# internet streaming services and 8k tv.



## yosoyellobo

While watching ATT TV on my Samsung 4K I begun thinking if this looks this great in 4K imagine what it would like in 8K. I ask around and was told this is true. If so would have brought one two years ago and why are the tv maker not exploiting this fact?


----------



## billsharpe

yosoyellobo said:


> While watching ATT TV on my Samsung 4K I begun thinking if this looks this great in 4K imagine what it would like in 8K. I ask around and was told this is true. If so would have brought one two years ago and why are the tv maker not exploiting this fact?


Probably because there are no movies or TV shows available in 8k yet.


----------



## harsh

billsharpe said:


> Probably because there are no movies or TV shows available in 8k yet.


The studios and theaters only recently adopted 4K (4K cinema, not UHD-1). Until the movie theaters upgrade again, there's no real use for 8K.

The secret with 4K is HDR and WCG and that doesn't get any better with 8K. In fact, you can theoretically get it with HD and that may prove enough to further stink adoption of higher resolutions. This is especially important as streaming plays a bigger part in everyone's viewing.


----------



## gio12

harsh said:


> The studios and theaters only recently adopted 4K (4K cinema, not UHD-1). Until the movie theaters upgrade again, there's no real use for 8K.
> 
> The secret with 4K is HDR and WCG and that doesn't get any better with 8K. In fact, you can theoretically get it with HD and that may prove enough to further stink adoption of higher resolutions. This is especially important as streaming plays a bigger part in everyone's viewing.


Even on a 100" screen? I think 8K is will only be noticeable in screens that are very large. Even on a 85" QLED, 4K looks good but I think 8K would help.
Movie theaters, it would be great.
Now wait until phones start using, 8K.


----------



## B. Shoe

yosoyellobo said:


> If so would have brought one two years ago and why are the tv maker not exploiting this fact?


4K, 8K, 16K, 24K Magic. I'm riding with my 0K professionally calibrated plasma until the wheels fall off. (Which I hope is a long time!) Who knows how many K's we'll be at by then?


----------



## harsh

gio12 said:


> Even on a 100" screen?


If you sit further than about 12' away, probably.


> I think 8K is will only be noticeable in screens that are very large.


The resolution of the human eye is such that the screen must be very large indeed just to resolve the difference.


> Even on a 85" QLED, 4K looks good but I think 8K would help.


Again, that depends on how close you are to the display.


> Now wait until phones start using, 8K.


What would be the point? The popular phones are a bit more than 2K now.


----------



## gio12

harsh said:


> If you sit further than about 12' away, probably.The resolution of the human eye is such that the screen must be very large indeed just to resolve the difference.Again, that depends on how close you are to the display.What would be the point? The popular phones are a bit more than 2K now.


About 12-14ft for the 85".
Closer be too big.

Lots of phones are 4K and pointless. Its marketing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## inkahauts

B. Shoe said:


> 4K, 8K, 16K, 24K Magic. I'm riding with my 0K professionally calibrated plasma until the wheels fall off. (Which I hope is a long time!) Who knows how many K's we'll be at by then?


Plasmas can be great, depends on which one you have. Some might beat the color of many leds and oleds on the market today. But they aren't better than a really good 4K tv today.

I get holding onto things if they are as good and such till they die, (I did the same with my last plans till earlier this year) but if you watch a lot of tv you might find you could pay for a new 4K tv with the electrical and heat savings you'd get switching to a high end oled today and moving on from your plasma. They are heat generators and completely inefficient by comparison with leds.

And the picture would actually be better too. If you get a good one. Not the cheapest one you can find.


----------



## harsh

gio12 said:


> About 12-14ft for the 85".
> Closer be too big.


Rtings says 11.9' so you're right in there with them. Sony says 63" for a 4K 85" screen and that's just silly.

If we are all expected to transition to streaming, will the bandwidth allow the quadrupling of data required or will there be nasty compression artifacts that destroy the experience?



> Lots of phones are 4K and pointless.


I count seven with greater than 3840x2160 pixel matrices and they are all Sony Xperias. What other 4K phones are you seeing?


----------



## inkahauts

gio12 said:


> About 12-14ft for the 85".
> Closer be too big.
> 
> Lots of phones are 4K and pointless. Its marketing
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Not really. And the argument about pixel count being to good for the naked eye is a red herring on TVs and also can be for phones too. The gains you get having a 4K tv no matter what the distance can be seen because TVs are about moving pictures not static ones so what a human eye can see in a static imagine resolution wise is irrelevant. The quality of the tv processing and motion is far more important and the higher the pixel count with the better and better processors the better overall the picture.

So yes on a phone it's somewhat less relevant but since phones also show videos it can still be quite relevant.


----------



## B. Shoe

inkahauts said:


> Plasmas can be great, depends on which one you have. Some might beat the color of many leds and oleds on the market today. But they aren't better than a really good 4K tv today.
> 
> I get holding onto things if they are as good and such till they die, (I did the same with my last plans till earlier this year) but if you watch a lot of tv you might find you could pay for a new 4K tv with the electrical and heat savings you'd get switching to a high end oled today and moving on from your plasma. They are heat generators and completely inefficient by comparison with leds.
> 
> And the picture would actually be better too. If you get a good one. Not the cheapest one you can find.


Agreed on all fronts. I've had this set since late 2016. I've helped set up a couple of 4K sets for my parents and friends, and even did a side-by-side of 'Avengers: Endgame'. As you mentioned, I see some advantages with my plasma, and some other picture features that are better enhanced in a 4K set. It's simply a needs vs. wants situation in our household, at the present.


----------



## gio12

B. Shoe said:


> Agreed on all fronts. I've had this set since late 2016. I've helped set up a couple of 4K sets for my parents and friends, and even did a side-by-side of 'Avengers: Endgame'. As you mentioned, I see some advantages with my plasma, and some other picture features that are better enhanced in a 4K set. It's simply a needs vs. wants situation in our household, at the present.


