8K TVs Are Coming to Market | Hacker News Reader

8K TVs Are Coming to Market

wired.com

26 pointsprostoalex64 comments

Still of relevance: the "when will 4k matter to you?" chart.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Short version: you might get some benefit from an 8k tv (and associated 8k media if/when it arrives) if you're routinely sitting closer than 5' from your 80" television. Otherwise, not so much.

I generally try to avoid dissing new technology/software/ideas, but really, 8k TVs appear on the face of it to be pretty pointless. You literally won't be able to tell the difference between a 4k and an 8k film if you're sitting at a reasonable distance from a normal-sized TV.

(I'm defining "normal-sized" as "55 inches or smaller" here. If in actual fact lots of people are buying 90" TVs that changes things.)

For reference, I've been a video professional for 20 years, I have a reasonably large television in a not-massive living room, and in my living room I can just about tell the difference between 720p and 1080p content playing on it, if the source is high-quality and I'm concentrating. The resolution has to drop down to 480p or less before I find it starts actively interfering with my enjoyment of whatever I'm watching.

How about when I'm standing in front of the screen and drawing on it with my Apple Pencil? I want to use my TV as another screen for my phone, tablet, computer, and Rasberry Pi. Sure, if watching a movie video is your only use case, your needs are much less.

No bad that chart is in arcane units of measurement.

I have about the same problem, I can't grasp feet at all and for screen sizes, centimetres would be easier with just an additional point for laptop screens, it's quite difficult to read indeed. I can represent a 15' screen thanks to my laptop but absolutely not a 40' or 50' screen, it would be better in centimetres with a dot for common screen sizes.

Just so you know, ' is pretty much always used to designate feet, " is inches. Source: I'm a mechanical engineer in the US.

What country are you from that uses CM for screen sizes? this space has pretty much been dominated by imperial units since pretty well forever...

I'm french. While people use inches for laptops, anything bigger is in centimetres.

I agree that these resolution jumps aren't overly relevant for casual TV viewing.

The increased resolutions are important, however, for the success of VR headsets where the display is literally inches away from your eyes.

Oh, definitely. No disagreement there. I'm very much looking forward to my CV1 Rift :)

Me too!

Resolution is independent of distance, it's a function of viewing angles. A 4K image 5 inches away from your eye that covers 30 degrees of FOV is identical to a 4K image 100M away that covers 30 degrees of FOV (modulo issues of accommodation and vergence).

The biggest change with VR is that it demands much larger viewing angles and subsequently much higher resolutions to achieve the same DPI. Fortunately, viewing angles can at most be 360 in theory (and about 200 or so in practice) so we're less than an order of magnitude away from ever having to worry about resolution again.

I have a projector at home which casts about a 120ft image, I sit about 15ft away. So looks like I might actually see a difference at 4K, though I don't think my wallet would approve of me upgrading quite yet.

I have difficulty imagining a home setup where 8K would make a difference, assuming that chart is accurate.

Yeah, projectors are a different kettle of fish, at least for 4k. I'm strongly considering a 4k projector when they get to a decent bang-for-buck ratio.

120ft!?!

It's fine. Consumers are basically going to pay for the technology that is going to be needed for high-quality VR displays (at least resolution-wise), other other applications we haven't thought of. Some things are only possible until technology reaches a certain level.

That chart ignores aliasing effects, fixed resolution can always cause noticeable issues with the wrong source image.

EX: Brick wall can show up with banding effects even at absurd resolution given the right distance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing

Screen doors, and chain link fences are also fairly common examples.

Interesting! I shall have to test that.

I love commercial videos that explain to you why this new resolution is unbelievable, but the cam used to record it is a full hd one, and it's displayed in a 640*320 window :)

And yet there's something to them. There's clearly some sort of interesting technique used. I guess they try to make the things on the screen look as real as the people watching.

Literally the only 8k content available for the foreseeable future are timelapse/hyperlapse movies stitched together from 32Mpx+ pictures, i.e. from D810, 5Ds etc. (maybe medium format as well if they weren't so slow).

We have immense problems with silly 4k RAW recording - first, only the latest M.2 PCIe SSDs are fast enough to record/play it in realtime and second, the size of RAW footage is ridiculously large. 8k cameras are just experimental prototypes.

> Literally the only 8k content available for the foreseeable future are timelapse/hyperlapse movies stitched together from 32Mpx+ pictures

Pointless screensaver-like demo visualization apps might see an unexpected revival. Think tutanchamun mask projected onto mirrored sphere floating above infinite checkerboard, or even just the randomly swooshing hairline polygons on black, perfect to show off superior pixel density. Last time this has happened, customers were faced with a similar mismatch between theoretical multimedia capability and available content.

That would require a fanless GPU capable of 4k @ 60Hz. But we can dream ;-)

Anything capable of painting a modern channel selector UI on that screen will be generously oversized for recreating effects from the screen saver age.

