Nearly 6 Million 8K TVs to Ship in 2022

homernoy said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not that you can't tell the difference between the TV's themselves, you have to have content appropriate for the panel. the 720p crap the cable companies try to pass off as "HD" pisses me off.
 
sadsteve, thanks. But I live in a small Illinois town. We don't have a Target, BB, etc. Staples left a couple of years ago. The only option seems to be to pay. But I will do some more research.
 
Wyodiver said:
sadsteve, thanks. But I live in a small Illinois town. We don't have a Target, BB, etc. Staples left a couple of years ago. The only option seems to be to pay. But I will do some more research.
Click to expand...

Check with your county government, we have a recycling program in ours, that is actually staffed by inmates from the county jail. you haul it in, they will take it for the most part. keeps a lot of old appliances from being dumped. If a small county in Kentucky can do this, surely Illinois can.
 
Thanks! I'll check on it. Either way I have to get to "there." Small car, monstrous TV. But I really do want to do it the right way.
 
rive22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Most Fox stations broadcast in 720p (not interlaced) so that they can do 60fps for (mainly) sports. Many will prefer that to 1080i (interlaced). Just fyi.
 
So, is this why my friends 32" 720p tv looks pretty much like my 32" 1080p when it comes to Mediacom, Netflix, and Amazon Prime?
 
Armenius said:
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.
Click to expand...

The only reason I see to record @ 4k right now is mainly for YouTube, as they then give you a higher bitrate for lower videos. I had to upgrade to a Samsung 950 Pro just to record raw 4k, and with 4k + HDR recording, my disk gets full in mere minutes. Raw 8k would just be unfeasible, even if somehow you had a magical disk which had the bandwidth to record.
 
M76 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have no idea on streaming/cable/sat, but we didn't have content when people first bought HD sets. I remember seeing them 5 or 6 years before Dallas had any HD (unless you count a test signal with ants crawling around the sidewalk). Still people bought them and watched DVDs on them. As I recall, there were 1080p sets before there was Blu Ray.

As for disks, at this point, the masses have given up on quality and settled on "good enough" streaming, sat and cable, but as I said, the people who are going to buy 8k early on are going to buy whatever 8k format is created. And again, there is the ability to make 8k content from old movies (as well as new ones going forward), but they'll have to do a new scan of the negatives, because they never kept the old 4k scans.

We'll see what happens. I'm not ready to condemn a technology years before it will be a viable consumer product. I remember when I though all we needed was DVD, but Blu Ray was better. I don't have a 4k set, unless you count my monitor (technically 5k), which does look better.

I am prepared for 4k though...got myself a Blu Ray drive that can rip UHD to a server/nas (in theory...haven't bought any yet)with anydvd. Probably give it a go after I get a NAS, set it up and all that.
 
TV manufacturers are turning into AAA game developers who unnecessarily jack up the complexity of their products in order to increase the price.

No one really wants 8K TVs. Just give us cheaper, larger 1080p or 4K TVs.

How about large 21:9 TVs?
 
I have a lot of 480 content even some 240 content, it all looks better on a 4k OLED. Anti-aliasing alone helps, the jaggies are much less noticeable not to mention the improved contrast. If in the future I need to replace this set and a reasonably priced 8k OLED (or whatever) was available, I'd be tempted, but only if I had an OS that could scale old software properly (and didn't insist on wasting bandwidth sending data that I didn't authorize through my capped internet).
 
ndehmer,

I live in an Illinois town with the population of 13000. We lost Staples a couple years ago, and, of course, Radio Shack. We certainly don't have a BB.

Thanks, though.
 
There is no rush in 4k or 8k content if most people's main viewing media, is through a tiny smart phone screen.
 
As I do in all of these threads I'll continue to bitch that you can get 4k HDR TVs for cheap and 8k is coming but its a minimum of $8,000 for a damn true 4k projector with lens memory. The place that 4k or 8k actually makes sense and you need to be rich to afford one.

