Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    8K gaming/films? Resolution discussion
    • Sharp’s first 8K TV went on sale for “professional use” in Japan in 2015 for $133,000.
      Samsung’s 85-inch 8K QLED TV is now up for pre-order for $15K. Which, for an 85-inch screen with 4x the resolution of a 4K screen: honestly seems not too bad considering it's brand new.

      And Sony recently revealed GT, running at 8K120fps on their new 85inch 8K screen:


      But...does it make a difference? I wanted to discuss and share thoughts on the advancements in image resolution.

      These charts are useful:


      5-7ft seems like a normal distance for viewing your living room TV. And 50-60inch is fairly common for people that enjoy big screens. Apply that to the chart, and you'll see that it's not even close to the 'Full benefit of 4K' being visible. 8K isn't even included, and seems completely unnecessary for living room viewing. Maybe I'm wrong.
      But the returns are diminishing, that's for sure.



      Where will it be beneficial?

      I think desktop monitors will benefit from 8K, as you're ~2ft away from a ~30inch monitor. So PC gamers can enjoy their extra Ks. But for console cough gaming, I think 4K 60fps should be the target for the future...and after that? I don't know, I imagine advances in graphics will slow down.

      The digital film industry will also benefit from 8K. But 8K digital cameras cost roughly $50k (RED camera, only gets you the body) at the moment, so it's going to take a while.
      Ironically enough, people have been enjoying '8K' for a long time. 70mm IMAX film is (roughly) the equivalent to digital 8K.

      ^see the 6-foot man.
      That Darling Harbour 70mm IMAX screen has a diameter of ~1444inch. Apply that to the chart above, and you'd have to extend the x-axis off your computer screen to the next room. When you're looking at a massive cinema screen, yes, 8K resolution will matter (maybe not when you're in the back row getting frisky).

      *note*: ^these are 70mm IMAX screens. Your local IMAX screen is probably a digital IMAX screen, which is not quite the same. Films shot in IMAX have an more square aspect ratio. Meaning they cut the top & bottom from a film shot on 70mm for your standard screen/digital IMAX. example:


      But 70mm is going away. They simply cost too much to produce, print and distribute. A two-hour movie in 3D costs about $60,000 to make a single print on 70mm film.
      I believe we're in the awkward early stages of 70mm going away, but digital 8K not being here for another, idk, 10 years?

      Anybody have some more insight to all of this?

      TL;DR:
      - 8K for living room TVs seems unnecessary, but they'll push it on you anyway. 4K is plenty.
      - 8K will be noticeable on large PC monitors. But give it time.
      - Digital films in cinema will benefit from 8K, but also needs time to become more affordable.
      - Support & enjoy your nearest 70mm IMAX screen, before they die.
    • I don't even have anything better than 1080p. I don't feel like I'm missing out either.

      These industries need to constantly sell stuff. That's why we had curved tvs, to fill the gap between 1080p and 4k.
      100% | Finished | Now playing:
      TLoZ | 2nd Q | TAoL | ALttP | LA | LA DX | OoT | OoT MQ | MM | OoA | OoS | ALttP (GBA) | FS | TWW | FSA | TMC | TP | LCT | PH | ST | OoT 3D | FS AE | SS | ALBW | MM 3D | TFH | TP HD | BotW
    • I guess they could still work on refresh rates and reducing pixel burnout (oh who am I kidding, that’ll still have planned obsolescence) and increasing the angle from which you can view without losing color and maybe higher color ranges in general.

      But I really think gimmicks like smart TVs are going to see a bigger push with even more stuff (and the same security vulnerabilities). Maybe we’ll see a wave of 3D TVs and holograms.
    • I still think 720p look alright, and my monitor can't get higher than 1080p (which I am fine with, especially when I only have the Switch to play on anyway). In terms of consoles in general, 8k is way off. I expect the next generation (Sony & Microsoft) to "try" to make 4k a standard, but will fail with a lot of games.

      I am not that much of a TV-person, so 8k as a phenomenon will probably not affect me in the slightest. When it comes to video games, I think it is way more important to try to make 60 fps a standard for most games, and really avoid frame drops or less than 30 fps. Stable 30 fps is totally fine by me though, but 60 would still be very nice and should be prioritized.
    • If the Xbox One X is anything to go by, yeah, the next gen of consoles will target 4K. 8K is way off, and (as I said a couple times now) seemingly pointless for the living room. I don’t know exactly how it works but I imagine 4x the imagine quality needs ~4x the processing power and 4x the memory etc. Complete waste if you can barely see the difference.

