CES 2016 catch all -

For me, regarding video, it seems Nikon tried and failed, everybody else didn't even try for CES.
In other stuff, they're still trying to sell stuff I don't need. I'm almost set on buying a 75" TV in the coming months, without 4K, of course, because that would make it too expensive and at my viewing distance it's impossible to notice the difference even with 75". (the front runner right now is the Sony KDL-75W855C; I also considered the Samsung UE75H6400, but it's too shiny, the reflections would be a problem in my living room)
 
Last edited:
LG announced an 8K TV

It's supposed to be in production this year. Obviously not a typical consumer TV at 98" and sky-high price, but still a milestone. But I can't imagine broadcast or streaming ever taking up 8K. So how will that 8K content reach consumers, considering the 4K Bluray format just came out... so how long till there's an 8K format? Can a disc even hold that much info? If the 4K Bluray is a 100GB disc, then 8K would be around 400GB... distributors would basically be renting out external hard drives containing their movies. Redbox would look different. I think any 8K content is going to be so niche that it won't make ROI sense any time soon, if ever. Even if features shoot 8K just to get true 4K color, would that justify the cost? I know some productions finished in 6K, and the Alexa 65 is making its rounds, so it wouldn't be such a stretch to master in 8K, but still... does that justify the cost when the consumer is still getting HD or 4K? And what does 8K workflow even look like?... Maybe the resolution game is bumping up against a ceiling now, not that they can't technically, but the rest of the infrastructure is so far behind. I think for streaming, 8K video will break the internet. If it ever went mainstream, I think that's the end of net neutrality, landmark lawsuits will set a precedent, and once the gates are open, poof, net neutrality is gone. Hey manufacturers, please don't break the internet! I guess for stills the sky is the limit for resolution, the 100MP Phase One is pretty crazy.
 
Samuel H said:
For me, regarding video, it seems Nikon tried and failed, everybody else didn't even try for CES.
In other stuff, they're still trying to sell stuff I don't need. I'm almost set on buying a 75" TV in the coming months, without 4K, of course, because that would make it too expensive and at my viewing distance it's impossible to notice the difference even with 75". (the front runner right now is the Sony KDL-75W855C; I also considered the Samsung UE75H6400, but it's too shiny, the reflections would be a problem in my living room)
Click to expand...

All this talk about 4K and even 8k tv's, I am still more then happy with my pioneer elite 60" plasma. I am in no hurry to upgrade anytime soon. :) Still think it is better then most of the tv's out today. But that is my opinion of course.. There were rumors that pioneer is making tv's again, them teamed up with Dixons retail chain in Europe and making tv's for that chain, not plasma but LED. Not sure if these tv's will enter the US market though. They made the best plasma tv's hands down, you paid a pretty penny for them, but it was well worth the price if you cared about video.
 
Last edited:
Hypothetically speaking --

one could stream 8K at ~ 80 Mbps.
one could play 8K on an old 11" laser disc, had it been in HEVC Blu-Ray format.
one could distribute 8K in a physical format on HDD's, SSD's or any high capacity removable media such as SD, CFast or QXD.
one could obviously allow for an 8K file to be downloaded.

That said, it's probably going to remain a purely niche product for a long time.

As to the extra large screen TV's, I'd also consider a projector.
 
@cobz01: Yes, those pioneer plasmas were super sweet. I'm still perfectly happy with my 52" Sony... except it's not big enough for my living room. I want 80", but can settle for 75" at half the price. 1080p is more than fine (from my sofa, on my 52" I can't even notice when it's at 720p or 1080p, and that's a soft interpolated 720p on a 1080p panel! Make it 50% bigger and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to tell 4K from 1080p unless I stand right in front of the screen)

Back to CES announcements, the Ambarella one is the one that would get me the most excited. They market the H2 processor for drones and sports cameras, but I think that's mainly because it's the best choice given the product lines they have. But it's more than capable for most stuff: an off-the-shelf 10-bit-capable processor that takes just 2W to properly downsample up-to-700 Mpix/s into 4K H.265 at up to 60fps, or 4K H.264 at up to 120fps. (I'm not sure yet what the 10-bit-capable part means)
http://www.ambarella.com/products/sports-cameras#H2
 
Samuel H said:
... In other stuff, they're still trying to sell stuff I don't need. I'm almost set on buying a 75" TV in the coming months, without 4K, of course, because that would make it too expensive and at my viewing distance it's impossible to notice the difference even with 75". (the front runner right now is the Sony KDL-75W855C; I also considered the Samsung UE75H6400, but it's too shiny, the reflections would be a problem in my living room)
Click to expand...

