Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sharp Announces 8K Consumer TVs Now That We All Have 4K (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the ahead-of-the-curve dept.

Thuy Ong reports via The Verge: Now that you've upgraded to a shiny new 4K TV, Sharp has revealed its latest screen to stoke your fear of missing out: a 70-inch Aquos 8K TV. That 8K (7,680 x 4,320) resolution is 16 times that of your old Full HD (1920 x 1080) TV. Sharp calls it "ultimate reality, with ultra-fine details even the naked eye cannot capture," which doesn't seem like a very good selling point. Keep in mind that having a screen with more pixels doesn't buy you much after a certain point, because those pixels are invisible from a distance -- while an 8K panel would be beneficial as a monitor, where you're sitting close, it won't buy you much when leaning back on the couch watching TV. HDR, however, is something else entirely, and fortunately, Sharp's new 8K set is compatible with Dolby Vision HDR and BDA-HDR (for Blu-ray players). The lack of available 8K HDR content is also a problem. But there is some content floating around. The TV will be rolling out to China and Japan later this year, and then Taiwan in February 2018. Sharp is repurposing its 70-inch 8K TV as an 8K monitor (model LV-70X500E) for Europe, which will be on sale in March. There is no news about a U.S. release.

41 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Like high-end stereo gear... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have to wonder what percentage of the population can even detect the difference between 4k and 8k TVs. Seriously... unless they're displaying a test pattern to highlight the sharpness, it's all the same to me.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    1. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was watching a DVD the other day and noticing the pockmarks on the face of one of the characters. The jump from VHS to DVD quality was very noticeable. Anything beyond that and I stop caring - occasionally there are scenes when it makes a difference, but they're rare. 4K is nice for a monitor, because it makes text rendering a lot crisper (barely any antialiasing needed), but for video I don't care. 8K is probably more pixels than I can resolve unless the display is positioned such that I don't fit the entire thing in my field of vision at once.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re: Like high-end stereo gear... by aglider · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real problem on content quality to me. Not image quality!

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    3. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the bright side, though, it might make those "obsolete" 4k TVs cheaper in the not-too-distant future...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    4. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      8k resolution is close to IMAX for detail. Not quite as good as 70mm film, but close.

      You also have to remember that even if your eyes can't see individual pixels at that resolution (a good thing), what matters is the Nyquist frequency which is half the sampling frequency. That's why CDs sample at 44.1kHz, even though the human ear can't hear much about 20kHz.

      Basically 8k reduces aliasing, which is something that the eye is quite good at spotting and makes the image look artificial. That's why most of the 4k demos you see are careful to select images that avoid aliasing.

      8k isn't just resolution. When they start broadcasting in Japan for the 2020 Olympics, it will be 60Hz native format, and with a colour gamut beyond what current TVs can display.

      8k isn't just a resolution bump like 4k was, where they mostly used the same equipment and some upgraded but fundamentally the same cameras as HD/2k. For example, manual focus is impossible with 8k. Until recently only extremely specialist, power hungry hardware was able to process an 8k video stream and save it to storage fast enough. NHK, the Japanese national broadcaster, has been working on it since the 90s and skipped over 4k to concentrate on it. It's not just incremental, it's a genuine attempt to make video almost indistinguishable from reality.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Funny

      You have to wonder what percentage of the population can even detect the difference between 4k and 8k TVs.

      "Hey, check out the picture on my shiny new 8K TV! It's great, isn't it? Look at that detail! I could never go back to 4K now..."

      "You know, it'd look even better if you weren't still using the composite video input..."

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    6. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Good point, though 4K monitors are already pretty cheap: at work we switched to buying them by default two years ago because there wasn't much price difference between them and lower res ones.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      8k isn't just resolution. When they start broadcasting in Japan for the 2020 Olympics, it will be 60Hz native format, and with a colour gamut beyond what current TVs can display.

      You'll be able to see the radioactive dust fly into the air :D

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When they start broadcasting in Japan for the 2020 Olympics, it will be 60Hz native format, and with a colour gamut beyond what current TVs can display.

      And then it will be compressed into a crappy, ghosting, 30fps, sRGB colorspace mess -- worse for online streaming and transmission by the cable providers and NBC (assuming you actually get to see any non-US medal round content)..

