YES, he is actually starting his own channel. Speaking off the record, he shared that he is producing his own UA-cam channel so watch for it. As soon as I find out, I'll announce it on my channel, have him on again to help him launch it, so you all can subscribe to him!
Wow I remember this guy years ago when he talked about 4K Blu-Rays and what colour range and clarity they really have. Very insightful listening to his knowledge
Something left out of Scott’s evaluation ... text. Scrolling text is where resolution makes the biggest difference that matters. Besides reading the credits at the end of a movie, and marque text scrolling across the screen on business channels, it can make a difference reading the numbers on a football player’s Jersey. I bet it also could make a difference in seeing the stitching on a baseball to reveal the spin during a slow motion replay of a pitch. There is also a traditional standard for estimating visual cue perception versus resolution (based on a study that measured ability to recognize & identify vehicles versus how may pixels across it’s image). Besides outright acuity tests such as snellen eye chart, another revealing test measures how many milliseconds it takes to recognize (or read) something. (Resolution, contrast and noise are all very relevant). One more very relevant parameter is image update rate. When the eye is fixated on a scrolling text, the image on the retina is smearing. For example, the dark bars that comprise a snellen 20/20 eyechart letter are 1 arcminute thick (i.e. the letter “E” is 5 arcminutes high, 3 dark bars and 2 light bars). If the image is scrolling on the screen at 1 degree per second and updated 60 times per second, then the eye has moved 1 arcminute during each updated image. Since the updated image does not move during the 1/60th second, the image shifts across 1 arcminute of the retina. The resulting 1 arcminute of smearing on the retina blurs the dark and light bars. Thus, as the TV display resolution increases in terms of arcminutes per optical line pair, higher update rates become more important. Studies done demonstrated 240 Hz is better than 120 which is better than 60. 480Hz was marginally better than 240. This is from the visual engineering design perspective as applied to flight simulators for pilot training. 8k would be great for immersive displays with huge fields of view. 8k pixels could provide 1 arcminute pixels across 128 degrees and display a somewhat blurry but respectable 20/20 snellen eye chart across 90 degrees.
It's great this study exists even though the results aren't surprising at all. What I would like to know if higher framerate content would have an impact on how we perceive resolution. I suspect it might be easier to spot a difference between higher and lower res content if the framerate is higher, because it's easier to track moving details in high framerate content.
FOMO- the sole reason one would want an 8k would be on larger screens, that's it, no other reason. An 8k display obviously packs 4x that of 4k pixel density. Phones still battle between 1080p and higher and ppi is only noticed because of the large icons of low ppi .. but the takeaway is this, notice no rush to leave 1080 or less behind, notice it doesn't matter as long as the screen is vibrant and can be legible at smaller text settings(on phones & tablets). Great 👍 video I thoroughly enjoyed it! I am a former isf calibrator but from back in the day when we needed to calibrate constantly with DLP ie diamond series Mitsubishi or the like up to plasma retirement.. I went another direction into another end of tv world, storage, media streamers (home theater pc).. I remember him from Home Theater Spot, and all his content!
Will make a difference to streaming.. unfortunately rather giving us good bandwidth for Full-HD or 4K this extra bandwidth will be reserved for 8k.. It's such a shame we're pushing resolution over actual detail which is in stark contrast to camera sensors.. It's all marketing. I would prefer that people with full HD/4K sets could achieve via streaming the quality that's available in Blu-ray, in doing so they'd achieve roughly 4K streaming picture quality. I wish there were high bitrate options for all resolutions so you didn't have to buy an 8K screen to see something in the best quality. The thing is 8K screens aren't hard to manufacture so even though we don't need it, it will be forced upon us.. even though movies are generally only shot in 2K and special effects scenes are upscaled Full HD..
Excellent interview. Actually, the interview provides an answer wrt to the value of using an 8K TV only for upscaling 4K to 8K, in the absence of 8K content. The test already did a "perfect upscale" of 4K to 8K in order to achieve the DBX conditions for evaluating the value of 4K vs 8K generated content. IIRC, the results showed that only the high frequency 8K nature content was perceptually a "1" or Slightly Better", other 8K content was only 0.25 of "Slightly Better", a TV (or any other upscaler) can't do better than that. The problem IMO for any upscaling algorithm is that the 4K high frequency content is likely to be the toughest to scale accurately to 8K, assuming it can be done at all to create a perceptually different but accurate upscale.
If the breakthrough in upsclaing thats DLSS 2.0 can be generalized to video outside games I dont think upscaling 4k to 8k will be a problem for long. And doing it quick will be expensive too.
