8K not the future?
- Thread starter Villan
- Start date
I designed the data centre network for one of the largest streaming platforms at the time, around 12 years ago and back then, one problem was the amount of bandwidth required to stream all of the different formats (sd, hd, 1080, iphone, TV, ipad etc), especially from the CDN perspective.
The bitrate for 8k is so much more that nobody really wants to handle it at scale, everybody streaming native 8k content would absolutely smash CDN and infrastructure bandwidth, for relatively little gain when it's difficult to tell the difference between 4k/8k.
Then there's the production side, filming it, storing it - editing it all at 8k native is not trivial, it's hard and it's expensive - so nobody really wants to do it.
The bitrate for 8k is so much more that nobody really wants to handle it at scale, everybody streaming native 8k content would absolutely smash CDN and infrastructure bandwidth, for relatively little gain when it's difficult to tell the difference between 4k/8k.
Then there's the production side, filming it, storing it - editing it all at 8k native is not trivial, it's hard and it's expensive - so nobody really wants to do it.
Something which always gets missed on this subject is the difference between a true 30, 60, etc. FPS experience and reality when it comes to things like frame pacing, pixel response and in interactive situations latency, etc. and the need for higher rates of FPS and/or Hz to reproduce a consistent experience.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,532
I jumped on the bandwagon a few years ago, but oled isn't without it's issues. 1 big one is that since dark is off unlike grey on an LCD, some videos games become very different to play in a bright room (or even during the day). Cost is another big one, I went 65, but really the 77 would have been a better size due to distance (or 83, but not sure I could have swung that one by the mrs
). The 77 was double the cost of my 65 so that put me off. I didn't think it was that much more for bigger LCDs, but I could be wrong.
Last edited:
Not surprised. I've got a 85" tv in my living room and sit just over 2 metres away and can see the difference between 1080p and 4k, but it's not a complete night and day difference either. 1080p is watchable. The jump to 8k is prob not noticeable unless you go noticeably bigger which is not realistic.
Your number 1 big issue is easily fixed by setting up a separate profile for brighter environments.I jumped on the bandwagon a few years ago, but oled isn't without it's issues. 1 big one is that since dark is off unlike grey on an LCD, some videos games become very different to play in a bright room (or even during the day). Cost is another big one, I went 65, but really the 77 would have been a better size due to distance (or 83, but not sure I could have swung that one by the mrs
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 8,565
- Location
- Essex
Ultimately it comes down to content not being made in 8K. The cost for producing content in 8K is insane and any rendering or processing takes well over twice as long as 4K because you hit other bottlenecks along the way such as storage, network, CPU, GPU speed etc. The jump from HD to 4K was tough enough
I'm only on a 65" OLED and I find it's only really noticeable if looking out for it (if sources are the same), so imagine it would be more noticeable on an 85". I do find that a 1080p Blu-ray looks and sounds better than 4k streamed on NetFlix etc though.
Ultimately it comes down to content not being made in 8K. The cost for producing content in 8K is insane and any rendering or processing takes well over twice as long as 4K because you hit other bottlenecks along the way such as storage, network, CPU, GPU speed etc. The jump from HD to 4K was tough enough
All things being equivalent, 8k requires 4x more data than 4k. And 16x more than bog-standard HD.
The current status of 8K movies
Warner has now scanned 35-40 titles in 8K or higher
www.flatpanelshd.com