    9. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      I recently got a 4k TV and while the best material I have is 1080p (above a certain size it's hard not to get a 4k TV anymore at least in the UK) what I really notice is that the interface for all the catchup and Pelx is now super sharp. Way better than a 1080p screen which I also have. So while I don't have an 4k content to play back having used a 4k TV for a couple of months now there is no way I would buy a none 4k TV in the future.

    10. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      So while I don't have an 4k content to play back having used a 4k TV for a couple of months now there is no way I would buy a none 4k TV in the future.

      That's easy to fix: just go to your favorite torrent site and search for "[movie name] 4k".

    11. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Broadcast video quality in Japan is vastly superior to anything I've seen in the US or UK. They decided to have a small number of high quality channels instead of a large number of shit quality ones. In Tokyo you can get about six channels over the air.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by Mordaximus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      8k resolution is close to IMAX for detail. Not quite as good as 70mm film, but close.

      You also have to remember that even if your eyes can't see individual pixels at that resolution (a good thing), what matters is the Nyquist frequency which is half the sampling frequency. That's why CDs sample at 44.1kHz, even though the human ear can't hear much about 20kHz.

      I would assume it has more to do with the Bayer Filter and demosaicing in particular, than Nyquist, however the point is well taken. At least as far as sampling is concerned. For example, you wouldn't shoot with the intent of displaying on a 1MP display with a 1MP sensor.

    13. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by green1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But PPI is an irrelevant metric when you don't count viewing distance. Computers and smartphones need high PPI because they tend to be used within a foot or two of your eyes. TVs tend to sit 10-20 feet away from you. That 70" screen at 68 PPI is probably more pixels than you can possibly see at the viewing distance you're actually watching it from.

      You can't actually see the difference between even HD and 4K in the vast majority of home TV setups. The average setup is a 40-50" TV sitting 10-15 feet away from the viewer, at those distances and that size screen, you just can't see it. (I won't even discuss the poor lighting, glare, and viewing angles of your average home TV setup) Now if you actually have a more theatrical type setup where you have a screen that fills most of your field of view, that's a completely different matter, but that's actually somewhat rare in home setups, in those cases the difference from HD to 4K is noticeable (though not as major as you might think) but even there you're unlikely to notice a difference from 4K to 8K.

      Now there is one place that 4K really does shine though, and that's computer monitors, a good 4K monitor is great, but that's because you sit so close to it in that application.

    14. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Why would you see a performance hit? At that level of antialiasing, you're rendering at more than 4K and then downsampling. Just rendering at 4K and not downsampling would use less GPU power and give you a better image.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by toejam13 · · Score: 2

      I've noticed in the past two years that local broadcasters are rushing to add as many DTV subchannels as they can. As a result, the picture quality is turning to absolute garbage. I've been slowly deleting them from my channel list as they become unwatchable.

    16. Re: Like high-end stereo gear... by sjames · · Score: 2

      HERETIC!!!!

      The genders are all *EXACTLY* the same in every respect! That is the holy policy! Please report for re-education.

    17. Re:Like high-end stereo gear... by martinX · · Score: 2

      Australia, mate. Each TV station seems to have one 1080i stream and stacks of 576p. It's pitiful.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    18. Re: Like high-end stereo gear... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      That is the dumbest argument ever.

      As if we are the last generation of humans and nobody is young.

      In case you haven't been keeping tabs, millennials are way poorer than previous generations. Stuck with huge educational debt, having to compete in the rip-off gig economy with its' higher overhead (no employer health insurance, you've got to pay both your income tax and the employer's share, etc) and uncertainty, zero-hour "contracts" from employers who refuse to commit to a minimum number of hours but want them there immediately when called, entry-level and menial jobs being automated | off-shored | totally eliminated, crappy internships that lead nowhere, if they're not stuck living with their parents they are going to be more concerned with covering their basic expenses every month than in buying an 8k TV.

      So that leaves the older generations - who have about as much use for an 8k tv as they do for 3d tv. As your vision normally deteriorates with aging, an 8k tv is overkill if you're sitting at a normal tv viewing distance.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  2. Flight sims by Voice+of+satan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In flight simulators, especially in combat flight simulators 4K monitors are said to be below what the naked eye can do in real life. When you have to identify visually a contact at long distance actual screens are not enough.