Depends on the content I suppose. It can be extremely noticeable. I saw one of the first 8K demos of the 2012 London Olympics Opening Ceremony at BBC Television Centre filmed by Japanese TV. It was incredible. You could identify the athletes when they were specs in the distance. It might’ve had a huge bitrate. I’ve no idea but it was amazing.
Ya, they down scaled from 8k. Than upscaled it. If you take a 4k movie and down scale it to 1080p the movie will look fantastic even on a 2k screen. What they need to do is upscale 4k to 8k like they way they did dvds when they came out from dvd to blu ray, blu ray would upscale the movie to a 1080p movie.
Yeah even if a movie is filmed in 4K. All special effects and post processing is rendered in 2K. What a waste and what a rip off to us. Spending all our money on the best theatre setups and studios aren't even letting us use it properly. So they can save time and money and going cheap with their rendering. Not fair at all
Really torn at the moment when deciding on a new tv this year. I’m looking at either the LG 48”CX (mainly because my wife wants a smaller tv compared to our current 55” B7. But I could maybe stretch to the Samsung 55” Q800T 8K. Quite a jump in cost between the two end in the UK with there being about £1600 difference. I’m going to get one of the new consoles at least and have also watched your video on Freesync and LFC only being confirmed in the Samsung’s. This is what made me reconsider the LG CX. I know the Samsung flagship 900 has got really good reviews, but do you know anything about the 800T in terms of the blacks and picture quality?
Awesome interview! I’d just like to see broadcast finally catch up to at least 1080p.... 4K would be best though! I’m not particularly interested in 8K sometimes I even have a hard time telling the difference between 1080p and 4K depending on the content. Display manufacturers should continue to focus on making better colors and contrast ratios and not keep pushing for higher resolutions so soon.
They actually are doing just that, but consumers won't upgrade based on those improvements alone. Marketers know that they have to make consumers feel that the paradigm is shifting and that their TV is obsolete. Knowing your TV is 4K when everything sold is 8K effectively does that.
The question is how many consumers will be watching 88” 8K displays from 5 feet away to see marginally slightly better picture? 0.01%? I remember the studies that were comparing 1080p with 4K at normal viewing distances (6-8 feet) and most people with average sight were not able to see any difference. The real advantage that 4K content had over 1080p was inclusion of HDR into UHD specs. They could probably modify HD specs to also include HDR, but they did not - leaving consumers to go and upgrade their equipment to enjoy HDR content. So are they planning to use the same trick to ‘force’ 8K upgrade cycle?
Love your channel keep up the great work!! just wanted to point out that Scott Wilkinson said the 8K content was scaled down to 4K and the TV upscaler was bypassed because of how they feed the signal to the tv.. so it's clean 4K-no upscale VS 8K.
Pass from 1080 to 4k and maybe to 8k, is just for the Natural Antialiasing. The upscaling is a nice test to see also 480 standard resolution upscaled would be interesting and see if you loose latency in the process.
Sure. Except that should happen at around 8K *per eye* for a VR helmet. Now, if we are talking about a 65" TV watched from ten to fifteen feet away, well... you do the math.
@@marcse7en At least you should understand that on a huge ass TV the 4K pixels should look truly gigantic... Since even on my 32" monitor they are VERY noticeable. To the point I wouldn't recommend at all anything above 32" for 4K. Heck, even 1080p on a 6.7" cellphone looks rather "grainy".
This reminds me of the reluctance of PC makers to offer SSDs for an absurdly long time. It was a marketing nightmare to try to make the average consumer understand why they wanted a drive that held half or less as much data and cost twice as much. Never mind the huge quality of life improvement the SSDs brought. It was just too much work to make people understand why this was better, so they chickened out for years. I shouldn't complain, though, since I got paid to do a lot of SSD installs in new PCs whose purchasers were willing to pay the premium but it simply wasn't a factory option. 4K is my personal limit for being able to appreciate the difference for something like a movie. The best demos I've seen for 8K were technical applications, like high altitude or satellite imagery with fantastic detail. I could imagine a few game scenarios that would take advantage of this, like surveying a newly discovered planet from a spaceship. I suspect it will be quite a while before the installed base allows for that kind of game. Supporting a multi-monitor setup would still be very niche but a better target market for the foreseeable future.
8K, in this case, was marginally slightly better because it was originally 8k downscaled to 4k and then a copy of the 4k clip was upscaled back into 8k or 4k in an 8k container. So the original 4K clip would be upscaled by the display and the 4k in 8k container clip would not need any upscaling hence my opinion, what was being tested was LG's upscaling ability. It would be better to compare the Native 8k clip versus the 4k clip.
