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.
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 DisplayPhilips Demos an 8K Monitor
These resolutions are needed for VR but not normal tv.
i am not sure we will ever reach a "realistic" VR.we are at 10nm(?) w/ the cpu and gpu chips (?) and can do "more or less" decent VR @90Hz on two (tiny) 1080p displays...if we assume we can go to 3nm before there's no more stopping leaks and we say that halving the trace size doubles the performance, theni don't see we go from 1080p to 4K (four times the resolution?) with a doubling of performance from 10nm to 5nm?
or maybe we just need 4-sli or something ... two GPU per 4K (and enough I/O to the CPUs, RAM, storage, network)?
Lenovo Mirage Solo is 2560×1440, 75 Hz. Oculus Go is 2560×1440, 60-72 Hz. These are "standalone" headsets, which should be considered the baseline since they need to operate using battery power. Other headsets can use a fast, short-range wireless connection and visually lossless compression (5:1 may be possible) in order to deliver graphics from a gaming PC to the headset.
Horizontal field of view is about 100° in these and some other headsets. This should be doubled to about 200-220° to encompass the entirety of human peripheral vision. That also means a doubling of pixels.
Some headsets are already busting way past 1080p. The Pimax 8K (misleading name?) is 3840×2160 per eye, for a total of 7680×2160 pixels.
Ultimately, we want the frame rate to go up. At least 120 Hz, maybe even 240 Hz [reddit.com].
Incidentally, Pimax came up with a technique they call "Brainwarp" that displays 1 image to one eye at a time, and alternates. So instead of displaying 7680×2160 at 120 Hz, they effectively display 3840×2160 at 120 Hz, and you perceive it as 7680×2160 at 120 Hz. Half the GPU power is needed, and they dual GTX 1070s or a single GTX 1080 for this. That's a far cry from the 4-way SLI you're talking about.
Most GPUs aren't at "10nm" right now. Nvidia's GeForce 20 series is at "12nm". "7nm" will be coming soon. While it's possible that we could go below "3nm" [semiengineering.com], you were probably right to pick that as a stopping point. However, if we ever make "3D chips", we could reach far greater performance with a reprieve from the death of Moore's law.
There are many tricks that can make ultra high resolution VR and high frame rates possible. The most obvious is foveated rendering [theverge.com]. By tracking the user's eyes, you don't need to render the entire screen at the full resolution. This is explicitly mentioned [roadtovr.com] in research related to LG and Google's 1443 PPI display for VR. Google's Seurat [soylentnews.org] is another thing that can reduce the burden. Add up all of the little tricks, and suddenly realistic VR is not so hard anymore.
Forgot link for Pimax Brainwarp: https://www.roadtovr.com/hands-pimaxs-8k-headset-proves-high-fov-vr-coming/ [roadtovr.com]
Isnt infinity fabric and friends going to make sli obsolete?
None of AMD's GPUs are using Infinity Fabric + multiple dies yet:
AMD Navi GPUs Will Not Use MCM Design, Feature Single Monolithic Die Instead, Reveals RTG SVP – Yet To Conclude If MCM Can Be Used in Traditional Gaming Graphics Cards [wccftech.com]
With Navi GPUs, AMD is going to stick with the traditional monolithic design that we see on all modern GPUs. Unlike the MCM approach that AMD is taking on their HEDT Threadripper and server EPYC parts, the GPUs are yet to use the full potential of AMD’s Infinity Fabric, something which Raja Koduri wanted to implement on their next-gen Radeon parts. Unfortunately, Raja Koduri left AMD for Intel as the Chief architect of their core and visual computing group and has confirmed to be working on Intel’s first discrete graphics cards aimed at the gaming market for a 2020 release.
Maybe Nvidia [nvidia.com] will do it first?
The majority of all videos that I watch are on youtube, and almost all of those I view at 240p to save BW as they're mostly educational.
I hate now that youtube defaults to 720p.
Then why did you buy a 4k monitor?
720 lines works for me. It's only recently that I decided the 480 line DVD standard left a little to be desired on a small (24 inch) flatscreen. Still very watchable, but 720 really is a lot better. Most noticeable on Youtube videos that have embedded text.
And, for that 50% more lines, the file is usually only 15% to 20% larger. Moving to 1080 really starts to bump up the size. File size for 8K now, hate to think how awfully large that would be.
1080 isn't such a big improvement over 720 that I care about it. I'm proud to say I have never bought a Blu-Ray.
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.
**** needed a new excuse to convince minorities and rednecks to max out their credit cards -- again.
I'm gonna Fry's and get me a 8-kay big-scrane teavee!
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.
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.
We have 4k here; after a good bit of critical watching, both my SO and I agree that 1080p is about the limit of what is noticeable at normal viewing distances. My vision is 20/10 (better than normal acuity); hers is 20/20. Even with that, we still agree, so likely the visible difference actually lies between 720p and 1080p for both of us.
We have a fairly large home theater (204") and so it's pretty easy to get up close and see where the resolution actually counts vs. how far back one is comfortable with seeing the entire display. At 1080p, and where the entire screen is comfortably visible, the resolution and viewing angle balance out nicely.
