8K how?

Jamauk

Jamauk

Jamauk

Associate
Joined
16 Mar 2004
Posts
1,917
Location
Oxford
I have been helping my dad find a new TV as his current TV is showing horizontal lines that are gradually getting more noticeable. It came from Argos and they have agreed an exchange as it is only 23 months old.

It will obviously be 4K. Whilst there is no interest in going for 8K I have seen a lot of 8K TV's gradually being advertised.

The questions I have though:
  • Is there actually any 8K content?
  • What sort of HDMI cable is needed?
  • What are the length limitations of the cable?
 
img said:
Its going to just upscale. You can use hdmi 2.1 and find some stuff on youtube.
Click to expand...
So it really is pointless
VincentHanna said:
No

Believe it or not HDMI 2.0 will do 8k at 30fps with 4:2:0, but HDMI 2.1 will be preferable

About 5-10 metres for standard cables.
Click to expand...
That's unexpected, I remember there was a rush to get the latest HDMI cables when 4K first started to become a mainstream standard, possibly though because people had previously just gone with the cheapest, most basic HDMI lead they could get just because it had a HDMI connector on the end.
hornetstinger said:
8k is non existant.

I bet though paid no attention to the sound system right? ;)
Click to expand...
As per my comments below, the only way I can see 8K becoming popular is so that people can brag about their new 8K TV, even if there is no content. Sound systems, they seem to be irrelevant for a lot of people where a simple, cheap sound bar will suffice. I don't understand why people will spend thousands on a TV and then get the cheapest sound bar they can find just so they can tell people that they have surround sound.

I have had people ask me what hi-fi I have and they look confused when I say about Linn, Tag McLaren and running active crossovers - "err, what's a crossover" is usually the response I get, then they have never heard of Linn or Tag.

andy_mk3 said:
I can't say 8K ever being mainstream. It's just pointless for near enough every use case outside of professional/cinema. The uptake on 4k has been so slow and we're still miles off it being the normal format.
Click to expand...
The thought I had with it was it would only become a thing for people to brag about - I have heard in the past people in work say about how they spent part of their bonus on a 4K TV (the rest on a holiday). I remember it being the next big thing when people went HD 720p, 1080i/p. Now not everyone seems to know why it is called 4K.
 
andy_mk3 said:
I can't say 8K ever being mainstream. It's just pointless for near enough every use case outside of professional/cinema. The uptake on 4k has been so slow and we're still miles off it being the normal format.
Click to expand...
I wonder at what resolution things really do become pointless? For example 1080p to 4k does seem like a good choice, but is 4k pointless in a way? I'm sure it will be some really obscure number like 3.7565k if under 4k or some equally obscure number above 4k, where things really do become pointless, and it would be brilliant to finds the exact number at which things do get pointless.
 
willhub said:
I'm sure it will be some really obscure number like 3.7565k if under 4k or some equally obscure number above 4k
Click to expand...

4K outside of the original DCI 4K in cinemas, isn't even 4K anyway lol :p Just some annoying marketing genius (****) thought it was a good idea to call it that for consumer format instead of just UHD.
 
Last edited:
willhub said:
I wonder at what resolution things really do become pointless? For example 1080p to 4k does seem like a good choice, but is 4k pointless in a way? I'm sure it will be some really obscure number like 3.7565k if under 4k or some equally obscure number above 4k, where things really do become pointless, and it would be brilliant to finds the exact number at which things do get pointless.
Click to expand...
It will vary greatly as it depends on screen size and view distance.
 
8k would be useful in cinemas but at home it's pointless and the only 8k content is a few videos on YouTube
 
Last edited:
Human vision is far more responsive to contrast and colour level than resolution. If the industry was really interested in quality and a genuinely perceivable improvement then it would focus on making all displays true 10-bit as a minimum and with enough light power to do HDR proper justice.

As it is though, it's far easier to sell a bigger number; 1080p, '4K', 8K. Forget the quality. Look at the width.
 
