Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Dave Moritz, Sep 1, 2019.
I agree. HDR should only enhance what is already there, not change it.
I will keep my 4K setup. No need to go 8K. And all that bit.
I went 4K---- sorta. I bought a 65" TCL 4k set and a Samsung UHD player from Costco a year ago. Has it changed my life? No. Do UHD discs look amazing? I dunno, I guess. Blade Runner 2049 is probably the best disc-based content I've seen. 4K YouTube videos are pretty gorgeous.
But average TV viewing? Meh. Pixellation galore if anything moves. But that's down to Comcast. I don't blame TCL.
What I really want is an LG OLED set. If I can just get that, then I'll never need to upgrade again. And if I'm still alive when it dies, then (and only then) will I entertain 8K. Until then.... eff off. Imagine if Blu-ray was being introduced just as DVD was beginning to overtake VHS. That's 8K to me. Too soon.
Imagine if something 6 times better than DVD was being introduced just as DVD was beginning to overtake VHS??? And it's too soon??? LOL!!! O... K....
If something like this had happened back in the late 1990s or early 2000s, we might have never seen bluray. They might have sold 8K movies on encrypted hard drives.
It's too soon when there's absolutely nothing that can take advantage of it. I still don't see the point of a format with zero existing content, and next to nothing on the horizon.
You youngsters on this forum can get into 8K if you wish, and all the power to ya. I'm done. It's been a good run all these decades, but no new formats for me. Hell, I still have DVD's I haven't watched yet!
Exactly. It's completely unclear what 8K content would exist and be worthwhile.
Much less whether or not we'd be able to tell the difference between 4K and 8K on home TVs. Ginormous ballpark jumbotron? Sure. 75" TV at home? Doubtful!
When Blu-ray came along (and beat HD-DVD), I called it quits. "1080p is good enough for me," I said. "It can't get any better."
And now I've got a 4K set and about a dozen titles on UHD (with a few more must-haves coming up). This is it. 4K is where I stop for good. Hell, I'm gonna be 50 this year. To quote Roger Murtaugh in Lethal Weapon: "I'm gettin' too old for this shit."
Check on me in five years. I'll probably have a 12K set.
Let's not get our knickers in a ball just yet. 8K is a lark and will remain so for some time, if, indeed, it ever catches on. The days where such heralded advances in technology created a giddy buzz with the vast consumer base - even at electronic shows - has waned since about 2005 with numbers dropping off as a vague disinterest in 'what's new' has been replaced by the groan of avid collectors and casual buyers alike, who are happy to remain with the status quo, rather than keeping up with the Jones' family. And studies have shown that the human eye is incapable of perceiving differences between 8K and 4K content on screen sizes even as large as 100 inches.
So, the idea that 8K is the 'must have' absolute latest of the new and improved is a myth for most. Yes, I have no doubt such resolution will benefit projection in real theaters or those fortunate enough to have very deep pockets to invest in an 8K system in their homes. But for the rest of us, it's a slog to convince ourselves of the immediate merit and benefits when such stellar work is being done in 4K right now. And let us be even more clear. Hollywood will not be embracing 8K disc manufacturing any time soon - if at all. And why should they? They currently have 3 competing formats on the go - DVD, Blu-ray and 4K, to say nothing of digital codes for streaming and such.
Bottom line: the forced obsolescence that has dictated what people buy and when since the introduction of VHS is at an end. Consumers recognize the bait and switch of clever marketing and don't need a reason to upgrade. They haven't exactly been given a good one by the industry to do so either. So, what will likely happen is this. 8K sets will continue to make their debut but not evolve a market saturation as their 4K brethren, unless the industry is willing wholesale to immediately retire all 4K manufacturing in favor of the other, and, at a competitive price point that makes the upgrade attractive. Hollywood will remain in the current rut of running 3 disc formats concurrently when, by now, they ought to have given DVD the ole heave-ho and concentrated on Blu-ray and 4K - the only two formats that look absolutely solid on 4K TV's currently on the market.
Those who argue 'but what about my DVD collection?' - the answer is simple. For those unwilling to make the upgrade and enter the 21st century (they've had almost 13 years to do so. Some never will.) DVD's still play on 4K Blu-ray players. So, you don't have to ditch your DVD's if you're attached to them. But henceforth, the industry really should insist that whatever 'new' releases are on the horizon are only available in standard Blu and 4K and to hell with DVD. It's an obsolete format. It has been for 13 years. Time to say farewell and good riddance to it.
