Slashdot Mirror
8K TVs Are Coming, But Don't Buy the Hype (engadget.com)
If the 8,294,400 pixels of resolution on an Ultra High Definition television just don't seem to convey enough detail, fear not: The electronics industry has heard your cry. From a report: Even as UHD TVs, often called 4K TVs for their nearly 4,000 pixels of horizontal resolution, approach half of display shipments in the U.S., set manufacturers have been stepping up their demos of 8K sets that, with their 7680-by-4320 resolution, pack in a full 33,177,600 pixels. And Sharp is now expanding its distribution of one such set, the 70-inch LV-70X500E. Following its October debut in China and subsequent arrivals in Japan and Taiwan, this 8K display will go on sale across Europe at the end of April for about $13,800 at current exchange rates. That, apparently, is supposed to be a reasonable price for a set that supports a video format that offers next to nothing to watch, that can't be streamed on most broadband connections or fit onto Blu-ray discs and which can't even be properly appreciated unless you get a set too big to fit in many living rooms.
[...] The highlights reel playing on a demo unit of Sharp's 8K set required 300 megabits per second of bandwidth to stream, said Adrian Wysocki, group product manager at UMC, the Sharp-owned firm that builds TVs in Poland for the company. He suggested in a conversation Friday that more efficient formats could cut that to 100 Mbps. Only 23.2% of U.S. fixed-broadband connections hit that speed at the end of 2016, according to to the Federal Communications Commission's latest report on internet access services.
[...] The highlights reel playing on a demo unit of Sharp's 8K set required 300 megabits per second of bandwidth to stream, said Adrian Wysocki, group product manager at UMC, the Sharp-owned firm that builds TVs in Poland for the company. He suggested in a conversation Friday that more efficient formats could cut that to 100 Mbps. Only 23.2% of U.S. fixed-broadband connections hit that speed at the end of 2016, according to to the Federal Communications Commission's latest report on internet access services.
Sure it's going to be a while before you see much 8k VIDEO content...
But what the naysayers are ignore is how awesome these will be for images.
Also a nice side effect of putting on 8K displays, is it drives the cots of 4k displays even cheaper in the meantime.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe its because you're too busy telling kids to get off your lawn instead of watching TV.
an explanation about not buying a $14,000 television
At least hold off until you can buy Monster Ethernet cables so you get the bandwidth you need.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
If you're sitting close enough to see the pixels, you are 'watching the equipment' not the show. Like an 'audiophile' listens to the stereo, not the music.
4k screens are for monitors and VR displays, 8k will be the same. I'm just glad stupid people will cover the R&D costs of my future monitors.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
When 4k came out at five digit prices how much content was available for that? Obviously no one is going to run out to spend $13,000 on a 70" 8k screen. This is for the future, when 100mbit broadband is more common. Remember the cheapest, smallest 4K screens from budget brands like Westinghouse and Hisense were a whopping $4,000-$5,000 in 2013. Those same tvs sell for $300 today. http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/1...
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Pales in comparison to Frank's 2000" TV. I heard he got the last one in stock.
A hologram works by using photographic film capable of photographing the actual light waves. Once we have resolutions better than light's wavelength, we can have holographic TV.
No, I will not work for your startup
Rich people, really. What do you think I'm going to do when that $175k Congressional salary starts rolling in? Buy a $1,500 bespoke suit at my local tailor, of course. There's no way I need a $175k salary, so it may as well go into the local poverty-stricken district of my city where some entrepreneur has attracted wealthy clients to create local jobs.
Of course I'm going to eliminate my mortgage and car loan, too. That'll take uh. Two months. I'll also have a nicer yard, seeing as so many people in my neighborhood are desperate for jobs and are willing to clean up the trash and do the gardening for pretty cheap. Even at $15/hr, that's only $150/week for a ten-hour weekly maintenance schedule. I'd like to rebuild my rear deck with some composite but maybe I'll just pay somebody else to strip it down and redo that for me, too; along with doing some electrical work and finally installing that 40-amp ChargePoint I've been meaning to get.
I'm still not buying a $5,000 TV; screw that. 4K UHD OLED TVs will be under $1,000 by the time I'm ready to buy.
What? You didn't think I'd already planned for how to deal with this unnecessarily-large compensation package? I plan for everything.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
8K broadcast standards use Rec 2020, which has a much wider gamut and can therefor show colors that most TVs these days can't. Rec 2020 is even wider than the DCI-P3 that many high-end monitors benchmark against these days.
Rec 2020 also defines a larger bit depth: 10 or 12 bits per component rather than 8. This is partly to support the wider gamut, but it'll also help everything else by allowing much better gradients.
Even if you don't have an 8K TV, ones that use HDR10 and Dolby Vision will benefit: both of these standards use the Rec 2020 gamut. So... bring on the 8K revolution. I want better browns.
Very hard? I would almost say impossible. I've actually been pricing UHD tv's for the greater part of a year now. One of the requirements is I want a dumb one. But there are none to be had.
My current tv is a 6 year old visio. It started life as a smart tv then gradually all the apps stopped working and where never updated. I said "fuck it" and bought a ruko.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
> But the human eye has its limits too. What's the actual N, beyond which we, the humans -- even those with the sharpest eyes -- can no longer distinguish between N and 2N pixels per inch?
The TL:DR; version is: Use a 4K distance calculator
* Distance Graph (PNG)
* Size to Distance Calculator
The Long version: It's complicated
From a well known and respected Photography:
http://clarkvision.com/imagede...
But if we do the math ...
Another calculation estimates around ~2200 dpi.
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes...
But since we don't view things from 4 inches away ...
From your wikipedia citation:
the human eye should have a resolving power of 20 arcsecs in theory, though normally only 60 arcsecs.
Stated better, the human eye is diffraction limited at 20 arc seconds, but other factors limit the typical resolving power of thew human eye to 1 arc minute.
Some people have exceptionally good vision and can do better than 1 arc minute. The GP claim of 31.5 arc seconds is silly in its exaggerated precision.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I'm going to wait for the 16K screens to come out. I calculate that will finally be enough pixels to make "The Emoji Movie" watchable.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.