Nearly 6 Million 8K TVs to Ship in 2022

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A new report suggests that 8K displays will be prominent in just a few years. The annual sales of 7680×4320p sets are forecasted to reach 6 million in 2022. Panel prices are also expected to drop from $1,000 to $595 by that time.

Industry plans envision a significant expansion in Gen. 10.5 manufacturing capacity that will enable 65-and 75-inch 8K LCD and OLED TVs. However, there will be challenges to the growth of 8K TVs, including a substantial increase in the cost of backlights and driver circuitry.
 
Why would so many rush to buy 8K tv's when you have a hard enough time even getting 4K content. I have a 4K tv and I barely notice a difference from my old 1080p tv. With all the compression most companies are using more pixels just are not going to help.
 
Compression and the actual mastering is the biggest issue already at 4k. You won't get a better picture by using more pixels on relatively smaller bitrate from a source that was mastered at 4K or less. I doubt even original 70mm film has enough natural resolution for 8K scans to be worthwhile.

This is quite pointless unless we'll be gaming at 8k which I highly doubt. We'd need 400% performance increase in 4 years. We have only been getting about 25% every 2 years recently.
 
Marketing departments drive this stuff rather than engineers or consumer demand. Can't keep that old 1080p too long.
 
RealBeast said:
Marketing departments drive this stuff rather than engineers or consumer demand. Can't keep that old 1080p too long.
Click to expand...
I was just watching some series on my old 1080p plasma TV from really close, and I was amazed how much detail there is in the picture. It's just a question of bitrate and 1080p will prevail over any overcompressed 4k garbage.
 
bugleyman said:
8K seems rather pointless in a TV. Hell, 4k seems rather pointless in a TV, though I would like it in a monitor...
Click to expand...

Cause alot of people see bigger numbers and they just assume content is instantly better with an 4K OLED TV. None of them realize it's how the content is mastered..
 
And yet Fox still broadcasts in uber awesome 720p. Why the rush to 8k? By 2022 (only 4 years) I would be shocked if the networks have made it to 4k yet. Hell, they can't even manage 1080p (google it, network broadcasts are either 720p or 1080i).

8k monitor though? Maybe. Who knows what Nvidia will be selling in 4 years and if it will be capable of making a dent in 8k.
 
Burticus said:
And yet Fox still broadcasts in uber awesome 720p. Why the rush to 8k? By 2022 (only 4 years) I would be shocked if the networks have made it to 4k yet. Hell, they can't even manage 1080p (google it, network broadcasts are either 720p or 1080i).

8k monitor though? Maybe. Who knows what Nvidia will be selling in 4 years and if it will be capable of making a dent in 8k.
Click to expand...
I thought I heard a few years ago that broadcasters were just going to skip 4k and go to 8k, but what do I know.
 
Don't really see the point in buying one, unless you just watch movies on it. Most broadcast networks barley send 1080i signals.
 
Gideon said:
Why would so many rush to buy 8K tv's when you have a hard enough time even getting 4K content. I have a 4K tv and I barely notice a difference from my old 1080p tv. With all the compression most companies are using more pixels just are not going to help.
Click to expand...
Yep. The only real way to get true uncompressed 4k is to Ultra Blu-ray. Just a normal 1080P Blu-ray still looks a hell of a lot better then what all these streaming sites call 4k.
 
4k still looks terrible with all the compression and not to mention the bandwidth costs of serving that much data over the internet. 8k by 2022 is a huge stretch.

With ISP's pushing for caps and trying to enforce packet shaping? I have to laugh at the possibility of 8k over the internet any time soon.
 
Hmm, I just finally got a 1080p. I had/have a JVC 32" tube from 2004 that refused to die. The high electrical usage, and the fact that any subtitles were totally unreadable led me to finally get an HDTV.

To get rid of this tube TV, legally, is going to cost me a bunch.
 
Wyodiver said:
Hmm, I just finally got a 1080p. I had/have a JVC 32" tube from 2004 that refused to die. The high electrical usage, and the fact that any subtitles were totally unreadable led me to finally get an HDTV.

To get rid of this tube TV, legally, is going to cost me a bunch.
Click to expand...

Or keep it! For Retro Game Emulation! Right now I´m eyeing an old Sony CRT from an aunt for that exact purpose!
 
None of you guys use a TV as a monitor? I recently upgraded my 55" 1080P LG to a 55" 4K LG as my primary monitor and it made a fantastic improvement in PC gaming. Everything is razor sharp with far more detail.

I was fortunate to pick up a 1080ti before the price explosion so all games run great at 4K. I'd love to be able to pluck down similar money ($1000) for an 8K monitor for even greater pixel density / low aliasing / greater detail on my PC games. I'm sure we'll see 8K capable GPUs by 2022.
 
