Consumer Technology Association sets official standard for 8K UHD TVs

[joe1946]

Bottom line: As per the association, officially certified 8K sets must feature at least 33 million active pixels with a minimum resolution of 7,680 horizontally and 4,320 vertically in a 16:9 window. 8K displays four times the detail of 4K UHD and is 16 times sharper than standard HD.

The Consumer Technology Association recently announced the official industry display definition and logo for 8K Ultra HD (UHD) televisions.

Televisions officially designated with the 8K badge must also have one or more HDMI inputs supporting 7,680 x 4,320 pixels, support for a bit depth of 10 bits and support for frame rates of 24, 30 and 60 frames per second.

What’s more, the CTA mandates that 8K sets be able to upscale SD, HD and 4K video to 8K resolution. This should ensure that video won’t look like total crap in the absence of native 8K content.

Sets must also adhere to “HDR transfer functions and colorimetry as specified by ITU-R BT.2100; and HDCP v2.2 or equivalent content protection.”

It’s worth noting that inclusion in the 8K certification program is completely voluntary although manufacturers will almost certainly want to participate as they’ll get to plaster the new 8K logo on their sets starting January 1, 2020.

The CTA in its latest Sales & Forecasts report estimates a total of 175,000 8K UHD TV sets will be sold in the US in 2019, raking in around $734 million in revenue. Naturally, growth is expected over the coming years as technology matures and prices come down.
[/QUOTE
https://www.techspot.com/news/82018...ssociation-sets-official-standard-8k-uhd.html

 

[TheDingo]

The CTA in its latest Sales & Forecasts report estimates a total of 175,000 8K UHD TV sets will be sold in the US in 2019, raking in around $734 million in revenue. Naturally, growth is expected over the coming years as technology matures and prices come down.

I really think 8K TV sets are going to be a tough sell if they are priced much higher than 4K sets because the average consumer won't see any value in paying the higher price for a new TV platform that is going to have very little 8K content available for it, and empirically they won't see much difference between 4K and 8K sets when watching 4K content at normal viewing distances. 8K TV could turn out to be a re-run of the previous 3D TV debacle.

 

[joe1946]

I really think 8K TV sets are going to be a tough sell if they are priced much higher than 4K sets because the average consumer won't see any value in paying the higher price for a new TV platform that is going to have very little 8K content available for it, and empirically they won't see much difference between 4K and 8K sets when watching 4K content at normal viewing distances. 8K TV could turn out to be a re-run of the previous 3D TV debacle.

They said the same thing about 4K vs 1080p.
https://lifehacker.com/can-you-tell-the-difference-between-720p-1080p-and-4k-1731323537

 

[TheDingo]

They said the same thing about 4K vs 1080p

But on a 65 inch TV there is quite a big visual difference when comparing 1080p to 4K. I really don't expect to see much if any difference when comparing 4K to 8K content on a 65 inch TV, and if picky picky me is not seeing it then I have huge doubts that the average consumer is going to notice any difference. ( I have a number of friends and relatives that have trouble telling 1080p from 4K on a large TV set, I can't see them noticing any difference over 4K when viewing 8K on a large set )

All that said, I do think that shooting 6K or 8K to produce a 4K final product makes a lot of sense. The higher resolution 4K footage will be noticeable to most shooters. ( but I still have doubts about consumers noticing the difference )

 

[DLD]

There ought to be a trickle of new 8K sets, Blu Ray players and consumer cameras coming out this winter at the CES, with the pro models at the various photo-video-electronic shows in and around the Olympics. And beyond.

 

[firehawk]

I agree with consumers generally not being able to tell the difference and see the value of going 8K over 4K but if manufacturers push and push 8K sets so that is what is available then the consumer will end up buying. Remember how we were questioning the value of 4K for the consumer and the TVs kept getting cheaper and pushing out HD sets until now what do you mostly see for sell in the stores? 4K sets.
And aren't most people still mostly only watching HD (and even SD) content on them?

As far as when 4K deliverable is required, I am for 6K and 8K acquisition. I like shooting higher than what I deliver ever since HD ->SD days. Though if it were up to me we'd stay where we are now because I don't want to buy any more cameras or NLEs.

 

[Run&Gun]

I really think 8K TV sets are going to be a tough sell if they are priced much higher than 4K sets because the average consumer won't see any value in paying the higher price for a new TV platform that is going to have very little 8K content available for it, and empirically they won't see much difference between 4K and 8K sets when watching 4K content at normal viewing distances. 8K TV could turn out to be a re-run of the previous 3D TV debacle.

