AU Optronics this year will start delivery of 8k panels
Click here to post a comment for AU Optronics this year will start delivery of 8k panels on our message forum
RealNC
Looks good. I want one.
As for the panels, what's the point? Or is there 8K content out there already?
fry178
cause the screen is still @8K, no matter the signal.
how many channels match your 1080p tv in signal quality? none.
either its interlaced or lower res (for P content)..
schmidtbag
Well, we're at a time where people are switching over to other mediums that actually support 1920x1080 or higher, with progressive scan (in particular, just about any streaming service, like Netflix or Hulu).
RealNC makes a good point. The industry is still struggling to transition to 4K. To my knowledge, even 2160i content is pretty uncommon. Aside from some YouTube videos (which have terrible compression) and a handful of movies, there just isn't enough content where 4K is worth getting, at least to me anyway.
Meanwhile, consider people who aren't watching shows or movies:
The 1080Ti is the cheapest single GPU you can get that can play games at 4K@60FPS (sometimes not even 60FPS). A lot of other applications don't scale to 4K nicely, either. So whether you're trying to have fun or do something productive, 4K is still un-optimized. And yet, here we have 8K.
Aside from a handful of special-use cases, I just don't know who would get an 8K display and not immediately regret it. Even if you're filthy rich, it's not nice being able to buy a product and not being able to properly take advantage of it. It's kind of like replacing a BMW with a Ferrari - the car might be faster, but despite the performance and price difference, you're still stuck in traffic. Though the BMW is a cheaper car, you're not really losing out when driving that instead. By the time there's enough 8K content to make one of these displays worth getting, it won't be considered a luxury anymore. I'm not necessarily saying that matters, but, the point is AU Optronics is kind of wasting their money designing and manufacturing something too far ahead of its time. But, not my problem.
Anyway, I understand that "8K content won't be made if there aren't any 8K displays" but, as I implied earlier, we're struggling to get sufficient 4K content (hell, there's not even enough 1080p content). We should be taking our priorities incrementally.
Denial
Honestly I'd rather them focus on improving panel uniformity, contrast, image retention/burnin (OLED) HDR/expanded color gamuts/etc over 8K. Hell I'd go as far to say that I'd rather watch content on my 65" LG C7 in 1080P HDR/DV than 4K non-HDR/DV at normal viewing distances. I could see 8K maybe for productivity purposes, like 5K for native 4K video editing + interface - but an 8K TV I couldn't justify getting.
fry178
@schmidtbag
my point was, why is it ok when ppl buy 1080p tvs in the past +10y, as almost all cable content is (even now) 720p, or worse 1080i,
and does not match the tv's capabilities, but when its a UHD tv, its all of a sudden important to match the screen res with the signal (res).
anyway, running the same signal (1080p), a decent 4k panel will look better, as thats how i sold most my tvs,
by showing the same signal (1080p) on two identical screens (except res).
doubt that anyone of the customers spend about 800-100$ more for something you 'cant" see.
and most UHD streaming like netflix, will look basically like running a movie on BD, when it comes image quality.
at least when i watched blacklist back then.
and you dont have to run games at that res, i tried a 50 in UHD as moni, and desktop/gaming running at 1080p was without any lag,
and i didnt see any need to run it at UHD, even at 3ft distance.
so for anyone that has the money, why not.
same as the ferrari.
as soon as traffic is gone, we know who will have more fun driving... 😉
Embra
I thought half of the allure of owning a Ferrari was being seen in one.
Many folks always buy more than they need. Especially if your the first on the block with one, regardless if anyone else knows.
There are some uses for 8k. It's getting hard to find 1080p tv's now. There is very little worthwhile 4k content to watch.
goat1
The only thing 8k would be useful for is projectors. They could upscale 4k content, but even then, its not the same. Its going to be forever before they even have 8k content. My 1080p plasma looks great. I have no reason to go 4k and lose 3D in the process. 8k is going to be wildly expensive, but the 1 thing that could make people move to it when its more mainstream is.. Doing 3D with 8k while not having to use 3D glasses.
