8K TV's available worldwide in 2018

JoseJones

Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
602
8K TV's available worldwide in 2018?

"CES in January 2018 will see the first 8K TVs go on sale around the world. If we’re right, the countdown to 8K TVs for the home has already begun. We must be ready."

Is it possible to buy an 8K TV now?

Yes – Sharp sells its 85-inch LV-85001 for US$130,000/UK £106,960/AUS$176,500, but only in Japan. Dell showed-off its UP3218K, a 31.5-inch 8K monitor, at CES 2017, and announced that it would go on sale in March 2017 for US$4,999/UK£4,100/AUS$6,800.

Do manufacturers have 8K TVs ready?

Absolutely – and they have had for a few years....."

8K TV: Everything you need to know about the futuristic resolution
http://www.techradar.com/news/8k-tv-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-futuristic-resolution


Hey Japan is beating the US with their push for 8K:VR - when will the US do something about that or is the US gonna sit back and let everybody pass us up in that department? I recommend getting Trump bent out of shape over it to push the US for a national 8k TV standard asap, LOL.

Sony and Panasonic target 8K TVs for 2020 Olympics

"Japanese tech firms want to bring something particularly special to the Tokyo Olympics: 8K TV"

"TV-makers Panasonic and Sony will be partnering with broadcaster NHK and others to develop broadcast technology capable of handling 8K video."

"reportedly wants to start full-scale broadcasting of 8K TV in 2018."

http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/26/12656286/8k-tv-broadcasts-2020-olympics-sony-panasonic


Windows 10 to Support 8K Resolution
http://wccftech.com/windows-10-support-8k-resolution/
 
8K is coming for sure, but I know I'm personally not all that excited about it.

This looks to be directed towards "broadcasting" 8K and, unless I missed it and that includes "streaming" (which is where I get all my content), I won't get to experience it anyway. If I was able to receive fiber at home, I could possibly be more excited about streaming 8K to my TV also.

So far, the only reason I have upgraded my TV from 1080p to a 4K TV is because a family member needed a TV, the price was super low, and I could get HDR. The resolution was hardly a selling factor on a TV as it is just a "nice" but by no means "necessary" feature for my TV viewing pleasure. Best benefit has been HDR has been the biggest benefit from the upgrade.

4K on the other hand makes a lot of sense for my PC with adding tons of real estate. 8K on the other hand doesn't look as appealing in the PC monitor space either unless Windows figures out scaling (finally) but I also don't see that any time soon either.

I can only imagine 8K being best for things like VR, but in a television it seems much less necessary. The best target audience I can think of is someone with a really large TV (75-100"+) which there are some but much less of or usage in a theater space.

I know I won't be an early adopter to the 8K bandwagon. Only chance I would upgrade is if it quickly drops to current 4K TV prices, or lower, and that would only be a maybe.

Glad to see technology progressing even though my post doesn't appear to convey that. Not like I have to adopt every tech. available right?

[H]urry up and bring on the 8K Nintendo Japan, and maybe make it 60fps capable please?! ;)
 
8K TVs are questionable and Japan is living in the past, but I hope they succeed because a large 8K display would be a sweet computer monitor.
 
With 4k being what it is I'm not all that excited by 8k to be honest. The only thing that would make me take interest is if 8k became popular and drove the price of 4k down.
 
Take any display sector information like this and add a year at a minimum to the timeline.
 
These excite me more than 4k. Yeah we are a long way from driving it for games and VR, but that's no reason to slow down the display drive. 4k is equal to 4 1080 monitors, 8k is equal to 16 1080 monitors. That's a far bigger jump. It's not like you have to give up your current great gaming monitors. I could find a place and use for a 40-50 in. 8k.
 
These excite me more than 4k. Yeah we are a long way from driving it for games and VR, but that's no reason to slow down the display drive. 4k is equal to 4 1080 monitors, 8k is equal to 16 1080 monitors. That's a far bigger jump. It's not like you have to give up your current great gaming monitors. I could find a place and use for a 40-50 in. 8k.
You would need a much bigger TV than 40-50 inches and you'd need to be sitting incredbily close to your TV to notice ... if you even notice at all. 8K is pointless.
 
You would need a much bigger TV than 40-50 inches and you'd need to be sitting incredbily close to your TV to notice ... if you even notice at all. 8K is pointless.

