[OgrGlgHu]

Nothing specifically. I just find the person-to-person variance to be huge.

That chart was generated based on 20/20 human vision.

[favwebbb]

I forgot to add this, I'm in no way trying to discount the technology. Of course it will be beneficial but not on small screens and definitely not for watching films or tv.

[ClaudeMarkus]

I forgot to add this, I'm in no way trying to discount the technology. Of course it will be beneficial but not on small screens and definitely not for watching films or tv.

Yeah, but our idea of a small screen today is what used to be a big screen, so this will all change by the time that the new high resolutions enter the mainstream

[NumsAmenniams]

You don't understand any of this at all. You have missed the point by such a wide margin that I'm not even going to bother entering a discussion with you about it.

Here is a microscopic hint though: For how many years have PC monitors been much higher resolution than TV's?

Here is an example: I have a 27" Apple display on my desk at work which is 109PPI, about double your HDTV, and I can still see pixels at the distance I use it at. The 8K resolution will allow gigantic future displays and cinemas to look the same as 1080p does now on your TV. If everything is filmed at 8K then everyone is going to need an 8K TV.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I was strictly talking for tv's being used for watching film and tv, that's basically what this standard is for. Computer monitors, like you said do not adhere to this and of course we always needed higher resolution for displaying text and using programs.onitors will teach this resolution much sooner considering they we slready have and have had for ages, 2560 and now 2880 horizontal resolution screens. In terms of tv's for tv and film watching the benefits of the higher resolution are subject to different standards. Like I said before, modern tv's are already too small to really exploit the detail of 1080p, let alone the forthcoming 4k res. of course it will be beneficial to the point that things will look sharper but beyond that the resolution is wasted. By wasted I mean that much bigger screen sizes would be needed to show all the detail, unless you don't intend to sit 3 feet away from a 50 inch screen. At distances over 8 feet the resolution would be redundant on screens below 50 something or 60 inches. People don't usually sit closer to their tv's than that even in small rooms. Basically, I can't wait for this technology myself but it's uses are only really beneficial on massive screens (above 80 inches) or mega outside screens.

If you could go back 10-15 years in time, and meet up with the younger version of yourself, what would be his reaction to you telling him that you have a 60" screen at home?

Exactly ten years ago we had a 43" rear projection 1024 screen, this was just before the advent of hd, bluray etc. screen sizes historically have not increased a lot, even back then you could already find massive 60 inch rear projection screens. Since the early 2000's screen sizes haven't really increased that much. In the 90's we had affordable 28 to 34 inch screens with dismal 640 resolution which we've had for decades. Then rear projection screens came and we jumped to 40 to 50 inch screens. The arrival of hd redeemed the screen size but the jump in resolution was much bigger than the jump in screen size. Current tv's at a recommended viewing distance are a good fit for today's 1080p res. now we are going to experience another massive resolution increase with 4k yet 80 inch screens are not even possible for the regular consumer market yet. We can expect to see screens of 80" and more to hit prices below 2000 euros in the next couple of years. By then 4k will be the new 1080p. Finally, beyond the usual limitations we are hitting a certain screen size which is very big, closer to the upper limit of what people will be able to fit in their living rooms. I don't know many people who have the space or the inclination to get a 120" tv or screen and it's at that size where people can really start to enjoy the true benefits of a 4k resolution, let alone 8k.

I for one, can't wait to have a 4k screen but I think that importance should also be given to screen and image quality beyond resolution. Then we also have 3D where iq is diminished when it is activated, do there is a lot of room for improvement in that sector as well.

That said, I'm eagerly waiting for my wall to wall tv with 8k resolution, pitch blacks, perfect colour reproduction and superb glassless 3d. Not to mention Dolby's new infinite channel surround for my future viewing room in 10-15 years time.

The future is going to be pretty awesome.

Sorry for any spelling mistakes nw. I'm still in Athend and I'm typing this on my slow-ass 3GS connected to a dismal 3G connection, so please near with me.

[DoctorTDent]

I don't care about charts. Until a TV looks as good as looking out a window, it has room to improve. TV's to me still look like TV's, nothing at all like looking through a window.

I think it's like the FPS discussion, sure 24 fps is enough to convince the brain it's a moving image, but you 200 FPS looks far more fluid. Same with resolution, 1080P looks great, 8K will look more real.

[Plonnikas]

I don't care about charts. Until a TV looks as good as looking out a window, it has room to improve. TV's to me still look like TV's, nothing at all like looking through a window.

I think it's like the FPS discussion, sure 24 fps is enough to convince the brain it's a moving image, but you 200 FPS looks far more fluid. Same with resolution, 1080P looks great, 8K will look more real.

Good luck with one. 90% of people on here only care what the specs say.

[toopyimport]

I don't care about charts. Until a TV looks as good as looking out a window, it has room to improve. TV's to me still look like TV's, nothing at all like looking through a window.

I think it's like the FPS discussion, sure 24 fps is enough to convince the brain it's a moving image, but you 200 FPS looks far more fluid. Same with resolution, 1080P looks great, 8K will look more real.

I'd love that too and I think that resolution wise 4k and 8k will probably take us there but then there are other more important concerns like colour reproduction, 3d and overall image quality.

