8k, what do you envisage?

[Enkay78]

A 4K 55” TV may look not much different from a 8K 55”.


If you have to feel and see the difference then, you have a watch
An 8K 100” (or 85” as currently by consumer market) vs a 4K 100” TV

When 16k comes, 150-200” will the optimal display sizes…….to appreciate the ‘details’.

When I watch the same 4K BD movie on my 4K TV and with my 120” screen, the details is heavens apart. (But yes the contrast is much better in my 55” tv…..but it’s no match for the blown up details and ‘texture’) and ah yes it’s horrible to watch 1080p at 150” screen.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

My few cents:

Much like 4K is to prepare consumer towards 50+ screen sizes (discounting the meagre PQ difference for smaller screens), 8K is the evolution towards larger displays. The fundamental is this - evolution towards bigger screen sizes/displays.

I am betting that the demand for 100” displays in TV is not far off……LG ‘the wall’, and Samsung et all micro-led displays consisting of whole side of a room is the coming future. 8K may not even be enough for such displays. So a 16k display or even a 32k will be not far off in future. This will bring not just a change in display sizes, but rather an immersive augmentative reality.

Personally 1080p is a passé for me. I don’t watch nothing less than 4K currently…..and mostly prefer BD /BD remix, when I want blissful PQ. For casual entertainment I use the streaming OTTs. HDR AND DOLBY VISION are significant when you can have tone mapping hardware. Otherwise …..

It’s from 2015 I dropped TV sizes less than 55” (I was using a 46” one that time). Currently I feel screen size less than 85” is suboptimal. (I use 120” and 150” projector screen size.) But off course it’s different story how much the consumer market will be ready for this change vis a vis size/costs and logistics. Mature markets like US are migrating towards 100” that’s for sure.

Surely larger screens and close ranges will benefit from 8K. But in this modern era more and more people are mobile, larger TVs tend to be used in larger spaces of course and it is for the few who are willing to sit down and watch a TV. Cost is coming down which is positive but I do wonder how many people will actually buy this size of TV and use it. Based on what I see IRL and online I doubt many people would buy it and even fewer would use it.

Please note that the US has a very active HT market while in India due to space and budget constraints proper HTs ( I don't mean a 55-65" or smaller TV with a HTiB or small bookshelves) are not common. Many people are happy with that here (theres nothing wrong with that) but it goes to show the disparity between the US and here with TV sizes and a proper sound system or even space and in the end what people refer to as "HT" where in the US larger screen sizes sell well.

The Samsung multi panel display as I recall is by no means cheap and certainly can't be used as a measure of the mass markets acceptance of 8K or higher resolutions or large TVs.

So I guess my question is how many people in India (compared to the US) will even buy a 100" or larger TV assuming that eventually it falls in the 3-4L or less bracket? I believe this number will be extremely low compared to the US market.

That brings me to my second question, if indeed adoption of such sizes are low then will most people really benefit from 8K?

My thoughts are that companies may resort to more gimmicks like 3D/HDR to sell TVs.

 

[Love4sound]

My few cents:

Much like 4K is to prepare consumer towards 50+ screen sizes (discounting the meagre PQ difference for smaller screens), 8K is the evolution towards larger displays. The fundamental is this - evolution towards bigger screen sizes/displays.

I am betting that the demand for 100” displays in TV is not far off……LG ‘the wall’, and Samsung et all micro-led displays consisting of whole side of a room is the coming future. 8K may not even be enough for such displays. So a 16k display or even a 32k will be not far off in future. This will bring not just a change in display sizes, but rather an immersive augmentative reality.

Personally 1080p is a passé for me. I don’t watch nothing less than 4K currently…..and mostly prefer BD /BD remix, when I want blissful PQ. For casual entertainment I use the streaming OTTs. HDR AND DOLBY VISION are significant when you can have tone mapping hardware. Otherwise …..

It’s from 2015 I dropped TV sizes less than 55” (I was using a 46” one that time). Currently I feel screen size less than 85” is suboptimal. (I use 120” and 150” projector screen size.) But off course it’s different story how much the consumer market will be ready for this change vis a vis size/costs and logistics. Mature markets like US are migrating towards 100” that’s for sure.