    1. Re: Flight sims by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2

      So, not a very large market.

  3. yes we "all" have 4K tvs *sarcasm* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Now we all have 4K". Eh, no.

      Only 16% of people own a 4K TV.

    https://www.cedmagazine.com/data-focus/2017/05/cta-survey-shows-4k-uhd-tv-ownership-rise-united-states

  4. Zero F.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Firstly "we all have 4k" - is bullshit.

    Now, why buy 8k when:

    4k broadcast content (satellite/cable/DVB-T): Minimal, if at all
    4k streaming content: None on most providers, a little on Netflix/youtube/maybe some others
    4k optical: A tiny amount. Hard to find at retail, the rest is order-able online.
    8k content: Virtually none.

    Zero fucks, yo. Let the early adopters pay through the nose, someones got to to make it eventually affordable. The switch from 1080p to 4k is still in progress, 4k is not even close to widely adopted. I'll come back again and laugh in a few years when the situation has hardly changed.

  5. Do we? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    We All Have 4K

    News to me.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  6. High res TVs don't interest me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... but dumb TVs do.

    Seriously. Look around. If you're looking at large TVs, or TVs with ultra high definition, what do you see? "Smart" TVs. Meaning: TVs with embedded computers. Meaning: security risks. Meaning: do the manufacturers keep these things patched and up to date when security problems are found?

    The economics of it all means that my bet is... they don't.

    So forget this "smart" TV thing. I want a bog standard, every day, dumb TV, with no smarts built in. If I need those smarts, I'll get an Apple TV, or a Roku, or a Chromecast, or something. At least that way, if I have to ditch the device because it isn't being updated and has a known security problem, I'm only out a couple of hundred bucks - instead of several thousand for some of those high end disasters waiting to happen.

    Else I guess I'll just end up getting a large computer monitor and a set of speakers, do it the "hard" way...

  7. 4K Suckers! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

    I'm still on NTSC CRT with a fine tuning knob!

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  8. Depends on distance and size of the TV by grimJester · · Score: 2

    At my normal viewing distance, some chart said I'd need to have an 80+ inch TV for 4k to make a difference over full HD. The announced 70" 8k TV might be useful as a monitor if it's bent in a 180 degree arc.

    1. Re:Depends on distance and size of the TV by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but you can eliminate that from the equation because 20/20 vision = one arch-minute (1/60th of a degree) of resolution. So if the TV covers 30 degrees field of vision (FOV), you can see 30*60 = 1800 pixels of resolution (with a perfectly curved screen where you don't have aliasing effects, 3600 if you do). Now most young people have better than 20/20 vision because that's just the threshold we've set for normal, doesn't need correction vision and if you're really enjoying your widescreen you might be pushing 50 degrees though that's uncomfortably close for most. But even if you have a 50 degree FOV and 20/16 vision you'll at most see 50*60*20/16 = 3750 pixels, which is like front row at the cinema with your average teen eyesight.

      Exceptional people have all the way down to 20/10 eyesight, though 20/8 is the physical limit. Exceptional people might recognize aliasing, in theory you could arrive at a number where you need 15K resolution (50*60*20/8*2) to display a "perfect" image. If you are a photographer and want to like stare at a detail on the screen ignoring the big picture, a 32K monitor might make sense. But big Hollywood productions like "The Martian" have made a 2.5K master and nobody has complained, truth is even 4K seems overkill for video. It's not like anybody can actually hear the difference between 24 bit / 96 kHz and 16 bit / 44.1 kHz, it's all in their heads. Good for editing but makes zero difference for presentation.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  9. Cart, meet Horse. by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The lack of available 8K HDR content is also a problem. But there is some content floating around."

    Uh, just for the record, we're still saying this shit about 4K.

    As we put the cart before the horse again, keep in mind that it'll probably be years before you can actually start using your obscenely expensive 8K set on a regular basis.

    The good news is you can enjoy those $75 Invisible-To-The-Naked-Eye HD movies on a $2000 disc player in the meantime. Yeah, I know, movie theaters are such a ripoff these days...

  10. How many times resolution??? by Circlotron · · Score: 5, Informative

    "That 8K (7,680 x 4,320) resolution is 16 times that of your old Full HD (1920 x 1080) TV. " No, it is 16x the pixels but only 4x the resolution.

