8K Association defines new requirements for 8K TVs

Stairmand

2019-09-03 11:08

Would have been nice to use it as an opportunity to clean up the spec's. Although it specified HDMI 2.1 it doesn't specifically specify you need to support all the features of it. (from what I gather) I would have liked eARC for example to be a mandatory requirement.

#5707313

Kaarme

2019-09-03 11:26

Stairmand:

Would have been nice to use it as an opportunity to clean up the spec's. Although it specified HDMI 2.1 it doesn't specifically specify you need to support all the features of it. (from what I gather) I would have liked eARC for example to be a mandatory requirement.

Considering it's just for TVs, I reckon there's no special need to enforce everything. I guess only the bare minimum for TV use would be more logical. After all, all manufacturers try to save where they can. For example variable refresh rate is a part of HDMI 2.1, but it's not necessary for a TV, unless the TV is used with a gaming device.

#5707317

Loobyluggs

2019-09-03 11:59

7,680? Someone can't add up, that figure needs to be 1,024 multiplied by 8, which gives a number of 8,192...they are missing 512 from somewhere. (for those of you who don't know, the "K" equates to 1,024, this means nK, and you transpose "n" with the multiple) Muppets.

#5707320

alanm

2019-09-03 12:25

How about a minimum size standard, ie, 65", to prevent the industry from bilking clueless consumers who may think that 8k is twice as visually stunning as 4k from 10-12' away.

#5707321

XP-200

2019-09-03 12:26

Great news, i am smashing up my now useless 4k TVs as we speak in preparation for these 8k ones.........and i dea when they will announce 16k. 😛

#5707328

Clawedge

2019-09-03 12:59

Cries in full HD while watching 720p content

#5707330

warlord

2019-09-03 13:02

Loobyluggs:

7,680? Someone can't add up, that figure needs to be 1,024 multiplied by 8, which gives a number of 8,192...they are missing 512 from somewhere. (for those of you who don't know, the "K" equates to 1,024, this means nK, and you transpose "n" with the multiple) Muppets.

4K/8K is the absolute maximum of panel capabilities. The proper resolution is relevant only to "HD" world. This is the usable resolution. Only if you select input as Hdmi full spec 8k smpte you will get 8192×4320. But, the recommended resolution though for all apps is UHD 8K 7680*4320. The same goes for full spec hdmi 4k smpte vs 4k UHD. Many apps are out of bounds or just wrongly displayed with 4096*2160, so, the best is 3840*2160, because of HD multiplication.

#5707393

MBTP

2019-09-03 15:08

Loobyluggs:

7,680? Someone can't add up, that figure needs to be 1,024 multiplied by 8, which gives a number of 8,192...they are missing 512 from somewhere. (for those of you who don't know, the "K" equates to 1,024, this means nK, and you transpose "n" with the multiple) Muppets.

Aspect Ratio...16:9 4k monitors use 3840 x 2160 while DCI (aprox 17:9)uses 4096 x 2160, same thing applies to 8k.

#5707453

DocStrangelove

2019-09-03 17:30

So it's actually 7.5K, not 8K. xD

#5707456

Loobyluggs

2019-09-03 17:37

MBTP:

Aspect Ratio...16:9 4k monitors use 3840 x 2160 while DCI (aprox 17:9)uses 4096 x 2160, same thing applies to 8k.

1.78:1 is a horrible ratio and is no excuse for any company/org to mislead consumer into thinking they have got an 8K device when they haven't...their get-out-of-card card is the inclusion of the "UHD" label, as if that excuses the lack of precision. You guys know my feelings on this, and you know I'm immovable on it. I'm right and they are wrong.

#5707467

NCC1701D

2019-09-03 17:56

"All with an eye toward efforts to promote the rapid growth of 8K content" Still waiting for the rapid growth of 4K content.

#5707478

mannix

2019-09-03 18:04

Another not very useful association proposing another messy specification. Sloppy from the start, missing 50p. Hope they just forgot it in the news summary but knowing the players....