Beyond any theoretical advantage of 8k… or the negligible availability of 8k content …. We should also consider the practical realities I have an Lg B8 OLED and watch 100% streamed content Unless I go out of my way…. I never see programming that gets near UHD (ultra high definition) In other-words… the limit# of my 3 year old 4K screen are seldom tested And I am pretty sure that would remain the case if I had a 8k screen
Years ago I started buying 4k TVs for their ability to upscale HD. Likewise, I will buy an 8k TV when I am convinced its upscaling of HD and 4k is similar to what 4k TVs did. So far I do not see that, and 4k TVs are significantly less expensive so the cost-benefit ratio is very much in their favor. It took years for there to be a significant amount of 4k material and aside from UA-cam, I don't see even a trickle of 8k material yet.
Great question for Scott: ''Why are all the TV's nowadays ''smart''? Not everyone is fan of EVERYTHING being smart these days (phones, cars, fridges etc.)
The same problem with video games. The manufacturers are forcing things towards better graphics, but the actual game play isn't as fun or titles not as varied as 20yrs ago. They all need to focus on substance over style.
We don't even have 8k (4320p!?!?) Blu-ray. So why 8k? By the way, why do we call it 4K and 8K while these are industry standards (for professional use). It's not even 16:9 (ratio) (Hopefully someone could awnser this)
Hi Scott I really miss you on the tech guy. I wish Leo would not interrupt you so much. I wish you had your own channel. Leo needs to get rid of the giz wiz and put you back on for a longer period, I really hate listening to the giz wiz for a whole hour.
I think the best bet for 8k is to upscale 4K content. Too much bandwidth and data for native 8k content. 4K content is constantly growing. 4K content with 8k up scaling is the magic recipe.
Yup, it's true 8K UHD might give a noticeable improvement in clarity compared to 4K UHD, for folks with 20/20 vision (or with eyes corrected to 20/20 via glasses), but only if those people sat no farther than about 2.1 feet from a 75" 8K TV, or no farther than about 2 and a half feet from an 85" 8K TV. Because folks with 20/10 vision can see fine details at a 20 foot distance, which people with 20/20 vision must be just 10 feet away from to see. But the Warner Brothers sponsored tests discussed in FOMO's video, found that even people with outstanding, and pretty uncommon, 20/10 vision, needed to be just 5 feet from an 88" 8K OLED TV to see "a slight difference" between native 8K versions & upconverted 4K versions of the same scenes. So folks with 20/20 vision would need to be at about half of that 5 foot distance to see that same MINOR difference with an 88 inch 8K TV. Sorry, Mr Kelly, but it's obvious that no significant portion of Americans could ever tolerate viewing movies while seated only 2 and a half feet from 88" or 85" TVs, just so that such people could detect some slight enhancement in clarity or detail. 99.5% of viewers would hate sitting even as close as 5 ft. from an 85" or 88" TV, for the same reason that a movie theater's front row seats are always the last to sell out, since folks hate having to move their heads back forth, to see all of the picture.
Interesting vid Fomo.. you put out some great content mate... but I must say, I don't agree with these statistics that you can't tell the differance... now while I can't comment on 8k, because I haven't watched it, but what I can say is in comparism... I have a 4k 79 inch tv, and I sit 2 meters away from it, and I watch it everyday, mainly through internet and gaming, and I can tell straight away the differance between 720 (SD), 1080 (HD), 2160 (UHD)... so if I can tell the differance easily between all those 3, then surely if I had 8k, I'd be able to tell the differance, and there's no way it would be marginally better... actually to be even more define... sometimes I even roll my eyes at how bad 1080 (HD) is compared to 4k, and don't even get me started on 720p.. it's so bad and grainy, that I can't believe we actually used to think it was great... back in the day when we couldn't compare like we can now... maybe I'm unique, but personally what I watch and see everyday, I can tell a big differance, and I actually am looking forward to 8k, when it comes down in price...
Upscale quality is definitely the difference maker when going to 8K from 1080p. Also, you have a pretty large TV so that also makes 4K v 1080p more noticeable. The key difference is 4K to 8K - maybe the resolution is already so fine that you need a 96" TV to see the difference?
@@stopthefomo from the studies I've done, apparently that is the truth, you need large sized tv's to see the differance... believe me, after my 79inch, I'll be looking at at least 100 inches, I'm also looking into projector wise 150 inch and up... thanks for taking the time out and commenting, I know you're a busy man... cheers, have a good week...
I refuse to fall for Samsung and their 8k push. My 10 year old TV will confidently hold me over for a few more years(still looks great as I only use it for gaming) till maybe QNED
My most important feature? Not 4K or 8K but ATSC 3.0. Thanks for the channel. Enjoy the mfgrs trends. I'm a Samsung fan but disappointed they only offer ATSC 3.0 in their 8K models. Actually, I wasn't that excited about 4K but it has become the resolution standard - for now...
