Slashdot Mirror
The World's First 8K TV Channel Launches With '2001: A Space Odyssey' (bbc.co.uk)
AmiMoJo writes:
Japanese broadcaster NHK is launching the world's first 8K TV channel with a special edition of 2001: A Space Odyssey. NHK asked Warner Bros. to scan the original negatives at 8K specially for the channel.
8K offers 16 times the resolution of standard HD, 120 frames per second progressive scan, and 24 channels of sound. NHK is hoping to broadcast the 2020 Tokyo Olympics on the channel.
17 other channels also began broadcasting 4K programming today, according to Japan Times, even though, as Engadget points out, "almost no one has an 8K display, and most of the people who do need a special receiver and antenna just to pick up the signal... Also, HDMI 2.1 hasn't been implemented in any of these displays yet, so just getting the signal from box to TV requires plugging in four HDMI cables."
NHK's channel will broadcast for 12 hours a day, reports the BBC, adding that Samsung already sells an 8K TV for $15,000, and that LG has announced one too, while Engadget reports that Sharp sells one for $6,600.
8K offers 16 times the resolution of standard HD, 120 frames per second progressive scan, and 24 channels of sound. NHK is hoping to broadcast the 2020 Tokyo Olympics on the channel.
17 other channels also began broadcasting 4K programming today, according to Japan Times, even though, as Engadget points out, "almost no one has an 8K display, and most of the people who do need a special receiver and antenna just to pick up the signal... Also, HDMI 2.1 hasn't been implemented in any of these displays yet, so just getting the signal from box to TV requires plugging in four HDMI cables."
NHK's channel will broadcast for 12 hours a day, reports the BBC, adding that Samsung already sells an 8K TV for $15,000, and that LG has announced one too, while Engadget reports that Sharp sells one for $6,600.
This is silly. Please someone instead work on increasing the color resolution (bit depth) instead, and turn down the digital compression.
I'd much rather see 2k uncompressed with 16-bits per channel of color. That's what a videophile standard should be about.
Beyond 4k we've hit the point of diminishing returns. The jump from SD to 720p has several advantages. First, the switch from either composite to component (huge analog quality difference, significantly better color representation), or analog to digital in general (no signal degradation). Next was the jump from interlaced to progressive scan. But the jump from 4k to 8k is only higher pixel density, when we've already got extremely crisp and clear visuals. This jump wont matter anywhere near as much.
Is this really going to be better? Or is it just a solution in search of a problem, and driven by an industrys' need to continue to increase profits?
Unless you have a theatre-sized 8k screen, does this really make any difference over 1080?
What about OTA signals? How much bandwidth does an 8k full-resolution signal need? How much will compression affect picture quality during motion?
Then there's cable and satellite companies. I can't speak for satellite, but I know that the dirty little secret of cable TV is the content is re-compressed to within an inch of it's life, so they can fit those hundreds of channels into the available bandwidth. The result is poor picture quality during motion. How bad will it be for 8k?
Even over the Internet, bandwidth will be large, won't it? Again: compression. Also: data caps.
I think the TV industry knows that once someone buys a TV, that's that for up to, say, 10 years? If nothing changes, and the set still works like it's supposed to, no one goes out and buys a replacement. If you build shitty TVs that break every couple years, people complain and won't buy from you, so you can't just build poorly and get repeat sales that way. So, hey, let's keep 'upgrading' the standards every so often, just so we can make people feel like their current set is 'obsolete', regardless of whether it's still in perfect working order, so we can sell them a brand-new one! Brilliant idea! Except I think it's already at the point of diminishing returns. Does the average person even care about this? Or is 1080 more than enough? Does the average person have a ten foot TV in their house? What really makes this worth having? Just not convinced it's worthwhile. Going from a CRT TV that could only handle standard definition NTSC signals to an HDTV that can handle 1080p was great, don't regret it, but this? Not convinced.
My estimates based on a nice, large 70" TV at a normal 10 foot viewing distance for a random set of people (with all content being a mix of typical movie material, with high-quality recording/encoding, and high bitrate, identical in every way except resolution):
20% of people can NOT tell any res difference between 480P native and 720P native. This was HUGE.
50% of people can NOT tell any res difference between 720P native and 1080P native. This was good.
94% of people can NOT tell any res difference between native 1080P and native 4K.
98% of people can NOT tell any res difference between 1080P upscaled to 4K and native 4K.
99.9% of people can NOT tell any res difference between native 4K and native 8K.
Now, in special cases, with huge, huge screens and sitting close, 8K might have some tiny value. But as it is, quality 1080P content, upscaled to a modern 4K TV is "good enough" for nearly everyone. 4K native content will please only a very few.. 8K for any normal purpose is just a total waste of bandwidth/storage/money. It is just a meaningless spec war that confuses and robs consumers or gives techno-ego-snobs something to brag about, even though none of them can tell any difference, either.
What *has* been helpful is HDR and increased color info... but even that is minor compared to what came before; and only helpful to a limited point. So what's next on the marketing train? 20 trillion colors more than the human eye can distinguish? Refresh rates 1,000 times higher than the human brain can ever distinguish?