I went from 42" Panasonic Plasmas to a 65" LG OLED. That plasma had an amazing picture. 
Blue-ray movies are way better on my OLED and 4K is just even better. Just me and my avg eyes.
my Star Wars blu-rays looked amazing on the Panny. On my LG I can see the strings and tell things are cardboard cut outs.


----------



## Davenlr

Just bought a 77 4K OLED. Right now, 8K is a fantasy. You are relying totally on the TV's ability to upscale. Some of the brands cannot even display a pixel accurate 8K picture with a computer 8K input... in other words, they are max 4K input and then upscale. What is the point? Currently the ONLY source for 8K would be your cell phone camera on high end phones or a high end computer video card. It is a gimmick right now. If you DO get an 8K tv, make sure it works with 4:4:4 video and does pixel to pixel.


----------



## P Smith

Davenlr said:


> make sure it works with 4:4:4 video and does pixel to pixel


Have you seen such one ?


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> If you sit further than about 12' away, probably.The resolution of the human eye is such that the screen must be very large indeed just to resolve the difference.Again, that depends on how close you are to the display.What would be the point? The popular phones are a bit more than 2K now.


I have to ask: Do you have a 4K television set? We put the distance argument to sleep a couple of years ago.
What's a bit more than 2K?


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> Plasmas can be great, depends on which one you have. Some might beat the color of many leds and oleds on the market today. But they aren't better than a really good 4K tv today.
> 
> I get holding onto things if they are as good and such till they die, (I did the same with my last plans till earlier this year) but if you watch a lot of tv you might find you could pay for a new 4K tv with the electrical and heat savings you'd get switching to a high end oled today and moving on from your plasma. They are heat generators and completely inefficient by comparison with leds.
> 
> And the picture would actually be better too. If you get a good one. Not the cheapest one you can find.


I've had a discussion with him about this, he's hooked on that plasma. Just as I was.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Davenlr said:


> Just bought a 77 4K OLED. Right now, 8K is a fantasy. You are relying totally on the TV's ability to upscale. Some of the brands cannot even display a pixel accurate 8K picture with a computer 8K input... in other words, they are max 4K input and then upscale. What is the point? Currently the ONLY source for 8K would be your cell phone camera on high end phones or a high end computer video card. It is a gimmick right now. If you DO get an 8K tv, make sure it works with 4:4:4 video and does pixel to pixel.


When the 4K TVs came out we saw posts that mirrored your present-day thoughts on 8K. Those folks were wrong, the 4K sets upscaled so well it's hard to tell the difference between upscaled 1080p and 4K in some instances, in most instances. I'd think an 8K set might upscale a bit better than a 4K set, perhaps a whole lot better. But, until someone gets one, we won't know. "Gimmick" was used back then, too. I don't hear or see anyone calling 4K sets "gimmicks" anymore. I bought all of my 4K sets because of their ability to upscale most content.

Rich


----------



## yosoyellobo

Rich said:


> When the 4K TVs came out we saw posts that mirrored your present-day thoughts on 8K. Those folks were wrong, the 4K sets upscaled so well it's hard to tell the difference between upscaled 1080p and 4K in some instances, in most instances. I'd think an 8K set might upscale a bit better than a 4K set, perhaps a whole lot better. But, until someone gets one, we won't know. "Gimmick" was used back then, too. I don't hear or see anyone calling 4K sets "gimmicks" anymore. I bought all of my 4K sets because of their ability to upscale most content.
> 
> Rich


When I started this tread was hoping for a quick answer but I was apparently wrong. You mean to tell me that nobody on Dbstalk owns a 8k tv?


----------



## Rich

yosoyellobo said:


> When I started this tread was hoping for a quick answer but I was apparently wrong. You mean to tell me that nobody on Dbstalk owns a 8k tv?


Yup. Have not seen any posts about how well they work. I get your point. I'd like to know too.

Rich


----------



## Davenlr

P Smith said:


> Have you seen such one ?


Haven't looked. When 4K came out, they were working on 4K Blu Rays, and 4K streaming was obtainable with current internet speeds. No one is planning on releasing a 8K BluRay, and there are no 8K streaming services. I know a lot of YouTube videos say they are 8K, but they show up as 4K when playing. Might work on the internal 8K app on the TV.
Check the TCL Series 6 8K being released, I believe they said they were made for computers. Price is 2X the 4K price. The difference between 1080p and 4K is quite noticeable at normal viewing distances, but paying 2X premium for something you have to be 3 feet away from to notice the difference would only make sense to me if I had an RTX3090 video card, or the TV had 4 PIPs where I could stream 4 football games at once in four 4K windows. They have been out for two years now. You should be able to find the reviews for the various models at rtings.com


----------



## P Smith

Davenlr said:


> TCL Series 6 8K



Pricing starts at $2,199 for the 65-inch version
I would consider it, if &#8230; I'll have the 8K movies avail

EDIT. Well... I found it here, someone selling the model for 800 euro Sent a request...


----------



## harsh

Rich said:


> I have to ask: Do you have a 4K television set?


Yes. The important feature to me is support for HDR and WCG.


> We put the distance argument to sleep a couple of years ago.


Asking someone to suffer through that discussion again is unkind


> What's a bit more than 2K?


One or both of the pixel measurements are somewhat above 1920x1080.


----------



## harsh

yosoyellobo said:


> You mean to tell me that nobody on Dbstalk owns a 8k tv?


What would be the point (beyond bragging rights)?


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> What would be the point (beyond bragging rights)?


Give own impression, mark pros and contras; 
owning something and use it is totally different from reading and posting FUD


----------



## evotz

harsh said:


> What would be the point (beyond bragging rights)?


I see your schwartz is as big as mine.


----------



## yosoyellobo

harsh said:


> What would be the point (beyond bragging rights)?


I would just like to know if it really upscales 4K to 8K.


----------



## Rich

yosoyellobo said:


> I would just like to know if it really upscales 4K to 8K.


Our sets upscale 1080p to 4K, why would you think an 8K set wouldn't upscale 4K to 8K? I'd like to see what that looks like.

