Consumers cannot tell difference 8k vs. 4k (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

For many people, home viewing will be better than what they see at their local multiplex. If you’ve got a 4K TV with Dolby Vision and a movie that also has Dolby Vision, the metadata in the movie file will interact with the player to deliver a precisely correct playback of the movie.

On the other hand, a lot of theaters are using ten year old 2K projectors that weren’t top of the line to begin with. Those projectors were financed in part by movie studios who collectively agreed to chip in on digital projectors to help in the transition from film to digital. That money isn’t there anymore; studios aren’t helping to pay for upgrades. Theaters are already operating on minuscule margins. There may be money to upgrade one auditorium to Dolby Cinema or IMAX but there is rarely the budget for new 4K state of the art machines for each room.

So on one hand, the rate of innovation moves faster at home. On the other hand, the people making the movies know what most theaters are stuck with, so they’re not necessarily going crazy to produce higher resolution masters that most of the audience will never see in that quality.

 

[jcroy]

I think it’s actually much less than that when it comes to practical use as opposed to theoretical capabilities.

It’s been estimated that via the analog workflow of camera negative to interpositive to internegative to release print, that while the negative could have anywhere from 2K-4K worth of information on it depending on film stock and lenses, the actual release prints that audiences watch are much closer to 720p.

Hmmm .... interesting.

This might explain why many movies I watched back in the day at multiplex theaters, had so much film grain and visible fuzziness in dark scenes. In contrast when I later saw these same movies on tv (ntsc), that "fuzziness" wasn't really noticable.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

NTSC has a much more limited range of color, contrast and resolution than a 35mm release print, which means that it hides a lot of flaws.

This is something people like Robert Harris have spoken about in reference to why a movie might look great on DVD but isn’t on Blu-ray. It’s a lot easier to paper over flaws for standard definition.

 

[Carl David]

It would be interesting to have some scientists comment on this that specialise in this field in relation to human eyesight etc.

Going by opinions I have seen over the years it does appear 8k resolution is pure overkill.

We all know how consumerism works. Businesses can't sell the same product in perpetuity.

They have to continuously "innovate" to make us part with our cash.

Not sure whether 8k will take off. I think it might do okay if the price comes down over time. Difficult to tell.

I am personally looking to buy a TV as I have not had one for over 6 years (long story).

However, 8k is not on my list of potential TVs to buy.
In fact, I would personally buy a 1080p HD TV if one was available new especially if a manufacturer crammed as much technology as they could into it.

My reasoning for that is it would probably be a minimal difference in "quality" as opposed to 4k and probably less than half the price.

I have only built up a collection of Blu Ray and DVD so not even 4k is a necessity.

I do plan on purchasing UHD films in the near future so I don't mind buying a 4k TV and so will take the plunge.

I don't know what TV manufacturers are going to do to entice customers to buy their future models. I personally think many companies will stop selling/making them and pull out of certain markets as some have already done.

 

[John Dirk]

In fact, I would personally buy a 1080p HD TV if one was available new especially if a manufacturer crammed as much technology as they could into it.

Yep, that's the problem. 1080P is probably dead at this point so I doubt you'll find new tech in there. There's already faux K, [pixel shifting] true 4K in the Sony world, etc and now 8K is being discussed. My eyes tell me not to worry about any of it.

 

[DaveF]

Interesting story from TechHive:

https://www.techhive.com/article/35...rs-cannot-tell-the-difference.html#tk.rss_all

Thanks for sharing. I really enjoyed reading that article. Pretty good description of the double blind test and results.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

HDR is a major factor in the perceived improvement of 4K over 1080p, far more than the additional pixel count.

The problem with 8K isn't just that any improvement is imperceptible on a home TV screen. It's that 8K content requires a ton of storage space for no worthwhile benefit.

 

[Edwin-S]

I want to see which person here will be one of the first ones to buy an 8K set after going on about how useless 8K is.

 

[JohnRice]

In fact, I would personally buy a 1080p HD TV if one was available new especially if a manufacturer crammed as much technology as they could into it.

My reasoning for that is it would probably be a minimal difference in "quality" as opposed to 4k and probably less than half the price.

