[antonyandruleit]

Considering how the average TV size has gone up over the years, it shouldn't be too surprising.

I don't know about you, but most people don't live in a mansion and they can only accommodate a TV of so much size in their living room. I can't see average TV sizes getting that much bigger than they are currently, and certainly not big enough to justify this technology.

Bunglevision is 640x480.

--- Post Update ---


Does the iPhone 4 display look better than the iPhone 3 to you?

You don't know what you're talking about, do you? There comes a point where for a given screen size a higher resolution is imperceptible to the human eye.

You're all blinded by specs, when it reality on most people's TVs you will able to tell **** all difference.

[BEyng6hj]

I don't know about you, but most people don't live in a mansion and they can only accommodate a TV of so much size in their living room. I can't see average TV sizes getting that much bigger than they are currently, and certainly not big enough to justify this technology.

You don't know what you're talking about, do you? There comes a point where for a given screen size a higher resolution is imperceptible to the human eye.

You're all blinded by specs, when it reality on most people's TVs you will able to tell **** all difference.

I don't know about you, but current HD tv's haven't reached this point yet.

[xanonlinexan]

Not really sure it would make a great difference for movies, but imagine PC gaming on that resolution.

[c6vkuNRg]

You don't know what you're talking about, do you? There comes a point where for a given screen size a higher resolution is imperceptible to the human eye.

You're all blinded by specs, when it reality on most people's TVs you will able to tell **** all difference.

Bunglevision might have maxed out at 320x240, but for the rest of the world a 1080p video feed is about 50PPI on a 42" TV (that's not exact, before anyone tries to find something to pick holes in). Our eyes max out at about 326PPI at a 5" distance (hence the iPhone 4+ resolution) but that obviously decreases the further away you are. Either way, 1080p isn't even pushing the boundaries of what would look great.

So, yet again bunglebrain has failed. FFS, aren't you the guy that thinks nobody has any need for a bigger monitor than 15"? Why are we even discussing this?

--- Post Update ---

It still looks like an iPhone, and so I won't touch it.

At least you are consistent.

--- Post Update ---

I don't know about you, but most people don't live in a mansion and they can only accommodate a TV of so much size in their living room. I can't see average TV sizes getting that much bigger than they are currently, and certainly not big enough to justify this technology.

Don't be hating because you have to work around your mother's barcalounger.

[GalasaKoll]

To put this a tad more back on the 8k display. Wont they need to invent a new medium for data?
Looking at the standard and compression lowest quality seems 180Mbit/s

Lets say take a movie thats 100min => 6000 sec x 180Mbit = 135000 MB = 132GB
Quadrupedal layer blu-rays are 128GB so thats not really an option, specially since i didnt count in the audio.

But by 2025 they will have new portable media i hope

[wrewsTear]

To put this a tad more back on the 8k display. Wont they need to invent a new medium for data?
Looking at the standard and compression lowest quality seems 180Mbit/s

Lets say take a movie thats 100min => 6000 sec x 180Mbit = 135000 MB = 132GB
Quadrupedal layer blu-rays are 128GB so thats not really an option, specially since i didnt count in the audio.

But by 2025 they will have new portable media i hope

I'm not even going to pretend I know what will happen, but experience tells me that if we are discussing this now then scientists have been working on the solution for at least 5 years.

[Appenianags]

Just curious, as the filesize i pointed out was the "worst" compression used. 600Mbs would be top.
And all of a sudden your talking about a 3,5TB file

I know there are already 2TB HDD around just wondering how they will fit that on something portable.
(yes you can carry a HDD )

[SypeKifef]

Just curious, as the filesize i pointed out was the "worst" compression used. 600Mbs would be top.
And all of a sudden your talking about a 3,5TB file

I know there are already 2TB HDD around just wondering how they will fit that on something portable.
(yes you can carry a HDD )

You can buy 4tb hdd's.

[Gymnfacymoota]

You can buy 4tb hdd's.