Meh speak for yourself. Just because you see no point to a higher dpi large screen doesn't mean other's don't have a want/need/use for it. Pointless deciding whats needed for others.
 
Meh speak for yourself. Just because you see no point to a higher dpi large screen doesn't mean other's don't have a want/need/use for it. Pointless deciding whats needed for others.
It's not that I don't see a point or don't have a need for it, it's that you can't tell the difference unless the screen is humongous and you are sitting very close. I'm all for super duper HD, but 8K is literally just bragging rights.
 
It's not that I don't see a point, it's that you can't tell the difference unless the screen is humongous and you are sitting very close. I'm all for super duper HD, but 8K is literally just bragging rights.

Again speak for yourself. You say you see a point but then say its literally just bragging rights. Pick one. Or just go along thinking everyone else s views are wrong because "you can't tell the difference unless the screen is humongous and you are sitting very close" lol what? Oh yeah I forgot we all use screens for the same applications and reasons and all have the same visual eye quality as one another so there's no difference in any possible use case is what you are saying. It's fine to be happy with whatever you use for your various purposes, don't assume that what you think you only need is it for all.
 
I'm not speaking for myself. That's how this works. You seem to have magic eyes that defy viewing distance and resolution as well as a mega-wad in your panties. I don't care if you want 8K or not. It's perfectly okay for you to want whatever it is you want. You seem way more upset about this than you need to be. This has nothing to do with my needs. I was talking about viewing distance to resolution. If you don't understand what that is then there's no point in discussing this. There comes a point when the DPI becomes irrelevant, regardless of you what you think of it. It simply becomes overkill with no actual discernible benefit because you can't tell the difference. It's just fluff. And you were discussing 40-50 inch TVs, which really illustrates your lack of understanding of the benefit of 8K.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not speaking for myself. That's how this works. You seem to have magic eyes that defy viewing distance and resolution as well as a mega-wad in your panties. I don't care if you want 8K or not. It's perfectly okay for you to want whatever it is you want. You seem way more upset about this than you need to be. This has nothing to do with my needs. I was talking about viewing distance to resolution. If you don't understand what that is then there's no point in discussing this. There comes a point when the DPI becomes irrelevant, regardless of you what you think of it. It simply becomes overkill with no actual discernible benefit because you can't tell the difference. It's just fluff.

Your the one that seems upset about that different applications have a need for different dpi, wether it be lower or higher that would be better. It's different in different cases and how hard you are trying to defend that that's not so is just outright hilarious! Please, continue!
 
You don't even understand what you're defending.

You clearly don't. You think that its like way higher PPI than it is. At 55" its 160ppi, 50" 176ppi, 40" 220ppi. 27" 4k is 163ppi..... If you think that's super fucking drastic where theres no difference for people, just wow. So everyone enjoying a 4k 27" monitor is delusional and theres no difference? It would be the same thing except a huge screen, which is what I want. And many more. Why the fuck wouldI want a giant screen that looks like my 23"1080p screen ppi wise for all uses? You should understand what your defending.

Edit: I and many others would gladly like a 40inch 4k workspace thats nice and crisp over whats out now. 8k at 200% scaling even if they never fix windows general poor scaling, it would be nice for general use in a lot of plebs.
 
I wonder if these TV's will have HDMI 2.1 and will it do 60Hz at 4:4:4. It took a while for 4K TV's to do 4:4:4 at 60Hz unless if it had a DisplayPort which it probably won't.
 
I wonder if these TV's will have HDMI 2.1 and will it do 60Hz at 4:4:4. It took a while for 4K TV's to do 4:4:4 at 60Hz unless if it had a DisplayPort which it probably won't.

HDMI 2.1 can do it, although it requires lossy (!) compression...supposedly almost perfect though.
 
You clearly don't. You think that its like way higher PPI than it is. At 55" its 160ppi, 50" 176ppi, 40" 220ppi. 27" 4k is 163ppi..... If you think that's super fucking drastic where theres no difference for people, just wow. So everyone enjoying a 4k 27" monitor is delusional and theres no difference? It would be the same thing except a huge screen, which is what I want. And many more. Why the fuck wouldI want a giant screen that looks like my 23"1080p screen ppi wise for all uses? You should understand what your defending.

