What do you think of 8k TVs so far?

marticus

marticus

Audioholic
8k is stupid for many reasons but the most jarring thing for me is the fact that 35mm the most widely used film format in history has an equivalent resolution of about 5k.

So not only is there no native 8k content, there won't be any for films made up until now.

Edit for clarity: the 5k figure for 35mm is what I remember reading but I just checked to confirm, and from my understanding most 35mm films have a nominal resolution of 4 - 5k, but if you have good quality film, and a scanner with a lens good enough you may be able to get more.

Imagine the kind of lense you would need to resolve 8k out of something 35mm wide good lord.

Anyway my point stands when you look at the costs and efforts to update older content to 8k not to mention storage costs (remember we don't even have streaming of full 4k) then 8k look less and less realistic.

Of course its easy for TV manufacturers to put out 8k tv's, they already make panels with good enough pixel density in smaller 4k units
 
Last edited:
M

Mojo Navigator

Enthusiast
It's a sales pitch.

In the mind of the purchaser, it's "future proofing" . Buying a TV today? For a little or no more money, you can take home an 8K TV and not worry that it will be obsolete when 8K content becomes available. Also, you have bragging rights. " Is your TV 8K? What, only 4K? Mine is 8K.

Technology will continue to advance, exponentially. In the not so distant future 8K will become the "standard". Then 16K, 32K and 64K?
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Audioholic Field Marshall
It's a sales pitch.

In the mind of the purchaser, it's "future proofing" . Buying a TV today? For a little or no more money, you can take home an 8K TV and not worry that it will be obsolete when 8K content becomes available. Also, you have bragging rights. " Is your TV 8K? What, only 4K? Mine is 8K.

Technology will continue to advance, exponentially. In the not so distant future 8K will become the "standard". Then 16K, 32K and 64K?
They need to make consumer 4/8k same resolution as theaters , why do we get the lower quality resolution and they get more
Pixels ??
It all seems pointless to
Me , why double the resolution so often will we eventually have Super clear images?
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
They need to make consumer 4/8k same resolution as theaters , why do we get the lower quality resolution and they get more
Pixels ??
It all seems pointless to
Me , why double the resolution so often will we eventually have Super clear images?
Theaters don't really have more resolution than consumers do at this point.

What they may get is films at a much higher bitrate and with higher color fidelity than consumers are getting.

Compression of video is the issue, not the resolution. Thinking resolution is the issue means you're still falling for marketing and don't know what actually makes an image high quality. Lower compression with better color fidelity and a more accurate image is far more important than resolution.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
8K Resolution = diminishing returns.

For now, I think maybe the appropriate place for 8K Resolution is for 8K digital movie cameras and Mastering those movies in 8K Digital.

But until we have 8K movie contents, 8K TV/PJ are just gimmick.
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Audioholic Field Marshall
Theaters don't really have more resolution than consumers do at this point.

What they may get is films at a much higher bitrate and with higher color fidelity than consumers are getting.

Compression of video is the issue, not the resolution. Thinking resolution is the issue means you're still falling for marketing and don't know what actually makes an image high quality. Lower compression with better color fidelity and a more accurate image is far more important than resolution.
Yeah theaters just got higher colors
There resolution is higher just a fact , could it be due to screen size ?? Why do consumers only get
“4k TV has 3840 horizontal pixels and 2160 vertica”
Maybe it’s not that big of a difference.. 265 pixels is a lot tho x2160
Half a million pixels gone ..
With 8k you lose double to 4x that ..
Bigger the resolution more the consumer loses resolution.. could just be due to screen shape tho .
I think we lose more to widescreen then pixels tho , damn bars on films ruin them .. widescreen on a widescreen tv is so stupid .
Higher bit rate could help consumers if only it wasn’t only in theaters..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
Yeah theaters just got higher colors
No, theaters have worked in the DCI-P3 color space for quite a while now.

There resolution is higher just a fact , could it be due to screen size ??
4096 vs. 3840? Really, those pixels aren't an actual jump. Theaters have always used oddball resolutions and aspect ratios. They are still 2160p projectors, and their jump in horizontal resolution isn't actually meaningful to things. It's less than a 7% jump, and it is LESS than what 8K projectors and TVs can deliver. So, no, it isn't universal.
7% resolution increase is visually insignificant.