Consequently, we no longer bother with 4k material. I see no need at all to go to 8k for television. For working on images at a computer... perhaps. Though I think I'd probably be nose-diving into the monitor to get any real benefit from it. That's not actually an invalid use case for image editing, though it's outright absurd for watching movie content.
But yeah, for normal TV... 1080p actually does look better over 720p at the recommended viewing distance from whatever size display, though frankly, once you're into the presentation, you forget all about it anyway.
The really noticeable things where 1080p is outright obviously better show up readily with CGI-generated stuff where there is a great deal of tiny detail. But that's pretty rare. I can definitely understand the feeling that 720p will do for most material. Hell, between the soft-focus nonsense most directors seem to insist on and motion blur, sometimes I think that's all there is in the content anyway.
Oh, and the credits. Credits look better in 1080p. But so what. :)
1080 isn't such a big improvement over 720 that I care about it. I'm proud to say I have never bought a Blu-Ray.
One thing about that: many people watch streamed HD content; that's visibly worse than what comes off a Blu-ray. You can't get an accurate sense of what the various resolutions bring in terms of benefits when you're dealing with the lower data rates prevalent in those streams.
4K is overkill. The real improvement over 1080p is the High Dynamic Range (HDR) and 10 (or 12) bit color. 1080p with HDR and 10 bit color would be great. For whatever reason though, HDR and 10 bit color were tied to 4K resolution, which is why I've upgraded my televisions and players to 4K. 8K though is just nonsense for consumers.
10-bit color has been around for a while, before HDR became a craze. I remember some pirate releases using it years ago.
I get the sense that the main HDR standards [wikipedia.org] floating around are HDR10, HDR10+ [soylentnews.org], and Dolby Vision, with only Dolby supporting 12-bit color. So it may be a while before 12-bit matters.
1080p on a 42" screen starts to matter (to me) when I'm within about 10' of the screen, if I'm further back (like sitting on the sofa in the living room, 20' from the TV where my eyes are comfortable focusing at "infinity") then 720p would be just peachy, and even the 480 content from DVDs is very hard to tell from Blu-Ray.
We have a 55" 4K, and I sit about arm's reach from it lots of the time, so the resolution helps there, but I'm wondering if I could even see the difference to 8K - maybe in my 30s before my eyesight tanked. Plus, other than CAD and similar work, what content even produces 8K for you to view?
Some of the first 8K video content will be produced by the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo. And one of the only times the extra pixels will matter is when watching the Women's Volleyball events.
That's where the content needs to be 800K / 480Hz with the ability to pan / zoom and slow-mo, and even then a 1920x1080 screen is fine for viewing the selected sub-frames.
get a softcore porn dvd ffs
the viewing distance recommendations for UHD are pretty much solely based on visual acuity and 8K is twice as wide and twice as high as 4K. For VA = 1.0 the optimal viewing angle would be 58.37° for 4K and 96.33° for 8K. These values were just rounded up to 60° and 100° respectively. At those angles the horizontal retina resolution for VA = 1.0 would be 3970 pixels for 4K and 8194 for 8K. If you think about that you only have maximum visual acuity in the foveola, 8K seems quite a waste; you can only see a circle with a 69 pixel diameter with maximum accuracy at the time out of 7680x4320.
Here's the math, for those who'd like to check. [tftcentral.co.uk] Are videophiles going to be the new audiophiles?
But, that is math for normal humans. The visualphiles have a better understanding of what can be seen than pure physics.
Anyway, these higher and higher resolutions may have a niche market for specialized purposes, but the general public... Well, a good seller will sell you everything you do not need. You must be more happy with a television that has larger numbers associated with it, wouldn't you?
And of course we shall start seeing stupid products for those SuperSeers just like we do now for the AmazingAudioPhiles.
What's the point?
AFAIK no one is broadcasting in 4k and you can't buy a 4k dvd player. So the only real use for 4k is netflix streaming etc.
If we can barley get any 4k content whats the point in 8k?
Gaming I understand so is this aimed at the console market?
Thanks for comfirming: Gaming is about Graphics, only Graphics, and nothing else except Graphics.
No wonder Games These Days are nothing more than full CGI movies with a few interactive intermissions.
Get the fuck off my lawn.
Hey, I remember this surly AC!
What's your take on VR?
His lawn hasn't yet been modeled in VR
VR peaked in 1991
Metal Gear Solid 4 and 5 were much better movies than any of the shit Hollywood has churned out in the past decade.
So you're the dumb fuck that thinks video game cut-scenes are movies. That's stupid.
I get the distinct feeling that someone is arguing with themselves.
They were better than the majority of movies made in the last few decades. Hell they frequently are better than the games they are part of...
No, you can't buy a 4K DVD player, you need one of the 4K Blu-Ray players (of which there are a couple dozen to pick from). Oppo ceased manufacturing their 20X series, but Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, Toshiba, Sharp and a variety of other brands still offer them. 4K Blu-Ray discs are available from Best Buy, Amazon and others, with hundreds of titles to choose from. This is not a new thing, the players and discs have been available for years now. If you don't even know that, you are hardly in a position to claim to be an expert on the subject of 4K UHD video.