      I hope they start pushing 60fps across the board in stead of going beyond 4K. Hell, I’d rather have everything be 1080p60 in stead of 4K30.
    • Personally I think a 30 inch monitor is overkill for 2ft distance. I like having the entire screen in my vision, if I have look around then it is not very efficient. I feel 21-23" is perfect. As such anything above 4K is just too minimal, and in fact I am more than happy with 1080p and better performance (or a much cooler GPU) vs 4K with dips or GPU pushing hard. It's the same with 8K and even more needless for me. Sure, if we reach a point where my average GPU can push 8K with no effort, I will join in but until then I don't need it in my life. Also my vision is not amazing so I barely notice the difference between 1080p with AA and 4K unless I compare directly.
      "Can't post that on a Christian forum."
    • Honestly, I think the big push for 8K is because it's technically simpler than doing meaningful image improvements for most people.

      See, 4K is a technology that still hasn't really "arrived", most content isn't available in it and desktop GPUs can't render at it reliably right now, not even the high-end ones. You get a much more visible improvement, with much less hardware required, by adding HDR and having a wider colour gamut.

      HDR refers to a few different, but related, things. Essentially, it's the difference between the brightest and darkest areas that can be on a screen at once. "SDR" displays generally have fairly little variance here, while HDR ones can show deep blacks and bright whites at the same time. The problem here is that there are multiple competing HDR standards and while HDR should be simple to just turn on or off, there's a lot of issues right now with different devices not playing nice with each other (and don't get me started on the mess that is HDR in video games. I mean true HDR, not the software-simulated stuff from a decade ago that essentially means "put bloom on everything").

      Colour Gamut refers to how many colours a display can show. Most displays currently on the market use the sRGB standard, which can reproduce about 1/3rd of the colours the human eye can see. You're starting to see displays that go for the DCI-3 (though most of them only hit about 90% of it) which is about 55% of the colours the human eye can see. What I want to see someone actually work on is the full rec 2020/2100 colour gamut, which is about 75% of what the human eye can see, and the widest gamut you can have on a display without having to deal with imaginary colours.

      Much like HDR, wider colour gamuts run into issues with devices not playing nice, and don't work well with computers especially unless you know what you're doing.


      The problems with these techs is that they're harder to market than "more pixels". HDR you can kinda explain by saying it makes things brighter, but colour gamut doesn't make for good marketing copy and tends to be ignored for displays not intended for use by artists.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by John ().

    • 8K is still gonna be a visible improvement over 4K for some desktop use (large monitors, mostly) and for really large-screen TVs, and there's no harm in getting the tech there.

      The bigger issues right now is that real-time rendering hardware can't quite handle 4K, even the high-end stuff, and that displays are skimping on other features because "more pixels" is an easy sell, despite those other features having a much more appreciable improvement to how things look.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!
    • Yeah, I agree with all of this. For most user cases 4k still doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially when there's other needed improvements, like John said. Even in those rare few that might want or need 4k, there's other solutions like ultrawide that make just as much sense.
      I AM TAKANUVA, TOA OF LIGHT!

      You'll be hearing my name someday, whenever people talk about heroes - Takua!
    • Depends on how large the display is, how far away from the display you are, and what resolution the original source was.

      8K is potentially useful for people who sit close to large screens and who are watching things shot on 70mm film or recorded in 8K, otherwise it's hard to justify the price increase over 4K for the relatively marginal visual improvements you'd see.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!
    • Zeldaisthebest! wrote:

      Its interesting but I think I have heard that the human eye cant really tell any difference after like 6-8 k or something and I dont buy new TV's that often. I got the Samsung 4k ks8000 55 inch tv in late 2016 and I am 29 and have only had like 3 TV's in my life.
      Last I heard anything past 8k makes literally no difference, the human eye just isn't good enough past that level of detail?
    • Well, again, depends on your size of screen and how close you are to it, as well as the resolution of your source. If you're using 35mm film or 4K masters then 8K isn't going to give you much, if anything, but 70mm film might benefit from >8K resolution, though you'd need a truly massive display and have to be sitting real close to it to benefit from that, probably not something that would ever happen in a home viewing situation.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!
    • Even then, the problem is that there are hardly any 70mm films to benefit from 8K
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70_mm_films

      And as you said, it's not like you can replicate a 70mm IMAX screen in your house.

      But I am excited at 8K becoming the standard for the future in film. The cinema is one of the few places we will really be able to enjoy the benefits of super high resolutions. Films shot in 8K, through 8K projectors on big screens will look amazing, like those 1960s 70mm films.
      But the cinema experience is advancing rather slowly imo.