8K by 2016

roxics

roxics

Veteran
http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/...-plans-could-bring-ultra-hdtv-as-soon-as-2016

In Japan that is. Or so they hope. I find it amazing they're already shooting and displaying some of the 2012 Olympics in 8K and 22.2 channel surround sound. At the pace of things, I wouldn't be surprised if by 2016 we can buy 8K TV's for a few grand. Or that Blu-ray or a new disc format get's introduced with H.265 compression supporting 4/8K. I think broadcast will take many more years in Europe and the states, but not necessarily a new disc/card format for viewing.
 
There's far too many companies new to 1080p and some just starting to go 4K in one way or another. Don't expect them to dump all that equipment and infrastructure anytime soon to move to 8K. That's just my personal opinion of course. :)
 
KyleProhaska said:
There's far too many companies new to 1080p and some just starting to go 4K in one way or another. Don't expect them to dump all that equipment and infrastructure anytime soon to move to 8K. That's just my personal opinion of course. :)
Click to expand...

I don't disagree at all. But this also isn't an industry anymore where everyone has to make the leap all at once. I think it will begin by seeing 8K TV's and higher end video cameras on the market, followed closely by a new distribution format. Either blu-ray players supporting more layers and h.265 decoding or something else entirely. Last of all you'll get broadcast making the jump because of the infrastructure needed. But heck Youtube already supports 4K, so in four years time I don't doubt 8K will be an option, espeically with Google Fiber hitting certain cities.

So yeah I think 15-20 years before Grandma is sporting an 8K TV is realisitic for a complete turnover of the industry. But I don't think 2016 is unreasonable for the home theater enthusiasts to be able to start getting their hands on $3,000-$7,000 displays and hardware needed to play stuff on them. Question is, are we going to be there with the content for them?
 
NHK has also had HD for nearly 30 years, while many outlets here have still not switched. We are in a world-wide recession and I can barely afford to buy groceries for my kids, I don't think 100" screens are at the top of most peoples shopping list.

How 'bout lets not get all over ourselves about needing to future proof for these coming screens, because lets be realistic, this is just like big budget digital 3D cinema. It is the major players drawing a line in the sand telling us not to cross, because we're getting too damn close.

And think about how this format would be used, assuming we all get these big screen's in our living rooms, they are not going to be filled with tight close-ups that would look fine on 'tiny' HD screens. It will be big full panorama's like IMAX. It will be great for sports, no doubt, and that will likely fuel any mass push. Airbrush make-up will be a sought after skill, I fully expect to see an artistic resurgence of 16mm with its big lovely grain used to soften the blow of such a garishly sharp image. I suspect it would be so sharp that your eyes would bleed if viewed on a 'normal' size screen.
 
I think 720p television broadcasts look great. 8k just sounds funny to me given how so many people still think of the DVD as the common format. Sure the industry wants to move forward but seems a bit out of touch to me and my world.
 
roxics said:
But heck Youtube already supports 4K, so in four years time I don't doubt 8K will be an option, espeically with Google Fiber hitting certain cities.
Click to expand...

You can barely stream 1080p now (and certainly not any good 1080p), and the amount of bandwidth necessary would require a massive overhaul of our networking infrastructure, so don't bet on it.
 
Gary Huff said:
You can barely stream 1080p now (and certainly not any good 1080p), and the amount of bandwidth necessary would require a massive overhaul of our networking infrastructure, so don't bet on it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. People think it's just a matter of TV's, cameras, delivery formats, and people who want it being available...there's so much more to it then that.
 
Agreed, I just got a samsung plasma 720, I could not see the difference between the 720p and 1080p plasma screens.
 
i wish 8k and 22.5 sound was around 20 years ago, it would have been AWESOME as a child to have watched Mr. Dressup and Sesame Street in that level of quality....

(extreme sarcasm)
 
First give me a 100" screen with 1920x1080 resolution and very nice motion and colors for $1K. Then we can start talking bigger and with more resolution.
 
Circle of confusion.
Average screen size is 50" (for argument's sake).
Joe Average can't spot the difference between SD and 1080 on a 50" screen at a viewing distance of 6'.
Until we have wall-size screens (literally 16' x 9') there's no point in domestic 4k or 8k.
Utter marketing wankery.
 
I know it takes a 100" screen for me to be able to discern good 1080p from good 720p (viewing distance in my living room is 11'). Anything smaller than that, and 1080p is fine for me.
 
I would rather see 1080p with 32bit per channel color and excellent contrast. 8bit is getting old.
 
Those NHK camera's have been around for years, and mostly likely still will be before we see any form of 8k distribution. But do remember that Imax is scanned at 8k or at least TDNR was, and people can't stop commenting on how much of a difference that was when compared to 35mm. I can see a huge resolution difference between Imax and 35mm, and I know there could be even more detail, and you know what as long as it isn't the only area companies work on (why would it be, that would be foolish to have a 10k 10 stop camera at 8 bits) I don't care push it all you want I'd love to see planet earth and Docs of the like with that kind of detail, perhaps even with interactive features at home like a zoom feature or even a macro feature.

Lets just remember how quickly things can change, and how little we truly know about the realities of this world around us, so lets not be old curmudgeons and embrace the new future and give it a chance to fail before we stomp on it. Now don't get me wrong as I have said I'd love to see nature doc and sports stuff at crazy high res, I just don't think I'll use it myself until it's more feasible and practical, but that is no reason against it's very existence.
 
S. Matthews said:
But do remember that Imax is scanned at 8k or at least TDNR was
Click to expand...

I don't know if that's true. High quality IMAX is going to be 8-10k ultimately, and I'm not sure if there's really a workflow for that yet. On top of that, during the end credits, it explicitly says that it was "Shot and Finished on Film" and to me that means there was no digital intermediate.

But I could be wrong.
 
I've seen several movies this year, and they all looked soft. I don't know if I'm developing a deep pixelpeeping condition, or what, but everything looked soft. Except for one trailer, that looked a lot sharper than everything else, as if they had suddenly switched on the HD thing. If that was a 4K projection, it was a great improvement.
But I still would need a 100" screen for 1080p not to be enough here at home.
 
I wouldn't count it out, may be easy to say but when you have a 42" 4k screen or 8k screen in front of you it may be a whole other situation entirely, heck even looking at properly mastered and delivered 4k and 8k content could look drastically better on your current set up just due to drastic oversampling similar to how 35mm film would look on old picture tube TV's compared to the SD content made in those days. But then again on the other side of the coin it might not be that drastic of a difference to justify the use of 8k TV's let alone 8k camera's but I'll just wait and see it for myself before I condemn the concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top