Actually it wouldn't, due to the economy of volume. Unless you're getting 32" or smaller TV, they're all 4K, which makes 4K TVs cheaper than a 1080 model that wouldn't sell much. The 43" TCL 5 Series I got last year cost half as much as the bottom of the line Samsung 40" LED I got seven years ago. I realize that's not quite apples to apples.

 

[jcroy]

I want to see which person here will be one of the first ones to buy an 8K set after going on about how useless 8K is.

Me !!!

 

[jcroy]

It's that 8K content requires a ton of storage space for no worthwhile benefit.

This will not be an issue when hard drive (or solid state drive) capacity goes up and there is pent-up demand for it.


(From an historical perspective).

Back in the day circa late-1990s -> early-2000s, I also use to think analogously that "copying dvds requires a ton of storage space for no worthwhile benefit". In those days, my largest hard drive was around 500 gigabytes.

Fast forward to the current day or even a decade ago, multi-terabytes sized hard drives were easily available that I could dump tons of dvd rips onto my hard drive. (My then-newly purchased low-end desktop computer from 2009/2010, already had a 1 terabyte sized hard drive straight out of the box).

 

[DaveF]

Actually it wouldn't, due to the economy of volume. Unless you're getting 32" or smaller TV, they're all 4K, which makes 4K TVs cheaper than a 1080 model that wouldn't sell much. The 43" TCL 5 Series I got last year cost half as much as the bottom of the line Samsung 40" LED I got seven years ago. I realize that's not quite apples to apples.

This.

A new 4k smart tv 50” is $300. A new HD 50” is $200.

Unless you just need absolute rock-bottom price, there’s no point in not buying 4k now.

 

[John Dirk]

I want to see which person here will be one of the first ones to buy an 8K set after going on about how useless 8K is.

The thing is, at some point we may not be offered much of a choice. When that time comes I'm fine with it as long as it doesn't require ancillary upgrades throughout my system.

 

[DaveF]

I'm just now getting to 4K, so I'm in no rush for 8k. As @John Dirk says, we'll eventually get 8k pixel resolution as a matter of course, just as we're getting 4k at no premium (and even a discount thanks to a decade's improvement in manufacturing of LCD displays).

I also expect that by the time 8K is de rigeur, direct view displays at 120"+ will have displaced projectors for the home enthusiast.

 

[TonyD]

It’s very unlikely I’ll ever have a 8K tv.
The next tv I get will need to Last a long time.

 

[John Dirk]

Interesting story from TechHive:

https://www.techhive.com/article/35...rs-cannot-tell-the-difference.html#tk.rss_all

Nice read. I wish similar testing had been done with true vs faux K.

 

[JediFonger]

avg joe cant tell between 480 vs 720p... let alone anything higher

 

[Steve!M]

It’s not going to hurt anything to have the extra pixels; it’s just not going to do anything extra special either.

I wouldn't say that. It hurts by having all those extra pixels in data; data that fills up drives faster, that clogs the internet, that requires more processing power, etc. It's bad enough that more and more people are streaming every damn thing instead of buying/renting discs or watching via broadcast/cable/satellite, but just wait until more sheep are buying 8k displays and streaming 8k content. Goodbye, bandwidth.

 

[JediFonger]

would be great to see a double blind test if they still do those.

but my bet is the avg joe dont care.

I wouldn't say that. It hurts by having all those extra pixels in data; data that fills up drives faster, that clogs the internet, that requires more processing power, etc. It's bad enough that more and more people are streaming every damn thing instead of buying/renting discs or watching via broadcast/cable/satellite, but just wait until more sheep are buying 8k displays and streaming 8k content. Goodbye, bandwidth.

 

[CC95]

Yes, what Josh said.

Before digital projection overtook commercial theaters, I believe I read that the apparent resolution of 35mm film was at something like 6K to 8K. (Correct me if I am wrong.)

Yes. 35mm film resolves at 4K- 6K.
(So, 4k Was a step backward in theaters - but a step forward in home theater).
8K in home theater environment would require a 200 inch TV to see any benefit.
The real revolution is HDR anyway, not the resolution bumps.