Most cases in flats the main door or the stair case or the lift may not accommodate more then 75. Individual house may support 85+ inch tv’s. In US 75-85 have become normal for enthusiasts and I expect 100 to be common with enthusiasts in another 2-3 years. In India I think beyond 85 will take ages. We need to build our apartments that can have the provision to bring in the 100 inch tv. In my flats I don’t think beyond 75 is possible. For sure even the 75 will not fit in the lift. Then there is cost to performance ratio. The NX7 is an excellent 4k projector and available for 5.75L. Even 77 inch Oled costs 4-5L with big discounts. So in India 100 inch tv I don’t expect it to be a hit. People who want 100+ size will just go for projectors.

 

[Bloom@83]

Another statement that absolutely makes no sense or adds any value. 4k HDR isn’t garbage and there is a good number of enthusiasts who enjoys it. Even though it’s minority it is a market. Why do u have pro audio speakers for listening to music then? Majority listen in cheap speakers or earphones using mobiles to listen to music easily,quickly and cheaply. Same for movies as well. Majority will use tv speakers or some average speakers or sound bars while minority spend on avr, processor set ups. So avr’s, processors set ups are trash? Improvements are not marginal or non existent in HDR. It’s heaven and earth difference compared to SDR and 1080p contents. Some one who finds Mid range TCL tv better then Oled can’t see that. Next you will say Ferrari is trash cause only a minority can afford and use i

Surely larger screens and close ranges will benefit from 8K. But in this modern era more and more people are mobile, larger TVs tend to be used in larger spaces of course and it is for the few who are willing to sit down and watch a TV. Cost is coming down which is positive but I do wonder how many people will actually buy this size of TV and use it. Based on what I see IRL and online I doubt many people would buy it and even fewer would use it.

Please note that the US has a very active HT market while in India due to space and budget constraints proper HTs ( I don't mean a 55-65" or smaller TV with a HTiB or small bookshelves) are not common. Many people are happy with that here (theres nothing wrong with that) but it goes to show the disparity between the US and here with TV sizes and a proper sound system or even space and in the end what people refer to as "HT" where in the US larger screen sizes sell well.

The Samsung multi panel display as I recall is by no means cheap and certainly can't be used as a measure of the mass markets acceptance of 8K or higher resolutions or large TVs.

So I guess my question is how many people in India (compared to the US) will even buy a 100" or larger TV assuming that eventually it falls in the 3-4L or less bracket? I believe this number will be extremely low compared to the US market.

That brings me to my second question, if indeed adoption of such sizes are low then will most people really benefit from 8K?

My thoughts are that companies may resort to more gimmicks like 3D/HDR to sell TVs.

- 3D is (was ) a gimmick , HDR is not.
- Large size TVs are the future , globally speaking. Hence not just 8K, but higher resolutions will become the norm.
- Mass scale adoption of 100" and above TVs in India will obviously happen way later than US or European markets. Market economics.
- There will always be niche customer base for premium AV products in India

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

- 3D is (was ) a gimmick , HDR is not.
- Large size TVs are the future , globally speaking. Hence not just 8K, but higher resolutions will become the norm.
- Mass scale adoption of 100" and above TVs in India will obviously happen way later than US or European markets. Market economics.
- There will always be niche customer base for premium AV products in India

Point 1 - I do not agree completely. HDR/3D (both) is/was a gimmick
Point 2 - Agree to an extent, they are the future but to what degree? That was my question. Adoption is likely to remain low. Higher resolutions will certainly come but the question is the same, will we (the consumers on a broad level) benefit? TV manufacturers are certain to push higher resolutions to make sales.
Point 3 - Agree. Don't forget space.
Point 4 - Agree. This is the case in many countries I would guess but in India the niche might be a staggeringly small % of the population. Consider that HFV has been around for a while and has some 60K something members (IIRC), and the vocal minority who post are but a fraction of this.

 

[Enkay78]

We may agree disagree…….

But let’s just digest this :
A 24” TV in a living room was oooooh and aaaaaaah few decades ago.

Then 32”

Who want a 42” TV in a living room now? (Ok maybe the class lower than middle class may………but look at the dropping costs)

2 years ago 55” TV was not mainstream. Why? Cost.
Now look at the 55” offerings…..it’s almost like those of 32s, 42s, 46s……(I definitely remember)

After few years 55” will cost dirt cheap……supply ecosystem and scalonomics.