I think that's where we are going, but it's going to be in pocket format and crank up the field of view with optics. There exists 5000x4000 pixel microled, 1 million nits, 10 000 DPI. JBD makes them; you can buy one to do AR research today. So imagine in 5 years an 8k by 8k microLED display, 20x20 mm; 1 million nits output, full colour. One for each eye, some nice optics and you've maxed out human vision. No screendoor effect. Maybe you can get to 90x90 degrees FOV. Not great for VR, but good enough for AR and good enough for better-than-IMAX that fits in your pocket. You can crank out brightness similar to sunlit ground. You can have very, very short persistance like a CRT and get perfect motion clarity without cranking out 1000 FPS. Now imagine that the bandwidth necessary to drive this thing at high refresh rates is created by using foveated rendering, so you only have to put out a high quality signal for a small part of the display where you are directly looking. You only see about 1000x1000 pixels per eye; it's ~60 pixels per degree at the fovea, rapidly drops to 15 pixels per degree a few degrees out and the peripheral vision is less than 1 pixel per degree. You don't actually need that much bandwidth or that much rendering power if you can have fast eye tracking. Now imagine that this will be a cheap in 10 years. It's kind of ridiculous ultimately, to crank out 100 W of light from an 80 inch display to get
Consumer confusion. Remember consumers were confused about OLED vs QLED with my favorite comment from a BB salesperson overhearing a customer comment: "QLED must be better than OLED because Q comes after O".
Thank you once again for a great vid, so it's TV manufacturers and their marketing departments that are pushing this idea that 8K is so much better, who would have guessed :) Also I know I have bugged you before about this, SDR to HDR settings on some Android boxes... see link ua-cam.com/video/MQf3TomswV8/v-deo.html what's it really doing and how does it do it in terms of metadata etc, I really want an expert to explain it... once again that's you.
There making 8k cause of money. 4k has peaked on tvs 100" under. but its going to take time for everthing eles to catch up and that will take years.. and tv manufacturers arnt going to wait. So they continue to make this rubbish to make more money n brainwash people to think ohhh 8k is better then 4k... lol 8k is for 100 plus inch tvs as they will require more pixels to produce a good picture.. 4k 8k same shit depending on what size tv you have 4k 100" below 8k 100" plus you wouldnt tell the difference. If you had a 4k on a 100 plus inch tv you would eventually start to see the pixels..thats why 8k is here is to have more pixels so that doesnt happen...its hdr that makes the picture.. dont get fooled by the tv manufacturers by a good 4k hdr tv for everyday household or a 8k tv if you have a massive area for it....easy done
I think you missed the point in TV 4 K AI upscaling question - they used the worst case 4K upscaling(most basic quadruple the pixels)against best case - native 8K footage(it doesn't matter how good AI upscaling is it's never going to be as good as native footage ) and still 8K basically just failed - so comparing 4k to 4k AI upscaled to 8K can only be LESS impressive than this study. Basically no need for 4k AI upscale to 8K study - we got all the answers we needed already. Fuck 8K.
Wow Scott Wilkinson!! Home Theatre Geeks was one of my favorite UA-cam channels !! I hope Scott can start his own channel one day .
YES, he is actually starting his own channel. Speaking off the record, he shared that he is producing his own UA-cam channel so watch for it. As soon as I find out, I'll announce it on my channel, have him on again to help him launch it, so you all can subscribe to him!
Wow I remember this guy years ago when he talked about 4K Blu-Rays and what colour range and clarity they really have. Very insightful listening to his knowledge
Something left out of Scott’s evaluation ... text. Scrolling text is where resolution makes the biggest difference that matters. Besides reading the credits at the end of a movie, and marque text scrolling across the screen on business channels, it can make a difference reading the numbers on a football player’s Jersey. I bet it also could make a difference in seeing the stitching on a baseball to reveal the spin during a slow motion replay of a pitch. There is also a traditional standard for estimating visual cue perception versus resolution (based on a study that measured ability to recognize & identify vehicles versus how may pixels across it’s image). Besides outright acuity tests such as snellen eye chart, another revealing test measures how many milliseconds it takes to recognize (or read) something. (Resolution, contrast and noise are all very relevant).
One more very relevant parameter is image update rate. When the eye is fixated on a scrolling text, the image on the retina is smearing. For example, the dark bars that comprise a snellen 20/20 eyechart letter are 1 arcminute thick (i.e. the letter “E” is 5 arcminutes high, 3 dark bars and 2 light bars). If the image is scrolling on the screen at 1 degree per second and updated 60 times per second, then the eye has moved 1 arcminute during each updated image. Since the updated image does not move during the 1/60th second, the image shifts across 1 arcminute of the retina. The resulting 1 arcminute of smearing on the retina blurs the dark and light bars. Thus, as the TV display resolution increases in terms of arcminutes per optical line pair, higher update rates become more important. Studies done demonstrated 240 Hz is better than 120 which is better than 60. 480Hz was marginally better than 240.