JamesSneed
Anyone try to do the math yet on a person with 20/20 vision and how large the screen would have to be at normal say 8-10 feet viewing distances? My assumption doing some rough numbers in my head you would need a 250" or slightly bigger screen before you could tell a difference between 8K and 4K at 8-10 foot viewing distances. Im sure Im off a bit on the math I just see no point of 8K on these small TV's.
fry178
@goat1
?not sure why projectors.
tvs do the same, upscaling is done by every FHD tv since they came out (for any signal thats not 1080p).
sure most uhd tvs will look the best with uhd content,but
and i repeat myself here, 1080p upscaled to uhd res will still look better (on uhd tv) than on the same size screen thats only 1080p,
as having double the ppi (67 vs 33 for 65") makes a difference no matter the signal.
example: ever seen a movie in 3D (passive) in the theaters in the past 10y?
until hollywood started shooting/producing in 4K, all content was upscaled from 1080p to 4K (and allow for 3D to be 1080p per eye).
not once did i hear that someone wasnt happy with the image quality.
and that was when running it on a really large screen.
sure, you can't compare the upscalers used, but then again its getting viewed on a much smaller screen (in vs ft)..
@JamesSneed
one major reason why a theater is more "immersive", is that the screen is larger than our FOV.
(i never understood why ppl would buy tickets for the last few rows in a theater, as its like watching tv at home when it comes to visible screen size.
unless of course they never planed to watch the movie 😉 )
thats one of the advantages of high res screens.
you can be closer, without getting a "screen door" effect.
for a 65in uhd about 5-6ft, and about 3-4ft distances for a 55in, before pixels get visible.
so you can basically half the (minimum) needed distance, which makes the screen a lot larger,
without sacrificing picture quality...
and still enough space between couch/table and the screen so ppl/the kids can get on your nerves 😀
goat1
It has to do with the pixel density. My friend owns a home theater business. He also has a home theater with a projector on a 120" screen. He initially had a $10,000 sony 1080p projector. He's like look at how the picture looks. I said, my 1080p plasma blows this out of the water. He said bs! I said , ok lets go to my house, which was 3 miles away. I threw in the same movie, and instantly he said, your right its looks much better on the plasma. Now he has a 4k projector.. I told him the other day, when 8k comes out on the projector, that's when the image on a projector will really shine.
On a 120" screen your stretching the pixels out a lot. 8k on a 65" tv isn't going to be nearly as much of a big deal as it will on a 120" screen.. It will look much sharper. A native 8k signal on a projector will rock!
fry178
thats related to the difference in screen size, not that its a projector.
ppi at same res and same size is identical.
e.g. if the projector would have been set to same size (65"), there would have been no difference.
(worked for of the largest multiplex in germany for a few years, and we had +150 000$ sony projectors for the smaller rooms to do live-tv streams etc.
could never convince them to let us play PS2 on them 🙁
goat1
That was exactly my point.. Screen size. cmon man.. Nobody gets a projector to throw a 65" picture. They want to throw a 100-120" picture.
fry178
lol, not me.
i will always prefer a smaller screen, as long as it means "better" image quality.
as long as its 4k, you wont see any pixels, and at 65" you can sit about 6ft away (to stretch your legs), while still "just seeing screen" when watching movies or playing.. 😉
Then again, sony put out some nice short-throw 4Ks..
The Reeferman
Still waiting for 4K content that is visually sharper then for instance these videos.
[youtube=Mn24cQLqAE4]
[youtube=Bl36de9Yv-E]
alanm
Whaa? How the hell is anyone going to see a difference unless they are on 8k to begin with.
XP-200
4k makes all your 1080p stuff look great and even outstanding, the sharpness and colours just pop on 1080p stuff on a 4k screen, so i can't imagine what a 8k will do for the pictures.
alanm
No it doesnt. The differences you will see are due to other variables, ie, TV tech, screen quality, etc.
XP-200
^^Erm, ok then.
Won't stop me enjoying my 4k Tv making everything look much better though. 😉
goat1
This is why I keep my 60" plasma with 3d.. Picture is better.. 3d is extremely good. If I want to see 4k on a $30,000 projector, I can go to my friends house 3 miles away.. 🙂
XP-200
^^$30,000 grand for a 4k projector, you can buy a one bedroom flat for that price up here in Glasgow, madness. lol