#5707489

schmidtbag

2019-09-03 18:27

Loobyluggs:

7,680? Someone can't add up, that figure needs to be 1,024 multiplied by 8, which gives a number of 8,192...they are missing 512 from somewhere. (for those of you who don't know, the "K" equates to 1,024, this means nK, and you transpose "n" with the multiple)

For those of us who don't know? Since when were display widths ever intentionally measured in bytes? 1080p is 2K. Last time I checked, 1920 is not the same number as 2048. 4K is 3840 pixels wide (1920x2), which is clearly less than 4096. 8K is double the width and double the height of 4K. Notice a pattern here? They're just rounding up to the nearest thousand. So far, the only resolutions that follow a multiple of 1024 are 2.5K (which everyone refers to as 1440p) and 5K. Part of me wonders if that's just coincidence. However... I do agree that it's a bit of a stretch for them to round up 7680 as 8000 (or 8192 for that matter). EDIT: BTW, the most common form factors are measured in 16:9, 16:10, 4:3, 4:5, and 2:3. Of all existing resolutions, none of them are an exponent of 2 for both the width and height. So, if you insist an 8K resolution is supposed to be 8192 pixels wide, what about the height? If you conform to either 16:9 or 16:10, you're not going to get a clean squared number.

Loobyluggs:

You guys know my feelings on this, and you know I'm immovable on it. I'm right and they are wrong.

What a reckless level of arrogance.

#5707499

alanm

2019-09-03 18:37

Loobyluggs:

1.78:1 is a horrible ratio and is no excuse for any company/org to mislead consumer into thinking they have got an 8K device when they haven't...

Jeez dude.. who is going to be complaining about not enough pixels @ 7680?

#5707591

Moto_Life

2019-09-03 22:23

alanm:

Jeez dude.. who is going to be complaining about not enough pixels @ 7680?

Seeing as it will all be up scaled, No one. Except maybe this guy lol.

#5707601

MonstroMart

2019-09-03 23:09

Personally i'd rather have something able to scale 1080p content easily and almost perfectly than having a perfect multiple of 1024. This said maybe a multiple of 42 would be better. Dunno. Hard question to answer.

#5707605

Neo Cyrus

2019-09-03 23:28

NCC1701D:

"All with an eye toward efforts to promote the rapid growth of 8K content" Still waiting for the rapid growth of 4K content.

Still waiting for most content to be available in anything 1080p+, and for the "1080p" content available not to be at so low bit rates that it's literally lower quality than medium bit rate 720p. Edit: Missed a word.

#5707617

tsunami231

2019-09-04 00:35

Neo Cyrus:

Still waiting for most content to be available in anything 1080p+, and for the "1080p" content available not to be at so bit rates that it's literally lower quality than medium bit rate 720p.

seeing as 1080p isnt even standard yet we will be waiting long time hell we still have 480i\p transmissions. 1080p on dish isnt even 720p quality imo forget about they fact there base transmissions isnt even progressive. all other cable company and satellites company are quilt of this same habit too, Netlfix and other streaming services are closer to actual 1080p quality. forget about 4k or 8k being thing anytime soon. Fios has better PQ then Dish dont know about direct tv as i not seen them in decade and most cable company imo have better pq then Dish too, Dish imo has the best receiver in that hopper 3 and 16 tuners to bad there transmissions is low quality. thought I would not mind 50" 8k TV to replace the 55" 4k I have. I dont care what anyone says to me 4k look better to me on 50" vs 65" 8k will be no different. I dont have never bought in to this " screen size" must be certain size for certain resolutions to be meaning full or seen. those those people I say "get" new eyes

#5707627

alanm

2019-09-04 02:17

tsunami231:

thought I would not mind 50" 8k TV to replace the 55" 4k I have. I dont care what anyone says to me 4k look better to me on 50" vs 65" 8k will be no different. I dont have never bought in to this " screen size" must be certain size for certain resolutions to be meaning full or seen. those those people I say "get" new eyes

If "4k look better to me on 50" vs 65", then more likely it is due to better TV quality than due to the screen size. If you think "8k will be no different", then you have thrown the law of diminishing returns out the window and probably think 16k and 32k will similarly look better on 50" vs 65" as well. 🙄

#5707639

tsunami231

2019-09-04 03:24

alanm:

If "4k look better to me on 50" vs 65", then more likely it is due to better TV quality than due to the screen size. If you think "8k will be no different", then you have thrown the law of diminishing returns out the window and probably think 16k and 32k will similarly look better on 50" vs 65" as well. 🙄

keep on walking you not gona change my mind or the countless other people i know that think the same thing smaller the screen and the higher the resolution is the more PPI there is and PPI is where it is at PPI was thing back with CRT and still is Fix Resolution. if anything it more important now on fix resolution panels. Which why smart phones with 1080p screen show 1080p video look amazing on 4" screen and suddenly not so great on 32" other then just bigger.