This is from the visual engineering design perspective as applied to flight simulators for pilot training. 8k would be great for immersive displays with huge fields of view. 8k pixels could provide 1 arcminute pixels across 128 degrees and display a somewhat blurry but respectable 20/20 snellen eye chart across 90 degrees.
Great to see scott is still going cheers yay ✔👍🍻
Yes. 👍👍👍Please have him back. That was a great video.
I like the idea of 4K being well upscaled to 8K. More subtlety in color and detail would be, hopefully, the outcome.
It's great this study exists even though the results aren't surprising at all. What I would like to know if higher framerate content would have an impact on how we perceive resolution. I suspect it might be easier to spot a difference between higher and lower res content if the framerate is higher, because it's easier to track moving details in high framerate content.
FOMO- the sole reason one would want an 8k would be on larger screens, that's it, no other reason. An 8k display obviously packs 4x that of 4k pixel density. Phones still battle between 1080p and higher and ppi is only noticed because of the large icons of low ppi .. but the takeaway is this, notice no rush to leave 1080 or less behind, notice it doesn't matter as long as the screen is vibrant and can be legible at smaller text settings(on phones & tablets).
Great 👍 video I thoroughly enjoyed it! I am a former isf calibrator but from back in the day when we needed to calibrate constantly with DLP ie diamond series Mitsubishi or the like up to plasma retirement.. I went another direction into another end of tv world, storage, media streamers (home theater pc)..
I remember him from Home Theater Spot, and all his content!
Will make a difference to streaming.. unfortunately rather giving us good bandwidth for Full-HD or 4K this extra bandwidth will be reserved for 8k.. It's such a shame we're pushing resolution over actual detail which is in stark contrast to camera sensors.. It's all marketing. I would prefer that people with full HD/4K sets could achieve via streaming the quality that's available in Blu-ray, in doing so they'd achieve roughly 4K streaming picture quality. I wish there were high bitrate options for all resolutions so you didn't have to buy an 8K screen to see something in the best quality.
The thing is 8K screens aren't hard to manufacture so even though we don't need it, it will be forced upon us.. even though movies are generally only shot in 2K and special effects scenes are upscaled Full HD..
Excellent interview. Actually, the interview provides an answer wrt to the value of using an 8K TV only for upscaling 4K to 8K, in the absence of 8K content. The test already did a "perfect upscale" of 4K to 8K in order to achieve the DBX conditions for evaluating the value of 4K vs 8K generated content. IIRC, the results showed that only the high frequency 8K nature content was perceptually a "1" or Slightly Better", other 8K content was only 0.25 of "Slightly Better", a TV (or any other upscaler) can't do better than that. The problem IMO for any upscaling algorithm is that the 4K high frequency content is likely to be the toughest to scale accurately to 8K, assuming it can be done at all to create a perceptually different but accurate upscale.
If the breakthrough in upsclaing thats DLSS 2.0 can be generalized to video outside games I dont think upscaling 4k to 8k will be a problem for long. And doing it quick will be expensive too.
Many movies aren't even real 4K since the studios use 2K intermediates in postproduction and then scale it up to 4K again.
Depends on the content I suppose. It can be extremely noticeable. I saw one of the first 8K demos of the 2012 London Olympics Opening Ceremony at BBC Television Centre filmed by Japanese TV. It was incredible. You could identify the athletes when they were specs in the distance. It might’ve had a huge bitrate. I’ve no idea but it was amazing.
Ya, they down scaled from 8k. Than upscaled it.
If you take a 4k movie and down scale it to 1080p the movie will look fantastic even on a 2k screen.
What they need to do is upscale 4k to 8k like they way they did dvds when they came out from dvd to blu ray, blu ray would upscale the movie to a 1080p movie.
Postproduction mostly done on 2K and then upscaled to 4K. Lets start making post production in 4k for a start.
HERE HERE
Yeah even if a movie is filmed in 4K. All special effects and post processing is rendered in 2K. What a waste and what a rip off to us. Spending all our money on the best theatre setups and studios aren't even letting us use it properly. So they can save time and money and going cheap with their rendering. Not fair at all
The two of you answered many questions I had about the 8k vs 4k...nice presentation.
Really torn at the moment when deciding on a new tv this year. I’m looking at either the LG 48”CX (mainly because my wife wants a smaller tv compared to our current 55” B7. But I could maybe stretch to the Samsung 55” Q800T 8K. Quite a jump in cost between the two end in the UK with there being about £1600 difference. I’m going to get one of the new consoles at least and have also watched your video on Freesync and LFC only being confirmed in the Samsung’s. This is what made me reconsider the LG CX. I know the Samsung flagship 900 has got really good reviews, but do you know anything about the 800T in terms of the blacks and picture quality?