Edit: I and many others would gladly like a 40inch 4k workspace thats nice and crisp over whats out now. 8k at 200% scaling even if they never fix windows general poor scaling, it would be nice for general use in a lot of plebs.
RJAB0Lf.gif
 
I saw a demo of 8k video back around 2011 and it is phenomenal. There was a video shot of a soccer game with the field of view covering 60% of the pitch at once. In the background of the shot was the ~10k people who filled that quarter of the stadium and each face could be individually identified.

Current screens are far from the visual acuity limit, which Wikipedia suggests is around 1 arc-minute. Given that screens will have sufficient resolution when that limit is surpassed for almost everyone, I welcome both 8k and what comes after. 10K? 16K?
 
The prices are way too high for the average customers, who is going to pay 40.000 - 50.000 US dollars for a TV?
 
The prices are way too high for the average customers, who is going to pay 40.000 - 50.000 US dollars for a TV?

Dell has a 8k 32 inch monitor out for $5000 now. Even if tv's are 5-10,000. Prices will drop pretty steadily I imagine. 4k certainly went down in price pretty quick. Not like it hurts anything having it come out sooner.
 
32 inch, but just imagine a 60 inch + TV ( price )
Even if the prices will drop, they will be expensive. I can't imagine some 8k TV @ 40 / 48 / 55 inches, it doesen't make any sense ( i mean as a PC monitor ) because of the high PPI
40 inch@ 8k means 220 PPI
If i would have the money ( and the right GPU's, LOL ) i'd go for 75 - 80 inches 8K
 
I'm curious if I could see a discernible difference between 4k and 8k on a 32 inch monitor. Identical specs, just different resolution. At that size I really doubt I could readily discern any increase in clarity.
 
I'm curious if I could see a discernible difference between 4k and 8k on a 32 inch monitor. Identical specs, just different resolution. At that size I really doubt I could readily discern any increase in clarity.
You can't unless you're sitting very very close. You would need a much bigger TV.
 
I'm curious if I could see a discernible difference between 4k and 8k on a 32 inch monitor. Identical specs, just different resolution. At that size I really doubt I could readily discern any increase in clarity.

Yes with the right applications such as photos and graphics and such. Heres a link talking about arc minutes and PPI/DPI. http://jaredjared.com/2012/10/visual-acuity-dpi/ 20/20 vision is about 1 arc min. At 1 foot away you can discern 286 PPI. A 32" 4k is 137 ppi, 32" 8k is 275ppi. At 2 feet away 20/20 can discern 250ppi. So even then you should still be able to easily discern differences with that big a range within that arc minute limit. 20/10 vision is .5 arc minutes. 20/40 2 arc mins.
 
Yes with the right applications such as photos and graphics and such. Heres a link talking about arc minutes and PPI/DPI. http://jaredjared.com/2012/10/visual-acuity-dpi/ 20/20 vision is about 1 arc min. At 1 foot away you can discern 286 PPI. A 32" 4k is 137 ppi, 32" 8k is 275ppi. At 2 feet away 20/20 can discern 250ppi. So even then you should still be able to easily discern differences with that big a range within that arc minute limit. 20/10 vision is .5 arc minutes. 20/40 2 arc mins.

I have a feeling the PPI you need for resolution increases to be indiscernible is much higher when you factor in the subpixel pattern and space between pixels.

I have 20-10 vision and a 534 ppi phone and can easily distinguish individual pixels. I don't think we're anywhere close to a true "retina" display.
 
This would be cool:
21:9 "8K" (7680 x 3440) 55in diag (50.2'' x 22.5'') 153 dpi
 
I have a feeling the PPI you need for resolution increases to be indiscernible is much higher when you factor in the subpixel pattern and space between pixels.

I have 20-10 vision and a 534 ppi phone and can easily distinguish individual pixels. I don't think we're anywhere close to a true "retina" display.