But how long until they are all that is for sale and the consumer doesn't have a choice(not talking about watching 4K/8K content)? Just a quick look on Best Buy and out of 288 sets, 216 are 4K and 8K. 75% of the sets for sale are at least 4K. I can see 8K being the majority of set's available within five years.

 

[Phil Holland]

I really don't expect to see much if any difference when comparing 4K to 8K content on a 65 inch TV, and if picky picky me is not seeing it then I have huge doubts that the average consumer is going to notice any difference. ( I have a number of friends and relatives that have trouble telling 1080p from 4K on a large TV set, I can't see them noticing any difference over 4K when viewing 8K on a large set )

For early adopters it's mostly going to be enthusiasts jumping into the 8K arena. I think the most interesting thing in the last two years at CES has been 3 of the major television manufacturers have been putting 4K and 8K televisions right next to each other, similar to the 70" 1080p v. UHD 4K v. UHD 8K side by sides we did over a couple years ago now. CES is usually filled with media, reporters, tech folks, and a spattering of people who are very into new technology. It's been rather fun seeing many of the reactions to "good" 8K content even on smaller screens than you'd might expect.

There will be plenty of people who don't see advantages of going from 4K to 8K, price is also a concern. But we've already gone down from $$$,$$$ 8K TVs to $,$$$ just in the last two years as well. It's getting cheaper, but the next big steps are getting more content made as well as venues pushing out 8K content. Japan is a bit ahead of the game versus the states, they've started a dedicated 8K streaming channel already with more being pushed out between spring and summer of 2020.

I think the harder question way down the line is if consumers will see any advantage to beyond 8K resolution televisions in the home. That one is a trickier conversation considering the average large screen TV sizes.

 

[rob norton]

I think the harder question way down the line is if consumers will see any advantage to beyond 8K resolution televisions in the home. That one is a trickier conversation considering the average large screen TV sizes.

Re beyond 8k, is there more to consider with motion vs. using (very) large high resolution stills photographs to give an equivalent resolution where we hit a ceiling with video?

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I'm always skeptical of these claims that people can't see the difference at x amount of difference, yada, yada, yada, as if it's scientifically factual what we can consciously and subconsciously notice a difference at. I think as our eyes get used to viewing higher resolution, they become more attuned to it and then start noticing more when there is lower resolution.

Going over to evolution, those who can tell the difference between 8K and 4K will reproduce while those who can't notice the difference will die off. Natural selection at it's finest.

 

[Phil Holland]

Re beyond 8k, is there more to consider with motion vs. using (very) large high resolution stills photographs to give an equivalent resolution where we hit a ceiling with video?

Yes, there is a difference in perception when it comes to motion and still content. Still obviously not moving is something you can observe in a static temporal state, i.e. you are looking at something not going anywhere over time. The longer you look, the more you sort of see.

As for motion, if you are just doing super shaky handheld, it's a big time case of diminishing returns. Think Blair Witch jogging through the woods in 8K. There's be brief moments where you'd latch onto the impact from the higher resolution, but all the other stuff would likely be blurred out.

Interestingly motion blur from camera and subject movement can also be enhanced by extra resolution. Using optimal panning and tracking speeds yields a higher quality image even in blurred motion.

Some of this has familiar language across still and motion mediums. Printing an image DPI (dots per inch) versus a displayed image PPI (pixels per inch). There's some variation in things between still and motion, but generally speaking the major landmark targets you hint with prints and optimal viewing distances approximately apply to motion content as well. But there is a difference between a dot and a pixel in shape and size.

We all have seen the effectiveness of rather high resolving PPI mobile screens for instance and I think we can agree they look pretty good.

I'm always skeptical of these claims that people can't see the difference at x amount of difference, yada, yada, yada, as if it's scientifically factual what we can consciously and subconsciously notice a difference at. I think as our eyes get used to viewing higher resolution, they become more attuned to it and then start noticing more when there is lower resolution.

Going over to evolution, those who can tell the difference between 8K and 4K will reproduce while those who can't notice the difference will die off. Natural selection at it's finest.

You're correct Eric. I think everybody at this point can "see" the difference between 1080p and 4K on a similarly sized large display at an optimal viewing distance. The only thing that has surprised me in this realm is back when when we were doing early resolution and viewing distance tests with THX over a decade ago, we all have very commonly used equations for optimal viewing distances and human visual acuity. Some of this on the long end was really to help inform people how to design a movie theater or a room with a decent TV and where you would get very good viewing experiences generally speaking. At CES 2018 I saw people at way beyond those recommended distances commenting on the clarity of the 8K Sony prototype which was next to the 4K model at the same size. I can second that notion that there was a difference, a hard to describe one at that, but certainly a visual clarity difference.

