7 ms·
TV resolution goes at the pace of available content, and everything goes at the pace of context (living room 8-12' away), which is presently stuck at roughly wh
by npunt 3y ago
TV resolution goes at the pace of available content, and everything goes at the pace of context (living room 8-12' away), which is presently stuck at roughly what the human eye can resolve at that distance, which is about 4k.
There isn't a world where a 5k or 6k tv ever makes sense. Monitor, yes. But not for TVs.
- IggleSniggle 3y agoRight, and then there’s HUDs!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 111111IIIIIII 3y agoContent over 4k is readily available and even cheap to produce, but most of the good stuff is still being produced in 4k, so why is that???
- vanviegen 3y agoBecause 4k (and even 1080p) is good enough for most people?
- 111111IIIIIII 3y agoYeah, for TVs that sounds right, but not for desktop displays. I wonder if desktop display pixel density is only stagnated because the TV industry has so much influence on the momentum and the TV industry thinks 4k is good enough.
- bobthepanda 3y agoBandwidth. ISPs already throttle streaming and have data caps.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- vladvasiliu 3y agoI think that influence is pretty clear. In my neck of the woods, when pc monitors in 16:9 became a thing, the marketing copy was basically how great they were for watching movies. Only now do some manufacturers start to put out taller monitors, but they're still rare, at least in my market.
- fomine3 3y agoThat's why I'm happy to see new 8K TV release. I think it's overkill for 99% TV usage, but it's needed for PC display.
- prmoustache 3y agoAlso, if you compare same laptop available with a 1080p screen or a 4k screen, the former gets much better battery time.
- jon-wood 3y agoIs it even needed on desktop displays? My experience has been that anything under 32” you need to use scaling to make anything readable on a 4K display. I’m current using a 43” 4K display as my main monitor, sitting not very far from to, I can’t distinguish individual pixels as it is, and frankly even this is uncomfortably large, I have gutters set up around the edges so that windows maximise to a comfortably viewable size.
- vGPU 3y agoCost of delivery. Most stuff is being streamed these days, and nobody wants to have to pay for the cost of streaming 100gb files. Plus the cost of commercial videography equipment is insane. Why upgrade before you have to?
- rbanffy 3y agoThe better the capture, the longer the shelf life of that footage. So, while the pipeline might not run at more than 4K, the source material ideally is at a higher resolution. And you need to make sure it still looks good on lower quality displays.
- vGPU 3y agoNobody is making movies that anyone would really care to preserve for the coming decades anymore anyways. Besides which, we took a big step back when we switched from 35mm to digital. Digital has only recently reached par quality.
- rbanffy 3y agoThe BBC probably thought that when they recorded over old Dr. Who episodes. It’s up to our grandchildren to decide what they want to see and what they don’t.
- epgui 3y agoAs someone who used to run a photography company: total costs of producing 4k content (camera system, computer setup to handle file management and editing, time required to process and manage content, storage, headaches, etc) is absolutely enormous compared to 1080p. Higher resolution content like 8k seems like a nightmare for everyone but the consumer. I do think and hope we’ll get to the point where it’s not a big deal, but even today a brand new macbook pro will struggle to render a basic 1080p composite in After Effects. Even basic 1080p footage editing in Premiere Pro can overwhelm reasonably modern machines. (Yes, I know that you do X on your Y machine without problem, but my point is that it’s easy to forget to account for all these little costs, and they pile up! Especially for professional workloads where people love to push the bar higher and higher.)
- onion2k 3y agoI know that you do X on your Y machine without problem, but my point is that it’s easy to forget to account for all these little costs, and they pile up! Cloud-based After Effects render farms do help significantly though.
- o1y32 3y agoYou still doesn't seem to get the point.
- onion2k 3y agoI think I do. The point is that you can build your video in Affect Effects locally at 1080p (or less) on a standard Macbook, and then render the video in the cloud at 8k really easily and at quite a low cost. You don't need to "do X on your Y machine". You can rent someone else's machine for that.