[panholio]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I was strictly talking for tv's being used for watching film and tv, that's basically what this standard is for. Computer monitors, like you said do not adhere to this and of course we always needed higher resolution for displaying text and using programs.onitors will teach this resolution much sooner considering they we slready have and have had for ages, 2560 and now 2880 horizontal resolution screens. In terms of tv's for tv and film watching the benefits of the higher resolution are subject to different standards. Like I said before, modern tv's are already too small to really exploit the detail of 1080p, let alone the forthcoming 4k res. of course it will be beneficial to the point that things will look sharper but beyond that the resolution is wasted. By wasted I mean that much bigger screen sizes would be needed to show all the detail, unless you don't intend to sit 3 feet away from a 50 inch screen. At distances over 8 feet the resolution would be redundant on screens below 50 something or 60 inches. People don't usually sit closer to their tv's than that even in small rooms. Basically, I can't wait for this technology myself but it's uses are only really beneficial on massive screens (above 80 inches) or mega outside screens.



Exactly ten years ago we had a 43" rear projection 1024 screen, this was just before the advent of hd, bluray etc. screen sizes historically have not increased a lot, even back then you could already find massive 60 inch rear projection screens. Since the early 2000's screen sizes haven't really increased that much. In the 90's we had affordable 28 to 34 inch screens with dismal 640 resolution which we've had for decades. Then rear projection screens came and we jumped to 40 to 50 inch screens. The arrival of hd redeemed the screen size but the jump in resolution was much bigger than the jump in screen size. Current tv's at a recommended viewing distance are a good fit for today's 1080p res. now we are going to experience another massive resolution increase with 4k yet 80 inch screens are not even possible for the regular consumer market yet. We can expect to see screens of 80" and more to hit prices below 2000 euros in the next couple of years. By then 4k will be the new 1080p. Finally, beyond the usual limitations we are hitting a certain screen size which is very big, closer to the upper limit of what people will be able to fit in their living rooms. I don't know many people who have the space or the inclination to get a 120" tv or screen and it's at that size where people can really start to enjoy the true benefits of a 4k resolution, let alone 8k.

I for one, can't wait to have a 4k screen but I think that importance should also be given to screen and image quality beyond resolution. Then we also have 3D where iq is diminished when it is activated, do there is a lot of room for improvement in that sector as well.

That said, I'm eagerly waiting for my wall to wall tv with 8k resolution, pitch blacks, perfect colour reproduction and superb glassless 3d. Not to mention Dolby's new infinite channel surround for my future viewing room in 10-15 years time.

The future is going to be pretty awesome.

Sorry for any spelling mistakes nw. I'm still in Athend and I'm typing this on my slow-ass 3GS connected to a dismal 3G connection, so please near with me.

I think you are confusing maximum available screen size with what's a commonly sold TV. 10-15 years ago a 28-34 inch TV was considered a big TV, whilst by today's standards anything below 46" is rather small. There is a constant increase in screen size. I have no doubts about screens beyond the 60" size becoming the mainstream norm within a few years.

[CHyLmxDr]

whilst by today's standards anything below 46" is rather small.

Maybe where you live.

[Anakattawl]

Maybe where you live.

No, he's right. Anyone that cares about watching HD will have a 50" + screen these days. In a few years I can see large plasma / LCD screens replacing 100 - 200" projector screens for home cinemas.

[StivRichardOff]

I think you are confusing maximum available screen size with what's a commonly sold TV. 10-15 years ago a 28-34 inch TV was considered a big TV, whilst by today's standards anything below 46" is rather small. There is a constant increase in screen size. I have no doubts about screens beyond the 60" size becoming the mainstream norm within a few years.

I guess I grew up spoiled. My parents had TVs larger than 50" since the late 80's

[pimbertiemoft]

I think you are confusing maximum available screen size with what's a commonly sold TV. 10-15 years ago a 28-34 inch TV was considered a big TV, whilst by today's standards anything below 46" is rather small. There is a constant increase in screen size. I have no doubts about screens beyond the 60" size becoming the mainstream norm within a few years.

Except the houses/rooms don't get bigger :/

[thegamexpertsdotcom]

IMO any TV less than 40" just isn't worth the money. I have a 60" in my living room and a 42" in my bedroom. Bigger truly is better.

[WournGona]

if you have the space and money then why not.

I don't have the space, so a 37 does the trick.

[Ngwkgczx]

IMO any TV less than 40" just isn't worth the money. I have a 60" in my living room and a 42" in my bedroom. Bigger truly is better.

You live in the US where you need a map to find your way around the average living room. That size is far to big for the average UK living room.

[poonnassunlix]

Replace 3D? **** that, I want to know when I can get 3D in 8k resolution!

[yQvpyNt3]

You live in the US where you need a map to find your way around the average living room. That size is far to big for the average UK living room.

Nonsense. I've lived in small one bedroom apartments with a 60" TV, and it was just right.

[antiggill]

Nonsense. I've lived in small one bedroom apartments with a 60" TV, and it was just right.

Definitely, this nonsense that a tv can be too big for a room is ridiculous considering that consumer screens top pout at 60 to 65 inches nowadays. My heartfelt recommendation to anyone who asks me for advice about a tv is that I recommend the biggest possible one within the person's budget, no maximum unless it's some bathroom.

The thing is that if 60 to 80 inches is the perfect screen size for 1080p, the equivalent for 4k would be at least 80 to 150 inches.

Manufacturers really need to start increasing size. You basically can't get a good quality consumer screen with more than 65 inches of diagonal width, which is pitiful. Screen size is a big issue as resolution is far beyond that limitation.

[Deribasov]

You live in the US where you need a map to find your way around the average living room. That size is far to big for the average UK living room.

Stop hanging so many pictures up on walls, leave at least one free in the living room and you're set.

[Indessasp]

Stop hanging so many pictures up on walls, leave at least one free in the living room and you're set.

Well no. There are some smaller houses where sizes above 42" are too big for the room.