When DVD debuted, Laserdisc and VHS died virtually overnight and no one then was left saying, 'But what about my clamshell tapes and record-sized flipper discs?' The point is, the industry was firm. DVD was the wave of the future and the public had to accept it or lose out. The public, by large, embraced DVD and the switch from analog to digital went relatively smoothly with only a few nay-sayers left grumbling. There are always those. Folks dealt with it and moved on because what was being offered in their place had distinct advantages to what was being left behind. The point here is that 8K offers no discernible advantages to the general public they cannot already enjoy on their 4K sets. Talking double the pixel count is a moot point at this point in the game.
So, Blu-ray and 4K will remain and 8K - if it's lucky - will be considered the 3D of its generation. It came, it made a mess of the industry for a while, and died a quiet, quick death. Mark my words on this one, folks. 8K isn't the wave of the future. Just a minnow fighting a whale. And for now at least, my odds are on the whale.
Only 12K?!?! My, you're not very optimistic. 24K at least, with retinal implants to see 3D without the rechargeable glasses and a USB port permanently inserted into the side of your neck for instant downloadable access to Netflix, which, by then, will probably be obsolete. Oh bother. Makes me yearn for the days when I used to take my crankable gramophone to the beach! Charleston, anyone?
8K actually has 25 million more pixels than 4K -- four times as many -- but sure, "double" is fine.
Ha ha - sounds right!
It'll be interesting to see where 8K sets go - how quickly they become affordable to the average consumer.
I remain completely unsure what content they'll offer!
VHS dying was more gradual. Back in the early 2000s, the local Blockbuster stores still carried VHS copies of some catalog and then-newer movies.
In the case of laserdisc, I got the impression its death was somewhat more abrupt. The few local retailers which carried laserdiscs back in the 1990s, had huge bargain bins filled to the brim with laserdiscs by the time it was 1999 or y2k.
This sounds like the "tail wagging the dog", for lack of a better description.
I suspect it was the other way around. Once dvd had large enough sales volumes, the movie companies were able to pull the plug eventually on VHS. Back when dvd was first released in 1997, I got the impression it was not an immediate "slam dunk". The local retailers which carried dvds at the time, typically had inventory that just sat on the shelves for months at a time.
Imho, the first sign that dvd was a "success" was when dvd's css encryption system was completely cracked in late 1999, and the mpaa didn't do anything to change the encryption algorithm. They didn't even do a product recall. This was highly suggestive that dvd was big enough in late-1999 / early-y2k, that dong a mass product recall of dvd players + discs was not viable anymore.
all these talks abt how much resolutions had evolved along with technological development... isn't it ironic that no one dwells into how much Ks' we really get in a full aspect ratio which seems narrow on a standard sized 16：9 TV/monitor?
And it's already obsolete...
My intention isn’t so much to comment either way about the merits of 8K vs 4K, but I find it absolutely cringeworthy when someone says something like you can’t see the difference unless the screen size is X number of inches. From what distance??!! It’s viewing angle, not absolute size that would be relevant.
With a 100” screen at 3X the screen width, you’re not seeing the difference. But on a 65” screen at 1 screen width you may.
Absolute screen size is not the determining factor. It is the viewing angle. That being said, for the majority of folks who’s intention is watching their TV in a living room environment where the viewing angle is likely to be 2-3+ times the screen width I can’t imagine that 8K would make much of a difference over 4K. However, for small minority of those setting up a viewing environment where they are sitting around 1 screen width (or less), then it may be relevant.
I don't know if my experience is indicative of a wider trend, but going through television broadcasting college 5 years ago, none of the 50+ students had cable subscriptions, and I don't think any actually owned a TV. They consumed media on their phone or laptop.
Since then, I've acquired a 53" Sony Bravia from 2008 that handles 1080p and very happy with it. Frankly it feels like an indulgence to even own a TV. I don't use it that often as it's more convenient to watch YouTube on a laptop. I've grown accustomed to 10-20 minute videos, so find most TV shows and movies tedious to sit through, even on a big screen.
I have been enjoying (and able to sit through) 3D movies with a VR headset, so perhaps that's the future of home cinema? Throw the TV out, get a VR headset?
Sounds like most enthusiasts here think 4K is where things should plateau. For me as a general consumer it's 1080p. I'm not that interested in seeing actors nose hairs.
For VR porn though, give me all the pixels.