    1. Re:How many times resolution??? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Resolution has been specified linearly at least since Lord Rayleigh's paper in 1879. The use of total pixels to specify resolution changes is advertising lies.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  11. We don't all have 4k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you check for 4k TV penetration in 2017 it sits at about 15-18% of the US and around 20% worldwide. Hardly "all" and not even a majority

  12. Hey it goes to 9000! by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 2

    Oh wait, that's the price. Oh well, I'm guessing it'll be about 5-7 years before the price comes down enough that I'd even consider it.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  13. Broadcasting is still at 720 by sandbagger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And heavily compressed to boot. Keep your money people.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  14. Depends on the usage by info6568 · · Score: 2

    FullHD it is not enough to display music pdf files. The problem is that music has thin horizontal lines located in analogous defined positions, and sometimes, they just are not in the screen. 1080 it is not enough.

    So, it is important to go up, although it is also very difficult to find a good monitor that be able to "replace" printed music, with the right size, weight and resolution. Just think about having two letter size pieces on paper in front of you, with 4K resolution.

    But here we are talking about 70 inches monitors. These are behemoths that must be attached to a wall, and that, with that resolution can work perfectly in a group-work room or a table. Not for people to see from the distance, but paired with some type of touch screen technology, to put and move high resolution elements around the screen.

    This can work for:

    • Medical imagining, in particular real-time remote surgeries
    • Engineering analysis (can you imagine to check Fukushima pictures at that detail?)
    • Painters creating very detailed high resolution digital art
    • Software engineers describing highly complex 3D software models
    • A different type of music expression
    • High quality advertising on huuuuge displays on public places
    • Very detailed map and picture analysis

    And maybe, if they make cylindrical screens where you can be inside, a totally different type of immersive experience.

    I see many usages ... but just a TV ... this is like to drive a 12 cilindres car to carry children to school.

  15. Futurama clip about very high HD by MiliusXP · · Score: 2

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  16. There isn't going to be 8K content by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The lenses that collect the video also have limits and, no surprise, they are similar in spatial frequency resolution to the eye. So at some point, and I can't swear it's at 8K excatly, you just aren't collecting new information.

    Thus the anti-aliasing also gets fixed at the collection step as well.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:There isn't going to be 8K content by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The lenses for 8k have been in development since the 1960s when IMAX was introduced. The main challenge was reducing size, power demands and cost of the cameras for use on TV, as well as attaching real-time digital capture/compression tech.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  17. Re:Devil is in the details with these purchases by David_Hart · · Score: 2

    Has the industry settled on an HDR standard yet? What about bandwidth? Will this TV launch with HDMI 2.1 or will the viewer have to compromise on color sampling and/or refresh rate. What about HDCP? Any chance those fuckers are going to change that again?

    Just curious if the industry learned anything from the 4K roll out.

    You mean like "Dolby Vision" which does require HDMI 2.1. Very few, if any TVs and receivers support HDMI 2.1 today. Practically all manufacturers will have ti next year (2018).

    I just finished upgrading my entertainment system and computer monitors to 4K.

    I'll move to 8K when my 4K stuff dies, in about 8 to 10 years. By then, 8K prices will be affordable and perhaps there will be 8K content. In addition, a single NVIDIA GTX 1080 TI struggles to render high end games at 60fps @ 4K. I'm thinking that it will take at least another 5 years for graphics card hardware to catch up to handle 8K at a decent FPS. Perhaps it will require a SLI setup or dual GPUs on a single card..

  18. Re:16K by toonces33 · · Score: 2

    Nobody will ever need more than 640K.

  19. Weakest link is compression not display resolution by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    To a comical degree actual display quality is limited by compression that dominate most Internet/Satellite/Cable/OTA distribution channels in the name of saving money and cramming more stations into limited bandwidth.

    So far marketeers seem to be getting away with suckering people into giving a shit about meaningless things like display resolution when those who care about quality are best served spending their time demanding content distribution providers quit turning content compression dial up to 11. They will always seek to turn that knob as far as they can possibly get away with.

    The reality for consumers:

    2k is overkill.
    4k is worthless.
    8k is comically worthless.

    HDR and more efficient codecs (HVEC) are what will actually drive perceptible improvements that actually matter.