinese TV brands. Koreans knocked off the Japanese premium in TV by going all out on 1080P when Japanese brands were still content on matching resolution with content (720P).
By the time these newfangled display standards become mainstream you will find 55" with all those included at <$500. Let the rich and the suckers subsidize us by paying early adopter tax FTW.
8k will be a hard sell as there is no real need for it and content even for 4k is lagging. We need high res in glasses some years ahead but the need for huge displays is coming to an end.
Hmm, maybe AT should write something on light field displays.
Just why? Most TV channels aren't even 720p HD yet and 4K is still in test channel status. While for streaming data caps are still an issue.
I get that flat panel TV's don't wear out as fast as CRT TV's did so the TV makers need something to keep sales up but this is silly.
Re-mastering old content over and over again is never going to happen for the vast majority of films and TV shows and I can't help but feel it will lead to a huge amount of lost content as who wants to watch a 480p TV show on a HD TV let alone 4K or 8K.
I am 100% behind the march of progress and releasing better and better products, however, I have never looked at my 65 inch Samsung 4K TV from my couch and been like "man if only this thing had four times the pixel density everything would just look so much better." I honestly think 8K might be borderlining on absurd and unnecessary. I use a 43 in 4k Sony as my computer monitor and it's probably 4 feet away from my face and I still can't see the individual pixels. I just don't see the value in a product like this.
Pretty much this. I dont think my eyes are good enough to even notice the difference from 1080p to 4K, but I dont have 20/20 vision.
I did notice the pic quality is better on my friends 4K TV, even when watching 1080p source, because in addition to higher res, the 4K panels have better HDR/contrast/etc. than the older TVs.
HDR, BT.2020, True 120Hz, I thought these things were more important then moving from 4K to 8K.
And it seems while we have no problem getting consumers to buy 4K and may be in 5 years time 8K screen. All the hardware in production, from TV, Movie, VFX or whatever are still stuck in 2K era.
I do like that when you look more closely at the screen, you see more detail rather than visible pixels, even if I rarely do that. Helps the illusion of reality.
That's one of the things I love about 4k video. If you look closely at a person's face, you can see the finer details of their hair for example - a 4k OLED screen is a very beautiful thing indeed with good video or graphics.
An 8k screen should be another step up just like 4k was over 1080p.
Yes :) 8K at 65 inches - this is what we want. I am sure some of you don't see a need for more than 4K, but trust me some of us don't care for greater dpi, 100-150dpi is fine - 8K at ~5 foot diagonal would be great. I'd really like to see 16K at ~10 foot diagonal sometime early in the next decade, too.
Every time news of 8k UHD displays occurs, resulting news comments myopically only talk about how there won't be any TV content nor will there be any broadcast TV at 8K for years as though that is all that matters since such is the overwhelmingly dominant market. What about commercial graphic users, medical imaging, and other special users that can benefit from more detail? OK sure those are small niche low volume. Well consider how many hundreds of millions of people today across the world own compact digital cameras, DSLR digital cameras, mirrorless digital cameras, and especially now smartphone digital cameras that have greater than 8 megabyte sensors. A decade plus old 8k sensor is about 2048 by 4096 pixels. Just a bit larger than a 1920 by 3840 4k UHD display. That means none of the rest of us with newer sensors can display our current images fully on even a 4K UHD screen.
My 2014 24 megapixel Sony A6000 is 6000 by 4000 pixels. Only an 8k UHD 7680 by 3840 is able to display such images fully. Consider a 45.4mb Nikon D850 now in millions of high end users hands, 8256 by 5504 pixels. Even 8k is inadequate though greatly closer than a 4k panel. Consider how newest display technologies with HDR, high color accuracy, dynamic range of brightness, and such tech as OLED can make still images appear amazing. Have any of you actually seen what high end still images look like on such devices? Your jaws will drop. Consider how thin and even flexible some newest displays are that can fit on walls easily? So can you imagine that market? Well obvious many of you haven't yet.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
29 Comments
Back to Article
javishd - Friday, February 23, 2018 - link
Really hope they make a 43" one!Hurr Durr - Friday, February 23, 2018 - link
How nice.When will they start shipping decent 4k panels?
Batmeat - Monday, February 26, 2018 - link
^____ This.... Give me a decent 4k monitor/TV with 120hz refresh HDMI 2.0aBatmeat - Monday, February 26, 2018 - link
https://www.cnet.com/news/samsungs-galaxy-s9-mwc-2..."> HEREmckirkus - Friday, February 23, 2018 - link
This resolution is somewhat ridiculous when ESPN is still broadcasting at 720p. I think they should stop the resolution arms race and focus on getting HDR right and content distribution sorted. 4k noticably better than 1080p if you're close enough, I have a 65'' 4k TV. But 8K? This is getting crazy.Stochastic - Friday, February 23, 2018 - link
Also, when it comes to sports, the benefits of higher framerate are arguably greater than higher-resolution once you get to 4K.Lolimaster - Friday, February 23, 2018 - link
Not only HDR or other gizmos, FOCUS on image quality, better compression, use of HEVC.Many so called "HD" 720p look like crap.