Why do consumers only get
“4k TV has 3840 horizontal pixels and 2160 vertica”
Because that's 16:9 and matches perfectly to all HD 16:9 content which has been shot. All consumer/prosumer content is shot in the 16:9 aspect ratio.
Since 4K prosumer video is shot in the 16:9 aspect ratio at 3840x2160 natively, then any added resolution is wasted on anything with higher resolution.

Maybe it’s not that big of a difference.. 265 pixels is a lot tho x2160
Half a million pixels gone ..
As stated, it is less than a 7% difference and is visually imperceptible. You can't see it. It isn't worth discussing.

With 8k you lose double to 4x that ..
You have a problem with caring about things that simply are completely meaningless in the real world. What's the difference between a WAV file and a FLAC file? The FLAC file is half the size! So, it must suck? No! The file size is irrelevant. In this case, the resolution is so close, that the difference is irrelevant.

Bigger the resolution more the consumer loses resolution.. could just be due to screen shape tho .
No, at 8K, the consumer TV is still less than a 7% difference. Same at 32K or 64K. The side pixels will still be removed as not fitting the 16:9 standard.

I think we lose more to widescreen then pixels tho , damn bars on films ruin them .. widescreen on a widescreen tv is so stupid .
The director of the film would say the same about you.
HDTV is almost universally shot in the 16:9 aspect ratio. Movies are shot in different aspect ratios. That's up to the director, and with larger TVs, most current movies are released in the original aspect ratio. Tron Legacy Blu-ray actually changes aspect ratios throughout the movie for accommodate for IMAX scenes which are taller.

Higher bit rate could help consumers if only it wasn’t only in theaters..
Higher bitrate with better codecs is almost always better for video quality, no matter what and where it is being played back.

Theaters have a lot of other things going for them.
First, they do NOT use Sony projectors because Sony recognized a flaw in their LCoS technology and can't deliver a commercially viable theater solution. That's why the link on the Sony page you have leads to a long list of projectors which are all discontinued by Sony.
Second, they pretty exclusively are using DLP projectors.
The DLP projectors are all 3-chip models. (most home DLP models are not 3-chip DLP).
The projectors have MUCH better optics than most consumers get at home.
The projectors are very highly calibrated.
The projectors are designed from the ground up with commercial playback in mind.
The projectors, to my understanding, support 12-bit color depth.

But, in reality, a reasonable home theater projector can look almost as good, or better, than much of what many theaters are able to deliver. Don't oversell what movie theaters actually produce. It's not as good as you may believe.
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Audioholic Field Marshall
No, theaters have worked in the DCI-P3 color space for quite a while now.


4096 vs. 3840? Really, those pixels aren't an actual jump. Theaters have always used oddball resolutions and aspect ratios. They are still 2160p projectors, and their jump in horizontal resolution isn't actually meaningful to things. It's less than a 7% jump, and it is LESS than what 8K projectors and TVs can deliver. So, no, it isn't universal.
7% resolution increase is visually insignificant.


Because that's 16:9 and matches perfectly to all HD 16:9 content which has been shot. All consumer/prosumer content is shot in the 16:9 aspect ratio.
Since 4K prosumer video is shot in the 16:9 aspect ratio at 3840x2160 natively, then any added resolution is wasted on anything with higher resolution.


As stated, it is less than a 7% difference and is visually imperceptible. You can't see it. It isn't worth discussing.


You have a problem with caring about things that simply are completely meaningless in the real world. What's the difference between a WAV file and a FLAC file? The FLAC file is half the size! So, it must suck? No! The file size is irrelevant. In this case, the resolution is so close, that the difference is irrelevant.


No, at 8K, the consumer TV is still less than a 7% difference. Same at 32K or 64K. The side pixels will still be removed as not fitting the 16:9 standard.


The director of the film would say the same about you.
HDTV is almost universally shot in the 16:9 aspect ratio. Movies are shot in different aspect ratios. That's up to the director, and with larger TVs, most current movies are released in the original aspect ratio. Tron Legacy Blu-ray actually changes aspect ratios throughout the movie for accommodate for IMAX scenes which are taller.


Higher bitrate with better codecs is almost always better for video quality, no matter what and where it is being played back.

