Discussion in 'Audio Visual' started by aokman, Oct 3, 2018.
Gotta justify that next generation of TVs somehow!
Impressive, but you blinded me with math
The same was said about 4K.
And look where we are now...
Next gen consoles will be 8K@120fps.
So yeah, 8K is a thing. Deal with it.
8k lol... next gen will still struggle to do 4k natively
Are you serious? How close do you plan to sit to your 65" TV?
And based purely on resolution that's pretty much still true. Wide colour and HDR are what's exciting about 4K TVs, not raw resolution.
Right, in the same way the "refresh" consoles are 4K@60fps.....maybe barely sometimes.
There are uses for 8K. In the VR/AR space it will be a big deal. For TV's and even cinema it's a waste of time.
its not implausible to envision dynamic resolution of the eye to exceed the static resolution by temporal functions. similar to how we have arrays of telescopes combining samples to remove noise from the atmosphere, the eye can take multiple samples due to head/eye movement and a stream of visuals. the brain is almost certainly not going to throw away that free information. its cheaper evolution-wise to use that video stream, than to evolve more cones.
so yeah, the limits of eye resolution is greyer and may extend much further than various people might purvey.
There is also a huge difference to being detectable, and it significantly contributing to your enjoyment. 8k content also seems forever away, and streaming is likely to limit how good and real that 8k is anyway. That said, if they made an 8k TV that was the same or better than a 4k tv for not much more money, you would probably get the 8k tv. But would everyone pay double?
With manufacturers pulling out of making 4k players, you have to wonder if we are at a technical and economic wall in terms of image quality.
BTW the blu-ray of Laurence of Arabia is masterful. The Steven Spielberg commentary/doco is mind blowing and worth ticket price alone. However I don't think there is an Ultra HD version (just one "mastered in 4k", just an Ultra HD version of bridge over the river Kwai, which is probably the more popular film.
I would love a really big OLED screen for these old super wide aspect films. They were almost impossible to watch on old CRT's, however, they have really have become popular with modern large wide screens and HD discs. They are amazing to watch. For me, they have huge re-watchability.
Something like the Good, the bad and the ugly gets something like 97%+ on tomatoes so
Probably more important for me would be a super wide aspect TV. Because you take that resolution/tv size, and halve it with these types of movies.
See... Now that would be interesting.
Phillips used to have a 21:9 TV... it didn't sell well.
Either did the Apple Newton..
Superwide is back in now.
All good until one watches something that is 4:3 or a lower aspect ratio than the TV. Think black bars at the top and bottom get annoying... try that.
Lawrence of Arabia 1962 Restored 50th Anniversary
in case anyone is searching for a copy they can umm, err, borrow
x265 runs to 17gig and x264 23gig
I'm not planning on buying 8K anytime soon... it needs HDMI 2.1 for a start and there's very little native 8K content around.
Lots of people didn't see the point in 4K, from Dec 2013:
My God... who in the HELL buys an UHD TV for Law and Order: SVU?
Yeah, as I already said, I largely agree with them.
4K looks good on a salesroom floor where you're always too close. In a real living room the extra resolution is mostly wasted.
1920 pixels across 30 degrees of FOV = 64 pixels per degree, right around the limits of human vision. It's almost as if 1920 was chosen deliberately when they were defining "Full HD" based on exactly these considerations.....
If you sit a bit closer you'll get some benefit from higher resolutions: 40 degrees * 64 pixels per degree = 2560 pixels. That's Quad HD. To justify anything higher than that you have to sit ridiculously close.
Pretty much this. I would prefer they stick to improving 4K quality than going further just for the sake of it.
It sounds like you want a 65" gaming monitor to do whatever it is you like to do at 2 feet. Which is fine, but it's not how people usually watch TV's. Yes, distance does matter.
I can tell you for a fact, that a 120" screen, at 4K, sitting about 3-4 metres back looks fantastic. Even at 1080P, they were perfectly fine.
If you're serious about image quality, motion, refresh rate, colour etc are far more important than resolution - especially now that we have 4K - for which all our content is pretty much compressed to hell anyway.
Now don't get me wrong, a 65" gaming monitor, that I can sit 2 feet from, for playing flight sims and space sims... That would be awesome.
Where are you getting this? When we look at a 1080p display we are not really seeing 2,073,600 pixels:
Not wide enough imho hahah
From your own reference:
Resolution of 1 arcminute = 60 lines per degree. Sure, there are some niche effects where specific kinds of perception pass that limit, that's what the article is about. But broadly speaking you can't distinguish details if they're smaller than 1 arcminute.