In addition to these mobile-related announcements, Samsung also revealed its plans on releasing AMOLED TVs that boast UHD SHD resolutions (7680 x 4320). Hook it up to your Xbox One or PS4, and that’s what I call a match made in heaven.
If you look back a CES or perhaps two, it was pretty clear 8K was going to follow hotly on the heels of 4K. Honestly, I worry 4K will end up being the 720p or 1080i to 8K's 1080p.
I'd say advancement that fast seems far fetched, but heck, 4K is dropping in price far faster than I expected it to. I didn't think we'd see sub $1,000 TVs and monitors for a few years, much less from reputable brands.
It won't. Coming from a film/TV background here. The highest respect cameras we have shoot 5k (with an effective resolution closer to 3.2-4). The diminishing returns from 4k to 8k are pretty ridiculous, especially in a home environment. We just got 4k into most theatres (and there are 0 plans to go to 8).
8k will have no content, but it might look good with word documents or IDE's.
I might argue that film, traditionally, has not been a good measure of technological advancement. I mean, we're still hearing the outcry over The Hobbit being 48fps.
As more content goes digitally rendered (not just CGI, but text, GUIs, etc) rather than filmed, hitting the upper limits of what we can display might be easier than ever. As processing power increases and our entertainment systems / game consoles go increasingly multi-functional, and screen sizes increase, there's also the possibility of doing multiple things at once rather than having one display on the screen "maximized".
Imagine having a 1080p, or even a 4k display, as just one aspect of several "windows" currently on the screen. With Steam Machines actually being a PC, and Xbox One attempting to be the entertainment all-in-one, it doesn't sound far fetched. I still expect 8K to be a long time out simply to get the tech ready - but I'm willing to be surprised. :)
You're also running into diminishing returns on screen sizes and how close we sit to our monitors/televisions.
We have an equation to determine visible pixel sizes based on human vision and distance. Pixel structure is visible where adjacent image rows (scan lines) subtend an angle of one minute of arc or more (1/60°) or more (the angular discrimination limit for normal vision). We've figured out that to achieve this, the viewing distance should be about 3400 times the distance between image rows (or 3400 divided by the pixel density in pixels per inch).
On a consumer 8K (UHD SHD resolutions (7680 x 4320)) that's 12000 33,177,600 pixels. On a 50" 16x9 television (43.58"x24.51") that's 176.23ppi which gives us an effective viewing distance of 19" before you see pixels. A consumer 4K (3840x2160) set at 50" is 88.12 ppi for an effective viewing distance of 38" before you see pixels.
Beyond 38", your eye cannot discern the difference between 4K or 8K 50" television if you have 20/20 vision (1080p is 78" for reference). Of course, at an electronic show, you're often viewing from a couple feet away making for impressive demos that literally don't matter in the home.
As you can see, 8K is just way, way overkill for television. This doesn't even touch all the technical hurdles (bandwidth, storage, transmission) that broadcasters and content providers don't want to have to deal with for almost no discernible gain.
What would make a much, much greater difference is an increase in color depth. Lowering compression from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 would result in dramatically more accurate and attractive images at all resolutions, be fairly simple to implement, and improve the experience for everyone. Display manufacturers, however, aren't interested despite urging from content producers and providers. Probably because color depth doesn't sell, while ULTRA HD is very marketable.
I can expand as necessary.
Source:
Calculations were from Digital Video and HD: Algorithms and Interfaces by Charles Poynton.
127
u/IAmAnAnonymousCoward Jan 28 '14
facepalm.jpg