After 5-10 years it will be 85”.


Who knows micro-LED will drop costs…..then the logistics issue fo size won’t matter. It will be a 2’x2’ multi panels…..or a 1’x1’ panels…..with customisable size displays. Again the limitation will be only cost.

If what I see at the crystal ball is right we can see:

Micro LEDs dropping prices to much affordable ranges.
Rollable TV /large displays can come into picture (but still have some doubt about future of OLED and the yield issue)


I will be the key happiest person in the world if I can get a 120” micro led multipanel display which can display HDR in full glory. And at affordable price range (off course it will happen in future with tech maturation). Then I will kick out my projectors and hassled of cave and screens alr et all.

 

[OM_2K19]

Micro LEDs dropping prices to much affordable ranges.

Micro LED is the future - I firmly believe this. As we speak, Samsung might be working to resolve the assembly/yield issues, and probably in the next 2/3 years, they will be able to bring one in the consumer segment. Finger Crossed...

 

[superczar]

Point 1 - I do not agree completely. HDR/3D (both) is/was a gimmick
Point 2 - Agree to an extent, they are the future but to what degree? That was my question. Adoption is likely to remain low. Higher resolutions will certainly come but the question is the same, will we (the consumers on a broad level) benefit? TV manufacturers are certain to push higher resolutions to make sales.
Point 3 - Agree. Don't forget space.
Point 4 - Agree. This is the case in many countries I would guess but in India the niche might be a staggeringly small % of the population. Consider that HFV has been around for a while and has some 60K something members (IIRC), and the vocal minority who post are but a fraction of this.

HDR is certainly not a gimmick.
I am not prone to hyberbole - e.g. I find FHD vs 4K a nice step up but far from night & day as the oft-found phrase used here goes

Good HDR on the other hand makes a really big difference and is very hard to miss even for a complete lay person..

Whether it be in sheer punchiness/ wow factor (e.g. camera moving from a dark room to a sunlit window will literally make you wince your eyes just as in real life)
Or the sheer amount of detail available in dark scenes as well as scenes with high contrast - which would have been otherwise lost.

Point 1 above is what layman like I appreciate while point 2 is what gets videophiles really excited ..

Either you have tried HDR on an old display (even high end displays up until recently could neither manage the peak brightness levels nor the deep darks needed for HDR) or on an incorrectly configured system.
Give it a retry - FHD vs 4K can remain debatable depending on individual
but SDR is same as HDR is akin to claiming that 640x480 is same as UHD /64kbps mp3 sounds the same as lossless

Micro LED is the future - I firmly believe this. As we speak, Samsung might be working to resolve the assembly/yield issues, and probably in the next 2/3 years, they will be able to bring one in the consumer segment. Finger Crossed...

Absolutely - even mini LED On the new ipad Pro 12 goes well beyond every single TV, OLED or QLED i have used.
The PQ during actual playback is truly enjoyable (SDR looks more or less the same as a good TV but HDR playback on it is quite something)

I had been meaning to change the ageing Samsung SUHD in my BR this year with a LG - but deferred the plan after using the mini LED Pro.
I just hope the to see good mini (or micro with enough DZ) get widely available by '22 or '23

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

HDR is certainly not a gimmick.
I am not prone to hyberbole - e.g. I find FHD vs 4K a nice step up but far from night & day as the oft-found phrase used here goes

Good HDR on the other hand makes a really big difference and is very hard to miss even for a complete lay person..

Whether it be in sheer punchiness/ wow factor (e.g. camera moving from a dark room to a sunlit window will literally make you wince your eyes just as in real life)
Or the sheer amount of detail available in dark scenes as well as scenes with high contrast - which would have been otherwise lost.

Point 1 above is what layman like I appreciate while point 2 is what gets videophiles really excited ..