Rich


----------



## yosoyellobo

Rich said:


> Our sets upscale 1080p to 4K, why would you think an 8K set wouldn't upscale 4K to 8K? I'd like to see what that looks like.
> 
> Rich


Like St Thomas I have to see to believe and in the case of 8K you are preaching to the choir. :blush:


----------



## harsh

yosoyellobo said:


> I would just like to know if it really upscales 4K to 8K.


The TV has to perform some sort of scaling. It isn't going to put the image in the middle of the screen at half size. How that happens is surely going to depend on the TV make and model. Early on, I'd imaging that the TVs being as ridiculously expensive as they are, they're not quadding the 4K pixels but rather doing some sort of interpolation. Interpolation can have mixed results depending on how things line up. Edge detection and the like _may_ make the image look as good but that's a lot of money to pay for just as good.

Subsequent TVs (if they even bother), will go to less trouble to hide the fact that you're stuck watching SD, HD or UHDTV1 content. Cost may cause fancy upscaling algorithms to not make it into the cheap TVs in favor of quadding or something slightly less nasty.


----------



## P Smith

P Smith said:


> someone selling the model for 800 euro Sent a request...


Follow up.
It's wholesales price, the company is located in Cleveland Ohio
Google Maps


----------



## Steveknj

yosoyellobo said:


> While watching ATT TV on my Samsung 4K I begun thinking if this looks this great in 4K imagine what it would like in 8K. I ask around and was told this is true. If so would have brought one two years ago and why are the tv maker not exploiting this fact?


Wait, there's 4K content on AT&TV? I have that and as far as I know, they don't broadcast higher than 1080P. Now their may be apps that do that, I know Netflix doesn't on that box.


----------



## b4pjoe

Probably talking about 1080p being upscaled to 4K resolution via the TV.


----------



## krel

gio12 said:


> Even on a 100" screen? I think 8K is will only be noticeable in screens that are very large. Even on a 85" QLED, 4K looks good but I think 8K would help.
> Movie theaters, it would be great.
> Now wait until phones start using, 8K.


My phone has 8k mainly for video capture. As far as content goes there's none


----------



## P Smith

krel said:


> My phone has 8k


What model ? Expensive ?


----------



## krel

P Smith said:


> What model ? Expensive ?


Samsung note 20 ultra 5g


----------



## harsh

krel said:


> My phone has 8k mainly for video capture.


The issue is more about consumption than production. If there's no practical way of displaying the content, why waste the storage space?


----------



## harsh

krel said:


> Samsung note 20 ultra 5g


At 3200x1440, the Note 20 Ultra is considerably shy of 3840x2160.

Only the high-end Sony Xperias offer a large enough matrix to display 4K without downscaling.


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> At 3200x1440


actually

6.9"
1440x3088 pixels
[email protected]*24fps*, [email protected]/60fps, [email protected]/60/240fps, [email protected], HDR10+


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> The issue is more about consumption than production. If there's no practical way of displaying the content, why waste the storage space?


Good for later processing. With the right software one can zoom in to the video and crop out unneeded areas. Start with a "8K 4320p/24fps or 4K 2160p/60 fps" video and one can end up with a decent lower than recorded resolution video that fixes many issues such as framing and unsteady camera movement.


----------



## b4pjoe

*7,680 by 4,320*

The Basics of 8K

8K doubles the numbers again, to a resolution of *7,680 by 4,320*. That's four times the number of pixels as 4K, which means it's 16 times that of a 1080p TV.


----------



## P Smith

b4pjoe said:


> *7,680 by 4,320*
> 
> The Basics of 8K
> 
> 8K doubles the numbers again, to a resolution of *7,680 by 4,320*. That's four times the number of pixels as 4K, which means it's 16 times that of a 1080p TV.


Oh, thank you Mr. Wizard !


----------



## P Smith

P Smith said:


> Follow up.
> It's wholesales price, the company is located in Cleveland Ohio
> Google Maps


Man !
It's new scam ! Not from Nigeria, but Lagos now!


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> actually
> 
> 6.9"
> 1440x3088 pixels
> [email protected]*24fps*, [email protected]/60fps, [email protected]/60/240fps, [email protected], HDR10+


The Note 20 Ultra is what krel is talking about and its display is as I noted.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Good for later processing. With the right software one can zoom in to the video and crop out unneeded areas.


Assuming that you have the time, appropriate software and inclination to engage in post-production such as all that. Most of the better cameras have mechanical image stabilization.

A little preparation and a good tripod can prevent hours wasted on post.


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> The Note 20 Ultra is what krel is talking about and its display is as I noted.


Hundred pixels more... hundred pixels less ... who cares !


----------



## Steveknj

P Smith said:


> Hundred pixels more... hundred pixels less ... who cares !


There will be a point where the human eye just can't tell the difference. I still know some older folks who still can't see the difference between SD and HD, let along 4k and 8k. I think the BIG jump was from 480p to 1080p. I think most people can really tell the difference, even on smaller screens. Once you go beyond that, your eyesight and screensize will make the difference. There's a reason why there are really no 4k TVs smaller than 40 inches. And I think you'll probably need a minimum of a 65 inch TV to see any difference at 8k. And at that point the TVs are just too expensive or impractical in many (most?) homes. I can do 65 in my family room, but if I want bigger, it would start to feel too big.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Hundred pixels more... hundred pixels less ... who cares !


The instant that scaling enters the picture, there's a certain compromise in fidelity. Whether the display is scaling up or down, small increments can impart more damage than integral scaling (i.e. halving or doubling).


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> The Note 20 Ultra is what krel is talking about and its display is as I noted.


"My phone has 8k mainly for video capture." doesn't sound like we were talking about the display as much as the capture resolution.

I have an older phone (2 years old!). It isn't 8K but it does a fair job of post production right on the phone being able to edit and post stabilize video. I use a tripod with my "normal" camera for longer videos. Having a cell phone "studio in my pocket" is nice for the quick grab shots where a tripod is either not possible or too much work. And that is if a tripod is allowed where one is shooting.