I realize that, but thats not the point. You will need something you can mass-produce cheap.
Just brought up HDD for size comparison

[SonicPs]

I realize that, but thats not the point. You will need something you can mass-produce cheap.
Just brought up HDD for size comparison

By the time it becomes a concern the storage will exist.

[Numbiydq]

I don't know about you, but current HD tv's haven't reached this point yet.

Bungle is absolutely right on this one and everyone should just get off his back.

My 60" tv is barely big enough to let me enjoy the detail of 1080p at 8 feet away, let alone 4k or 8k resolutions.

I invite you all to do a test on whatever tv you have. Find the STPE or THX viewing distance standards and then watch the same content in both 720p and 1080p resolution, see if you can make out the difference between the resolution at a distance which is longer than recommended.

Basically, over 10 feet you can't tell the difference between the res and that's for 60" sceen. Smaller ones fare much worse. In the case of 4k, 60" would be the smallest screen you'd want for it and it would only start shining at sizes over 80".

Maybe everyone in here has super hi vision mutant eyes or something, either that or a complete ignorance of basic science.

[CedssypeEdids]

Bungle is absolutely right on this one and everyone should just get off his back.

My 60" tv is barely big enough to let me enjoy the detail of 1080p at 8 feet away, let alone 4k or 8k resolutions.

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.

[Ervins Dervish]

Bungle is absolutely right on this one and everyone should just get off his back.

My 60" tv is barely big enough to let me enjoy the detail of 1080p at 8 feet away, let alone 4k or 8k resolutions.

I invite you all to do a test on whatever tv you have. Find the STPE or THX viewing distance standards and then watch the same content in both 720p and 1080p resolution, see if you can make out the difference between the resolution at a distance which is longer than recommended.

Basically, over 10 feet you can't tell the difference between the res and that's for 60" sceen. Smaller ones fare much worse. In the case of 4k, 60" would be the smallest screen you'd want for it and it would only start shining at sizes over 80".

Maybe everyone in here has super hi vision mutant eyes or something, either that or a complete ignorance of basic science.

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?

[XqrkN4a0]

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.

What is the distance between your eyes and that 27" Apple display? I'm going to guess it's not > 6 feet. Reactivator is stating, correctly, that for a normal living room seating distance of about 6-8 feet from the HDTV, the typical human eye cannot resolve much more than the pixel density of a 60" HDTV @ 1080p. For 8K to be truly usefu at home, the screen size of HDTVs of the future must increase accordingly. I say wall sized TVs for da fucher.

[Kayacterype]

What is the distance between your eyes and that 27" Apple display? I'm going to guess it's not > 6 feet. Reactivator is stating, correctly, that for a normal living room seating distance of about 6-8 feet from the HDTV, the typical human eye cannot resolve much more than the pixel density of a 60" HDTV @ 1080p. For 8K to be truly usefu at home, the screen size of HDTVs of the future must increase accordingly. I say wall sized TVs for da fucher.

The way current TVs are evolving, that doesn't seem so far-fetched

[attishina]

Here's a useful chart giving the approximate minimum viewing distance for a typical human eye to resolve a given TV size + resolution.

[gkruCRi1]

I don't put too much faith in that chart.

[priceyicey]

I don't put too much faith in that chart.

I did say approximate, as in a rule of thumb. What do you find preposterous about it?

[cxddfrxc]

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.

How close do you sit to your monitor? How close does the average person sit to their TV? Exactly.


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. Um, now you're going off domestic TVs and onto large public displays, which is what I said in the first place.

Oh and I don't want my cinema screen to look "the same as my 1080p TV". Further proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. Cinema screens ALREADY surpass the definition of 1080p TVs, and have done for....well since for ever basically. I bet your one of these people who run around wondering why they put old films on BD because "they weren't filmed in HD"......

[Carol]

I did say approximate, as in a rule of thumb. What do you find preposterous about it?

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