Forum Jump: 
 5Likes
  • 1 Post By markmon1
  • 1 Post By markmon1
  • 3 Post By JHBrandt
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 12 Old 11-30-2018, 05:26 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,849
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 228
NHK launching 8K channel in Japan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46403539

NHK are launching a 12-hour a day 8K channel on satellite in Japan - with a re-scanned 2001: A Space Odyssey as one of their first broadcasts. I think until now there has been occasional testing of 8K content on the NHK 4K outlet, but presumably they are pushing ahead with 8K in readiness for Tokyo 2020.

The BBC News article suggests that the 8K transmissions can be accompanied by the 24 channel surround - which I think is the 22.2 they have used in the past (A 3 x 3 array above you, 5 in front of you at listener height, with 1 either side of you and 3 behind you at listener height, 3 at the front below you, and Left and Right subwoofers)

http://www.nhk.or.jp/8k/index_e.html Has more details of the NHK 8K format.

I was in Japan last month, and saw quite a few 8K Sharp and Samsung TVs running 8K test material. Now they will have broadcast content. Personally I think HDR and HFR could be bigger deals than 8K - but still interesting to see the industry develop. I guess the 4 x HDMI connectors are 4 x 2160p connections doing picture-quadrants or 2x2 pixel groups - before HDMI 2.1 properly arrives ?

Last edited by sneals2000; 11-30-2018 at 05:32 PM.
sneals2000 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 12 Old 12-02-2018, 05:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 6,426
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2544 Post(s)
Liked: 1232
JHBrandt is offline  
post #3 of 12 Old 12-11-2018, 01:06 AM
Senior Member
 
Purple X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 254
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
was in Japan last month, and saw quite a few 8K Sharp and Samsung TVs running 8K test material. Now they will have broadcast content. Personally I think HDR and HFR could be bigger deals than 8K - but still interesting to see the industry develop. I guess the 4 x HDMI connectors are 4 x 2160p connections doing picture-quadrants or 2x2 pixel groups - before HDMI 2.1 properly arrives ?
Yes, the 8K sharp TV has 4 HDMI 2.0 4K Inputs for the 8K tuner. The TV itself is NOT CAPABLE of decoding 8K OTA broadcast on its own, even the model released a few weeks ago. The 8K tuner is (roughly converted to US$) $2000 while the cheapest 8K TV is just over $4000. A lot of money for something that will be obsolete in a year when HDMI 2.1 versions are available. to compare, the Panasonic basic 4K tuner is around $200.

On the Audio side, the current thinking (from NHK) is to Map the 22.2 audio to Atmos as there is no gear available that can decode it either now or in the foreseeable future. Such a transcoder does not exists right yet.

Overall the 4K/8K OTA release has not been smooth. The tuner boxes where supposed to be patched by or soon after launch date but are still locking up a-lot; and promised features like recording to USB HDD has been delayed til late December / January.

I'm waiting till my Cable company has 4K on their standard free STB, which they have promised for spring, so not too long a wait.
Purple X is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 12 Old 12-11-2018, 06:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,205
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2623 Post(s)
Liked: 1507
I'm sure that 8K will look tons sharper for most people watching a 55" tv from 15 feet away lol. Most people wear binocular glasses. This has to be the biggest marketing scam yet. 4K is barely noticeable on large projector screens from outside of a screen width away. You'd have to be inside 3 feet away from a 65" tv to appreciate that resolution lol.
JHBrandt likes this.

Video: JVC RS640 135" screen in pure black room no light, htpc nvidia 1080ti.
Audio: Anthem mrx720 running 7.1.4, McIntosh MC-303, MC-152, B&W 802d3 LR, B&W HTM1D3 center, B&W 805d3 surround, B&W 702S2 rear, B&W 706s2 x 4 shelf mounted for atmos, 2 sub arrays both infinite baffle: 4x15 fi audio running on behringer ep4000 + 4x12 fi audio running on 2nd ep4000.
markmon1 is offline  
post #5 of 12 Old 12-11-2018, 04:01 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,849
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
I'm sure that 8K will look tons sharper for most people watching a 55" tv from 15 feet away lol. Most people wear binocular glasses. This has to be the biggest marketing scam yet. 4K is barely noticeable on large projector screens from outside of a screen width away. You'd have to be inside 3 feet away from a 65" tv to appreciate that resolution lol.
Looks lovely on a large screen though. I've seen it on projection screens and 100"+ screens. In the right context it's breathtaking. Whether that context is the average home <shrug>
sneals2000 is offline  
post #6 of 12 Old 12-18-2018, 04:38 AM
Senior Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norton, Ohio
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 351 Post(s)
Liked: 189
Why 8k At Home Is An Insane Idea

Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
I'm sure that 8K will look tons sharper for most people watching a 55" tv from 15 feet away lol. Most people wear binocular glasses. This has to be the biggest marketing scam yet. 4K is barely noticeable on large projector screens from outside of a screen width away. You'd have to be inside 3 feet away from a 65" tv to appreciate that resolution lol.
To me, the sarcastic statement that starts off your post is VERY FITTING. Because world renowned film restoration expert, Robert A Harris, who restored Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, and My Fair Lady, among others, has clearly stated, that even for huge commercial movie theater screens, resolutions greater than 4k, offer NO SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE for the vast majority of audience members.

Mr Harris wrote that for people to really notice an improvement in detail with a resolution higher than 4k, viewers with 20/20 vision would need to sit so close to a movie theater's screen that their field of view couldn't possibly take in the full width of a movie's image, with that limitation actually causing folks to miss seeing up to half of a movie's image.

BTW, when UHD 4k TVs were first sold to American consumers, Sony's promotional material, and articles by video testing editors for publications like Sound & Vision and Home Theater, were all BLUNTLY HONEST ENOUGH to directly state that for people with 20/20 vision (or with vision corrected to 20/20 via glasses) to be able to perceive all of the detail offered by a native 4k image, such viewers would have to have their eyes NO FURTHER AWAY from a 16X9 aspect ratio UHD 4k TV than 1.5 times the HEIGHT of a 16X9 TV's screen.

And to calculate the height of a 16X9 aspect ratio TV, one simply multiplies the diagonal measurement of the TV by .49 That tells us that a 65 inch 16X9 4k TV has a screen height of 31.85 inches. So multiplying that 31.85 inch screen height by 1.5 gives us 47.775 inches as the maximum distance that the eyes of a person with 20/20 vision can be from a native 4k image shown on a 65 inch 16X9 UHD 4k TV, to still allow that viewer to see THE FINEST DETAILS that a native 4k image presents.

So basically, people with 20/20 vision need to be within 4 feet of a 65 inch UHD 4k TV to be able to see the finest detail that such a TV is capable of displaying.

But EVEN among us home theater Enthusiasts, WHO actually sets up a 65 inch UHD 4k TV so that it's WITHIN 4 feet of the area where ANY VIEWERS will be sitting? The answer is, ALMOST NO ONE does that, not even US VIDEO FANATICS!

So, in a nutshell, what I'm saying, is that with VERY, VERY, FEW EXCEPTIONS, people who watch UHD 4k TVs are simply sitting TOO FAR AWAY from their TVs to see the FULL amount of DETAIL that 4k can provide, which makes the idea of having 8k at home, A VERY UNREASONABLE NOTION.

Just remember, even with a 130 inch 16X9 projection screen, viewers with 20/20 vision, can be NO FURTHER than 8 FEET away from that relatively screen, to still see all of the smallest details present in a native 4k image, that the screen's displaying.

And BTW, since so many Americans set up their TVs at distances from which most viewers can't even see all of the finest detail that can be displayed by 1080p TVs of the RELATIVELY SMALL sizes of 65 inches, AND SMALLER, that almost all consumers tend to buy, that SURE EXPLAINS why soon after UHD 4k TVs were introduced to the American market, Sony SUDDENLY stopped all mention, in its TV literature, of the fact that people with 20/20 vision would derive the MOST BENEFIT POSSIBLE with the new UHD 4k TVs, if folks sat within 1.5 screen heights of those TVs.