----------



## billsharpe

I moved up from a 40-inch screen to a 55-inch screen about four years ago. Anything larger would be too much room space taken up IMO. We sit about 12 feet from the screen. My daughters both have 65-inch screens and are happy with their sets.


----------



## P Smith

billsharpe said:


> I moved up from a 40-inch screen to a 55-inch screen about four years ago. Anything larger would be too much room space taken up IMO. We sit about 12 feet from the screen. My daughters both have 65-inch screens and are happy with their sets.


About 7 years ago after switching from a projector with 80" picture size, my eyes asking for 65" ... now I'm watching FHD content from a distance of 9' and I can see all details without noticing pixels.
Thinking to jump for UHDTV-1[4k] or UHDTV-2 [8k] now.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> "My phone has 8k mainly for video capture." doesn't sound like we were talking about the display as much as the capture resolution.


The original issue was 4K displays rather than video recording capability/utility. The Note 20 Ultra is not such a device.

My reply that you quoted was to P Smith who cited the specs for the wrong phone so the issue there was obviously display specs.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Thinking to jump for UHDTV-1[4k] or UHDTV-2 [8k] now.


Since your not bothered by the pixel size now, I highly recommend going to a good quality UHDTV1 model for the express purpose of gaining access to HDR and WCG (preferably Dolby Vision over HDR10+). The gains from higher resolutions would more than likely be underwhelming.


----------



## krel

harsh said:


> The issue is more about consumption than production. If there's no practical way of displaying the content, why waste the storage space?


i don't waste the space on 8k. 8k t.v.s are not worth it yet as the price doubles and for what??? the note 20 ultra 5G takes SD cards as well. i have a 1 TB SD card in mine for photos mainly.


----------



## harsh

krel said:


> the note 20 ultra 5G takes SD cards as well.


At around 600MB/minute, additional storage is a must.


----------



## b4pjoe

SD cards are about as reliable as a hooker on meth too.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

I know that there is a smattering of 8K available on YouTube and a few other places. But there is a huge majority of viewers out there that watch TV over cable, satellite, antenna. They watch channels like CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, TNT, TBS, SIFI, USA, Golf channel, NFL Nerwork, NBA Network, NHL Network, FOXSN, CBSFN, NBCSN, CW, PBS, HBO SHOWTIME, CINAMAX, etc etc etc. None of these channels broadcast anything in 1080P. If you stream them you might see some content in 1080P but never 4K. There are no 8K DVD Players that I know of. So let's run out there and buy a 8K TV.


----------



## James Long

As long as the 8K is cheaper than the 4K I am fine with it. And I believe pixel size is a bigger driver to building large 8K displays than available content. 8K capture has other benefits, as noted above.


----------



## harsh

Andrew Sullivan said:


> They watch channels like CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, TNT, TBS, SIFI, USA, Golf channel, NFL Nerwork, NBA Network, NHL Network, FOXSN, CBSFN, NBCSN, CW, PBS, HBO SHOWTIME, CINAMAX, etc etc etc. None of these channels broadcast anything in 1080P. If you stream them you might see some content in 1080P but never 4K.


HBO Max has engaged in a few 4K HDR simultaneous with theater opening releases. Not linear channels to be sure but part of the subscription.

I'd be pretty happy if they could figure out how to deliver HDR/WCG on their 1080i channels.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Went I started the thread I was under impression that I was streaming 4K tv on AT&T tv over the internet. Was I right?


----------



## P Smith

yosoyellobo said:


> Went I started the thread I was under impression that I was streaming 4K tv on AT&T tv over the internet. Was I right?


Are they somehow attributed the stream as UHD/WDR/etc ?


----------



## yosoyellobo

P Smith said:


> Are they somehow attributed the stream as UHD/WDR/etc ?


3840x2160p 60. How would I answer your question?


----------



## P Smith

It's UHD stream, but WDR/WCG would be revealed by TV or streaming device


----------



## ericknolls

I got the 4K service installed last week. I played around with channel 104. Channel 105 and 106 was sports programming. I tuned to both those channels. You guessed it. Both baseball games were blacked out.There was no alternative station to see the game.What is the purpose of those two channels? Channels: 107 and 108 were for viewing 4K pay per view movies. I should buy a movie and an animated one before I comment on those two channels.

As you can see 4K service is limited. My impression of what I saw on Channel 104: I saw certain angles and camera shots that showed the 4K clarity. At other times it reminded me of my regular 4K UHD Samsung tv resolution. I literally was not impressed with what I saw. I am definitely going to buy a couple of 4K movies to see if it is even worth bothering with the service.

So, Those talking about 8K service. Good luck with that! I'm sure the image will be much sharper and clearer. 8K programming is another thing.

I hope I got the channel order right. 

The equipment installed was an HS-17 server and two C61K 4K clients: one for living room w/ server and one for bedroom - They added another splitter, wires and you guessed it - more power cords. 

Whatever you decide. Do it wisely...


----------



## P Smith

ericknolls said:


> more power codes.


what is that ?


----------



## ericknolls

Cords.. typo!


----------



## B. Shoe

ericknolls said:


> As you can see 4K service is limited. My impression of what I saw on Channel 104: I saw certain angles and camera shots that showed the 4K clarity. At other times it reminded me of my regular 4K UHD Samsung tv resolution. I literally was not impressed with what I saw. I am definitely going to buy a couple of 4K movies to see if it is even worth bothering with the service.


I'm not trying to make light of your comments, but I just chuckled to myself because I remember first time I saw a HD broadcast in 1080p and couldn't believe how phenomenal the picture was. Now tech has advanced to the point where we're "unimpressed" with resolutions and images in a 4K resolution. Onward and upward.


----------



## harsh

yosoyellobo said:


> Went I started the thread I was under impression that I was streaming 4K tv on AT&T tv over the internet. Was I right?


