Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Why 8K TV is a non-starter for PC users

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

8K is significant for VR and 360 video. Those fields really need the resolution. Even in those cheap cameras 4K vs 5.7K has a difference.

But imagine an 8K camera with m43 sensors on it, it can be probably intercut with P4K and current or future m43 cameras quite easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8K or above is very beneficial for reframing 360 videos. The challenge is to fit two big enough sensors + lenses so close to each other. So a dual m43 camera would be super but the stitching at close distance will be a big challenge. Having multiple m43 sensors will make the size too big to profit from the amazing freedom that you have put in on long stick. The Qoocam with 2 1/1.7'' sensors and 8K is a first step in to getting high quality reframing... curious to see how this segment evolve in the next few years probably next step is 1'' sensor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Has there ever been a more pointless increase in resolution? I found this video hilarious!

In my opinion 8K's future lies in VR.

Read the full article

Again, he is missing the point of things like 8K. It is not the large objects that benefit, it is the small objects and the overall immersiveness that results from it. Being able to see individual pixels has nothing to do with it, it is the ability of the available pixels to define small objects discretely and realistically on the screen that is important. For example, when shooting video with a typical camera you will get inaccurate color at edges due to debeyering. This results in the dreaded halos everyone refers to as sharpening. The way to avoid that is higher resolution displays (and cameras). Alternatively you could sacrifice resolution in the name of color fidelity (what we do when turning the "sharpening" parameter on cameras all the way down), but then your fine detail becomes blobs.

That is why 8k is important. It is not the ability to discern individual pixels, it is the ability to accurately present small objects (which are much larger than individual pixels, and you most certainly CAN see them).

You want a screen to covers a substantial portion of your field of view for an immersive experience, and for that you need high resolution, otherwise fine detail mushes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, it might be useless mastering in higher than 4k. Now with the advancement in AI neural upscalers (Topaz is currently working on a version of gigapixel for video) you will be able to upscale 4k to 8k effortless, maybe even 2k to 8k! And still looking great. Time will tell...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linus illustrates exactly why 8k is stupid right now. And points out that resolution is beyond what is needed and we just need better pixels.

But you have to remember that 4k was exactly that experience a while ago, it was that broken to to get running not to mention games was even more broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in VR, especially in real-time video games refresh rate and pixel size is still way more important than 8K.

8K won’t mean shit if you get motion sick.

They are already optimizing VR rendering, for games, that takes into account that humans don’t see detail on the periphery. So why waste time rendering detail?

8K+ VR action cameras are the future though and I’m pretty excited for that. The perfect action camera is the one that captures everything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so to finally comment here:

Sooner or later VR headsets will introduce the concept of foveated rendering rather than 8k-- think a 1080p display just for the center part of your eye, which tracks your eye saccades, then a second 1080p display for the periphery. Why? For all the reasons above-- I've seen estimates on pixel handling for VR and it goes to 8k*2 or more if you want to retain angular resolution.

Now for desktop displays I can see 8k, but not for images: high res helps text or lines. on a 30" display this allows for very precise letter spacing/kerning and nuanced typography even at small font sizes. When I moved to a 4k display (24"@192dpi) it wasn't for the color fidelity or contrast (which is often worse with smaller pixels/higher resolution) but text. Even though its calibrated I find the contrast lacking for dealing with color.

The consumer side of me,  I can't see 8k performing for most content -- it starts to consume enormous bandwidth and storage for little benefit: At some point there will be limits to how much someone will pay for sustained bandwidth plus service. For me on a cheaper internet line, 1080p is the only thing that streams consistently well. Does 8k improve the writing or acting in "when harry met sally?"
Jeremy E
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what's wanted is an "immersive experience", and anyone's deadly boring life - you know, the one preoccupied with video equipment -- is insufficient, try hallucinogens.  Mushrooms can be grown at home, natural and organic, and there's evidence that they have long-term therapeutic effects.   Beats 8K any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, 8k is better than 4k for every application if you don't sacrifice frame rate and quality. It's just a question of whether it's worth the extra cost, and at this point, the vast majority would agree that that 8k's expenses outweigh its benefits compared to 4k, both in cameras and on screens.

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

Even in VR, especially in real-time video games refresh rate and pixel size is still way more important than 8K.

8K won’t mean shit if you get motion sick.

Exactly. And not just refresh rate, but latency as well. You can feel the lag between moving your head quickly and seeing the change with current Oculus headsets. If I recall it's something along the lines of 1k resolution per eye on the Quest, and while you can definitely see the pixelation, it is not that distracting when playing games.

