SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the very-super-hyper-mega-ultra-turbo-high-definition dept.
Sharp Announces 2nd Gen 8K UHD TVs at IFA
Sharp this week introduced its second-generation 8K ultra-high def TVs at IFA in Berlin. The new televisions use the company's new panels as well as the latest processors that can upscale Full-HD and Ultra-HD 4K content to a 7680×4320 resolution.
The initial lineup of Sharp's 2nd Gen Aquos 8K UHD TVs will include models featuring sizes of 60, 70, and 80 inches. The new televisions will be based on the company's new image processor that doubles its compute throughput over the predecessor and can upscale 2K as well as 4K content to an 8K resolution with a 100/120 Hz refresh rate.
Samsung's first 8K TV goes on sale next month
Samsung is announcing its first commercial 8K TV, the Q900R, at IFA 2018 this week. The QLED panel will be available in 65-inch, 75-inch, 82-inch, and 85-inch sizes, and is capable of peak brightness of 4,000 nits. It also supports the newer HDR10+ format backed by Samsung and Amazon.
The incredibly poor detail of 4K makes my eyes bleed; it's impossible to look at. At least now we'll have some more 8K options to tide us over until we reach 64K (61440×34560).
See also: Tech Tent: Are you ready for an 8K telly?
Samsung's 8K QLED TV looks great, but who needs it?
Toshiba Intros Its First Ever 8K TV Concept – IFA 2018
Previously: AU Optronics to Ship 8K Panels to TV Manufacturers in H1 2018
Related: Dell Announces First "Mass-Market" 8K Display
Philips Demos an 8K Monitor
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday September 01 2018, @05:14PM (3 children)
I strongly agree about 720p, which should be the minimum. However, 1080p is a mainstream resolution for most TVs and displays (although there are still some 768p laptops being peddled), and the bump in file size is mitigated by VP9, H.265, and soon, AV1 [wikipedia.org]. Then again, these same codecs can also make very tiny 720p files.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday September 01 2018, @06:07PM
**** needed a new excuse to convince minorities and rednecks to max out their credit cards -- again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @11:52AM (1 child)
i have a screen for the public and a 60fps fullhd source file but the libreelec odroid c1 will do only 30fps, tried both 720p @ 60fps and 1080p @ 30fps, the former looks better. You get to see differences only inspecting closely the perfectly in focus portions of the image. In other words, if you are not doing home theater with a huge ass TV, 720p should be enough for everybody, else fullhd is. 4k for content producers, 8k for VR, hollywood and those guys who go around with 16 cylinder cars. Programmers can use whatever screen estate they want using multiple monitors, the more the better.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 04 2018, @01:01PM
I mostly agree.
When it comes to VR, you have dynamic (gaming/3D graphics) content and 360-degree video (or the cheaper 180-degree video [soylentnews.org])
The Pimax (so-called) "8K" headset displays 4K resolution for each eye, for a total of 7680×2160 pixels (half of 8K resolution). According to this table [wikipedia.org], it has a 200º diagonal FOV, and 120º vertical FOV, so horizontal FOV should be 160º. Meanwhile, StarVR has 210º horizontal and 130º vertical FOVs.
Two human eyes max out at about 200-220º horizontal, 130-135º vertical (or 150º, see below). That should account for far peripheral vision [wikipedia.org], caused by moving your eyes in your sockets. So roughly 200º horizontal and 130º vertical or a bit more should be the end goal for VR headsets.
An AMD marketing slide [reddit.com] put the end goal for VR resolution at "16K per eye". Google has said [theverge.com] that "the upper bounds of human vision exist at 9600 x 9000, 2,183 ppi, and 160 x 150-degree field of view". Increase 160º to 220º, and you're looking at 13200×9000 resolution. 16K is 15360×8640, so 16K per eye is 30720×8640. So there is some disagreement here. Let's say AMD was being hasty and that 16K alone is sufficient, over a field of view of 220º horizontal, 150º vertical.
360-degree cameras [wikipedia.org] do not usually have a field of view of 360º horizontal + 360º vertical. If they do, they capture 41,253 square degrees compared to just ~10,504 square degrees for 220º×150º. So about 3.927x more is captured. What happens if you quadruple the pixel count of 16K resolution? You get 32K resolution.
So there you have it. The ultimate goal of VR video is to capture the pixel equivalent of 32K resolution over an entire sphere. 8K over the full sphere is just 1/16th of the 32K pixel count. Dead spots at the top or bottom of the sphere can be filled in by software.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]