- kuschku 3y ago> and at quite a low cost So, let's actually look at that. For a "low-budget" 8K pipeline you'd first need a camera that can shoot at 8K or more. Ideally you'd want more so you can crop-in or do stabilization in post. So you'd be shooting on the Blackmagic Ursa Mini Pro 12K (~$6k) [1]. Usually you're using 5-10% of the material that you shot in the final edit, for some movies that can go as low as 1% (e.g., Apocalypse Now [2]), but let's calculate with a 45min documentary and 7.5% material used. That means you've now got 30 TB of raw material [3]. You'll obviously use proxies for editing, but at least for color grading and for delivery you'll need access to the full material. So now you'll need to store 30 TB of raw material somewhere in the cloud accessible to the machine that's doing the delivery. Even assuming you've got a symmetric fiber connection so we can disregard potential traffic limits and transfer speeds for initially uploading the material, you'll still need to pay for the cloud storage. Creative Cloud has a storage limit of 100 GB for individuals or 1 TB for business plans [4], which is obviously far too limiting, so you'd need to use something like LucidLink. As you'd be working with large video files, you'd need high-performance storage, so you'd have to calculate with their performance plan, which is another $80 per TB per month, so $2400 per month just for this one single project [5]. ________________________ [1] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1578059-REG/blackmagic_design_ursa_mini_pro_12k.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1578059-REG/blackmagi... [2] https://books.google.de/books/about/?id=wB7cAAAAMAAJ https://books.google.de/books/about/?id=wB7cAAAAMAAJ [3] https://www.braw.info/capacity/ https://www.braw.info/capacity/ [4] https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html [5] https://www.lucidlink.com/pricing https://www.lucidlink.com/pricing
- prawn 3y agoThe demand for it would be from a minority. A lot of people are watching content on their phones, for one thing. I create some travel video content and up until last year, most of my clients weren't even fussed about 4K. I had been shooting at 5.1K for most of last year and then dropped to 4K this year because no one has needed it, but the storage and delivery costs are higher.
- prmoustache 3y agoEverytime you increase the resolution all the requirements in term of cpu, ram, bandwith, storage explode for production, media distribution and end user explode. It is not just replacing one screen for another on client's side.
- dehrmann 3y agoNow you're gonna tell me I don't need more than 44,100 Hz for sound.
- jhoechtl 3y agoI don't know if that is meant to be tounge in cheek, but for most ears it is physically impossible to discern any broader audio spectrum.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bayindirh 3y agoActually it is, but I'm stoned to death even when I share audible sound deltas between lossy and lossless codecs, so I'll just leave it with one sentence: Higher sampling rates and higher quality encodings result in a broader, more impressive and immersive sound stage primarily, and more details are secondary, and in some cases are elusive to run after.
- kuschku 3y ago"more impressive and immersive sound stage" is a nice way to say "placebo". Lossy codecs, at too low bitrates, can be a problem, yes. But every content can be recorded and played back as 48kHz 24-bit FLAC, which is perfect. No amount of money you spend can improve upon that.
- bayindirh 3y agoHere we go. So I have a setup: Akai AM2850 Amplifier, a pair of HECO Celan GT 302 speakers, a Yamaha CD-S300 CD player, which has USB input with iPod interface and MP3 capability. A well mastered album (read: No brickwalling) like Wasting Light (Foo Fighters) or Brother in Arms (Dire Straits) will provide you a larger soundstage when you listen in front of this set from CD (or any lossless source, but let's keep everything in the same DAC), even compared with 320kbps MP3 (it's minimal, but audible). This can be ruled as placebo alright, but audio science is hard science. It's subjective, and there's an aura of lies around it due to great deal of real snake oil in this. Yet, I listen to same amplifier for 30 years, and I know how it behaves in any genre, any sound source and any input level, yet I can make sense of the subtle sound stage changes, because I'm so familiar with it. Honestly, I played in large orchestras and whatnot, but when listened intently, the difference is there. It's difference between a good cup of Tchibo vs good cup of Davidoff coffee, but it's there. I'm currently not at my home, but if you want I can provide you a fresh set of sound deltas (FLAC vs. 320kbps MP3) when I return.