36 minutes ago, andrgl said:

8K is great for content creation.

I would rather have a 60” 8K monitor than any multi display setup.

And when sitting just a foot or so away, the high DPI works well.

Yeah, I see higher resolution as more important on the creation side than the viewing side. I'd rather physically move my head to look at different parts of a video timeline than click and scroll back and forth with a mouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, abehalpert said:

It's just my gut instinct, but I doubt that VR will be "the" future of cinema. If anything, I would guess it would develop as a special genre alongside regular offerings. I don't think it will supplant regular cinema.

I don't know about supplant, but I think VR has huge potential once the physical limitations of current headsets are overcome. Have you ever done anything in VR, and if so, how was that experience for you?

The big problem with VR now is that headsets are cumbersome. When I first tried it, you had like 10 wires going from headset to PC, headset to handsets, you had to place sensors around the room. Now with the Quest, everything is wireless, but it's still big and heavy to wear on your head for a long period of time, the refresh rate and the resolution isn't quite convincing, not to mention the low specs of the device means that at least for game content, graphics aren't great. We aren't going to have 4k fully ray traced environments on the Quest anytime soon.

In the near future, these problems will be solved. Headsets will be wireless, lightweight, and cheap.

One problem with flat screens is that they are huge. A 60" 4k TV is huge, and while technology is making them thinner and lighter, there is no way to get around the fact that a 60" TV takes up 60" of wall space. Even a projector, which takes up no physical space, requires space to show the image. On the other hand, if we can get a headset the size and weight of sunglasses, you can watch a 2D movie in a "virtual theater" anywhere, any time. Imagine wearing ordinary glasses that convincingly make it look like there is a 60" TV at the proper viewing distance, showing traditional film content. You can fold it up and put it in your pocket. You can watch theater quality images on a plane. You can watch 3D movies with no extra effort or equipment. You can watch them lying down. I think that's when we'll see the paradigm shift away from screens towards headsets.

Once people already have headsets, I think they will show more interest in actual VR content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m still on a 1080pm 55” Samsung TV in my living room and from 10 feet away it looks good with HD content.  There are multiple reasons that would trigger an upgrade to 4K (or even 8k if the prices were the same).  1. If my current TV stops working. 2.  If the kids get a 4K gaming consul for Christmas in the future. 3. If I can have access to technology like OLED (or future panel tech) or advance upscaling algorithm that makes a significant difference and the prices are dirt cheap and I can’t resist.

That said I am on a 5k IMac and would not purchase less than a 5k IMac in the future.  So I could see 8k as a PC monitor for editing, but not exclusively for gaming or watching TV until it basically comes as a feature for about the same price as 4K.

I also think that upscaling 4K content to 8k for 8k display with the right algorithm could be a selling point for an 8k TV.  Sony was pitching the upscale angle when they first introduced their 4K TV’s and there was not much access to 4K content and it did look like more resolution than straight 1080p.

Seems to me the cheapest best quality path is shoot 6k, deliver 4K and upscale to 8k for display (when prices are cheap enough).

Ultimately, I am fine with perfect 1080p content on my 55” 1080p TV watching from 10 ft away. Even though I shoot 4k or 4.6k, I don’t even have a 4K TV and I don’t see the value in upgrading. Now if there was a 6k, 7k, 8k IMac I would upgrade (if it were under $4,000.)

Currently, I do not see the value proposition of an 8k PC monitoring Infrastructure versus 4K or 5k...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

Even in VR, especially in real-time video games refresh rate and pixel size is still way more important than 8K.

8K won’t mean shit if you get motion sick.

They are already optimizing VR rendering, for games, that takes into account that humans don’t see detail on the periphery. So why waste time rendering detail?

8K+ VR action cameras are the future though and I’m pretty excited for that. The perfect action camera is the one that captures everything. 

The problem with VR is not just the resolution of the entire view, it is the resolution of the viewing device itself that needs to be higher. The problem is the screen is right in front of your eyes, so even 8K is not good enough for that (although a lot better than 4K of course). Until we get those ultra high resolutions VR is not really going to be a thing, the displays we have now simply are nowhere near good enough. And of course, you are going to need the cameras to match that, and that is not going to be realistic in the foreseeable future. 

6 hours ago, jeremy_E said:

so to finally comment here:

Sooner or later VR headsets will introduce the concept of foveated rendering rather than 8k-- think a 1080p display just for the center part of your eye, which tracks your eye saccades, then a second 1080p display for the periphery. Why? For all the reasons above-- I've seen estimates on pixel handling for VR and it goes to 8k*2 or more if you want to retain angular resolution.