So glad I found your channel 😊 love the tech enfo.👍👍👍
Awesome interview! I’d just like to see broadcast finally catch up to at least 1080p.... 4K would be best though! I’m not particularly interested in 8K sometimes I even have a hard time telling the difference between 1080p and 4K depending on the content. Display manufacturers should continue to focus on making better colors and contrast ratios and not keep pushing for higher resolutions so soon.
They actually are doing just that, but consumers won't upgrade based on those improvements alone. Marketers know that they have to make consumers feel that the paradigm is shifting and that their TV is obsolete. Knowing your TV is 4K when everything sold is 8K effectively does that.
I feel the same way i feel like image quality has already plateaud the average person has a hard time seeing a big difference between 1080p and 4k
More from Scott in the future please
Fomo on tech.. Where are the 12 bit panels? I hear that would make a bigger difference than 8k
The question is how many consumers will be watching 88” 8K displays from 5 feet away to see marginally slightly better picture? 0.01%?
I remember the studies that were comparing 1080p with 4K at normal viewing distances (6-8 feet) and most people with average sight were not able to see any difference. The real advantage that 4K content had over 1080p was inclusion of HDR into UHD specs. They could probably modify HD specs to also include HDR, but they did not - leaving consumers to go and upgrade their equipment to enjoy HDR content. So are they planning to use the same trick to ‘force’ 8K upgrade cycle?
Love your channel keep up the great work!! just wanted to point out that Scott Wilkinson said the 8K content was scaled down to 4K and the TV upscaler was bypassed because of how they feed the signal to the tv.. so it's clean 4K-no upscale VS 8K.
Pass from 1080 to 4k and maybe to 8k, is just for the Natural Antialiasing. The upscaling is a nice test to see also 480 standard resolution upscaled would be interesting and see if you loose latency in the process.
Very good video! Answered a burning question about 4k vs 8k. Doesnt seem to make a big difference at this point.
One doesn't have to be a genius to work out that at some point increased resolution will no longer bring any benefit.
Sure. Except that should happen at around 8K *per eye* for a VR helmet. Now, if we are talking about a 65" TV watched from ten to fifteen feet away, well... you do the math.
@@getsideways7257 Despite my gargantuan I.Q. I'm afraid math was never my strong point! 👎🤣
@@marcse7en At least you should understand that on a huge ass TV the 4K pixels should look truly gigantic... Since even on my 32" monitor they are VERY noticeable. To the point I wouldn't recommend at all anything above 32" for 4K.
Heck, even 1080p on a 6.7" cellphone looks rather "grainy".
This reminds me of the reluctance of PC makers to offer SSDs for an absurdly long time. It was a marketing nightmare to try to make the average consumer understand why they wanted a drive that held half or less as much data and cost twice as much. Never mind the huge quality of life improvement the SSDs brought. It was just too much work to make people understand why this was better, so they chickened out for years. I shouldn't complain, though, since I got paid to do a lot of SSD installs in new PCs whose purchasers were willing to pay the premium but it simply wasn't a factory option.
4K is my personal limit for being able to appreciate the difference for something like a movie. The best demos I've seen for 8K were technical applications, like high altitude or satellite imagery with fantastic detail. I could imagine a few game scenarios that would take advantage of this, like surveying a newly discovered planet from a spaceship. I suspect it will be quite a while before the installed base allows for that kind of game. Supporting a multi-monitor setup would still be very niche but a better target market for the foreseeable future.
8K, in this case, was marginally slightly better because it was originally 8k downscaled to 4k and then a copy of the 4k clip was upscaled back into 8k or 4k in an 8k container. So the original 4K clip would be upscaled by the display and the 4k in 8k container clip would not need any upscaling hence my opinion, what was being tested was LG's upscaling ability.
It would be better to compare the Native 8k clip versus the 4k clip.
I remember them saying the same thing for 4k.
But this time it's true. 4K is quite obviously better.
Beyond any theoretical advantage of 8k… or the negligible availability of 8k content ….
We should also consider the practical realities
I have an Lg B8 OLED and watch 100% streamed content
Unless I go out of my way…. I never see programming that gets near UHD (ultra high definition)
In other-words… the limit# of my 3 year old 4K screen are seldom tested
And I am pretty sure that would remain the case if I had a 8k screen
Years ago I started buying 4k TVs for their ability to upscale HD. Likewise, I will buy an 8k TV when I am convinced its upscaling of HD and 4k is similar to what 4k TVs did. So far I do not see that, and 4k TVs are significantly less expensive so the cost-benefit ratio is very much in their favor. It took years for there to be a significant amount of 4k material and aside from UA-cam, I don't see even a trickle of 8k material yet.