Sony's executives must have realized that VERY FEW Americans would EVER set up their new 4k capable TVs at room locations which would EVEN APPROACH being close enough to a room's viewers, to allow the viewers to see all of the detail that true 4k images are able to provide. So discussing 1.5 screen height viewing distances could turn out to be a marketing nightmare, since such HONEST INFORMATION could easily make it seem to potential TV buyers that having 4k resolution is overkill.
(Of course, the visual advantage of an UHD 4k TV that does a good job displaying HDR processed video, is a picture improvement that's VISIBLE AT ANY DISTANCE.)


Mike Boone

Last edited by sarahb75; 12-18-2018 at 04:54 AM. Reason: Needed a question mark
sarahb75 is offline  
post #7 of 12 Old 12-18-2018, 05:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,205
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2623 Post(s)
Liked: 1507
^^
Well said

My primary seat where I sit in my home theater is 7 feet from my 135" screen (no joke).
sarahb75 likes this.

Video: JVC RS640 135" screen in pure black room no light, htpc nvidia 1080ti.
Audio: Anthem mrx720 running 7.1.4, McIntosh MC-303, MC-152, B&W 802d3 LR, B&W HTM1D3 center, B&W 805d3 surround, B&W 702S2 rear, B&W 706s2 x 4 shelf mounted for atmos, 2 sub arrays both infinite baffle: 4x15 fi audio running on behringer ep4000 + 4x12 fi audio running on 2nd ep4000.

Last edited by DrDon; 12-18-2018 at 06:43 AM. Reason: quote truncated
markmon1 is offline  
post #8 of 12 Old 12-19-2018, 06:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 6,426
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2544 Post(s)
Liked: 1232
I think resolution has turned into a numbers game: "Mine is bigger than yours." Doesn't even matter whether you can see the difference anymore; the whole point is bragging rights to the "biggest."

And this is happening in Japan, too! Usually it's the good ol' USA that gets caught up in these meaningless competitions. "I've gotta have the fastest PC/biggest house/Christmas light display/SUV/TV screen/number of pixels/you name it on the block!" I guess boys will be boys in any country....

To be fair, 4K is an improvement over 1080p - but not that much of an improvement, especially compared to other enhancements like HDR and WCG. The vast majority of the improvement came in getting from 480i to 1080p in the first place; there's just not that much room left to make things even better. The human eye/brain can only make use of so much information.

Yet, going from 1080p to 4K requires adding a heckuva lot of pixels to a screen - a lot more pixels than getting from 480i to 1080p took. And going from 4K to 8K is even worse. It's the old law of diminishing returns you learned in economics class: each incremental improvement costs more and more $, but gives you less and less. At some point you need to figure out that it's just not worth throwing more money in that direction.

All of this would just be an amusing exercise in psychology if it weren't for the fact that the information infrastructure of multiple nations is getting bent to the "necessity" of providing insane amounts of bandwidth for folks to watch 8K - as if there were no better use for high-bandwidth communications channels than marginally improving a TV picture!

Hopefully sanity will prevail, most folks will stop at 4K, and realize that - outside of something like wearing a VR helmet - their TV picture is just about as good as it's ever going to get. But there will always be folks who get sucked into the numbers game of "proving" theirs is "bigger."
nathill, Frostyboy115 and markmon1 like this.
JHBrandt is offline  
post #9 of 12 Old 12-22-2018, 06:42 AM
Senior Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norton, Ohio
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 351 Post(s)
Liked: 189
Thumbs up Now That Guy REALLY WANTS To Have The BIG SCREEN Experience At Home

Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
^^
Well said

My primary seat where I sit in my home theater is 7 feet from my 135" screen (no joke).
Wow! You REALLY do like an IMMERSIVE BIG SCREEN experience!!

Many people even criticize the seating position for the front our home theater as being too close to our 80 inch diagonal 16X9 screen, when I have the fronts seats positioned so that a viewer's eyes are 9 feet from the screen.

But I have to ask, can you actually take in the entire picture on your 135" screen from a 7 foot distance, without needing to move your head or eyes back & forth?