But I won't be telling people to stand 25 feet away from their TV's anytime soon. I prefer to have a bit more periphery covered

 

[Grug]

They said the same thing about 4K vs 1080p.

And the same realities of circle-of-confusion still apply.

I've seen 8k Panavision DXL2 footage projected back-to-back with 2.8k Alexa footage on state of the art 4k Christie projectors at Company 3. This was on a BIG screen, at a much wider viewing angle than a regular cinema (or large screen home TV). In one of the most high-end grading suites in the world (i.e. viewing environments don't get better than this).

And the difference in resolution, in actual resolved detail, was virtually non-existent.

Assuming you're seeing things projected/screened at equivalent bitrates. You really do have to bump up to IMAX-level viewing angles for the higher resolution formats to become apparent. That's just the nature of how our eyes work.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

And the same realities of circle-of-confusion still apply.

I've seen 8k Panavision DXL2 footage projected back-to-back with 2.8k Alexa footage on state of the art 4k Christie projectors at Company 3. This was on a BIG screen, at a much wider viewing angle than a regular cinema (or large screen home TV). In one of the most high-end grading suites in the world (i.e. viewing environments don't get better than this).

And the difference in resolution, in actual resolved detail, was virtually non-existent.

Assuming you're seeing things projected/screened at equivalent bitrates. You really do have to bump up to IMAX-level viewing angles for the higher resolution formats to become apparent. That's just the nature of how our eyes work.

Eh, I'm skeptical of Red's resolution. It'd be more interesting to see 6.5K Alexa 65 footage compared to 2.8K Alexa footage.

Secondly, what you say is merely based upon what yours eyes interpreted. Would need a larger sample size of different eyes to make a more well rounded determination.


All I know is that when I convert all of the walls in my house into video screens like they have in those futuristic movies so I can simulate living in a glass house in different areas like the mountains, the forest, etc., that I'll be needing an aweful lot of resolution when I walk by those large walls at less than a foot away to avoid getting the feeling that I'm looking at a video screen.

 

[TheDingo]

For early adopters it's mostly going to be enthusiasts jumping into the 8K arena.

This sounds so much like the 3D TV launch, where 3D TV viewed with or without glasses was going to revolutionize the way we watch TV, and 3D TV totally crashed and burned in less than 3 years.

 

[NorBro]

Different world back then for 3D TV. Wasn't ready...this one's different.

 

[Sttratos]

Yawn. Wake me up from hibernation when even 4K is the standard/normal.

 

[NorBro]

Like for a lot of things in life, that's going to depend on where you live and your class in life (including personal interests).

4K may never be normal for some and that's perfectly okay. And for others, it's already old technology.

 

[Greg_E]

From the opening post, the cost per screen was around $4k each for he 2019 sales term quoted.

I didn't buy 4k until last year and that's because it was just over $300 for a 45 inch screen, couldn't fit the 65 inch that was only $30 more in the space available. I will not be rushing to get an 8k display, I certainly won't see the difference unless I am sitting right on top of it or get much higher quality eye glasses. Having better DR and 10 bit might be a much better use of the technology than finer pixel pitch to me.

 

[Cary Knoop]

Televisions officially designated with the 8K badge must also have one or more HDMI inputs supporting 7,680 x 4,320 pixels, support for a bit depth of 10 bits and support for frame rates of 24, 30 and 60 frames per second.

Adding a 4K@120 option would have made more sense.

 

[Guest]

8k resolution is so far the most organic looking screen resolution, i’ve see yet.

Absolutely zero need for sharpening. No visible pixels on 65” from most viewing distances.

I am hoping upscaling from 2K is done well. As somethings don’t need 8K, but upscaling can look bad.

One problem with 8K capture, is because there is a good amount of resolution, sometimes higher frequency detail can create weird looking anomolies from certain distances. It could be caused in part from digital sharpening. On of the best parts of 8K is not needing false sharpening, but cameras and TV’s may end up continuing to include it.

8K for larger screens is a game changer. For the first time we can view photographs the way they were taken, without printing them out. This alone is awesome. 8K TV’s are the beginning of resolution agnostic displays, as they are over sampled for most video formats to date. An 8k tv is also now a viable option for multitasking, as an immense amount of information amd text and windows can be displayed at once.