Slashdot Mirror
Samsung and LG Unveil 8K TVs (cnet.com)
The latest TV "must have" that you actually don't really need -- at least right now -- has arrived at the IFA electronics show in Berlin. That's 8K, the super-crisp display technology that has four times the resolution of 4K screens. CNET: Samsung on Thursday showed off the Q900, which packs in more than 33 million pixels. The 85-inch TV will be the first 8K TV to hit the US market when it goes on sale in October, although Samsung didn't specify the price. Its arch rival LG a day earlier announced what it called "the world's first" 8K OLED TV. It showed the 88-inch device to some reporters in January at CES but didn't specify when there would be an actual product for consumers. Meanwhile Sharp began shipping the LV-70X500E 70-inch 8K monitor earlier this year to Europe after launching it in late 2017 in China, Japan and Taiwan. 8K TVs dramatically boost the number of pixels in the displays, which the companies say will make pictures sharper on bigger screens. "We ⦠are confident that [consumers] will experience nothing short of brilliance in color, clarity and sound from our new 8K-capable models," Jongsuk Chu, the senior vice president of Samsung's Visual Display Business, said in a press release.
So what's the incentive to buy one of these things if the content world is pretty much still on 1080i/p, let alone 4k?
I'm delaying my purchase until they come out with 64K TV's
"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and
I get a lot out of it, especially when those pics are shrunk down to fit in the middle of a web page displayed on 4k or 1080p devices.
It really conveys a lot of information about how superior the new ones are.
But what I really like about the advent of 8k crap is that 1080p projectors are going to get even cheaper.
4k and 8k refer to roughly how many pixels wide the screen is. Though since it's multiples of 1920 they came up a bit short.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
I guess both 3D TV owners will have to decide if they prefer non-existent 8K content over non-existent 3D content.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
We barely have any 4k content yet.
4k/8k are the nominal horizontal resolutions, not a multiplier. "Four times the resolution" in the summary is a bit awkward -- it's four times the pixels.
Do these TV's support HDR? Because there is no mention of it in the article. I'd rather have 4K with HDR then 8K without HDR.
We barely even have content for 4K -- how do they expect to sell them with almost zero content for 8K? I seriously doubt anyone over 65 could even tell the difference between 1080p, 2160p, and 4320p. BluRay just got (relatively speaking) support for 4K -- so who is actually buying these?
Maybe I should just hold out for the 16K TVs. =P
Instead of this pointless arms race of resolution that no one actually supports, how about nice, high-quality, reliable 1080p HDTVs at a price point of $100US or less? I think that'd drive more sales than some astronomically priced piece of useless technology.
4k = 4x 1080HD. 4x 4K = 16x 1080HD. So much for "Smart" TV's...
Slight error in your equation. 1080 is the height of the picture. The width is actually 1920 (or roughly 2k) HD = 2k (1920) UHD = 4k (3840) UHDTV = 8k (7680) So, UHDTV = 4x the width/height of HD, or 16x the area of HD
Marketing departments like big numbers, logic be damned.
FTFY
I don't watch TV much. But I watched the World Cup earlier this year and was *dismayed* at the poor picture quality. There weren't enough pixels to see which player had the ball when the camera was zoomed out. When I sat up close then I saw a load of compression artifacts from transmission. The whole picture also lost clarity when panning - which happens all the time.
I would love to watch an ultra-high bandwidth transmission of 8K soccer in future. I'd happily go to whichever pub or IMAX could broadcast it, and I'd pay a decent amount for it.
goddamn Air-Sea Battle is going to look awesome!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
These "8K" TVs probably don't have any sort of interface to get "8K" content on them, much like early "4K" TVs.
Just make sure it's got Displayport.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
A person with 20/20 visual acuity would need to sit 0.39 screen heights away to get the full benefit of the 4,320x7680 resolution. That would be 25 inches on a 65 inch diagonal TV.
usa does not have the bandwidth for 8K and live 4K is only really on DISH / DIRECTV. Cable limited 4K PPV events.
In Canadian systems Rogers is KING OF 4K
This guy's channel is great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
[Knowing Better - You Don't See In 4K]
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Before everyone goes yelling and screaming about how they have no use for this right now and that the eye can't tell a difference, I would like to say that 8K monitors are something that is desirable for anyone who has to sit in front of a computer all day.
I remember going from 320x240 to 640x480 to 1024x768 to 1900x1200 to 2560x1600, back down to 1366x768 to 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 and currently at 3840x2160.
