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

71–79 of 79 posts

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

#71

Post by econ »

xxs wrote: post #30
ttoinou wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Monitor - I prefer higher refresh rate. The other part is that you should have the entire picture in your eyesight w/o moving the neck. Personally, I'd consider that large of a screen, a bad working area.

With one monitor you have to see the whole screen but with multi monitor setups extra screens may be more like digital photo frames.

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

#72

Post by account42 »

zihotki wrote: post #68
account42 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These calculators never made much sense to me. The whole point of getting a bigger screen is to cover a larger portion of your field of view. Sitting close to a giant TV is like being in your own cinema.

The point they use is that our vision angles are fixed and if you sit too close you won't see the whole screen at once. What's the point of having bigger screen in that case? Also the angles of viewing won't let you see that juicy colorful picture at the sides even if you turn your head. As for the cinema, there are a limited amount of seats where you can get the best immersion and they are in the sweet spot of scree…

Those calculations are way too conservative for the screen to cover your field of view. Unless you mean your fovea but then that's much smaller. Also depending on the display tech you can see colors at angles just fine.

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

#73

Post by tombert »

compsciphd wrote: post #61
tombert wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am jealous that you were even able to find a 55 inch 8k monitor. I couldn’t find one. For my computer monitor, I ended up going with a cartoonishly large 85 inch 8k. It was somewhat of an adventure getting it into my house, but once it was set up I absolutely love it. I don’t really see the point of 8k for anything but computer monitors but it’s absolutely great for that.

I'd think 85" even at 8k wouldn't be that great for a productivity monitor. it seems conventional wisdom (for good or bad) would say 32" at 1440p isn't that great for productivity and one wants a full 4k monitor at that size for productivity use, and 8k at 85" would be about the same pixel density of 1440p at 32"

I basically use it as four monitors, I basically divide it into quadrants.

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

#74

Post by alex43578 »

tokyobreakfast wrote: post #44
alex43578 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For the 30 to 40 degree FoV as recommended by SMPTE, 10ft is further back than is recommended for all but like a 98in screen, so yes, it’s too far back.

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

#75

Post by alex43578 »

matsemann wrote: post #49
alex43578 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If everything is the same (codec, bitrate, etc), 1080P will look better in anything but a completely static scene because of less blocking/artifacts.

But that’s an unrealistic comparison, because 4K often gets a better bitrate, more advanced codec, etc. If the 4K and 1080P source are both “good”, 4K will look better.

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

#76

Post by pezezin »

garyclarke27 wrote: post #57

What baffles me is that TV manufacturers create amazing hi-definition home screens with glorious colour at incredibly cheap prices - then idiot Netflix directors completely waste 40% of the pixels for zero benefit with their stupid letterbox formats.

You think that is bad? Some of the major promoters of 8k TV are Japanese broadcasters like the NHK. If you have ever watched Japanese TV, you will notice how they love covering half the screen in bright text. So what do they need 8k for, so the kanji look sharper?

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

#78

Post by xnx »

zihotki wrote: post #68
account42 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These calculators never made much sense to me. The whole point of getting a bigger screen is to cover a larger portion of your field of view. Sitting close to a giant TV is like being in your own cinema.

The point they use is that our vision angles are fixed and if you sit too close you won't see the whole screen at once. What's the point of having bigger screen in that case? Also the angles of viewing won't let you see that juicy colorful picture at the sides even if you turn your head. As for the cinema, there are a limited amount of seats where you can get the best immersion and they are in the sweet spot of scree…

> if you sit too close you won't see the whole screen at once

Human FOV is very nearly 180 degrees.

Post reply on HN