You guessed wrong. DIRECTV's 4K content is delivered uniquely via satellite. Unless something has changed/is changing, AT&T TV (DIRECTV Stream) doesn't offer UHD content.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

A double blind study by Warner Bros concluded that most viewers could not tell the difference between 4K and 8K at normal viewing distance.


----------



## P Smith

Andrew Sullivan said:


> A double blind study by Warner Bros concluded that most viewers could not tell the difference between 4K and 8K at normal viewing distance.


Link ?


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

P Smith said:


> Link ?


I'm not sure how to send a link. I can forward you the article via email if you can provide. The article is dated February 28, 2020. Written by Scott Wilkerson. The test was in corbaration with Pixar, Amazon Prime Video, LG, American Society of Cinemaphotographers (ASC), and Warner Brothers. The test procedure is very detailed and includes several graphs.


----------



## P Smith

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I'm not sure how to send a link


This?
8K vs 4K TVs: Double-blind study by Warner Bros. et al reveals most consumers can't tell the difference | TechHive

The question is should I be counted as "most consumers" ?


----------



## Davenlr

P Smith said:


> This?
> 8K vs 4K TVs: Double-blind study by Warner Bros. et al reveals most consumers can't tell the difference | TechHive
> 
> The question is should I be counted as "most consumers" ?


The test was run with uncompressed 8K video. First, you cant even get uncompressed 4K in your home except with a high dollar computer and lots of extra gear , so they could actually do best by ditching 8K and just figuring out how to deliver uncompressed 4K in HDR.


----------



## billsharpe

I would not expect anyone to notice a difference in a real "double-blind" study. 

Just kidding!


----------



## B. Shoe

Davenlr said:


> The test was run with uncompressed 8K video. First, you cant even get uncompressed 4K in your home except with a high dollar computer and lots of extra gear , so they could actually do best by ditching 8K and just figuring out how to deliver uncompressed 4K in HDR.


I'm buying a ticket for this train, instead of worrying about 8K televisions.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

I read into this exactly what I have always felt. 8K is a typical marketing ploy to get buyers to think they need to upgrade from 4K to 8K even though they couldn't tell the difference even if they could find anything typically broadcast in 8K. You could watch a 8K DVD on a 8K DVD player I guess. Oops, no you cant because nobody is going to invest in manufacturing hardware to utilize a product that will never be available. At least not on a remotely wide scale basis.


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> The question is should I be counted as "most consumers" ?


You, never. But this thread isn't about you.


----------



## Rich

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I know that there is a smattering of 8K available on YouTube and a few other places. But there is a huge majority of viewers out there that watch TV over cable, satellite, antenna. They watch channels like CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, TNT, TBS, SIFI, USA, Golf channel, NFL Nerwork, NBA Network, NHL Network, FOXSN, CBSFN, NBCSN, CW, PBS, HBO SHOWTIME, CINAMAX, etc etc etc. None of these channels broadcast anything in 1080P. If you stream them you might see some content in 1080P but never 4K. There are no 8K DVD Players that I know of. So let's run out there and buy a 8K TV.


You sound like the naysayers that mocked the idea of 4K. Hear anyone calling 4K a hoax or fake news these days? Yeah, if I needed a new TV set I would run out there and buy an 8K set...if the price was reasonable.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Andrew Sullivan said:


> A double-blind study by Warner Bros concluded that most viewers could not tell the difference between 4K and 8K at normal viewing distance.


Lots of "studies" about 4K were similar. The folks who bought the 4K sets knew BS when they read it; if you don't have the equipment and can't make valid comparisons, why go down that road? All this does is confuse people.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I read into this exactly what I have always felt. 8K is a typical marketing ploy to get buyers to think they need to upgrade from 4K to 8K even though they couldn't tell the difference even if they could find anything typically broadcast in 8K. You could watch a 8K DVD on a 8K DVD player I guess. Oops, no you cant because nobody is going to invest in manufacturing hardware to utilize a product that will never be available. At least not on a remotely wide scale basis.


Jeez. We bought the 4K sets for the upscaling initially. Why wouldn't an 8K set upscale better than a 4K set? 
I bought my first 4K set in 2015, for the upscaling. I knew there wasn't enough 4K content out there to justify buying one, but for me, the upscaling was more than worth it. I haven't changed my opinion of the 4K sets, and I have to think I'd enjoy the upscaling of an 8K set, in spite of the fact that there is no content at the moment. In a few years, all we will see for sale in the larger models will be 8K sets, history will repeat itself and the naysayers about 8K will be as silent as the opponents of 4K sets are today.

Rich


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

Actually all it does is unconfuse people Rich. If anybody asks if they should pay a premium for 8K just have them read the article. Most would not understand a lot of the technical jargon but most would at least read the final conclusion and at least somewhat understand how they got there. I say pay a premium for 8K, not if they are close in price. At the moment the Samsung 85N900 8K is about $4,000 more than the 85QN90A. I don't see how you can compare the introduction of 4K and 8K to the public. Years ago you could watch sports broadcasts in 4K, like the Masters. DirecTV has had at least two dedicated 4K channels for at least 6 years. Nothing like that is or close to being available in 8K. 4K DVD players have been available for almost a decade which coinsides with 4K DVD's. And how about 4K games and gaming systems? Nothing like that for 8K. It's not confusing information when even the casual buyer is asking why they should pay a premium for 8K over 4K. I've heard customers at Costco ask that question.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

Rich said:


> Jeez. We bought the 4K sets for the upscaling initially. Why wouldn't an 8K set upscale better than a 4K set?
> I bought my first 4K set in 2015, for the upscaling. I knew there wasn't enough 4K content out there to justify buying one, but for me, the upscaling was more than worth it. I haven't changed my opinion of the 4K sets, and I have to think I'd enjoy the upscaling of an 8K set, in spite of the fact that there is no content at the moment. In a few years, all we will see for sale in the larger models will be 8K sets, history will repeat itself and the naysayers about 8K will be as silent as the opponents of 4K sets are today.
> 
> Rich


I could not disagree more with that final statement. I do agree that in 4-5 years that 8K will be predominately ruling the larger TV market because the price will come down as did 4K. At that point there will be no reason to even want 4K. The difference between performance at that point will be the ability to upscale. Which is really what separates the top performing 4K sets now. The processors used now are having a very difficult time upscaling to 8K because of the power required, the electricity used and the heat generated. It's not easy to blast a bright picture through that many pixels. Now we have mico LED's which is even more difficult and demanding. And 1,000 plus zones of local dimming??? The algorithm nightmares.