" is this aimed at the console market?"
Considering how the consoles seem to be struggling to produce real 4k, and even 1080p for a lot of games at reasonable framerates, I don't think the consoles are the intended target. The target seems to be IMHO, the people who purchase items like these:https://www.thecableco.com/accessories/cable-lifts/df-ss-dark-field-suspension-system-set-of-3.html* [thecableco.com]
*$100 USD EACH cable suspension bridges (Ceramic do-hickeys with a rubber band and something inside that rattles) so your music won't be affected by vibration in the speaker cables....****It took four tries to write that last part, laughing your ass off while typing leads to major spelling mistakes.
Apparently audiophiles can't listen to music in their cars...all that speaker wire vibration just kills the listening experience.
you can't buy a 4k dvd player.
you can't buy a 4k dvd player.
UHD Blu-ray players (not upscaling players, actual UHD content players) and UHD Blu-rays have been out for years now.
They require 50MB link for an 8k stream. If you use anywhere near that, and with a 1TB datacap, you can watch what.... ~2 1hr shows a day?
Hopefully it will drive competition to provide true unlimited plans.
The gig economy will make sure you work so many hours you won't have the time to watch one 30 minute episode a week. Get back to driving your uber, slave.
Your comment is good, but Uber drivers will probably be kicked to the curb in a few years in favor of autonomous cars.
Unlicensed plumbing? Now there's a gig. We also need day laborers and birthday clowns.
Sure thing dude. Until the autonomous plumber bots arrive. Wonder why that autonomous plumber bot you rented needs an Internet of Things connection? Turns out every autonomous plumber bot is secretly remote controlled by an unlicensed plumber in India.
Until the autonomous plumber bots arrive.
Until then Harry Tuttle heating engineer at your service [youtube.com]
We're all in this together.
Beware the paperwork.
Many people who drive Lyft and Uber are doctors or other academics, or well-off people who invested in property at the perfect time, or perhaps retired with fat pensions and don't need to work.
They do it for the social interaction, and some of them are quite up-front about it. It's classic taxicab confessions, and some of the conversations can be quite personal and in-depth.
Is that why Uber and Lyft drivers pester me to ride with them when I'm waiting for a bus instead? I'd rather ride the bus where the driver is forbidden from talking and a recorded voice actor makes all the stop announcements.
Competition? What competition (in the USA, at least)? LOL.
This is why Comcast and other ISPs set their monthly transfer limit to high values, such as 1TB: they knew that:1. Very few people would be affected by the limit. For most people the limit is meaningless.2. People would accept the limit as normal.3. Eventually, technology would advance such that the limit would be meaningful for many of their customers.
It's just another case of slowly boiling the frog.
ISPs will respond, not by offering unlimited plans, but by offering more expensive plans that have higher limits.
This is why Comcast and other ISPs set their monthly transfer limit to high values, such as 1TB
Except that limit used to be like 30GB in the past. So ... yeah.. I guess your point is moot.
We're all getting older. Our eyesight isn't what it used to be. 30 years too late, I'm afraid.
That ought to be enough for anyone.
It's only fair that we get 2048K (1,966,080 × 1,105,920 pixels) by the year 2048.
Last I could tell, digital cinema is 4K and that's one big damn screen. I fail to see the value in going to higher resolution.
5K, 6K, 8K can be used in the production process, and then downscaled to cinematic 4K.
Due to the fact that it is used in the production process, you'll want monitors with equivalent or higher resolution. Just like you can use a 5K screen to display a 4K image + control panels, you could use a 10K screen with 8K.
Cameras for IMAX films may be recording more information than 8K resolution [tested.com].
Most people probably don't want to be sitting in the front row at a movie, because it would exceed their field of view. But with a VR headset, exceeding the user's field of view is actually a good thing. So you could see where VR headsets would benefit from having a higher resolution than cinema projectors.
None of this really explains why you would want an 8K resolution TV. Presumably, if you got a large enough TV and sat close enough to it, in a small room perhaps, there could be more pixels in your field of view than you would get at a movie theater. The display and TV manufacturers are working on "wallpaper" TVs that would be incredibly thin and light, probably using flexible OLEDs. Maybe we will see TVs that can roll up into a tube for easy transport, and then unroll, made flattened effectively with little-no curling, and cover most of your largest wall. That obviously doesn't apply to these 60-85 inch TVs though.
If these developments force 4K displays into dirt cheap price segments, that will be a good enough outcome. Although there was already a $180 4K TV during Black Friday 2017 [consumerreports.org], so...
i'm one of those projector fans that went to the trouble of painting my wall with a special metallic blend because i found the screens that were available way too small. the upgrade from 720p to 1080p was amazing. 4k is also totally worth it on a 14' sceen. 8k might be visible.
on the other hand, i cant really tell the difference between my 1080p tv and friends' 4k unless i'm within 4' or so.