Super Hi-Vision 8K TV Standard Approved

[admin]

OK, just stop it already, will ya? We love technology advancements, but have we not learned anything from the failed "OMG 3D IS TE AWESOME YA GOTZ TA HAZ IT!!!" debacle of the past few years? 3D was pitched to consumers as the latest and greatest thing since HDTV and manufacturers scrambled like wild to get them into their sets. Now, the technology has simply resulted in higher manufacturer costs and a feature that is a throwaway - unused by most consumers. So what's that have to do with 8K? Everything. 4K isn't even out, but a recent editorial at the BBC News states that the United Nations ITU communication standards setting agency has just approved Super Hi-Vision 8K as a standard.

Discuss "Super Hi-Vision 8K TV Standard Approved" here. Read the article.

 

[Adam]

I remember seeing a relatively small flat panel TV in 1997-ish that cost something like $20k. About a decade later, I felt like I was almost the last one to the party to upgrade to a new flat panel TV, buying a 50" 1080p plasma for under $1300.

So, I don't think that it'll be obnoxiously long before such sets are affordable - IF the industry decides to pursue it. Higher pixel density displays, such as for phones and tablets, have the opportunity to advance the technology and make it affordable (to my ignorant mind, anyway).

Would I like to see that kind of resolution? Heck, yes! Especially on larger screens. I didn't think that 1080p would be that much better than my 27" CRT TV...until I got one.

 

[fufanuer]

Just give me faster frame rates

And that's even more bang for your buck.

 

[fufanuer]

And that's even more bang for your buck.

The title of my comment didn't post...

Give me faster refresh rates before you give me more resolution"

 

[ratso]

i don't think it's silly, i would want it. i can't imagine most people WOULDN'T want it. ask any man on the street if they would think a tv is cool that has 16X more resolution than their current tv and i'm sure most people would say, "yes i want that". contrast this to when people were asked if they want 3D tv's and the average man on the street said... meh.

what IS silly is how this industry cannot figure out what consumers want and how to get it to them. meaning the whole industry (tv, movies, etc). there has to be content provided for it.

 

[darien87]

Who cares about the TV, those Korean girls are HOT!!!

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

this is 8k Camera - Not exactly portable....

this is for Darrien

 

[Tin Ear]

Well, I love my 3D ... and my wife IS Korean ... so there .

 

[darien87]

Well, I love my 3D ... and my wife IS Korean ... so there .

Pics or you're lying.......... of the wife not the TV.

 

[BBF]

It's nice to have a standard... if it's practical... that's another matter.

At least the TRUE IMAX theatres will have a standard for digital distribution of their movies for people sitting 0.75x the height of the screen away.

Also the Ultra-Uber-Retina 4320x7680 11.6" Mac Air to be released in 2014 will be able to conform with the standard. Of course you'll be issued a head mount to ensure the display is positioned exactly 4.25 inches in front of your eyes to ensure you can appreciate every single pixel. ;-)

 

[Trev]

I'm so not a purist. I think 3D is going to be where we're headed. Can't stop it. Folks should stop fighting it and get on board. The only thing that needs to go, are the freaking glasses.

I heard Toshiba pulled off a glasses-less 3D TV in Asia, but could only make it work on a 27 inch. That imo, is the future of it. 3D TV, no glasses, and past that... projection room... (Like the x-men danger room)

"Look ma', no glasses!"

Really though, 3D just isn't ready yet. It's not a bad technology. It's not evil. It's just a chiseled stone wheel. You feel like you tripped back into the 80's idea of the year 2000 wearing glasses.

And 8K? Hey, cool. I thought we were just starting to touch 4k, but someone wants to jump the gun and skip over 4k... lets do it. Just don't be a sucker for full price 'this year's model' gear, and its good! Makes all the AVRs that dont do 8k cheaper no? eh, maybe I'm too optimistic?

 

[chemicallcrow]

At what point does resolution no longer matter?

Has anyone seen 4k resolution first-hand? Is the difference visible?

Unless the screen is huge (and, I have to admit, the examples I've heard of are very large), I can't help but think that at some point it passes the resolving capacity of the human eye and it no longer matters unless someone is practically pressing their face against the screen. My gut says 8k screens are well past that point, but I've been wrong many times before.

 

[Trev]

Way I figure it...

I have a few phones I've been going through, and my Nexus S has I believe 480x800 resolution, on the size screen it is. Great. But the Galaxy S2 has the same res over larger screen. Looked like absolute crap.

Now one display... that has been drooled over... I think by anyone who's ever passed through a best buy before or an apple store... is the 27" Imac.

The 27" IMAC resolution is "Resolution: 2560 by 1440 pixels".

So... 94.8 x 53.33_ / Inch on a 4/5 H/W scale...

80 inches of that clarity... Approx. 7584 x 4266.

I'd say there's a significant difference, and why settle for 4K? Next time you're in a shop.... look at an IMAC 27" Display, vs... a regular monitor or HDTV the same approximate size.

 

[its phillip]

High res computer monitors have been around well before the imac...30" displays with 2560x1600 res have been around for ten years or so. Dell also has a 2560x1440 27" display.

Anyway, I'm all for higher resolution, so the sooner we see 8k displays, the sooner they'll be cheaper

 

[cpp]

Not sure the human eye can see the difference between 4K and garden-variety 1080p video, especially when shown on TVs in the sizes that are typical for in-home use.
Not to mention the content ( source, be in broadcasting, BlueRay, games) is far and few if any available or when.

 

[avnetguy]

Not sure the human eye can see the difference between 4K and garden-variety 1080p video, especially when shown on TVs in the sizes that are typical for in-home use.
Not to mention the content ( source, be in broadcasting, BlueRay, games) is far and few if any available or when.

Very true, even 720p looks great for common viewing distances used in homes on big sets.

However, once the price on the new Panasonic 8K 145-inch 7,680 x 4,320 drops below $4K I'll be getting one for the living room!

Steve

 

[its phillip]

Not sure the human eye can see the difference between 4K and garden-variety 1080p video, especially when shown on TVs in the sizes that are typical for in-home use.
Not to mention the content ( source, be in broadcasting, BlueRay, games) is far and few if any available or when.

I used to use a 40" lcd tv as a monitor. If it was 8k or even 4k I'd still be using it

 

[mifronte]

No More Shaky Cam

I love the 8K camera! At least it will guarantee no more shaky cam movies