In your opinion, what are the best TV models with the best Upscaling technology? To 4k or even to 8k
Great question for Scott: ''Why are all the TV's nowadays ''smart''?
Not everyone is fan of EVERYTHING being smart these days (phones, cars, fridges etc.)
i think 8k would be really great for a 43 inch monitor that you sit 2 feet away from, i wouldn’t get an 8k tv unless it was massive like 100 inches +
Then you'll love my most recent showdown video! ua-cam.com/video/mpKwCPo_V3g/v-deo.html
So correct
Awesome vid ..more collabs!!
The same problem with video games. The manufacturers are forcing things towards better graphics, but the actual game play isn't as fun or titles not as varied as 20yrs ago. They all need to focus on substance over style.
We don't even have 8k (4320p!?!?) Blu-ray. So why 8k?
By the way, why do we call it 4K and 8K while these are industry standards (for professional use). It's not even 16:9 (ratio) (Hopefully someone could awnser this)
We need distance and screen size?...
Leo Leporte.... I haven't seen him in forever. I should look up his new stuff.
Hi Scott I really miss you on the tech guy. I wish Leo would not interrupt you so much. I wish you had your own channel. Leo needs to get rid of the giz wiz and put you back on for a longer period, I really hate listening to the giz wiz for a whole hour.
I think the best bet for 8k is to upscale 4K content. Too much bandwidth and data for native 8k content. 4K content is constantly growing. 4K content with 8k up scaling is the magic recipe.
720p and 1080p content doesn't upscale well on 8k tv compare to 4k tv
I think 4K needs to be maxed out before 4K becomes viable.
8K Ultra HD is noticeable on screen 75/85 inches and bigger
Yup, it's true 8K UHD might give a noticeable improvement in clarity compared to 4K UHD, for folks with 20/20 vision (or with eyes corrected to 20/20 via glasses), but only if those people sat no farther than about 2.1 feet from a 75" 8K TV, or no farther than about 2 and a half feet from an 85" 8K TV. Because folks with 20/10 vision can see fine details at a 20 foot distance, which people with 20/20 vision must be just 10 feet away from to see. But the Warner Brothers sponsored tests discussed in FOMO's video, found that even people with outstanding, and pretty uncommon, 20/10 vision, needed to be just 5 feet from an 88" 8K OLED TV to see "a slight difference" between native 8K versions & upconverted 4K versions of the same scenes. So folks with 20/20 vision would need to be at about half of that 5 foot distance to see that same MINOR difference with an 88 inch 8K TV. Sorry, Mr Kelly, but it's obvious that no significant portion of Americans could ever tolerate viewing movies while seated only 2 and a half feet from 88" or 85" TVs, just so that such people could detect some slight enhancement in clarity or detail. 99.5% of viewers would hate sitting even as close as 5 ft. from an 85" or 88" TV, for the same reason that a movie theater's front row seats are always the last to sell out, since folks hate having to move their heads back forth, to see all of the picture.
Interesting vid Fomo.. you put out some great content mate... but I must say, I don't agree with these statistics that you can't tell the differance... now while I can't comment on 8k, because I haven't watched it, but what I can say is in comparism... I have a 4k 79 inch tv, and I sit 2 meters away from it, and I watch it everyday, mainly through internet and gaming, and I can tell straight away the differance between 720 (SD), 1080 (HD), 2160 (UHD)... so if I can tell the differance easily between all those 3, then surely if I had 8k, I'd be able to tell the differance, and there's no way it would be marginally better... actually to be even more define... sometimes I even roll my eyes at how bad 1080 (HD) is compared to 4k, and don't even get me started on 720p.. it's so bad and grainy, that I can't believe we actually used to think it was great... back in the day when we couldn't compare like we can now... maybe I'm unique, but personally what I watch and see everyday, I can tell a big differance, and I actually am looking forward to 8k, when it comes down in price...
Upscale quality is definitely the difference maker when going to 8K from 1080p. Also, you have a pretty large TV so that also makes 4K v 1080p more noticeable. The key difference is 4K to 8K - maybe the resolution is already so fine that you need a 96" TV to see the difference?
@@stopthefomo from the studies I've done, apparently that is the truth, you need large sized tv's to see the differance... believe me, after my 79inch, I'll be looking at at least 100 inches, I'm also looking into projector wise 150 inch and up... thanks for taking the time out and commenting, I know you're a busy man... cheers, have a good week...