But I get your point, it may take a while before those screens become must-have gaming accessories. Even if you had the GPU resources to achieve high FPS, an excessive increase in screen resolution would only expose low polygon count artifacts without a matching increase in scene complexity.

We're going to see a lot of fractal screensavers again.

maybe i'm old, but I can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my ludicrously oversized flat screen tv

Really? I've got a 50" FullHD TV and I could definitely use an upgrade to 4K. Sitting 3-4 meters away from it some content is definitely not as sharp as it could be.

i have a 46" TV. I suspect the x.264 compression artifacts were becoming a limiting factor (and my eye sight)

I often can't tell between 720p and 1080i source material either on my 46" 1080p set. About to buy a 75" 4k set though. The size means I'll definitely notice 4k from my couch distance (~8ft) and the sheer size will come in handy when watching TV from the kitchen table (~15ft away)

What content? Netflix in 4K looks considerably worse than true BluRay at 1080p. The resolution is really not the most important factor as most of the content most people consume now is streamed we lost pretty much all of the benefits of HD with squeezing 1080p HD content to a bitrate lower than that of DVD without much improvement with our encoders. H265 can produce some seriously small files but atm the configuration isn't optimized yet (h264 still looks better) that plus some decent client side post processing can probably help to bring back HD content to it's full glory.

Are you also running standard definition content, thinking it's "HD"? (serious question)

The continued interest in YIFY 720p encodes (YIFY stopped a couple of months ago, and their encodes target small file size, not best quality) show that many people either can't tell the difference, or just don't care about the difference.

When I read movie critics I never see anyone saying "Not sharp enough" or "I wish there was more detail". Maybe I'm just reading the wrong critics? But when I'm watching a movie the quality of the image is about the last thing I care about, so long as it's above a fairly low minimum. (EG, Clint Eastwood often gets comments for his poorly lit films; a bunch of Youtubers could buy a tripod).

I'm not that old, but not super young either (38), and I can definitely tell a difference, I rented some movie on DVD instead of blu-ray and it was pretty horrendous. I try to watch SD on my TV and it's horrible. Granted, the difference between SD and 1080p is probably much more remarkable, but we have a 40" 1080p after having upgraded from a 28" 720p TV (I know, small) and I remember how going from SD to 720p was pretty amazing (got an Xbox 360 at the time, and playing some of those games were jaw dropping). When we upgraded to 1080p I was skeptical, but I was quickly a convert.

4k, I'm skeptical of, 8k, definitely; unless it's some weird 3D benefit (4k "in each eye" type of thing).

My parents got a new 55inch UHD (4k) TV and rave about it. It looks... remarkably different, but I'm not sure it's the resolution or the increased refresh rate. I don't think I like it, it "up-regulates" 1080p movies, and makes movement jerky or something is just off.

I'll stick with my 1080p for now. That said, I notice watching movies on my Retina Screen (mac) that movies from netflix are a bit higher resolution, though not 4k. It's noticeable for me even at that slight difference, though to be honest, I put the same show on both my TV and my laptop and place them so the screens are comparable size/distance and the difference is there.

i don't doubt for a minute that people can tell the difference. however would just make the point that a proper controlled experiment would be to change the source from 720p to 1080p or 4k, rather than the tv (assuming the tv supports the maximum res!).

> it means digitally zooming an image without affecting picture quality will be a reality.

Wait.. what?

The paragraph is saying that "absolutely no evidence of pixelation even if your face is an inch from the set", so my interpretation is that in normal viewing distance even zoomed in video will look perfect: "That’s not a realistic viewing scenario, but on the production side of the equation, it means digitally zooming an image without affecting picture quality will be a reality."

That makes no sense, unless you are looking at your tv thru a camera and 'zooming in'

My 55" 4k TV has pixels visible pretty much from distances under 1m. I use it for showcasing my photography portfolio, looks much better than on 1080p, as well as to review my hyperlapse movies and that's about it. 8k on a smartphone will be different though, but why? 720p on 5" is close to "good enough" for median vision of population.

8k is supposed to be the "final resolution" of TV as it should bring retina-style to people with perfect vision (not to eagles though).

8K on a smartphone means a reasonable resolution for VR headsets, so don't discourage them. :)

Seeing pixels when you zoom in is a matter of how much data you have for the image. Having a higher resolution will just get you more well defined pixels which are part of the image.

Seeing pixels because of the resolution is because the pixels are too big or you are too close. It has nothing to do with the image or zooming.

Cool. Now make it a touch screen with wireless connectors and sell it in racks beside the drywall at the local home improvement store.

I keep waiting for this world of ubitquitous cheap displays that we've been promised. Seems like we're getting there -- but it's been taking its sweet time.

"I keep waiting for this world of ubiquitous cheap displays that we've been promised."

What do you consider cheap? You can get a 42" screen for under $300 these days. That used to cost $1500 and weigh 5 times as much not too long ago.