Hielo_loco, this JVC weighs well over 200 pounds. With its 480P res, why would anybody want it? But if you are a tad crazy, my Mom has a 25" Sony just laying around. Pay for shipping, and the cost of one beer, ad its yours.
 
Wyodiver said:
Hielo_loco, this JVC weighs well over 200 pounds. With its 480P res, why would anybody want it? But if you are a tad crazy, my Mom has a 25" Sony just laying around. Pay for shipping, and the cost of one beer, ad its yours.
Click to expand...
Wow hahahaha yeah ok, thats a big tv... thanks, maybe i´ll just use a very old crt hp monitor lying around in the office. My point was that crts are great for old games because they hide sharp pixels very well... that´s why nes and snes games looked pretty great in them, while they look awful in LCDs. LCDs are in a sense "too good" and they show all the jagginess of the old games.
 
M76 said:
Compression and the actual mastering is the biggest issue already at 4k. You won't get a better picture by using more pixels on relatively smaller bitrate from a source that was mastered at 4K or less. I doubt even original 70mm film has enough natural resolution for 8K scans to be worthwhile.

This is quite pointless unless we'll be gaming at 8k which I highly doubt. We'd need 400% performance increase in 4 years. We have only been getting about 25% every 2 years recently.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I imagine streaming 4K at a proper bit rate will use up a lot of bandwidth for those with caps. 1080P still has a way to go. Amazon Prime when I tried it looked okay, but it was clearly not the highest bit rate. File sizes for direct download and even Blu Rays are large. I can't imagine how long it will take for 8K to become practical for 95% of the world.
 
Burticus said:
And yet Fox still broadcasts in uber awesome 720p.
Click to expand...

It blows my mind how some networks are still in the stone age. 720p has been considered the new SD for quite a while. Somebody really needs to smack them in their faces. For a so called major network there is no excuse.
 
I dunno, most tv channels are still standard def, ok their is now alot of 720/1080 channels and a couple of uhd channels, but 8k tv’s wont be fully utilised for atleast a decade.

Am speaking about the uk and possibly the us, ok some asian countries will have early access to 8k because they are lucky fucks, but the rest of the world wont.

If it wasnt for netflix, amazon and sky sports, my 4k tv would always be in 1080i mode.

I would like an 8k tv, but until we have the channels to support it, it will make normal hd look like crap, just like 4k tv’s make SD look like shit.
 
4k didn't make as nearly much of a difference as HDR does- and they come together, as do OLED's, the main reason I moved off of my 55" 1080p IPS.
 
M76 said:
Compression and the actual mastering is the biggest issue already at 4k. You won't get a better picture by using more pixels on relatively smaller bitrate from a source that was mastered at 4K or less. I doubt even original 70mm film has enough natural resolution for 8K scans to be worthwhile.

This is quite pointless unless we'll be gaming at 8k which I highly doubt. We'd need 400% performance increase in 4 years. We have only been getting about 25% every 2 years recently.
Click to expand...
I think it's safe to say that if 8k TVs come 8K content will follow. Apparently the reason there's not a lot of 4k content is because Studios tossed the 4k Scans after they converted to 2k and older films using super 35 resolved more than 4k up to 8k. http://4k.com/news/20-years-movie-titles-filmed-4k-nobody-bothered-save/

Considering that Full frame SLRs now shoot stills at 8k and Guardians of the Galaxy was filmed in 8K, I think it's only a matter of time.
We can debate the quality of video on cable and streaming services, but honestly, the early adopters of 8K TV are going to buy 8k disks as soon as they're available, just like they bought UHD as soon as it was available.
 
Burticus said:
And yet Fox still broadcasts in uber awesome 720p. Why the rush to 8k? By 2022 (only 4 years) I would be shocked if the networks have made it to 4k yet. Hell, they can't even manage 1080p (google it, network broadcasts are either 720p or 1080i).

8k monitor though? Maybe. Who knows what Nvidia will be selling in 4 years and if it will be capable of making a dent in 8k.
Click to expand...

Because other countries actually broadcast in higher definitions. Japan's been running limited 8K signals for about a year and a half now. The problem stateside lies solely with the fault of U.S. megacorp media companies.
 
Fucking pointless with a fixed resolution display.

They are betting on gimmicks at this point instead of actually fixing display technology problems.
And you can never upscale anything on par with displaying the content on a native res display as the content. There will never be enough true native content to justify it. 4k still is a joke. We still have some stuff released on only DVD FFS.

I doubt rendering at 8k and displaying at 8k native would still be enough pixels to resolve undersampling issues (Aliasing). Then coupled with sample and hold blur (And bad pixel transitions on low color/brightness values on VA panels) and the fact an object will have to move across many more pixels for the same physical distance you are making the motion blur worse.