Either you have tried HDR on an old display (even high end displays up until recently could neither manage the peak brightness levels nor the deep darks needed for HDR) or on an incorrectly configured system.
Give it a retry - FHD vs 4K can remain debatable depending on individual
but SDR is same as HDR is akin to claiming that 640x480 is same as UHD /64kbps mp3 sounds the same as lossless



Absolutely - even mini LED On the new ipad Pro 12 goes well beyond every single TV, OLED or QLED i have used.
The PQ during actual playback is truly enjoyable (SDR looks more or less the same as a good TV but HDR playback on it is quite something)

I had been meaning to change the ageing Samsung SUHD in my BR this year with a LG - but deferred the plan after using the mini LED Pro.
I just hope the to see good mini (or micro with enough DZ) get widely available by '22 or '23

I might revisit it later but the demos I have seen left me cold and I saw quite a few displays in the showroom, none in darkness but I don't like watching in the dark, nor do I care for black levels, I prefer brightness and good colors. I find it strange that "black" (the absence of light) is prioritized by some in a display which is based on "white" (visible light). For now I am unimpressed so will disagree. I also find the HDR demos rather fake and artificial but of course YMMV. I think one should not close their minds to the possibility that HDR is not that great instead of pushing it based on personal preference. Just like I understand some like HDR it would be open minded to understand some do not like HDR.

 

[superczar]

I might revisit it later but the demos I have seen left me cold and I saw quite a few displays in the showroom, none in darkness but I don't like watching in the dark, nor do I care for black levels, I prefer brightness and good colors. I find it strange that "black" (the absence of light) is prioritized by some in a display which is based on "white" (visible light). For now I am unimpressed so will disagree. I also find the HDR demos rather fake and artificial but of course YMMV. I think one should not close their minds to the possibility that HDR is not that great instead of pushing it based on personal preference. Just like I understand some like HDR it would be open minded to understand some do not like HDR.

No one is pushing for it. I get that you don’t care for HDR and that’s absolutely fine being your personal preference.

Nonetheless, this is an enthusiast focused forum - and that’s the reason why I chose the 64kbps mp3 vs lossless analogy.
You will find enough and more examples of raging debate threads on 256AAC vs FLAC vs WAV file differences, and thats understandable as even the most ardent pure wav fans would also admit that the differences are subtle at best …

But no one here (or any AV enthusiast forum) would claim that 64kbps mp3 is the same as lossless and that the latter is a gimmick in contrast to the former

And that’s why I found your observation (HDR is a gimmick) rather unusual and hence my comment

BTW you are right in that the black vs white preference is subjective - which is why you would again see huge debates between OLED vs QLED.. But both side would concur that the wider the gap between the two, the better (i.e. higher dynamic range) - which is what HDR exactly is)

however, Attempting to replicate a wide dynamic range on a display that has a max delta of 0 (or 0.1 for that matter) on dark to 250 (or 400) nits for light would actually cause a washed out result with HDR- which is why HDR can look very underwhelming/worse than SDR on older panels / current low grade panels.
Push that delta to 800 or 1000 and thats when you start seeing the massive benefits it brings over SDR

 

[k-pad]

1. With things like these, it is traditionally display manufacturers who get the ball rolling, which in this case, they already have. 8K TVs are available across the world, and at around the same price points 4K used to cost at a similar stage in its evolution.

2. The second step towards proliferation is content: As long as there is not enough 8K content to watch, even a decent price drop will not sell the above mentioned 8K TVs in good volume.

3. So, as things stand, I'd say five-eight years from now, thanks to the pandemic slowing everything down.

4. But the biggest x-factor is the streaming industry and internet speeds. If they make the next leap, (say Netflix, Amazon, Disney and others start making more 8K content than the studio industry combined in the next year), then along with the breakthroughs in internet speeds, the entire timeline could collapse, making it mainstream in the next three years.
(Studios on the other hand have already started using 8K cameras for better 4K content.)

So far so good. Now, let's see other aspects.

5. A big spanner, which incidentally has nothing to do with tech, is living spaces, which am sure will stagnate at around what it is now, or worse, shrink further.
The minimum distance one can watch 4K in 65" display without noticing pixilation is about 4".
Now, 8K, I assume a safe/minimum distance for the same 65" will be beyond 6".
That is calling for a major bump in real estate for 8K.
(Most people like watching from father away; So I guess, 85" will be the ceiling for most 8K TVs, across the world.)

