Move over 4K, the first 8K TV will be on sale next month.

Does anyone think that the move from 4K to 8K is rendered pretty much pointless when the size of the pixel in the former is literally smaller than what the human eye can pick out?

Also think about it for rendering, if you’re using a render engine and what equivalent render times to 1080P renders, then the hardware will either have to become 16 times faster or the render engine will have to become 16 times faster as far as performance and convergence is concerned. This could be a headache for most CG studios because the resolution is increasing faster than the evolution rate of the technology needed to produce content for it.

And get this (not so creative name) for 8K, ultra high definition. While it’s amazing to see the ability for companies to now produce pixels that small, I just think it would currently be a waste of money (and no wonder, they are not going to be marketing it to normal customers even to start with). The one place where even 4K could be very interesting right now is in VR, since you need to have ultra smooth motion with extremely high resolutions to reduce nausea.

So what is the verdict, is this a good revolution, or marketing gone bad?

I agree, it’s too early for this to be particularly useful in consumer products. Television and movies, like you said, are not going to see much, if any, noticeable visual improvement over a 4k television and I don’t think studios are nearly prepared to start producing 8k content

When it comes to VR there’s certainly a point to be made, but the Xbox One and PS4 are having a tough time as it is just trying to push 1920x1080 let alone 4 or 8k. What graphics chip could push real-time 4k or 8k graphics at even 24 fps?

Most VFX in movies are finished at 2K or lower. So 4k and indeed 8k will not show any more detail than your regular blu-ray.

Forced innovation, and very transparent at this point.

The only benefit to video capture that high I think is to improve any algorithmic computer vision right?

(once it goes past the level the eye can see?)

will this mean better mocap?

(on the camera end)

about the TV’s … it’s just another thing for ultra rich to soak money into .

still waiting for HDR monitors in $1k range or an ultra high inflation to buy one for $42k or exchange for coffee :evilgrin:

8k is pointless to be honest

No 4k isn’t going away anytime soon,

and speaking of time,

4k is like a luxury
hell I still have a 900p and 720p monitors.

will probably be relevant in 5 years or so. Honestly, I can´t see any reason for 8K resolution on a TV smaller than 50 inches… unless maybe if you sit 2 inches from your television… don´t do that.

I think that in the future there will be applications for 8k displays, particularly for very large displays. It’s just that content creators aren’t going to get there anytime soon, probably, and for real time applications the technology to render at those resolutions is going to lag behind for, again probably, a good while.

Of course there is the chicken or the egg issue. Content creators have no incentive to start creating 8k content if consumers have no means to take advantage of it and consumers aren’t going to buy an 8k display if there’s no content for it. So someone has to bite the bullet here and in these cases it’s usually not the content creators which generally can’t afford to take the hit in the name of progress like Sony or Samsung can.

The thing is that 8k probably won’t be able to have content created for it for a long time, but eventually sure. So you could argue if the technology to produce an 8k display is available and will eventually be supported why bother upgrading to a 4k display, the 8k will have greater staying power in the long run even though it offers no advantage in the immediate to near future.

It’s like buying an Android device with a 64bit processor. Android is only offered in a 32bit flavor so that 64bit processor offers nothing over 32bit counterparts. Qualcomm started producing 64bit processors knowing Google wouldn’t have the incentive to make a 64bit Android until there was a processor that could run it.

Maybe, but believe it or not, there’s one company who think it’s a good idea to have 4K resolution on a phone, a phone. It’s already about impossible to tell pixels apart on retina displays, so why do they need to be any smaller unless you’re going to view it with a magnifying glass?

you don’t know my life

when you increase pixel density, the resolution actually would make 2d filters more crisp, however… that is alot of CPU power
(post processing that kind of resolution…)

thinks like 2d bloom shaders just seem like they may benefit (maybe?)

Why would it help the accuracy of 2D shaders to the point where you can actually tell a noticeable difference? A bloom shader for instance is blurry by nature, I don’t think a few more pixels is going to be that big of a deal compared to the much more intensive compute times).

Yeah there’s no need for that, most phones don’t even need to support 1080p to be honest. A 4k phone screen is just a waste of battery life in my opinion.

but if you only got 2k eyes its all pointless

I have a 4K screen and it greatly enhanced my productivity. Right now I think 8K is pushing it though!

And it will be worn out and obsolete before there is infrastructure to support it. Total waste of money… unless you torrent a bunch of IMAX files.

You mean like those huge display screens they have outside of buildings in many cities around the globe? Content creators somehow manage on those. The only thing that’ll be different is the DPI, and even then it might not be too significant because displays like that are usually seen from a distance.

Yeah I’m not sure what the resolution is on those displays, I don’t think it needs to be that great since, like you said, they’re seen from such a distance. Viewing angle is probably the bigger concern there.

If you had a giant interactive wall alongside a sidewalk, in a museum corridor, or in some 4D amusement park attraction (which people might only be a foot from), you might have an application there.

Also bandwidth of delivery is an issue.

Phone capture would save you building better zoom optics, just oversample wide angle and reframe from 8K to 2K. This would help when stabilising a handheld image. Why not record a square image and crop to vertical or horizontal, depending on the delivery device. Just send metadata to the display medium for correct cropping. Similar to the new iphone video/still image trick.

But i agree, what is the point of hires tiny screens?