I think you need a couple of 65's for a bigger oomph.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/technology/ces-2016-samsung-tv/
 
I am holding out until OLED tvs get cheaper. The new Lenovo X1 Yoga with that OLED screen has me very excited =)
 
poormanwally said:
LG announced an 8K TV

It's supposed to be in production this year. Obviously not a typical consumer TV at 98" and sky-high price, but still a milestone. But I can't imagine broadcast or streaming ever taking up 8K. So how will that 8K content reach consumers, considering the 4K Bluray format just came out... so how long till there's an 8K format? Can a disc even hold that much info?
Click to expand...
Just because there is a 8K screen doesn't mean it needs an 8K video stream......

I see such screens as overkill in the way you're assuming (in a home to watch content on). But that doesn't mean they have no point. What about advertising, industrial, surveillance and a host of other uses where the idea is to be able to watch (uncompromised) multiple sources on a single screen? And don't think just 4 4K video streams - it could be a mix of various resolution video combined with still images and graphics etc.

Maybe there will become a time when the only screens you can buy for the home are 8K, but for now I'd think of them for specialist applications, not watching a film or TV at home.
 
OLED has potential. Seems that potential is wasted on 1080 8bit technology though. I will stick with my plasma until Display tech has matured enough to highlight OLED benefits.


8K is hopefully where large screens end up at. I hate seeing pixels. I do not need 8K content. Content is not the issue, the physical photosites on the screen are annoying, and ugly. YES! I can see them!!!! They sit there static and awful, and don't resolve angled or curved lines well. I can watch 720 content all day, i just hate seeing the TV's actual pixels glowing back in tiny rows.

It seems to be common persuasion that humans love resolution, but do not need it. Honestly, when it comes to entertainment, 720HD is great. Easy and cheap to stream, doesn't clog storage, etc. The problem for me is the screen technology. I hate the screens pixels. Little glowing dots that never move. They look and feel cheap. Nothing aesthetically pleasing about those lifeless things. Make those disappear: 8K. Upress 720p smoothly, and it will at least have an analogue aesthetic. 720 is still sharp, even on 8K displays. I am not worried about 8K content, i would rarely need 8K content, but at least i wouldn't have to be looking at glowing dots on a 2megapixal 1080HD screen. 8K is creamy. The dots disappear. The illusion would be complete.
 
Last edited:
I feel that OLED will slowly take over as the dominant tech. It virtually eliminates the contrast ratio metric. Even apple is getting onboard and talking to samsung and lg about supplying for their iphones.

IPS and the likes still look damn good though, for most consumers it will be a hard sell for someone that already has a good LED tv to upgrade to the same size OLED TV unless they have a decent chunk of disposable income.

80/20 principle rules. 'good enough' is what many consumers are looking for in a TV. that of course doesn't apply to us folks in here ;)
 
James0b57 said:
... 8K is hopefully where large screens end up at. I hate seeing pixels. I do not need 8K content. Content is not the issue, the physical photosites on the screen are annoying, and ugly. YES! I can see them!!!! They sit there static and awful, and don't resolve angled or curved lines well. I can watch 720 content all day, i just hate seeing the TV's actual pixels glowing back in tiny rows...
Click to expand...
IMO, what we will start seeing soon - next CES, perhaps - are the 4+K TV's that will upscale an incoming 4K signal to their native pixel density. Last year, LG showed a ultra high end, ultra high price model. But it should begin to trickle down, considering that the smartphone screen densities are far superior to a TV.

This was from the middle of 2014.

http://www.geek.com/news/forget-4k-lg-ships-a-105-inch-5k-tv-1600612/
 
Last edited:
@DLD i believe if the TV has the processing power to adapat resolutions, it is great. Above 4K resoltution doesn't have to be pixel to pixel perfect as it has to be on 1080HD screens. It will still look sharp. So, that is great they are hopefully by-passing 4K tv screens. 4K seems good for HiFi video content, but a bit of a stepping stone to 8K in large screens. The 60" 4k screens are better than HD, but are not nice to walk up to to view a photograph. 4-5k is great for laptops and desktops or smaller tv's. Seems pointless for the flagship screen in your home to be anything less than 6K. And again, resolution is not pixel dependent on high res tv's, they can play any resolution without the same aliasing you get on 1080 and SD when pixels are shifted and sharpness lost. 8K tv would be resolution agnostic and play anything. You wouldn't need to worry about resolution standards for content the same way anymore.

The hardest part was leaving 4:3 interlaced analogue.

HD is crippled as a monitor resoltuion. It is good for efficient content, but as a monitor or TV, it is bad, because it requires CONTENT to match RESOLUTION to maximize potential.


Once TV's and monitors are 4k and above, content format wars are over. At that point it will just be about how the content is compressed. All those nerdy discussions of "well, 1080 is great when the 1:1 principal is applied" will be an outdated argument, because for the first time, the monitor will out resolve most of the content!
 
Last edited:
For TV's, is anything happening in the low-cost, true 4K front (as opposed to UHD)? I know that last year LG was selling a true 4K, but people weren't crazy about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top