8k Resolution tv....... Why?

[FIVEHOE]

Well looks like LG is one step ahead of the game, although considering 4k content is hardly available I doubt this will happen anytime within the next few years.

Article: http://www.geek.com/news/lg-will-demo-a-55-inch-8k-tv-at-ces-2015-to-gauge-interest-1611544/

Main para:

<Font color='FF0000'>At CES 2015 in January LG is expected to have a 55-inch 8K TV available to demo. The 8K panel has a resolution of 7680 x 4320 spread across 33 million pixels. The reason for this 8K TV existing is apparently simply to gauge interest. Do people want 8K TVs in their homes? I’m sure they will, but, and it’s a big but, we need the content available to take advantage of it.</Font>

 

[Kiohtee]

Because if you make it, someone will buy it.

 

[Screw-Rice]

I remember talking about them working on 8k over a year ago. Just like 4k doesn't have a lot of content now, they have to be ahead of the curve. So once 4k content picks up, 8k will start hitting shelves as the new great thing in a few years.

 

[thomas91169]

1080p is hard enough to get content these days.

We're running into an issue with bandwidth in this country that's gonna put a neuce on these offerings.

 

[FIVEHOE]

1080p is hard enough to get content these days.

We're running into an issue with bandwidth in this country that's gonna put a neuce on these offerings.

yeah it'll be interesting to see how things unfold. My ISP has announced that they will be working on a gigabit connection (to compete with google fiber who announced they would be coming in the future), so I hope 4k content (and maybe 8k?) will be realistic by then.

kind of crazy how advanced the television manufacturers are.... they have to wait for bandwith to catch up to 4k before releasing their next gen. Love technology and evolution.

 

[Deceptive]

Because "shut up and take my money!"?

 

[Screw-Rice]

Because "shut up and take my money!"?

I prefer

"Why?! Fu*k you, that's why!"

 

[thomas91169]

yeah it'll be interesting to see how things unfold. My ISP has announced that they will be working on a gigabit connection (to compete with google fiber who announced they would be coming in the future), so I hope 4k content (and maybe 8k?) will be realistic by then.

kind of crazy how advanced the television manufacturers are.... they have to wait for bandwith to catch up to 4k before releasing their next gen. Love technology and evolution.

Iirc the lack of bandwidth in the United States is a regulatory issue, not a lack of advancement.

 

[Dizzyscure1]

Iirc the lack of bandwidth in the United States is a regulatory issue, not a lack of advancement.

^ This, we are behind Here. Higher res will always be better if its supported. My BR's always provide a great source and they will happily handle larg Res in the future. Streaming is not my thing especially at our limits as stated.

 

[CobraBob]

As you move further away from the screen, 4K, and certainly 8K, would make a big difference. The closer you are to the screen, the less difference you'll notice between 1080P and 4K. I just don't see 8K making a lot of sense at all. Maybe for a large home theater system with a screen size over 100".

 

[03 KB Sonic Blue]

Supposeably all the new new movies being filmed are being recorded in 8k. That way when they go back and edit they can zoom in on from a wider shot on a certain area and still have pixel resolution for a clear image.
It's one of those things that still years away for being a standard. Just like have fiber optic wiring in a house.

 

[Tylerc]

As you move further away from the screen, 4K, and certainly 8K, would make a big difference
. The closer you are to the screen, the less difference you'll notice between 1080P and 4K. I just don't see 8K making a lot of sense at all. Maybe for a large home theater system with a screen size over 100".

Actually its the closer you get that you get to the screen that you notice the difference in pixels. A big reason why when you go shop for new tv's you can notice such a huge difference between them in the store is due to the fact that in the store you are only a couple feet away from the tv and not 8 or 10 like in a living room.

 

[black92]

Actually its the closer you get that you get to the screen that you notice the difference in pixels. A big reason why when you go shop for new tv's you can notice such a huge difference between them in the store is due to the fact that in the store you are only a couple feet away from the tv and not 8 or 10 like in a living room.

Correct. The closer you get, the more of a difference you'll see compared to when you back away as it "blurs" the difference. Wife saw a 4K TV the other day and was blown away with the detail compared to our 40" 720P I'm still using.

 

[crazyj0n]

If i recall correctly even top of the line hollywood grade cameras can only record at 4k 30 frames a second, and they cost like 100 grand. 8k tv could display some pretty insane photography i'm guessing but video would be a stretch.

 

[Sinister04L]

Gimmick.

 

[GloomySVT]

Gimmick.

It wouldn't be, if the old farts regulating the tech would just die off already. If the technology is there, we should advance as rapidly as possible.

 

[Sinister04L]

It wouldn't be, if the old farts regulating could just die off already. If the technology is there, we should advance as rapidly as possible.

There are very very few times when even a 4k TV would be beneficial, much less an 8k. Gimmick.

 

[GloomySVT]

There are very very few times when even a 4k TV would be beneficial, much less an 8k. Gimmick.

There are very few chances to use the tech, simply because it's new. If 8K is available, and there is a market for it, let it be produced. Production means the overall cost will drop as the tech becomes more refined. If a 1080p TV costs $2k and a 4k TV costs $2k, which one would you buy?

 

[Sinister04L]

There are very few chances to use the tech, simply because it's new. If 8K is available, and there is a market for it, let it be produced. Production means the overall cost will drop as the tech becomes more refined. If a 1080p TV costs $2k and a 4k TV costs $2k, which one would you buy?

Whichever one is the OLED that has the features I want.

 

[TK Doom]

There are very very few times when even a 4k TV would be beneficial, much less an 8k. Gimmick.

This.

There are very few chances to use the tech, simply because it's new. If 8K is available, and there is a market for it, let it be produced. Production means the overall cost will drop as the tech becomes more refined. If a 1080p TV costs $2k and a 4k TV costs $2k, which one would you buy?

I'm not sure what you watch, or what first hand experience you have, but if you are looking for new tech simply to drive prices of "OLD" tech down, then sure. Bring it on.

HOWEVER, from a consumer usability standpoint, there is no use for it.

I have a 181" screen being driven by a JVC-X95R. I had some guests over awhile back and Planes was on and he was AMAZED that he couldn't see any pixels up close. Now that projector is not even a native 4k projector. It uses a proprietary technique to "pixel double" so to speak. I was completely not worried at not owning a 4k projector when I built my theater.

So for a regular "size" TV, the usefulness of the higher resolution becomes less and less as you go smaller and smaller.


Forget the bandwidth needed to "cloud" the content of 4k and let alone 8k, the usefulness becomes even less. Hopefully they will come up with a disc based 8k capable disc in the near future, because I personally HATE the cloud for my media.

Now if 4k/8k motivated studios to remaster catalog titles (ala Star Trek TNG, or Jaws), then sure, bring it on. The down side of my big screen is catalog or any old non-remastered movie. Then the size of my screen shows the serious flaws in the content. But anything modern (Oblivion, Prometheus, Planes) all look AMAZING because the source is so new and they didn't need to remaster anything.