I refuse to fall for Samsung and their 8k push. My 10 year old TV will confidently hold me over for a few more years(still looks great as I only use it for gaming) till maybe QNED
My most important feature? Not 4K or 8K but ATSC 3.0. Thanks for the channel. Enjoy the mfgrs trends. I'm a Samsung fan but disappointed they only offer ATSC 3.0 in their 8K models. Actually, I wasn't that excited about 4K but it has become the resolution standard - for now...
But who is sitting 5 feet away in front a 88" tv?
Apparently people with 20/10 vision watching nature footage of colorful birds?
🤣🤣
I think that's where we are going, but it's going to be in pocket format and crank up the field of view with optics.
There exists 5000x4000 pixel microled, 1 million nits, 10 000 DPI. JBD makes them; you can buy one to do AR research today.
So imagine in 5 years an 8k by 8k microLED display, 20x20 mm; 1 million nits output, full colour. One for each eye, some nice optics and you've maxed out human vision. No screendoor effect. Maybe you can get to 90x90 degrees FOV. Not great for VR, but good enough for AR and good enough for better-than-IMAX that fits in your pocket. You can crank out brightness similar to sunlit ground. You can have very, very short persistance like a CRT and get perfect motion clarity without cranking out 1000 FPS.
Now imagine that the bandwidth necessary to drive this thing at high refresh rates is created by using foveated rendering, so you only have to put out a high quality signal for a small part of the display where you are directly looking. You only see about 1000x1000 pixels per eye; it's ~60 pixels per degree at the fovea, rapidly drops to 15 pixels per degree a few degrees out and the peripheral vision is less than 1 pixel per degree. You don't actually need that much bandwidth or that much rendering power if you can have fast eye tracking.
Now imagine that this will be a cheap in 10 years.
It's kind of ridiculous ultimately, to crank out 100 W of light from an 80 inch display to get
8k is about higher pixel density for larger TVs. Not sure why we need to have all these discussion about that. 8k is not about looking better then 4k.
Consumer confusion. Remember consumers were confused about OLED vs QLED with my favorite comment from a BB salesperson overhearing a customer comment: "QLED must be better than OLED because Q comes after O".
@@stopthefomo just wait till you feast your eyes on ZLED!
Correct bigger tv needs nore pixels to get a good image.. 8k on a 100 plus inch tv would look exactly the same as watching 4k on a 75 inch tv..
Thank you once again for a great vid, so it's TV manufacturers and their marketing departments that are pushing this idea that 8K is so much better, who would have guessed :) Also I know I have bugged you before about this, SDR to HDR settings on some Android boxes... see link ua-cam.com/video/MQf3TomswV8/v-deo.html what's it really doing and how does it do it in terms of metadata etc, I really want an expert to explain it... once again that's you.
Sadly, Android boxes are beyond my thing, but I'll keep my eyes and ears out for an expert to bring in to discuss this!
so basically buy either the samsung Q90T OR LG CX THIS year, diff being brightness and pure black. no brainer. 8K is a joke for now.
Bullshit. The z8h smokes any of those television.
@@dennisfinan7977 we’re talking about the realm of affordability. The z8h is like 7-8 grand.
@@polishdude001 its 5k. I didn't see price talked about. All I read was 8k is a joke. But that 8k tv destroys the 4k tv
@@dennisfinan7977 I would argue the fact that it doesn’t have the master drive +. It’s a farce.
@@polishdude001 how is it a farce? The picture blows away both tvs your talking about. I have seen it with my own eyes.
He sits way too far away, I sit 2 metres or less from my 55 inch and it still doesn't compare to the cinerma where I sit 4 rows from the front.
That's why I need a 75" for that "experience".
There making 8k cause of money. 4k has peaked on tvs 100" under. but its going to take time for everthing eles to catch up and that will take years.. and tv manufacturers arnt going to wait. So they continue to make this rubbish to make more money n brainwash people to think ohhh 8k is better then 4k... lol 8k is for 100 plus inch tvs as they will require more pixels to produce a good picture.. 4k 8k same shit depending on what size tv you have 4k 100" below 8k 100" plus you wouldnt tell the difference. If you had a 4k on a 100 plus inch tv you would eventually start to see the pixels..thats why 8k is here is to have more pixels so that doesnt happen...its hdr that makes the picture.. dont get fooled by the tv manufacturers by a good 4k hdr tv for everyday household or a 8k tv if you have a massive area for it....easy done
You would never sit 5 feet away from an 88” screen anyway. 8k is a pointless scam.
I think you missed the point in TV 4 K AI upscaling question - they used the worst case 4K upscaling(most basic quadruple the pixels)against best case - native 8K footage(it doesn't matter how good AI upscaling is it's never going to be as good as native footage ) and still 8K basically just failed - so comparing 4k to 4k AI upscaled to 8K can only be LESS impressive than this study. Basically no need for 4k AI upscale to 8K study - we got all the answers we needed already. Fuck 8K.