----------



## harsh

Rich said:


> You sound like the naysayers that mocked the idea of 4K. Hear anyone calling 4K a hoax or fake news these days?


There are quite a few pro football fans righteously mocking Fox's plans to offer games that are upscaled to 4K.

There's still virtually no 4K broadcast content.


----------



## Rich

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Actually all it does is unconfuse people Rich. If anybody asks if they should pay a premium for 8K just have them read the article. Most would not understand a lot of the technical jargon but most would at least read the final conclusion and at least somewhat understand how they got there. I say pay a premium for 8K, not if they are close in price. At the moment the Samsung 85N900 8K is about $4,000 more than the 85QN90A. I don't see how you can compare the introduction of 4K and 8K to the public. Years ago you could watch sports broadcasts in 4K, like the Masters. DirecTV has had at least two dedicated 4K channels for at least 6 years. Nothing like that is or close to being available in 8K. 4K DVD players have been available for almost a decade which coinsides with 4K DVD's. And how about 4K games and gaming systems? Nothing like that for 8K. It's not confusing information when even the casual buyer is asking why they should pay a premium for 8K over 4K. I've heard customers at Costco ask that question.


Again, this post could have been written in 2015 about 4K. That's when I bought my first 4K set because of the upscaling, not the content that didn't exist at that time. Those same Costco customers you overheard (I don't consider anecdotal stories evidence of any kind) would have asked the same questions about 4K years ago. This is an evolution, just like 4K. Go back in the archives on this site and look at the 4K threads, not many people were interested in it at first for the same reasons you keep throwing out as proof of some sort.


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> There are quite a few pro football fans righteously mocking Fox's plans to offer games that are upscaled to 4K.
> 
> There's still virtually no 4K broadcast content.


Your point? Have I said there was a vast amount of 4K content on linear TV? Those fans are correct, Fox puts out the worst PQ for sports, upscaling that picture to 4K is a perfect example of GIGO. Unless you have a TV set that can turn Fox's crappy PQ into something that looks a lot like a football game in 1080i, upscaled. Still not perfect but a hell of a lot better than what I get on my "normal" Samsung sets. Now, what was your point?


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

I don't see any correlation between the acceptance of 4K to 8K other than what the TV manufactures want you to buy into. I've logically shown the huge differences between the two. No 8K DVD players and none at all planned. No 8K DVDs available and none planned. No 8K streaming available and none planned. No 8k broadcast TV or 4K or 1080P available and none planned. Since we have 4K DVD players and 4K DVDs and a great deal of 4K streaming content on HBO, Amazon Prime, Netflix etc, there is great incentive to buy a 4K TV and zero incentive to buy a 8K TV other than the potential for up scaling. We may be forced to buy a 8K display in the very near future but only because they will be shoved down our throats.


----------



## harsh

Rich said:


> Your point?


My point is that 8K offers no benefits in the foreseeable future so jumping in now is a substantial waste of money -- perhaps not even future-proofing.

Getting wadded up about how well an LCD scales used to be a big deal when CRTs ruled the world and that's still kind of how things are. Why worry about upscaling if you don't have to?


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> My point is that 8K offers no benefits in the foreseeable future so jumping in now is a substantial waste of money -- perhaps not even future-proofing.
> 
> Getting wadded up about how well an LCD scales used to be a big deal when CRTs ruled the world and that's still kind of how things are. Why worry about upscaling if you don't have to?


I don't want to enter into a philosophical discussion with you about upscaling. I told you what my opinion was, you're not gonna change that.

Rich


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

Rich said:


> I don't want to enter into a philosophical discussion with you about upscaling. I told you what my opinion was, you're not gonna change that.
> 
> Rich


I'm happy to say that my opinion can always be changed. In my life I have had many opinions that ended up being wrong. Like, wow that Edsel is a cool car, 3D will be here forever, OLED will never be affordable, the U.S. will always be the leader in electronics. Here comes the electric car generation so I suppose 8K could someday become the norm.


----------



## James Long

For some the future is more foreseeable. A lot comes down to how far one looks ahead. It is like watching the path of a hurricane and the official predicted path cone. The NWS foresees the storm center remaining somewhere inside that cone ... which side they don't know which is why the cone widens as it gets further from "current". Storms can also weaken and strengthen - so can the global economy. I would not spend extra for 8K "today" but given the choice between 4K and 8K at near the same price I'd give 8K a chance.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye

My UHD TV has all *three* fads! (as called by the 4k naysayers back then)

1 it's UHD (or "4k")

2 it's got a curved screen

3 it does 3D (and does it quite well with two always-on passive full 1080p channels when displaying 3D)

and 4 (if it counts) it's an OLED.

Ok I'll relent on the possibility of 2 and 3 being fads.

I'm perfectly content with it but would not discount the possibility of the benefits of 8k, future or current. Can you even find a 1080 set anymore? Would you even bother to try?


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> For some the future is more foreseeable. A lot comes down to how far one looks ahead.


It doesn't really matter how far ahead you can see. ESPN claimed they were going all in on UHDTV1 some years ago and we know how far that went. The market for 8K content is virtually nonexistent and while it may advance incrementally, I daresay that nobody has a definitive timeline for transmitting 8K content.


----------



## Rich

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I'm happy to say that my opinion can always be changed. In my life I have had many opinions that ended up being wrong. Like, wow that Edsel is a cool car, 3D will be here forever, OLED will never be affordable, the U.S. will always be the leader in electronics. Here comes the electric car generation so I suppose 8K could someday become the norm.