Mike Boone
sarahb75 is offline  
post #10 of 12 Old 12-22-2018, 07:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,205
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2623 Post(s)
Liked: 1507
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post
Wow! You REALLY do like an IMMERSIVE BIG SCREEN experience!!

Many people even criticize the seating position for the front our home theater as being too close to our 80 inch diagonal 16X9 screen, when I have the fronts seats positioned so that a viewer's eyes are 9 feet from the screen.

But I have to ask, can you actually take in the entire picture on your 135" screen from a 7 foot distance, without needing to move your head or eyes back & forth?


Mike Boone
You definitely don't have to move your head at all. You need to move your eyes. For viewing you're not aggressively moving your eyes all around though. It kind of feels normal just big. But it's really good for seeing actual 4K resolution details. Almost everyone sits too far back to benefit from native 4K.

Video: JVC RS640 135" screen in pure black room no light, htpc nvidia 1080ti.
Audio: Anthem mrx720 running 7.1.4, McIntosh MC-303, MC-152, B&W 802d3 LR, B&W HTM1D3 center, B&W 805d3 surround, B&W 702S2 rear, B&W 706s2 x 4 shelf mounted for atmos, 2 sub arrays both infinite baffle: 4x15 fi audio running on behringer ep4000 + 4x12 fi audio running on 2nd ep4000.
markmon1 is offline  
post #11 of 12 Old 12-26-2018, 10:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
latreche34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Baja, California Mexico 965392
Posts: 541
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Well I bought into 4K and after several years most of the movies are still in blu-ray and DVD formats. I'm not going to bather with 8K for years to come, Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me.
latreche34 is offline  
post #12 of 12 Old 12-28-2018, 10:48 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,201
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 745 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post
BTW, when UHD 4k TVs were first sold to American consumers, Sony's promotional material, and articles by video testing editors for publications like Sound & Vision and Home Theater, were all BLUNTLY HONEST ENOUGH to directly state that for people with 20/20 vision (or with vision corrected to 20/20 via glasses) to be able to perceive all of the detail offered by a native 4k image, such viewers would have to have their eyes NO FURTHER AWAY from a 16X9 aspect ratio UHD 4k TV than 1.5 times the HEIGHT of a 16X9 TV's screen.

And to calculate the height of a 16X9 aspect ratio TV, one simply multiplies the diagonal measurement of the TV by .49 That tells us that a 65 inch 16X9 4k TV has a screen height of 31.85 inches. So multiplying that 31.85 inch screen height by 1.5 gives us 47.775 inches as the maximum distance that the eyes of a person with 20/20 vision can be from a native 4k image shown on a 65 inch 16X9 UHD 4k TV, to still allow that viewer to see THE FINEST DETAILS that a native 4k image presents.

So basically, people with 20/20 vision need to be within 4 feet of a 65 inch UHD 4k TV to be able to see the finest detail that such a TV is capable of displaying.
That's BS. By THX guidelines, I should sit about 6.5' from my 65" TV. I sit about 8' away from it, and I can absolutely tell the difference between 1080p and 4k, and good 4k content makes a HUGE impact on me at that distance. Sure, a lot of Americans sit WAY too far away from WAY too tiny TVs, but you don't have to be 4' from a 65" screen, that's almost too big at that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post
All of this would just be an amusing exercise in psychology if it weren't for the fact that the information infrastructure of multiple nations is getting bent to the "necessity" of providing insane amounts of bandwidth for folks to watch 8K - as if there were no better use for high-bandwidth communications channels than marginally improving a TV picture!

Hopefully sanity will prevail, most folks will stop at 4K, and realize that - outside of something like wearing a VR helmet - their TV picture is just about as good as it's ever going to get. But there will always be folks who get sucked into the numbers game of "proving" theirs is "bigger."
I don't think there will ever be a whole lot of a market for 8k, but it certainly can't hurt to have DirecTV or internet-based streaming of 8k content, as either medium has the bandwidth. DirecTV could launch 50 4k channels and still have plenty of bandwidth left over. Cable, not so much. My sense is that any 8k content will probably have to stream, however, as DirecTV's commercial/rural/old people market is not the same market that cares about 4k and 8k.
BiggAW is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Technical



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off