Digital Cable still only broadcasts in poor quality 720p/1080i. (Which I think has made the move for most to streaming a no brainer. The quality compared to blu ray isn't close. But compared to digital HD cable, it's actually an improvement. I'd choose streaming over cable if you cared about video quality)
 
IdiotInCharge said:
4k didn't make as nearly much of a difference as HDR does- and they come together, as do OLED's, the main reason I moved off of my 55" 1080p IPS.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree, a few weeks ago I got an LG 65 OLED as the price came down considerably, and with HDR content I was blown away.

With 4K streaming services, if in HDR, then it's worth it - however there's no way it compares or comes even close to UHD BluRay. I got Planet Earth 2 in UHD, popped it in, sat back to just check it out for a few minutes, and ended up sitting there mouth open and drooling for an hour - it was stupendous.
 
Nah, no interests for me. We do need better game developers to immerse us into the virtual world! Would love to see some great FPS games!
 
nilepez said:
I think it's safe to say that if 8k TVs come 8K content will follow. Apparently the reason there's not a lot of 4k content is because Studios tossed the 4k Scans after they converted to 2k and older films using super 35 resolved more than 4k up to 8k. http://4k.com/news/20-years-movie-titles-filmed-4k-nobody-bothered-save/

Considering that Full frame SLRs now shoot stills at 8k and Guardians of the Galaxy was filmed in 8K, I think it's only a matter of time.
We can debate the quality of video on cable and streaming services, but honestly, the early adopters of 8K TV are going to buy 8k disks as soon as they're available, just like they bought UHD as soon as it was available.
Click to expand...
It's hard to sell it based only on new content. Well it certainly is to me. Of course they can produce 8k content now. But how will it be distributed? Physical media is on the way out, and with how stingy they are on bandwith when it comes to DVB and streaming I don't see this as either necessary or helpful.
 
I bet that its just advertising fluff. Just a short time ago, 8K showcase (concept) sets needed 4 display port connections to get all of the data to the display.

Today maybe one could do it with one HDMI 2.1 cable but still says how much further we have go to get 8K content to the screen.
 
that's funny. I just bought a 1080p monitor with QLED on a VA panel and told a friend it was a 4k and he couldn't tell it wasn't.....so

also 4K gaming on max detail is not cheap or as well supported as it could be.

I went 1080ti + 144hz 1080p 1ms + Max detail

no regrets.
 
Gideon said:
Why would so many rush to buy 8K tv's when you have a hard enough time even getting 4K content. I have a 4K tv and I barely notice a difference from my old 1080p tv.
Click to expand...

Better motion, even if you're just upscaling. LCD's have always been crap for displaying moving images, throwing more pixels at the problem helps.
 
vegeta535 said:
Yep. The only real way to get true uncompressed 4k is to Ultra Blu-ray. Just a normal 1080P Blu-ray still looks a hell of a lot better then what all these streaming sites call 4k.
Click to expand...
UHD Blu-ray isn't uncompressed, but it isn't as compressed as streaming. It's only something like 10:1 on Blu-ray while it's 200:1 or worse over the internet. There is no way you're going to get a good 4K image in a 25 Mbps stream. Uncompressed DCI 4K would require at least 5 Gbps at 24 Hz.
 
Even more ironic since one of 4k's marketing points is 4k/60hz ability. A few weeks ago I was toying with some 1080p/60hz/15Mbps encoding and saw a one hour concert video go from 8GB to over 25GB while only using 4:2:2 color depths. Can only imagine what 4k/60/4:4:4 would need for storage and streaming. Yeah, 8k needs to wait. 4k isn't even close to its potential yet on most fronts and 2022 is too soon.
 
Wyodiver said:
Hmm, I just finally got a 1080p. I had/have a JVC 32" tube from 2004 that refused to die. The high electrical usage, and the fact that any subtitles were totally unreadable led me to finally get an HDTV.

To get rid of this tube TV, legally, is going to cost me a bunch.
Click to expand...

Where do you live? many places have collection points for "Hazardous" consumer waste like this, to keep people from dumping old TV's and tires and such in a back lot in the middle of the night.
 
People who say they can't see the difference between a 1080p panel and a 4k one needs to have their eye's checked. Seriously. I have both, and it's clear as night and day. My 65" 4k Samsung would look like shit at 1080p, as I have a 46" Samsung 1080p TV, and it looks much worse. Imagine if it was 65".

That being said, you would have to have a giant 8k screen, or sit really, really close to see benefits at that resolution.
 
Wyodiver said:
Hmm, I just finally got a 1080p. I had/have a JVC 32" tube from 2004 that refused to die. The high electrical usage, and the fact that any subtitles were totally unreadable led me to finally get an HDTV.

To get rid of this tube TV, legally, is going to cost me a bunch.
Click to expand...

Down here in southern California they have (almost weekly) electronic recycling 'events' at local stores parking lots (at the Target parking lot last weekend). California has a fee you pay when you buy a TV, etc, so you basically just drop off the items and go on your way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top