You misread my post, you seem to be assuming that I won't change an opinion. You might want to reread that sentence.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

Rich said:


> You misread my post, you seem to be assuming that I won't change an opinion. You might want to reread that sentence.


I realize that you were specifically talking about upscaling. My post was a in general position that being unbendable in our opinions is non productive in everything technically oriented. Most things in life actually.


----------



## Rich

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I realize that you were specifically talking about upscaling. My post was a in general position that being unbendable in our opinions is non productive in everything technically oriented. Most things in life actually.


You might want to reread that sentence again and try to put it in context with other posts that are related to it. That sentence was addressed to someone in particular and you are twisting my words to make your argument.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

Rich said:


> You might want to reread that sentence again and try to put it in context with other posts that are related to it. That sentence was addressed to someone in particular and you are twisting my words to make your argument.


In the 15 or so years I've been here I would say the majority of responses are to posts meant for someone specific. Mostly in some regard to the OP or at least related to his or her post. I don't see how I twisted anything. I'm basically saying "never say never".


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> My point is that 8K offers no benefits in the foreseeable future ...





harsh said:


> ESPN claimed they were going all in on UHDTV1 some years ago and we know how far that went.


Yep. They built a really nice 4K studio and used it for 3D. I am surprised that none of the major channel owners have a linear 4K channel - but the market has shifted. Non-linear content is becoming more popular. (As a long time DVR owner I have been taking steps away from linear for years. Delaying content until I wanted to watch it and now using OnDemand along side my DVR content.)

"No benefits" is a big claim.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> "No benefits" is a big claim.


A broad claim indeed yet I feel that it is defensible with respect to television uses.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

Very defensible if you give any creedence to the article mentioned earlier regarding the Warner Bros 4K vs 8K comparison concluding that the average viewer would recognize no difference between 4K and 8K.


----------



## harsh

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Very defensible if you give any creedence to the article mentioned earlier regarding the Warner Bros 4K vs 8K comparison concluding that the average viewer would recognize no difference between 4K and 8K.


I'm looking at it more from the perspective of history rather than science. Science doesn't play as big of a role as it perhaps should in marketing and buying decisions when it comes to TV.


----------



## Rich

Andrew Sullivan said:


> In the 15 or so years I've been here I would say the majority of responses are to posts meant for someone specific. Mostly in some regard to the OP or at least related to his or her post. I don't see how I twisted anything. I'm basically saying "never say never".


Sure.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> I'm looking at it more from the perspective of history rather than science. Science doesn't play as big of a role as it perhaps should in marketing and buying decisions when it comes to TV.


History and science can be beat by marketing. But if one wants to look at history look at how well 4K sets sold prior to the widespread availability of 4K content. People are more than willing to purchase a TV that outperforms the signals available. 4K TVs displaying mostly HD content. Prior to that HD TVs displaying mostly SD content. Displays can be better than the signals they are fed. (Not the PQ, but the capability of the display itself.)


----------



## AngryManMLS

Delroy E Walleye said:


> Can you even find a 1080 set anymore? Would you even bother to try?


There are still 1080p sets made at smaller sizes (ie: 40 inches and smaller). But I can't fully imagine 4k taking over say the 32 inches at Best Buy any time soon.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> But if one wants to look at history look at how well 4K sets sold prior to the widespread availability of 4K content. People are more than willing to purchase a TV that outperforms the signals available. 4K TVs displaying mostly HD content. Prior to that HD TVs displaying mostly SD content. Displays can be better than the signals they are fed. (Not the PQ, but the capability of the display itself.)


The promise of HDR and WCG was the big win with UHDTV1. There's nothing new (other than the higher resolution) to be had with UHDTV2.

It is easy to justify the big jumps (like going to digital and Dolby surround with the DTV transition) but damn hard to justify the incremental changes.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

8K is a different animal than 4K. The average American buyer will go for 8K if the price is acceptable. That is a concept ingrained in the average American buyer from a bunch of decades of marketing. If you ask the random person on the street if they think 8K is better than 4K you will get a yes from 90% even if they have no idea about what you're talking about. Will they pay more for better? That is the marketers challange and they are very very good at their job. The final solution, remove the 4K option. Is 16K far behind? That animal is already being manufactured in a limited basis.


----------



## James Long

Welcome to America. People may not know what 5G is but the want 6G. The same with 8K over 4K. That is marketing.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Welcome to America. People may not know what 5G is but the want 6G. The same with 8K over 4K. That is marketing.


Unlike wireless phones, people typically don't upgrade their TVs every 2-3 years.

Marketing will have an uphill battle until Netflix and/or Amazon offer some 8K content. Given the situation with high-end computer display cards, they aren't likely to get much help from that quarter.


----------



## B. Shoe

harsh said:


> Marketing will have an uphill battle until Netflix and/or Amazon offer some 8K content. Given the situation with high-end computer display cards, they aren't likely to get much help from that quarter.


Additionally, also while people (average consumers, mind you) care about things like 4K/8K/etc., or act like they do, at the same time they don't care about those things at all.

I help broadcast some local high school sports events via YouTube. Up until last season, we were still working with 4:3 formats, and our extremely old video camera was a little less than perfect with the focus. People didn't care. They just wanted to be able to watch the kids play. My significant other isn't concerned if NBC broadcasts "This Is Us" in 4K, 8K, or 100K. We spend hours watching content that is literally guys sitting around in a booth talking to each other (i.e., sports talk shows on TV.) While we're in this amazing age of generating eye-popping content and programs, at the same time we're also shelling out super-simple content that doesn't require all the bells and whistles that we keep trying to sell people on.


