3D What’s Better, 8K 2D or 4K 3D? (1 Viewer)

[RolandL]

It's on another site. Login and vote. Right now it's about 70% for 4K 3D and 30% for 8K 2D.

 

[Worth]

Kind of a moot point, since for all practical purposes, neither of those two things exist.

 

[PMF]

Kind of a moot point, since for all practical purposes, neither of those two things exist.

No harm in voting, though.

 

[Robert Harris]

8k exists, but there seems to be no rational reason for it to do so.

I’m unable to rationalize a commercial purpose.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Theme park projection maybe?

 

[Brian Kidd]

Yeah, I can only imagine it being really useful for motion simulators and, perhaps as a true replacement for film-based IMAX. With theme parks like Disney and Universal investing heavily in screen-based attractions, 8K with a high frame-rate could be useful.

8K in home televisions just seems like snake oil.

 

[jcroy]

Would 8K (or higher) make any difference in watching something like soccer or tennis as a live broadcast (or stream) ?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think the issue is that you'd need the bandwidth to get all of that transmitted from source to final destination, and the only way to do that right now is by severely compressing the image - so I'm thinking that a 4K stream or broadcast with lower compression would end up looking better than an 8K stream with higher compression.

I also think screen size and seating distance is a factor. For a 50" television set that you sit halfway across the room from, I don't think it would make a difference.

On the other hand, for a specially designed video wall at a sports bar or something like that, maybe.

But on the flip side, 2K DCPs are frequently used by IMAX for projection on the world's largest screens. So if you can get away with 2K for a 100 foot screen, is it really necessary to have 8K for a 50 inch screen? I would think not.

 

[Robert Harris]

Would 8K (or higher) make any difference in watching something like soccer or tennis as a live broadcast (or stream) ?

Huge difference. One can smell the sweat

 

[Gary Seven]

8k exists, but there seems to be no rational reason for it to do so.

I’m unable to rationalize a commercial purpose.

I would think 8k more apropos to medical applications... monitors and such, where one needs access to the finest detail in imaging. Overkill for anything else... at least for the time being.

 

[Interdimensional]

The correct answer is 'it depends'. Depends on the needs of the viewer, the vision of the viewer, the quality of the content, the purpose required.

I am short-sighted. If there's even the slightest smudge on my glasses, I'm probably not going to get the full benefit of 8k. Eventually everyone's vision declines, so by the time 8k is as mainstream and ubiquitous as HD, it may not make a huge difference for many of us. For me 3D is the significantly higher priority.

Of course there are also people with otherwise perfect vision who may have stereoblindness, either due to misalignment or loss of sight in one eye. 8k will offer them more than any form of 3D.

I'm very much inclined to believe that going beyond 4k will be a case of diminishing returns.

I consider 3D functionality an absolutely vital function on any TV I will buy. It may not be something that is used on a regular basis, but it's a function that needs to be reinstated. I presume 8k will be nice to have, but not something I'd be inclined to pay a premium for.

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

It's on another site. Login and vote. Right now it's about 70% for 4K 3D and 30% for 8K 2D.

View attachment 46229

The link address to the poll is no longer active?

 

[Dave H]

The industry always seems so damn desperate to sell something new. I fully suspect we'll be hearing about 16K in a few years, and a new HDMI standard, of course.

 

[sleroi]

You couldnt have 4k 3d without an 8k display, correct? Full 4k in each eye. So you shouldn't have to choose, just have to convince manufacturers to invest in 3d technology again. Good luck.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some 3d. But now that ive got a 4k 3d display I'm more interested in saving up to improve the audio side of things. Ill never say never, but I'm pretty sure 4k is my stopping point. Full hd in each eye on my display looks pretty darn good.

 

[RJ992]

Just bring 3D back to the 4k sets. Most of us will be happy with that.

 

[RolandL]

The link address to the poll is no longer active?

You might have to have an account with avsforum.com to access the link

 

[Worth]

...I'm very much inclined to believe that going beyond 4k will be a case of diminishing returns.

I think anything beyond 720p is a case of diminishing returns. I'd rather have a flawless 720p picture, particularly from cable, than an over-compressed image of any number with "k" next to it.

 

[DP 70]

I vote for 3 panel Cinerama better than any of them

 

[Vincent_P]

I had to get closer than 42-inches to my 65" 4K OLED before I could kind of, sort of see the pixel structure, and even then only if I was really looking for it in a bright part of the image. At 42" away, the field of view on said set was akin to enormous the Lincoln Square IMAX theater in New York City.

So yeah, I really don't see how 8K can bring anything to home viewing. For theatrical-projection on a true IMAX-size screen? Sure, I could go for that.

Vincent

 

[rsmithjr]

Until the evening of September 30, 1952, no one thought Cinerama had any value. Numerous studio people had already seen it and were skeptical.

Once it was seen, it was a sensation, and it changed the public expectations completely and all studios tried to copy its effect.

It is too early to tell about 8K.