As you say what's the point of upping res when TV cable, where most people use their TV's for, is 720p or 1080i and most of the time still using MPGE2... and interlaced.
zodiacfml - Friday, February 23, 2018 - link
Could be great for displaying high res still images. Other than that, I don't see any use for it.wr3zzz - Friday, February 23, 2018 - link
I bet the customers are Chinese TV brands. Koreans knocked off the Japanese premium in TV by going all out on 1080P when Japanese brands were still content on matching resolution with content (720P).Sancus - Friday, February 23, 2018 - link
It's easy to pump out more pixels. It's hard to compete with OLED contrast, colors and image quality.StrangerGuy - Friday, February 23, 2018 - link
By the time these newfangled display standards become mainstream you will find 55" with all those included at <$500. Let the rich and the suckers subsidize us by paying early adopter tax FTW.jjj - Friday, February 23, 2018 - link
8k will be a hard sell as there is no real need for it and content even for 4k is lagging.We need high res in glasses some years ahead but the need for huge displays is coming to an end.
Hmm, maybe AT should write something on light field displays.
Ushio01 - Monday, February 26, 2018 - link
Just why? Most TV channels aren't even 720p HD yet and 4K is still in test channel status. While for streaming data caps are still an issue.I get that flat panel TV's don't wear out as fast as CRT TV's did so the TV makers need something to keep sales up but this is silly.
Re-mastering old content over and over again is never going to happen for the vast majority of films and TV shows and I can't help but feel it will lead to a huge amount of lost content as who wants to watch a 480p TV show on a HD TV let alone 4K or 8K.
mdrejhon - Saturday, February 24, 2018 - link
Now that resolutions have gone retina, we need refresh rates to go retina too:"Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays"
http://www.blurbusters.com/1000hz-journey
oRAirwolf - Saturday, February 24, 2018 - link
I am 100% behind the march of progress and releasing better and better products, however, I have never looked at my 65 inch Samsung 4K TV from my couch and been like "man if only this thing had four times the pixel density everything would just look so much better." I honestly think 8K might be borderlining on absurd and unnecessary. I use a 43 in 4k Sony as my computer monitor and it's probably 4 feet away from my face and I still can't see the individual pixels. I just don't see the value in a product like this.webdoctors - Saturday, February 24, 2018 - link
Pretty much this. I dont think my eyes are good enough to even notice the difference from 1080p to 4K, but I dont have 20/20 vision.I did notice the pic quality is better on my friends 4K TV, even when watching 1080p source, because in addition to higher res, the 4K panels have better HDR/contrast/etc. than the older TVs.
iwod - Saturday, February 24, 2018 - link
HDR, BT.2020, True 120Hz, I thought these things were more important then moving from 4K to 8K.And it seems while we have no problem getting consumers to buy 4K and may be in 5 years time 8K screen. All the hardware in production, from TV, Movie, VFX or whatever are still stuck in 2K era.
StrangerGuy - Saturday, February 24, 2018 - link
Because none of those sound as sexy as 8K in marketing.And no, most people buy 4K not for 4K, but because they are upsizing to 55+ inchers where 1080p sets at those sizes are already mostly discontinued.
PixyMisa - Saturday, February 24, 2018 - link
I do like that when you look more closely at the screen, you see more detail rather than visible pixels, even if I rarely do that. Helps the illusion of reality.CrazyElf - Saturday, February 24, 2018 - link
That's one of the things I love about 4k video. If you look closely at a person's face, you can see the finer details of their hair for example - a 4k OLED screen is a very beautiful thing indeed with good video or graphics.An 8k screen should be another step up just like 4k was over 1080p.
Hurr Durr - Saturday, February 24, 2018 - link
Professional movie hardware actually jumped to 4k quite a while ago.CrazyElf - Saturday, February 24, 2018 - link
I kind of wish that they shipped 4096 x 2160 as 4k rather than 3840 x 2160, and likewise, an 8k 8192 x 4320 screen rather than 7680 pixels across.An OLED 8k would look beautiful in mass production.
timbotim - Sunday, February 25, 2018 - link
Yes :) 8K at 65 inches - this is what we want. I am sure some of you don't see a need for more than 4K, but trust me some of us don't care for greater dpi, 100-150dpi is fine - 8K at ~5 foot diagonal would be great. I'd really like to see 16K at ~10 foot diagonal sometime early in the next decade, too.d7v7d - Monday, February 26, 2018 - link
Every time news of 8k UHD displays occurs, resulting news comments myopically only talk about how there won't be any TV content nor will there be any broadcast TV at 8K for years as though that is all that matters since such is the overwhelmingly dominant market. What about commercial graphic users, medical imaging, and other special users that can benefit from more detail? OK sure those are small niche low volume. Well consider how many hundreds of millions of people today across the world own compact digital cameras, DSLR digital cameras, mirrorless digital cameras, and especially now smartphone digital cameras that have greater than 8 megabyte sensors. A decade plus old 8k sensor is about 2048 by 4096 pixels. Just a bit larger than a 1920 by 3840 4k UHD display. That means none of the rest of us with newer sensors can display our current images fully on even a 4K UHD screen.My 2014 24 megapixel Sony A6000 is 6000 by 4000 pixels. Only an 8k UHD 7680 by 3840 is able to display such images fully. Consider a 45.4mb Nikon D850 now in millions of high end users hands, 8256 by 5504 pixels. Even 8k is inadequate though greatly closer than a 4k panel. Consider how newest display technologies with HDR, high color accuracy, dynamic range of brightness, and such tech as OLED can make still images appear amazing. Have any of you actually seen what high end still images look like on such devices? Your jaws will drop. Consider how thin and even flexible some newest displays are that can fit on walls easily? So can you imagine that market? Well obvious many of you haven't yet.