Now for desktop displays I can see 8k, but not for images: high res helps text or lines. on a 30" display this allows for very precise letter spacing/kerning and nuanced typography even at small font sizes. When I moved to a 4k display (24"@192dpi) it wasn't for the color fidelity or contrast (which is often worse with smaller pixels/higher resolution) but text. Even though its calibrated I find the contrast lacking for dealing with color.

The consumer side of me,  I can't see 8k performing for most content -- it starts to consume enormous bandwidth and storage for little benefit: At some point there will be limits to how much someone will pay for sustained bandwidth plus service. For me on a cheaper internet line, 1080p is the only thing that streams consistently well. Does 8k improve the writing or acting in "when harry met sally?"
Jeremy E
 

Not for Harry and Sally, but it definitely makes a difference for natural history or travel style content. Presenting a story line is completely different from creating the impression that the viewer is actually physically there. Different types of content has different emphasis.

4 hours ago, abehalpert said:

It's just my gut instinct, but I doubt that VR will be "the" future of cinema. If anything, I would guess it would develop as a special genre alongside regular offerings. I don't think it will supplant regular cinema.

Not cinema, but that is not the sort of content it is meant for. I think it would be extremely difficult to shoot cinema in VR format anyway. The application of VR is best suited for content where you want the viewer to feel like they are physically there. If you are making a nature documentary or a travel piece, then VR is potentially very powerful, provided you have the hardware that can handle it. However, we are still in the infancy of genre, sort of like being back in the silent film era in terms of sophistication. There is still a long way to go.

4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I don't know about supplant, but I think VR has huge potential once the physical limitations of current headsets are overcome. Have you ever done anything in VR, and if so, how was that experience for you?

 

I have played around with the headsets, also some basic VR cameras as well. The potential is obvious once you have used those things, they are clearly game changers for many types of content. The big problem of course is that the technology we have today is nowhere close to what it needs to be to provide the sort of quality that is needed to become mainstream. That is a long way down the road still unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

One problem with flat screens is that they are huge. A 60" 4k TV is huge, and while technology is making them thinner and lighter, there is no way to get around the fact that a 60" TV takes up 60" of wall space. Even a projector, which takes up no physical space, requires space to show the image. On the other hand, if we can get a headset the size and weight of sunglasses, you can watch a 2D movie in a "virtual theater" anywhere, any time. Imagine wearing ordinary glasses that convincingly make it look like there is a 60" TV at the proper viewing distance, showing traditional film content. You can fold it up and put it in your pocket. You can watch theater quality images on a plane. You can watch 3D movies with no extra effort or equipment. You can watch them lying down. I think that's when we'll see the paradigm shift away from screens towards headsets.

Once people already have headsets, I think they will show more interest in actual VR content.

I disagree with that. I have a 65" screen, that replaced a 40" panel. One thing that was immediately apparent was that at the same viewing distance the larger screen filled the field of view to a greater extent, creating a more immersive experience. It made a real difference in the whole viewing experience IMO. Going from HD to 4K meant that pixel resolution was about the same, so there was no falloff in overall IQ as a result of the larger field of view. In fact I would like an even bigger screen than the 65" one. But that would need resolution to be 6K or 8K to maintain overall IQ. So, until the cost of those panels comes down I will stay with what I have now. An 85" 8K screen would be nice though, just prices today are out of the question, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mokara said:

I disagree with that. I have a 65" screen, that replaced a 40" panel. One thing that was immediately apparent was that at the same viewing distance the larger screen filled the field of view to a greater extent, creating a more immersive experience. It made a real difference in the whole viewing experience IMO. Going from HD to 4K meant that pixel resolution was about the same, so there was no falloff in overall IQ as a result of the larger field of view. In fact I would like an even bigger screen than the 65" one. But that would need resolution to be 6K or 8K to maintain overall IQ. So, until the cost of those panels comes down I will stay with what I have now. An 85" 8K screen would be nice though, just prices today are out of the question, lol.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with, my post was about how much physical space a TV set takes up compared to a headset. A large TV is always going to take up a huge amount of wall space, whereas a VR headset can be tiny but give the same impression of a large screen set a reasonable distance away.

With a headset, I can experience a virtual 85" TV set 10' away from me, while sitting in the cramped back seat of a car. Our headset technology just isn't there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...