Also consider a TV is mostly a living room thing.
All over the world, enthusiasts with dedicated spaces and budgets still swear by projectors. There, 4K projectors are just becoming a thing. Most fast moving products are true 1080, that are 4K capable, with pixel shifting, etc.

6. So, manufacturers will wait and see how much 8K catches on, and if it doesn't, might pivot towards other stuff like HDR, Dolby, etc now, and AR, VR in the near future...

Only thing that is clear as of now is that home entertainment is all primed for a breakthrough with streaming services and improving internet speeds...

 

[catalyst360]

I might revisit it later but the demos I have seen left me cold and I saw quite a few displays in the showroom, none in darkness but I don't like watching in the dark, nor do I care for black levels, I prefer brightness and good colors. I find it strange that "black" (the absence of light) is prioritized by some in a display which is based on "white" (visible light). For now I am unimpressed so will disagree. I also find the HDR demos rather fake and artificial but of course YMMV. I think one should not close their minds to the possibility that HDR is not that great instead of pushing it based on personal preference. Just like I understand some like HDR it would be open minded to understand some do not like HDR.

Wait, so your whole argument that HDR is a gimmick is based on your experience with demo displays on showrooms?

It makes sense now. If you had mentioned it in your previous posts, no one would have took the bait and wasted time on that back and forth.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But context matters.

 

[Tuhin Lavania]

Wait, so your whole argument that HDR is a gimmick is based on your experience with demo displays on showrooms?

It makes sense now. If you had mentioned it in your previous posts, no one would have took the bait and wasted time on that back and forth.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But context matters.

Hahaha he knows nothing about video. Just ignore.
Somewhere he also said he measured video in db lmao

 

[ssf]

I have a 65" HDR TV. I sit around 10 feet away as that is the best position for my HT Setup. At 6 to 10 feet, the difference between 1080P and 4K for me is not very noticeable. It will be even less so from 4K to 8K. So, for me right now, 8K is not in my list. If I upgrade (in my dreams) to a 100" screen, then maybe.

HDR on the other hand is very noticeable. The first step in getting all the benefits of modern TVs are properly calibrating it. Showrooms keep the picture quality in the loudest possible setting and its not the right place to judge TVs. How would HDR help in my layman's opinion. It could make a lamp glow as bright as any bright lamp in real life could. If it makes the lamp as bright as the sun, then the plot is lost. This is where proper calibration comes in.

Dark/black levels are also very important. My TV does not have OLED blacks and this can be distracting in some scenes. The same scene on an OLED is like the picture has been washed and cleaned and your focus is on where the director intended it to be and not on the distracting gray-blacks which where meant to be black.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

No one is pushing for it. I get that you don’t care for HDR and that’s absolutely fine being your personal preference.

Nonetheless, this is an enthusiast focused forum - and that’s the reason why I chose the 64kbps mp3 vs lossless analogy.
You will find enough and more examples of raging debate threads on 256AAC vs FLAC vs WAV file differences, and thats understandable as even the most ardent pure wav fans would also admit that the differences are subtle at best …

But no one here (or any AV enthusiast forum) would claim that 64kbps mp3 is the same as lossless and that the latter is a gimmick in contrast to the former

And that’s why I found your observation (HDR is a gimmick) rather unusual and hence my comment

BTW you are right in that the black vs white preference is subjective - which is why you would again see huge debates between OLED vs QLED.. But both side would concur that the wider the gap between the two, the better (i.e. higher dynamic range) - which is what HDR exactly is)

however, Attempting to replicate a wide dynamic range on a display that has a max delta of 0 (or 0.1 for that matter) on dark to 250 (or 400) nits for light would actually cause a washed out result with HDR- which is why HDR can look very underwhelming/worse than SDR on older panels / current low grade panels.
Push that delta to 800 or 1000 and thats when you start seeing the massive benefits it brings over SDR

You may have misunderstood, I say it is a gimmick because there is a difference, the difference as I said being fake. It appears unnatural to me and overdone. I would describe it more as an assault on the senses rather than comfortable and pleasurable viewing. If I perceived no difference I would have said there was no difference. I think some people are enamored by this same intensity and unnaturalness which turns me away from HDR.