Each increase in resolution brought a general increase in DPI. We have been hanging at around 93DPI for many years now. Functional, but relatively poor, optical scanners will scan at 300 DPI. Higher quality scanners will scan at 600 DPI.
What makes anyone think that hovering around 100 DPI for reading text on a screen is a good idea?
At 3840x2160, the jagged edges of fonts are almost gone. I can still see them but at such a low level that it is almost subconscious. A doubling of resolution should make that all go away PERMANENTLY.
Concerning "content". Honestly, as long as the story is good, it could be animated with stick figures and would still be extremely pleasurable. That being said, being able to discern details down to where you can not subconsciously apprehend detail anymore is very pleasurable. There will eventually be content out there for 8K. In the meantime, use them as the awesome computer monitors that they can be.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
It's because the term 4K was already used in digital cinema, not for bigger numbers. In digital cinema, it IS called 2K for the lower resolution.
How are we going to get a movie/video game into a home? I live in a major US city with one ISP choice and I have a 1TB/mo data cap, so streaming is out of the question. The most data-dense blu-ray discs are holding 300GB, so that won't work. You can get a cheap-ish 400GB SD card for something like $150, so let's assume that in huge bulk, you get them at an unreal 50% off - $75 in data storage for a movie? Most people wanna pay like $8 for a movie. Even if you can get it at a super cheap price by going with some larger storage format, I can only assume physical media is dying off anyways as the convenience of streaming directly to your TV or whatever rises in popularity, and "inconvenient" doesn't exactly drive sales.
A 4K movie runs at something like 100GB for a 90 minute movie, so we can probably expect an 8K to run at around 400GB. That's a fuckton of data to try and send someone. I'd be interested in hearing about potential methods of distribution if anyone has any ideas, because all the traditional ones seem to be too limited to work for everybody. Aside from some extremely efficient compression algo (nothing I'm aware of would suffice here), I'm genuinely stumped.
I just (as in this month) bought a 4K TV. And now they tell me it's already obsolete? FML.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
The BBC had 32K back in the 1980's so clearly Samsung and LG are a bit behind the times.
Local encrypted storage? It will be like any other internet rental for quality 8K. Got that new 1000 speed internet?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Resolution is NOT by definition pixels; the context must be understood to infer what is meant by "resolution". Traditionally, resolution is measured in lines per millimeter, or more properly "line pairs" (cycles) per millimeter. If you speak to an optical engineer about resolution, he will be thinking in these terms or similar, a linear measure. Pixel count is related to the square of what is normally thought of as resolution.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The pity is that people can't parade around on the street showing off their big hi-rez screen.
Trinitron rox!
to chasing CPUs and GPUs. Spending $2.5k every 3 years to buy a new PC was expected.
My laptop is, what, 5-6 years old? But still fully functional. My PS3 is gonna get replaced in a few months with a PS4, plus a bunch of used games from craigslist.
In other words, I'm old, I've played that game, I'll leave it to the more gullible younger folks to maintain that bleeding edge, then when it's more a rough, scratchy edge I'll look into buying.
We're about to dump our ancient Hitachi projection TV and when the 8K sets hit the stores--probably just in time for the Super Bowl--we'll be able to get a 4K set for much less.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I saw this technology in 2012 in Akihabara Japan where it was being used to livestream the London Olympics opening/closing. Japan's goal is to have 8K HDTV broadcasting nationwide for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.
With a eye resolution of 1 arc-second, you won't be able to tell the difference between 4k and 8k (and likely normally 2k / 1080p) at normal watching distance on these TVs. You'd need to be sitting less than a half meter (or about 1.5 feet) from your 88" screen to see the difference. At a normal distance of 3m, your eye physically cannot see the resolution difference -- the fovea just didn't have enough receptors.
If 8K brings in a better colour gamut, like 4k did, then you might notice that (which is why you can tell the difference between 4k and 1080p from across the store -- the colours are typically better on a 4k screen). But resolution-wise it's just wasted pixels.
Resolution is the number of pixels expressed as a horizontal and vertical size. So 8K would be twice the resolution, equalling 4 times as many pixels in total.
So what's the incentive to buy one of these things if the content world is pretty much still on 1080i/p, let alone 4k?
