Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#41

Post by ksec »

Just when 100"+ TV are coming out and gaining traction. To put this into perspective, an upcoming 130" LCD TV would 8K would have 68PPI, on 98" would have 90 PPI, and 80" would be 110".

Depending on whether you want a TV experience sitting further back or Cinema is coming Home as Sony's tag line. I believe there is room for something greater than 4K. Especially when TV industry trend suggest TV purchase size is increasing every year. 40" used to be big, then it became entry level, now all top of the line TV dont even offer anything before 50", and the median is moving closer to 65". 80"+ price will come down in the next 5 years as LCD takes over again from OLED. I dont understand why but also wont be surprised if median size move pass 70".

In 2015 I wrote on AVSforum how 8K makes zero sense from Codec, computation, network, transport and TV. However I would never imagine median TV size moved up so quickly, and also I cant see how we could afford 100"+ TV at the time. Turns out I am dead wrong. TCL / CSOT will produce its first 130" TV in 2 years time. For those ultra wealthy they could afford 160" to 220" MicroLED made out of many panels. There will be 10% of population who could afford ultra large screen size. And I am sure there is a market for premium 4K + content.

There is definitely a future with 4K+ content and panel. I just hope we dont give up too early.

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#42

Post by xxs »

alkonaut wrote: post #32
bluescrn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can’t render modern games at decent frame rates at 4k without going down the path of faking it with AI upscaling and frame generation. There was no hope of actual 8k gaming any time soon even before the AI bubble wrecked the PC hardware market. Attempting to render 33 million pixels per frame seems like utter madness, when 1080p is a mere 2 million, and Doom/Quake were great with just 64000. Lets have more frames…

I don't see a future in which we play at 4K at top settings either without AI upscaling/interpolation. Even if it were theoretically possible to do so, the performance budget the developers have going forward will be assuming that frame generation and upscaling is used. So anyone who wants only "real frames" (Non upscaled, non generated) will need to lower their settings or only play games a few years old. But I thin…

In most cases you dont need anti-aliasing at 4k.

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#43

Post by tokyobreakfast »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #29
tokyobreakfast wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While the step from 1080p 1440p to 4K is a visible difference It really isn't. What you are likely seeing is HDR which is on most (but not all!) 4K content. The HDR is a separate layer and unrelated to the resolution. 4K versions of films are usually newly restored with modern film scanning - as opposed to the aging masters created for the DVD era that were used to churn out 1st generation Blu-Rays. The difference…

I can confirm that on a pc monitor, 1080p and 4k is very easy to tell apart.

I missed the part this was about gaming. Most people don't sit 10' away from their monitor, but it's standard for TV viewing.

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#44

Post by tokyobreakfast »

alex43578 wrote: post #40
tokyobreakfast wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try comparing a 4K vs 1080p that were created from the same master, like a modern Criterion restoration. Without HDR the differences are negligible or imperceptible at a standard 10' viewing distance. I'll take it one step further: a well-mastered 1080p Blu-Ray beats 4K streaming hands down every time.

10 feet is pretty far back for all but the biggest screens, and at closer distances, you certainly should be able to see a difference between 4K and 1080P.

The Magsafe cord on a Macbook charger is 6'. It's not as far as you think.

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#46

Post by kranke155 »

ksec wrote: post #41

Just when 100"+ TV are coming out and gaining traction. To put this into perspective, an upcoming 130" LCD TV would 8K would have 68PPI, on 98" would have 90 PPI, and 80" would be 110". Depending on whether you want a TV experience sitting further back or Cinema is coming Home as Sony's tag line. I believe there is room for something greater than 4K. Especially when TV industry trend suggest TV purchase size is incre…

The entire pipeline to provide for this is prohibitive. At what distance do you actually need to be from your TV for the resolution to max out for the retina? 4k was already a dubious proposition for most TVs people actually own.

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#47

Post by OJFord »

ksec wrote: post #41

Just when 100"+ TV are coming out and gaining traction. To put this into perspective, an upcoming 130" LCD TV would 8K would have 68PPI, on 98" would have 90 PPI, and 80" would be 110". Depending on whether you want a TV experience sitting further back or Cinema is coming Home as Sony's tag line. I believe there is room for something greater than 4K. Especially when TV industry trend suggest TV purchase size is incre…

You mention AVSforum, I'm sure you're watching BluRays (or, err, via a home backup/local streaming solution), of course it makes sense to you.

The median (and roughly 99th percentile for that matter) TV as well as being 65" is being used with Netflix et al. though, and that content already looks worse than you can buy on disc.

8k doesn't need to wait for TV sizes any more, right, but now it needs to wait for home internet speeds (and streaming provider infrastructure/egress costs) for it to make sense.

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#48

Post by teamonkey »

bluescrn wrote: post #21
Aardwolf wrote: post #5

> Gaming was supposed to be one of the best drivers for 8K adoption. While the step from 1080p 1440p to 4K is a visible difference, I don't think going from 4K to 8K would be a visible since the pixels are already invisible at 4K. However the framerate drop would be very noticeable... OTOH, afaik for VR headsets you may want higher resolutions still due to the much larger field of vision

We can’t render modern games at decent frame rates at 4k without going down the path of faking it with AI upscaling and frame generation. There was no hope of actual 8k gaming any time soon even before the AI bubble wrecked the PC hardware market. Attempting to render 33 million pixels per frame seems like utter madness, when 1080p is a mere 2 million, and Doom/Quake were great with just 64000. Lets have more frames…

Yeah, not only the huge required jump in raw fill rate, but to get the most out of a 4K TV you need higher detail models and textures and that means you also need a huge jump in VRAM, which never materialised.

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#49

Post by matsemann »

alex43578 wrote: post #27
matsemann wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a point in itself: bitrate can matter more than resolution.

For reasonable bitrate/resolution pairs, both matter. Clean 1080P will beat bitrate starved 4K, especially with modern upscaling techniques, but even reasonable-compression 4K will beat good 1080P because there's just more detail there. Unfortunately, many platforms try to mess with this relationship, like YouTube forcing 4K uploads to get better bitrates, when for many devices a higher rate 1080P would be fine.

I'm curious, for the same mb per second, how is the viewing quality of 4k vs 1080p? I mean, 4k shouldn't be able to have more detail per se in the stream given the same amount of data over the wire, but maybe the way scaling and how the artifacts end up can alter the perception?

Re: The TV industry concedes that the future may not be in 8K

#50

Post by Kon5ole »

ttoinou wrote: post #18
Kon5ole wrote: post #11

55 inch 8k tvs make for great monitors. Basically your whole field of view is a retina canvas for apps, equivalent to a 2x2 grid of 4k monitors. The last ones I saw for sale were below 600 usd in physical stores from name brands (LG). Mine was just under 1000 when I got it. Why we can’t buy the same panels as monitors is a mystery to me.

Do you think 65 inch would still be OK for a monitor usage ? I've been pondering about doing that for years but 65 inch is often easier to find for me in Europe

I don't think it will work very well as a "normal" monitor (meaning placed at normal monitor distance on your desk).

My 55 is borderline too big already, and the main issue is actually the height. Tilting your head or rolling your eyes back to see the top gets noticeably uncomfortable pretty quickly.

I made a special mount so the lower edge basically rests on the desk surface which basically solved that issue, but I don't think I could have made it work if it was any bigger.

Also at 65 the pixel density is much lower, so you'd probably want it mounted further away. But if you do, the monitor will cover the same FOV as a smaller monitor anyway.

My dream is that someone starts making 8K 50" monitors with displayport inputs (HDMI is a mess) and sells them for the same price as these tv's used to cost!

Post reply on HN