If I didn't have and like a 21:9 display I'd likely end up with a 90-100 inch 16:9 TV before long. 80" TV's are around $3,000.
 
Meh. The only way to get a pure 1080p signal right now is OTA. Much less 4k. I guess they will sell well in other countries where 8k signals will exist as I assure you Comcast will not be pushing 8k by 2020.
 
Twinsen said:
Great, more thing no one will buy.
Click to expand...
That's what everone on [H] was saying about 4k a few years ago, now almost everything is 4k. Time marches on technology changes. If broadcasters and broadcast equipment providers were smart, they'd have a plan for their next upgrade to work with 4k to be easily upgraded to 8k. Whether that's already in the cards, I don't know, but 8k is going to happen. First round will be at least 25 grand and probably more, but just like 4k, prices will drop and it will become the mainstream TV resolution.
 
polonyc2 said:
so 1080p sets lasted for 20+ years and 4K sets will last ~5 years???
Click to expand...
First generation 1080p sets came out in spring or summer of 2006, so it's not close to 20 years, much less 20+.

A rough recap of HD in the USA is as follows:
1998 first HD sets are released (years before networks converted to HD)
8 Years later 1080p was introduced (2006)
6 years later 4k was introduced (2012)
6 years later 8k is introduced (2018).

I don't see a huge difference in release windows.
 
I have two 4k tvs and a 1080p projector 110" screen. 1080p projector looks great when viewing high bitrate blurays movies, on a 55" tv very hard for me to see benefit of 4k even when watching it from a 4k ultra bluray disc
 
buttons said:
I have two 4k tvs and a 1080p projector 110" screen. 1080p projector looks great when viewing high bitrate blurays movies, on a 55" tv very hard for me to see benefit of 4k even when watching it from a 4k ultra bluray disc
Click to expand...

This is why I haven't upgraded any of the TV's in my house they are all 55" and under. I use the zoom method for full screen 2.40:1 ratio movies and 4k would be a massive improvement in clarity for my theater. I just need to keep on waiting. When 8k TV's are $3,000 is when 4k HDR PJ's will be about the same price and I can upgrade.
 
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 don't think gaming at 8k will even matter. There are limits to what our eyes can resolve. For me, 4k is of questionable value compared to 1080p. I'm gaming at 1080 and in no hurry to upgrade, especially after moving to a 4k TV and seeing how little difference that made. Based on this, I have absolutely no interest in 8k or higher resolutions.

Maybe if we're talking about a 20' screen, sure. But for consumer size TVs? No thanks.
 
doublejack said:
I don't think gaming at 8k will even matter. There are limits to what our eyes can resolve. For me, 4k is of questionable value compared to 1080p. I'm gaming at 1080 and in no hurry to upgrade, especially after moving to a 4k TV and seeing how little difference that made. Based on this, I have absolutely no interest in 8k or higher resolutions.

Maybe if we're talking about a 20' screen, sure. But for consumer size TVs? No thanks.
Click to expand...
Games and movies are a completely different thing. A movie regardless of resolution is a subsampled image from the picture quality of the lens used which is virtually unlimited resolution.
Games technically benefit from 8K because what you see is the actual resolution not a subsampling. But pretty much the same could be achieved if the game was rendered at 8K then subsampled to 4K. But as we stand currently even many 4K games are rendered at lesser resolutions on consoles and then upscaled.
 
doublejack said:
I don't think gaming at 8k will even matter. There are limits to what our eyes can resolve. For me, 4k is of questionable value compared to 1080p. I'm gaming at 1080 and in no hurry to upgrade, especially after moving to a 4k TV and seeing how little difference that made. Based on this, I have absolutely no interest in 8k or higher resolutions.

Maybe if we're talking about a 20' screen, sure. But for consumer size TVs? No thanks.
Click to expand...

I went from a 60" 1080p Plasma to a 55" 4K OLED.