Probably none but your incentives are not the same as everyone else's. I watch a fair bit of 4K content (streaming and disc) and all my computer monitors are 4K monitors (I'm looking at three of them as I type this). I could probably make use of an 8K monitor for computing tasks to start and I'm sure some content will be broadcast in 8K eventually. Probably just for bragging rights at the moment for most people but if they don't make it then nobody will ever make the content for it either. Since people can still watch 4K and 1080p (which should be called 2K) content, they don't lose anything and the future proof their purchase.
1080i is half the resolution.
No, 1080i is interlaced but the resolution is the same as 1080p. Both are 1920X1080 resolution.
Even to see the difference between 1080p and 4k, you need a 100+ inches TV and move your couch forward a lot.
That is a false and commonly repeated myth. Seeing the full detail of 4K requires a large screen and close proximity but to see a DIFFERENCE you merely need to be able to perceive ANY improvement over 1080p which is actually quite trivial and does not require being particularly close or a particularly large screen. I have a 60 inch 4K TV at home and I can tell there is a difference between 4K content and 1080p content from my couch which is 15 feet away. I have to get up close to really see all the details but I can tell it is better from a long way away without even trying. Also I'm typing this on a 24 inch 4K monitor from about 3 feet away which replaced a 24 inch 1080p monitor and it is very easy to see the difference.
Resolution is NOT by definition pixels; the context must be understood to infer what is meant by "resolution". Traditionally, resolution is measured in lines per millimeter, or more properly "line pairs" (cycles) per millimeter. If you speak to an optical engineer about resolution, he will be thinking in these terms or similar, a linear measure.
Step 1 - Ignore obvious context of remarks.
Step 2 - Assert remarks must be understood in context.
Pixel count is related to the square of what is normally thought of as resolution.
The crazy thing about language is everyone gets a vote. Marketing departments *ALL OF THEM* count pixels.
https://www.sony.com/electroni...
https://www.usa.philips.com/c-...
https://www.samsung.com/levant...
https://www.lg.com/us/uhd-4k-t...
https://www.vizio.com/picture-...
https://hisense.com.au/uhd/
When someone says a display has twice resolution majority of people in the real world understand it to say display can display twice the number of pixels.
You are free to develop specialized terms or understanding that only apply to specific group or industry yet in terms of the public you are squarely on the losing side.
Resolution is the number of pixels expressed as a horizontal and vertical size. So 8K would be twice the resolution, equalling 4 times as many pixels in total.
No TV vendor publically agrees with this definition. EVERYONE selling 4k sets are saying it's 4x resolution.
""We are confident that [consumers] will experience nothing short of brilliance in color, clarity and *sound* from our new 8K-capable models"
Sound?
I wonder why book printers never brag about the resolution they print their books with. Maybe because the content is what matters, not the printing quality (above a, quite low, threshold). The law of diminishing return.
Besides, people buying these TVs most likely will just watch mundane crap like Star Wars on it anyway.
In terms of processing, it is processing half the pixels. so it is half the resolution.
You should educate yourself on the definition of resolution. The fact that they display it in a clever way that reduces processing requirements (with some drawbacks) does not change the fact that the resolution of the image (the amount of data you can RESOLVE) is still 1920x1080. The crude definition of resolution in this context is pixel count and number of pixels in a 1080i image is 2,073,600 which is identical to the number of pixels in a 1080p image. Spatial resolution is the same for 1080p and 1080i so that is not relevant here.
How can you say that in the same breath you mention 1080i, which is a line count? If it's number of pixels, why does no one say the resolution of HD is 2,073,600?
They do say the resolution in terms of pixels. What do you think 4K means? What do you think the term megapixel means? You are confusing marketing terms with technical ones. The term 1080i and 1080p were marketing terms developed by people (probably engineers) many years ago who were clueless about how to market products. If it were done today it would be called 2K or perhaps 2Kp and 2Ki since the line count isn't really important to consumers. (and 720p would be 1K) As it is we get all sorts of stupid terms that read sort of like Super Ultra Mega Quad Duper Wide HD which don't mean anything to anybody. The companies that make this stuff are decent at engineering but utterly hopeless at marketing it to non-geeks. Seriously, how many people actually know the difference between QXGA and TXGA off the top of their head? (and if you do know the answer you need to get out of your mom's basement more often)
It's a problem that goes back to the early days of bitmapped graphics, when they started calling the pixel dimensions of the screen "resolution," whereas prior it had meant the density of detail, e.g. "300-dpi resolution."
I suggest you study the difference between pixel resolution and spatial resolution further to understand why it isn't relevant to this conversation.