Theaters have a lot of other things going for them.
First, they do NOT use Sony projectors because Sony recognized a flaw in their LCoS technology and can't deliver a commercially viable theater solution. That's why the link on the Sony page you have leads to a long list of projectors which are all discontinued by Sony.
Second, they pretty exclusively are using DLP projectors.
The DLP projectors are all 3-chip models. (most home DLP models are not 3-chip DLP).
The projectors have MUCH better optics than most consumers get at home.
The projectors are very highly calibrated.
The projectors are designed from the ground up with commercial playback in mind.
The projectors, to my understanding, support 12-bit color depth.

But, in reality, a reasonable home theater projector can look almost as good, or better, than much of what many theaters are able to deliver. Don't oversell what movie theaters actually produce. It's not as good as you may believe.
I probably can’t afford a Good enough projector to even compare to theaters , even if I find a job someday . There’s are like 20-200k+ ..
Im more worried about the lifespan of projectors I’m sure there’s good affordable mid -cheap ones .

16:9 shouldn’t be the base tv dimensions they should offer something bigger like what theaters use , but they won’t do that because cable and streaming is 16:9. Losing half a million pixels per 4k ratio for hifi isn’t much of a loss probably not even noticeable.. maybe that’s perfect for 16:9??

Thanks for the great information though so resolution itself isn’t as important as bitrate or color rec 20 definition .
Bars ruin films for home theaters I wish I had a room big enough for a projector screen ..I could get a Larger tv to make up for lost inches though?
My biggest tv is a disappointment eventually need a better 4k tv..

I’d avoid 8k tvs like due to no content and you’ll end up screwed like me getting a non hdr 4k tv… in 2015
Unless the extra features are worth it ofc.

What minimum size tv does 4k make a difference in picture quality? Over a old 1080p model .

If you got enough money then paying more for 8k is fine … just don’t expect it to not be obsolete in 5 years . Image is probably spectacular in higher end stuff .. I’ve never had top of line .. only low midrange to cheap . The resolution itself maybe not worth it but the other features may be .
What’s next 12k?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
T

Trebdp83

Audioholic Ninja
Thought I’d never stoop to the ignore button but everybody has their limit. I’m sure some hit their limit after some of my posts.;)
 
Auditor55

Auditor55

Audioholic General
I like them. Will I spend thousands now for one? No.

I’ve seen various 8k TVs from Samsung and LG and I like them but I wasn’t as impressed or awed when I saw the first 4K TVs being used to 1080 and 720p.

Plus not a lot of content yet for 8k. Even a lot of YouTube videos I like are still in 1080p and are very recent.
You need content. There isn't any.
 
G

GotAudio

Audioholic
I guess you can for those types of applications.
Out of curiosity, I just searched and found out that YouTube supports 8k videos but its content is limited. At least you can share your 8k videos with people all around the world.

Also, one of Samsung’s phones supports 8k video recording.(hurry up Apple said the iPhone user).
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Warlord
Out of curiosity, I just searched and found out that YouTube supports 8k videos but its content is limited. At least you can share your 8k videos with people all around the world.
That’s cool. Too bad they still only support 2.0 audio. Happy to be corrected though.
So, as I said earlier. Fukk 8K. Unless I’m a sweaty a$$ gamer, there is zero reason for it.
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Audioholic Field Marshall
That’s cool. Too bad they still only support 2.0 audio. Happy to be corrected though.
So, as I said earlier. Fukk 8K. Unless I’m a sweaty a$$ gamer, there is zero reason for it.
I’d be surprised if anyone can tell a difference between 8 and 4k… hardly any content for 8k and even 4k is rare enough streaming is often condensed and lackluster . Could be at & t just sucks ..
I’d take a 4k oled over a 8k led at least picture contrast is superior .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Warlord
I’d be surprised if anyone can tell a difference between 8 and 4k… hardly any content for 8k and even 4k is rare enough streaming is often condensed and lackluster .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep.
 
B

Brian King

Audioholic Intern
I'd only consider 8K if it was curved screen and 3D.:rolleyes:
 
Cos

Cos

Audioholic Samurai
I am the King of Early adopters, I just bought an A80J 77" and don't plan on even considering 8k for a least a few more years.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top