I imagine he's referring to 13-21" screens, where the price has stagnated in the past, say, 5 years, especially relative to higher-end displays. Case in point: you can now get a $5 Raspi Zero, which is more powerful than my laptop from seven years ago, which cost $700. That's an absolutely insane, and amazing, reduction in price. But any meaningful display for it will cost you around $90-$120, which is roughly how much it cost seven years ago.

As much as I appreciate the stupid and pointless race towards insane resolutions for how it benefits VR, I too wish we had some progress making "normal", 1920x1080 20" (or 13" 1600x900) displays for cheap.

People talk about "Raspi Zero, the $5 computer" but for six billion people in the world who don't have a computer, a computer is a device with a screen. When that whole shebang becomes $5, having a computer suddenly becomes a choice for everyone, not a privilege for the upper 15% of society. And right now, the thing that's holding us back from that dream is only the display.

A $5 Raspi, which consumes 0.6W at most, can be powered for 18 hours with a battery that costs $2 in bulk. A SD card in bulk might be an extra $3 and a Wifi dongle can be had for $2 in bulk. That's a $12 laptop. Add a display, and your $12 laptop becomes $100. The lack of progress in displays is criminal.

I believe that LG uses double resolution TV's so that they can do full res passive 3D where they alternate lines to each eye. That way they get full frame rate, reducing the flickering, and getting rid of battery powered glasses. So for them an 8k TV would really be a 4k 3d TV.

I haven't even upgraded to 4K yet. Who gives a damn if there are 8K televisions, barely any Blu Rays support 4K yet, and streaming it (in the States at least)? Fuhgetabboutit.

I upgraded to a 4K on my gaming PC and that's awesome to have because it's right in front of my face, but until the content is widely available I see no reason to move up past 1080p for the living room. Just dumb, I'd rather have the content the native resolution of the TV's panel. Maybe that's just me, I dunno.

And the 4K content is where?

Netflix, Youtube.

How's the quality from them? I got the sense, from articles I'd read, that it was overly compressed, but I've never seen it first-hand.

Yeah, the compression is visible. In my experience, it looks a bit worse than blu ray at full hd.

In short, horrible. 4k Youtube is comparable to 4:2:2 1080p scaled up to UHD.

Let's see what 4k Blu-Ray brings this year...

I've never seen any artifacts in the ~50hrs on content I've watched in 4K across Netflix and Amazon.

The biggest picture quality issue is possibly the cameras themselves: a lot of TV looks uncomfortably real - like it was shot on a security camera. Though I did get the same impression from Breaking Bad in 4K, even though it was shot on 35mm.

The "Soap Opera Effect" Is usually more pronounced from running at a frame rate higher than 24fps.

For some reason we've become accustomed to 24FPS as realistic, and the smooth motion on a 120hz screen is jarring.

There is a theory that a thing so smooth as 120hz falls in the "very real but not quite real" case, or the Uncanny Valley. Whereas 24fps tells our brain we're clearly watching a movie and so it's ok.

Just like those highly realistic dolls from Japan where you can tell something is wrong but you can't quite put your finger on it.

It will be over compressed, current Blu-ray discs offer a maximum bitrate of 40Mb/s for the video component, though I think it's more typical for it to be around 25Mb/s.

Netflix is currently using 15.6Mb/s for 4k streams, and I believe that's still using H264 rather than H265.

I just grabbed the 4k stream from this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pxRHBw-k8M

The stream bitrate appeared to be around 10-15 Mbps. I believe most 1080p bluray content starts at 25 Mbps.

I've actually got a phone that can record in 4K(Xperia Z5) and a GoPro Hero 4 Black which can also record in 4K, yet no screen to view it on. A 4K TV is definitely on my purchase list in the next couple years.

Your cameras record 4k in 4:2:0 and heavily compressed. If you resize them to 1080p, you'd get average quality FHD. Real 4k is barely on the market for prosumers that want 4:4:4 RAW (maybe only Blackmagic 4k cameras).

I hope they keep going on this resolution kick. There is a pretty big gap between the max resolution that really makes sense for flat images and the minimum resolution for holographic displays. The higher resolution that sells to videophiles, the smaller that gap becomes and the more likely we are to eventually bridge it.

I don't think pixelation from digital zoom is a cause of tv resolution (it was decades ago)...since digital zoom will produce pixelation artifacts that cover multiple tv pixels. Example just connect your tv to your computer and zoom into a picture.

So where are the 128 bit addressable CPUs?

We don’t even have full 64-bit currently, actually current processors (Haswell series, for example) use only 48-bit for memory.

Modern CPUs have 64-bit word and virtual address sizes, so by normal definitions they are 64-bit. The physical address range is not the metric here.

Besides, it would make no sense to have a 64-bit physical address bus. There aren't enough atoms in the universe to make memory to fill it.

Indeed it makes no sense to have a 64-bit physical bus, but the parent was asking why we don’t have 128-bit yet on consumer devices.

Same answer. It's all CPUs, bus width, and address space. Consumer devices are not special.

Yes, I’m just saying: Before we look towards 128-bit devices, we should look towards 64-bit devices first.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com