Yes I was thinking of adding that along with the post, but as you can tell by other posters, some already have trouble believing the ~300 limit set in 1860 that is arc minute and just wanted to demonstrate within that.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/what-is/ppi-pixels-per-inch/

https://mostly-tech.com/2013/11/08/debunking-the-retina-display-myth/

Edit: Who knows what the limit will be with how screens are arranged but lets say ~800 ppi theoretically. A 16:9 screen at 32" would be 23040x12960 resolution. ~298.6 m pixels vs ~33.2m of 8k. I don't see how we are going to be able to make the leap in computing power to drive that when those screens become reality. Film equipment sure, but graphics and computing? We are gonna need to do stuff a lot different.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Guardians of the Galaxy 2 will be filmed with the Red 8k camera. I imagine most would just go that route and start filming in 8k and downsampling it to 4k until that becomes standard.


Edit: It's sad too because we could've had a LOT of 4k content if we had some foresight. See this http://4k.com/news/20-years-movie-titles-filmed-4k-nobody-bothered-save/


That actually makes a lot of sense from an industry standpoint. If you make a lot of content in preparation for 8k becoming a viable standard in the future, it makes it an easier sell.
 
as far as Olympics go, be ready for good surprises. Brazil nailed it, japan will nail even [H]arder. 8K is a planned obsolescence tech, and as such, count on Japan to pull it out, before summer 2020.
 
Yes I was thinking of adding that along with the post, but as you can tell by other posters, some already have trouble believing the ~300 limit set in 1860 that is arc minute and just wanted to demonstrate within that.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/what-is/ppi-pixels-per-inch/

https://mostly-tech.com/2013/11/08/debunking-the-retina-display-myth/

Edit: Who knows what the limit will be with how screens are arranged but lets say ~800 ppi theoretically. A 16:9 screen at 32" would be 23040x12960 resolution. ~298.6 m pixels vs ~33.2m of 8k. I don't see how we are going to be able to make the leap in computing power to drive that when those screens become reality. Film equipment sure, but graphics and computing? We are gonna need to do stuff a lot different.

Thanks for that. It's nice to see actual research proving humans can easily see beyond 300 ppi and actually even beyond 1000 ppi.
 
After reading the "debunkings" I have more respect for Jobs. He was careful to specify a 10-12 inch viewing distance.
 
After reading the "debunkings" I have more respect for Jobs. He was careful to specify a 10-12 inch viewing distance.

I'm not sure what you're reading but it is 100% debunked. This is the PDF that was referenced in the 2nd link http://www.eetasia.com/STATIC/PDF/201312/EEOL_2013JAN03_OPT_TA_01.pdf?SOURCES=DOWNLOAD

PDF said:
We selected 50 subjects at random to participate in our study. Their average vision score was 20/16 based on a near-view Snellen eye test. In our double blind testing, we asked participants to evaluate the resolution of each of the six image types (vernier pattern, text, website, family photo, video game, and kitchen photo) in a controlled environment. The distance from the simulated displays was 300 mm and was maintained by using a head mount. The subjects were given a time limit of three minutes to rate the images. The results clearly showed that higher resolution images resulted in significantly better ratings by our subjects for all images and types, both aliased and anti-aliased. Since improvements in ratings were observed for the 1016-PPI images over the corresponding 508-PPI images, we conclude that the perceptible advantage of higher resolution smartphone displays has not been exhausted, even at 1000 PPI.
 
The bandwidth for these is an order of magnitude higher than anything we have today in place. Heck streaming 4k *which would be 25% of the bandwidth needed for this* is usually trash in most places.
 
Decko87 said: "I'm curious if I could see a discernible difference between 4k and 8k on a 32 inch monitor."



Yes we can see the difference between 4K and 8K - those of us who work in this area can see the difference very clearly.

OriginalPng


http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell...18k/apd/210-alez/monitors-monitor-accessories
Images are a lot more obvious. I didn't say you can't tell the difference ... I said you need to be relatively close to tell the difference. For monitors you're generally right in front of the screen. I was referring to TVs.
 
I'm curious if I could see a discernible difference between 4k and 8k on a 32 inch monitor. Identical specs, just different resolution. At that size I really doubt I could readily discern any increase in clarity.

You absolutely can, but many of the benefits going from 32" 4k to 32" 8k are going to be most obvious when it comes to text legibility. That isn't a bad thing, but take a look at your 350-400ppi smartphone and you'll realize that beyond that sort of density, there are very diminishing returns.

IMO at average desktop/laptop viewing distances (1.5-3 feet?) 250-300ppi is probably the sweet spot for text if your vision is good.
 
Back
Top