----------



## krel

AngryManMLS said:


> There are still 1080p sets made at smaller sizes (ie: 40 inches and smaller). But I can't fully imagine 4k taking over say the 32 inches at Best Buy any time soon.


i say you need a 55inch set or bigger to get the full benefits of 4k


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

krel said:


> i say you need a 55inch set or bigger to get the full benefits of 4k


I agree and it's fascinating how the actual existence of this Internet Streaming catagory is a window into the continuing metamorphosis of the TV sets (720p 1080i 1080p 4k 8k). Streaming programming via Netflx, Hulu Prime etc has allowed the modern TV set to become the hub of family entertainment. The affordability along with larger sizes has allowed TV sets to become something special in our lives. Not quite the conversation piece that cars have always dominated but it's probably a close second.


----------



## inkahauts

AngryManMLS said:


> There are still 1080p sets made at smaller sizes (ie: 40 inches and smaller). But I can't fully imagine 4k taking over say the 32 inches at Best Buy any time soon.


I easily can. At some point they will stop making them and only make 4K sets due to the costs of making the panels being such that they make less money on 1080p panels. It's coming. Just as the end of plasma came. And the rptv. It's just a matter of when.


----------



## B. Shoe

inkahauts said:


> It's coming. Just as the end of plasma came. And the rptv. It's just a matter of when.


**Desperately clutches onto his plasma TV mounted in the living room.* *"I'll give you my plasma when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."


----------



## harsh

krel said:


> i say you need a 55inch set or bigger to get the full benefits of 4k


It all comes down to how close you are to the display when viewing. Some use 55" TVs for their computer displays and they're close enough to see what's going on. I don't think my neck could withstand such a large display but that may be more an issue of conspicuous consumption than practicality.


----------



## James Long

My wife would probably break my neck if I bought a 55" display.


----------



## krel

James Long said:


> My wife would probably break my neck if I bought a 55" display.


I tell my gf I'm old and going. Blind I need a big screen


----------



## gio12

James Long said:


> My wife would probably break my neck if I bought a 55" display.


And I think 65" is small now. My buddies 85" QLED is massive.


----------



## billsharpe

I seldom watch TV on my iPad, but yesterday I noticed that when I held the 9.7-inch iPad at arm's length in front of me the screen just blocked the 55-inch TV set about ten feet away.


----------



## Rich

B. Shoe said:


> **Desperately clutches onto his plasma TV mounted in the living room.* *"I'll give you my plasma when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."


Buy a 4K set and you'll end dumping the plasma at the recycling center. I ran out of folks that wanted them.
Watch a 4K set for a week and you will see what I mean.

Rich


----------



## B. Shoe

Rich said:


> Buy a 4K set and you'll end dumping the plasma at the recycling center. I ran out of folks that wanted them.
> Watch a 4K set for a week and you will see what I mean.


I know, I know. And the day that I do finally upgrade, you'll be the first to know and I'm sure I'll have say, "You were right."  Until then, I'm be spinning in my little plasma orbit with all the 1080p that I can handle. (Remember when 1080p was the *PINNACLE*?)


----------



## Rich

B. Shoe said:


> I know, I know. And the day that I do finally upgrade, you'll be the first to know and I'm sure I'll have say, "You were right."  Until then, I'm be spinning in my little plasma orbit with all the 1080p that I can handle. (Remember when 1080p was the *PINNACLE*?)


Of course, I remember. I had twelve of them at one time. Every time I bought one I compared it to every LCD set the store had at my price range and the plasmas always had the best PQ. I was stunned when I realized how much better my new 4K set was than the best plasma I had. I put a plasma in the same room as the 4K set and the difference was striking. That comparison was made with a 42 inch Panny Plasma and a 65 inch 4K Samsung JS8500. No matter the distance the difference was obvious. The distance argument with the 4K sets is BS, no matter the distance, no matter the size of the set, the 4K sets simply blow the plasmas away.

Dumping all the plasmas at almost the same time hurt. Financially and mentally. I'm glad I did it. But look at what _you're_ gonna get when _you_ finally break down and get one. You'll get a large set for peanuts and you will have an epiphany, think of that. How many times in your life have you had an epiphany?

Rich


----------



## TheRatPatrol

ericknolls said:


> Both baseball games were blacked out.


Do you have MLBEI?


----------



## ericknolls

TheRatPatrol said:


> Do you have MLBEI?


No I don't have that channel. What is the purpose of the 4K Sports channel if you can't see a 4K game? I got 4K to see some programming and sports in the resolution. Not getting a warning saying the game is blacked out and their is no alternate channel to see it. I guess the jokes on a potential 4K customer and me.


----------



## b4pjoe

I think the only way you will get a 4K baseball game without subscribing to MLBEI is if it is a nationally carried game.


----------



## gio12

Rich said:


> Of course, I remember. I had twelve of them at one time. Every time I bought one I compared it to every LCD set the store had at my price range and the plasmas always had the best PQ. I was stunned when I realized how much better my new 4K set was than the best plasma I had. I put a plasma in the same room as the 4K set and the difference was striking. That comparison was made with a 42 inch Panny Plasma and a 65 inch 4K Samsung JS8500. No matter the distance the difference was obvious. The distance argument with the 4K sets is BS, no matter the distance, no matter the size of the set, the 4K sets simply blow the plasmas away.
> 
> Dumping all the plasmas at almost the same time hurt. Financially and mentally. I'm glad I did it. But look at what _you're_ gonna get when _you_ finally break down and get one. You'll get a large set for peanuts and you will have an epiphany, think of that. How many times in your life have you had an epiphany?
> 
> Rich


Yep, I had very sweet Panasonic Plasmas. Not the top of the lines, but close in 42".
My 65" LG OLED B7 picture is so much better. The B7 is a mid range OLED as well. Yeah, those Plasmas beat any LCD at the time. But today, OLEDs are just much better and 4K LEDs are still better overall.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

ericknolls said:


> No I don't have that channel. What is the purpose of the 4K Sports channel if you can't see a 4K game? I got 4K to see some programming and sports in the resolution. Not getting a warning saying the game is blacked out and their is no alternate channel to see it. I guess the jokes on a potential 4K customer and me.


It's not a channel, it's Major League Baseball Extra Innings. It gives you the ability to watch out of market baseball games, you need to subscribe to it if you want to watch the 4K games.


----------