The image was not washed out at the showroom. There were a bunch of TVs there, I actually went there with the express purpose of looking at large screen TVs and OLEDs to see what I'd prefer. While I do not remember all the TVs there I made sure to spend some time (with the remote of course) with the 65" C9 and it was terrible. I took my own content that I was familiar with as well as various loops they had available at the showroom.

Wait, so your whole argument that HDR is a gimmick is based on your experience with demo displays on showrooms?

It makes sense now. If you had mentioned it in your previous posts, no one would have took the bait and wasted time on that back and forth.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But context matters.

There was no bait from my side.

There is no argument (arguments have been created in the minds of people unable to accept other views), they are (should be obvious enough) my views based on the sum total of my experiences with HDR, this includes the showrooms,my home and other's homes where I have expressly seen the differences in a focused setting.

 

[Nitin K]

HDR is certainly no gimmick. It's an advancement in technology to see a wider range of colours which was not possible before. The same technology has been included in still Cameras too. In a proper device which has been geared for HDR viewing, a layman will definitely notice the detail between a HDR and non HDR image.
Now preferences are personal. If somone does not like it, it's perfectly fine. But it is here to stay and improve picture quality.
I am not a fan of 3D format, but I certainly cannot call it crap as there are others who like it and it works for them.

 

[MediaEnthusiast]

Neither 4K nor HDR is a gimmick. Maybe if we're comparing a 1080p Bluray with a bit-rate starved 4K streaming version at a certain distance?

As for 8K content, I expect "good" upscaling to make up for that. With AV1 & VVC slowly becoming mainstream, this would further complement upscaling. I wonder if native 8K would even be better than upscaled 4K in the first place since we can only sit so close & we'd be at a point of diminishing returns. So if 8K isn't a gimmick, there's still some benefit to 8K TVs until we have native 8K content.

 

[square_wave]

To be honest, when 4k was the next big thing, I remember people saying that 1080p was good enough and we can't tell the difference between 4k and 1080p.

That might have had some truth when the average display size was a lot smaller than it is now.

I can easily tell apart 4k and 1080p on my 65 inch screen and TV screens are only getting bigger.

8k will eventually be the norm and we would be able to tell the difference between 4k and native 8k content. It just depends on the screen size and viewing distance.

I agree. The difference will become apparent and interesting in very large screens. It will become popular among enthusiasts. There is no point in pursuing this in screens that are 65 inches and lower.

 

[sand87ch]

I don't know why people are glossing over the fact that these "features" are only really there to sell TVs. After 1080p there has not been anything particularly revolutionary in the video space, that includes 4K,8K and HDR. People are missing the point on how most content is consumed these days which is OTT and youtube, often on small mobile devices. The improvements are marginal at best, non existent (in practical use) at worst. The minority who buys into this 4K HDR garbage will continue to spend money and drive the niche market while most people could not care less as long as they are able to watch content quickly,easily and cheaply on either their small mobile device or TV that is 65" or smaller.

Edit : Spelling.

the problem is once 8k becomes the norm companies will either stop or totally limit 4k tvs.
just look at the sony lineup.The 1080p options are very very slim.everything from 43 upwards is 4k save one or two models and fratures that used to differentiate btw low and high end 1080p models...however cosmetic they may be,have been moved out to 4k with 1080p models intentionally made to not look that good to a buyer.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

the problem is once 8k becomes the norm companies will either stop or totally limit 4k tvs.
just look at the sony lineup.The 1080p options are very very slim.everything from 43 upwards is 4k save one or two models and fratures that used to differentiate btw low and high end 1080p models...however cosmetic they may be,have been moved out to 4k with 1080p models intentionally made to not look that good to a buyer.

Oh I don't disagree with your general sentiment. It's like I said companies are only trying to make money rather than improve the experience so they keep putting out new things to drive the market, if they did not people might be content to sit on their existing TVs for years. They call it advancement of technology but it's really just marketing/consumerist society, of course you need to actually provide something so the customers actually believe they are getting something for their money so they do so. I don't doubt at all that eventually 8K will be mainstream and then 4K will be looked down upon like 1080p. Before the 1080p explosion on TVs there was not that much demand for TVs nor did people have as much extra funds to spend, so it's really all part of their strategy to drive the consumerist market.

By the way whats fratures? Did you mean features by chance?

Just a note - You can use your 4K TV at 1080p as well.