I can see a noticeable difference between the two, when viewing true HDR 4K content. Blu-Ray looks great on the Plasma, but the feeling of depth and the clarity of a good HDR UHD Blu-ray on the OLED just can't be matched.

Upscaled 1080p just doesn't cut it, if the content was mastered in HDR 4K or better. It just looks better on a 4K TV.
 
M76 said:
Games and movies are a completely different thing. A movie regardless of resolution is a subsampled image from the picture quality of the lens used which is virtually unlimited resolution.
Games technically benefit from 8K because what you see is the actual resolution not a subsampling. But pretty much the same could be achieved if the game was rendered at 8K then subsampled to 4K. But as we stand currently even many 4K games are rendered at lesser resolutions on consoles and then upscaled.
Click to expand...

What you're saying is true, but my point is that our eyes can only resolve so much detail. The pixels get small enough that we can no longer make each one out individually. This is especially true in games with a lot of fast movement going on. I don't see 8k gaming as having any value.

motomonkey said:
I went from a 60" 1080p Plasma to a 55" 4K OLED.

I can see a noticeable difference between the two, when viewing true HDR 4K content. Blu-Ray looks great on the Plasma, but the feeling of depth and the clarity of a good HDR UHD Blu-ray on the OLED just can't be matched.

Upscaled 1080p just doesn't cut it, if the content was mastered in HDR 4K or better. It just looks better on a 4K TV.
Click to expand...

I suspect that a lot of what you perceive as improvement is color and contrast, and not resolution. So it is the OLED and HDR that make the difference. I bet if you went from a 1080p OLED HDR set to a 4k one, you would not be as impressed.

I went from a plasma to a 4k mainstream TV, it is just an LED LCD with no real HDR support (it will accept an HDR signal but does not have the contrast to do anything with it). The upgrade was no big deal, especially when sitting 10 feet away.
 
This is good! But where is the 4K content? Are they going to skip it and go straight to 8K?
 
I have not owned a tv in over 10 years, why start new?
 
Why bother.. The high def over OTA still looks average..

The 4k on netflix looks good and streaming is the way to go..
 
doublejack said:
What you're saying is true, but my point is that our eyes can only resolve so much detail. The pixels get small enough that we can no longer make each one out individually. This is especially true in games with a lot of fast movement going on. I don't see 8k gaming as having any value.
Click to expand...

That's the point!

doublejack said:
I suspect that a lot of what you perceive as improvement is color and contrast, and not resolution. So it is the OLED and HDR that make the difference. I bet if you went from a 1080p OLED HDR set to a 4k one, you would not be as impressed.

I went from a plasma to a 4k mainstream TV, it is just an LED LCD with no real HDR support (it will accept an HDR signal but does not have the contrast to do anything with it). The upgrade was no big deal, especially when sitting 10 feet away.
Click to expand...

The contrast improvement- otherwise known as HDR, in terms of content capture, mastering, delivery, and display- is the biggest improvement.

nilepez said:
That's what everone on [H] was saying about 4k a few years ago, now almost everything is 4k.
Click to expand...

This is what I (and anyone with half a brain in technology) was saying four years ago: I'll buy when the content is there. And now it is!
 
doublejack said:
What you're saying is true, but my point is that our eyes can only resolve so much detail. The pixels get small enough that we can no longer make each one out individually. This is especially true in games with a lot of fast movement going on. I don't see 8k gaming as having any value.



I suspect that a lot of what you perceive as improvement is color and contrast, and not resolution. So it is the OLED and HDR that make the difference. I bet if you went from a 1080p OLED HDR set to a 4k one, you would not be as impressed.

I went from a plasma to a 4k mainstream TV, it is just an LED LCD with no real HDR support (it will accept an HDR signal but does not have the contrast to do anything with it). The upgrade was no big deal, especially when sitting 10 feet away.
Click to expand...


so, Gamers can tell the difference between 1080 and 4K on 27" monitors, but I can't see the difference on a 55" screen? riggghhhtt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top