- upon_drumhead 3y agoDoesn’t the tv size matter? My little 42” 4k at 12’ can’t be the same amount of fidelity that a monster 83” at 12’ is doing.
- 2muchcoffeeman 3y agoA larger TV is meant to be viewed from a further distance though. At the suggested distance, your eyes shouldn't be able to resolve the individual pixels.
- fragmede 3y ago12 feet? The kids are working on strapping a pair of them to your face and calling it VR!
- kuschku 3y agoYou're right, the angular size is the true determining factor. But most people don't have a large enough living room to sit 12' from their TV :) e.g. I've got a 48" UHD TV at 2.5m (8') distance, and a 27" UHD monitor that I use at 60cm distance, and while the TV is beyond the resolution limit of my eyes, the PC monitor isn't.
- riku_iki 3y ago> TV resolution goes at the pace of available content there is also AI upscaling which can upscale content to higher resolution
- timc3 3y agoMy 20+ years of being involved in broadcast/tv/video technology says otherwise about TV resolution goes along with content. It’s actually a weird chicken/egg situation, that involves more than screens or content such as delivery, price of content creation and customer acceptance.
- TylerE 3y agoEven with really good film scanners, 4K seems to be about the limit of what’s worthwhile. Even at 4K itself compared to 1080, film grain I’d much more evident (not a bad thing persay, but a thing).
- cameronh90 3y agoYou've missed screen size as a factor. TVs are getting larger by about an inch per year since flat screens took over, and that trend doesn't seem like it's stopping any time soon. There's also the type of content and your personal visual acuity. If you're young, your eyesight is probably quite capable of resolving much finer details than normal 6/6 vision. I can tell the difference between 4K and 8K at a normal sitting distance on a 65" TV. However... the difference isn't enough for me to care. I'm much more interested in brightness, colour, framerate and a load of other things over another resolution bump.
- Night_Thastus 3y ago> which is about 4k 4k does not exist because it's optimal for the human eye. It's dominant right now because anything higher carries a really significant bandwidth penalty, which would be hard to do for both streaming and optical media. If we lived in a world where blu-ray disks could hold 1TB, and global internet speeds were 10x what they are now, 8k TVs would be the norm.
- Workaccount2 3y agoPeople can't even tell the difference between 4k and 8k. You need a microscope.
- Night_Thastus 3y agoPeople have been saying "You can't tell the difference between X and Y" since the dawn of HD graphics in general. "You can't tell the difference between HD and FHD." FHD and QDH. QHD and 4K. 4k and 8K. 60FPS and 120. 120 and 240. A higher resolution texture. Higher resolution audio. A higher resolution mesh. Etc. Every single time someone makes the claim it makes no difference, yet we do it regardless. For something that seemingly makes no difference, people sure seem to continue improving it regardless. And shockingly, consumers seem to really enjoy the products too.
- Workaccount2 3y agoYeah, but you actually can't tell the difference https://www.techhive.com/article/578376/8k-vs-4k-tvs-most-consumers-cannot-tell-the-difference.html https://www.techhive.com/article/578376/8k-vs-4k-tvs-most-co...
- Night_Thastus 3y agoMaybe. That test doesn't cover everything. Not all content, not all TV sizes, not all individuals, not all display technology, not all environments, not all compression tech, etc. What about images that use HDR10+? Or Dolby Vision? What about completely un-compressed lossless video? What about common compressions like X264 and X265? What about on an 80-inch screen? What about in dark vs bright scenes? Or even environments? (Human eyes handle images differently at low vs high brightness) I'm not saying the data is worthless because it's not, but I am saying that I think it's too sweeping to say it's completely un-noticable. Not enough data for that conclusion. Vision and display technology are both very complicated topics and there's always room for improvement IMO.