Last edited:
there is not even enough 4K material yet, I am still waiting for Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien resurrection to be released on 4K and many other titles.

4K has not taken off as well as I would have hoped and I suspect 8K is dead on arrival.
 
dave28 said:
there is not even enough 4K material yet, I am still waiting for Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien resurrection to be released on 4K and many other titles.

4K has not taken off as well as I would have hoped and I suspect 8K is dead on arrival.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean, for me personally, I watch tons of movies on Apple TV, netflix, watch some youtube videos and play lots of games and about 80% of these content is in 4k. So when you say there isn't enough 4k I don't really understand.

It sounds like you're expecting someone to remaster every movie ever made in 4k, that's a bit unrealistic. It also sounds like you might be expecting these 4k remasters to be released on bluray, and here is the problem, bluray and all disc based media is just about dead whether you accept it now or in the future, its dying a slow death
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
Not sure what you mean, for me personally, I watch tons of movies on Apple TV, netflix, watch some youtube videos and play lots of games and about 80% of these content is in 4k. So when you say there isn't enough 4k I don't really understand.

It sounds like you're expecting someone to remaster every movie ever made in 4k, that's a bit unrealistic. It also sounds like you might be expecting these 4k remasters to be released on bluray, and here is the problem, bluray and all disc based media is just about dead whether you accept it now or in the future, its dying a slow death
Click to expand...

yes i want the disks to have the full megabits per second possible, maybe the 4K streaming has improved but I thought it was watered down 4K to make it easier to work for most internet connections
 
Last edited:
lucid said:
Human vision is far more responsive to contrast and colour level than resolution. If the industry was really interested in quality and a genuinely perceivable improvement then it would focus on making all displays true 10-bit as a minimum and with enough light power to do HDR proper justice.

As it is though, it's far easier to sell a bigger number; 1080p, '4K', 8K. Forget the quality. Look at the width.
Click to expand...
Dynamic HDR on an OLED from a good 4K disc is excellent, probably more noticeable than the move from 1080p to 4K resolution.
 
Grim5 said:
It also sounds like you might be expecting these 4k remasters to be released on bluray, and here is the problem, bluray and all disc based media is just about dead whether you accept it now or in the future, its dying a slow death
Click to expand...
I follow the physical media side quite closely and there is more and more content coming out. It will never be mainstream again as the masses are fine with DVD quality but for anyone that cares it's the best option. Even Disney are releasing more of their content on disc, they realise it's better to have multiple income streams and are losing a lot of money on streaming which is saturated with competition now. More people are realising the limitations and costs to streaming too, people like owning stuff. It's definitely had a dip and as a result there are lots of bargains to be had in the used market but I see more interest over time. More choice is always better and the 4K streams are often quite poor despite a full fibre connection, they are just saving bandwidth with compression, very evident in banding and the sound quality.
 
Troezar said:
I follow the physical media side quite closely and there is more and more content coming out. It will never be mainstream again as the masses are fine with DVD quality but for anyone that cares it's the best option. Even Disney are releasing more of their content on disc, they realise it's better to have multiple income streams and are losing a lot of money on streaming which is saturated with competition now. More people are realising the limitations and costs to streaming too, people like owning stuff. It's definitely had a dip and as a result there are lots of bargains to be had in the used market but I see more interest over time. More choice is always better and the 4K streams are often quite poor despite a full fibre connection, they are just saving bandwidth with compression, very evident in banding and the sound quality.
Click to expand...
This is what I find and why I prefer physical media. Sound quality is noticeably more compressed and of a lower quality with streaming.
 
Jamauk said:
This is what I find and why I prefer physical media. Sound quality is noticeably more compressed and of a lower quality with streaming.
Click to expand...
Yes I think it's ok for lower quality speakers. I really only noticed once I went to an AVR and decent speakers. Apparently a lot of the mixes for streaming are done with TV speakers in mind too as that's what most consumers listen to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom