Manufacturers intend to make 2019 the year 8K begins

mongeese

Posts: 582   +119
Staff member
The big picture: Extravagance for extravagance’s sake is often our best taste of the future and a driving factor. Several anonymous sources have told DigiTimes that industry leaders within the supply chain are preparing to seriously ramp up 8K LCD panel production, with goals of 0.1% market penetration by the end of next year.

According to a marketing agency with sources within LCD manufacturing companies, nine players will be pushing the 8K panel market next year, across seven different sizes. Samsung will have the largest range, with 65”, 75”, 82” and 98” panels. Next comes LG, who’ll be focusing on 65” and 75” but will also have a 98” model. Sharp seems to be bucking the trend, and will be unique in introducing 70” and 80” sizes.

Smaller companies saving on development costs will be sticking with larger sizes, such as BOE Technology and CEC, who will exclusively make high-end 98” panels, and CSOT, who’ll manufacture 85” displays. One of the largest but least known manufacturers is AU Optronics, who make most displays used by monitor companies including Acer and BenQ. They expect 8K to account for 10% of panels over 65” by 2020, and will make 65”, 75” and 85” variants.

8K TVs will mostly come in LCD variants according to reports, with LG to remain the exclusive provider of 4K OLEDs in 2019. According to a Mini-LED manufacturer, however, the majority of 8K TVs will use advanced LCD technologies that involve large amounts of sub-pixels to create better dynamic range. The large material requirements for 8K panels is the reason that parts suppliers are expecting decent revenue from them, despite low volume sales.

DigiTimes also reports that manufacturers are facing issues with low yield rates, high production costs and an absence of readily available components such as specific processors. Because of this, companies are expected to continue aiming at early adopters who will pay a premium, pricing sets out of reach of the average consumer.

The going price for an 8K TV right now is about $15,000, pretty impressive considering the first broadcast only launched a month ago. YouTube began supporting the format a couple years back, but it was only five years ago when the first 4K stream and 4K TV launched – could 8K become ubiquitous by 2025?

Permalink to story.

 

Uncle Al

Posts: 8,659   +7,561
So here's the $15,000 question. At what resolution can the human eye no longer detect a difference? I'm not being critical, maybe a little sarcastic, but it's an honest question. What is the limit?
4K, 8K, 16K, 32K???? From what I've seen so far, we are already there so what is the purpose or benefit of greater and greater resolution if the eye cannot tell the difference?
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,506   +2,734
So here's the $15,000 question. At what resolution can the human eye no longer detect a difference? I'm not being critical, maybe a little sarcastic, but it's an honest question. What is the limit?
4K, 8K, 16K, 32K???? From what I've seen so far, we are already there so what is the purpose or benefit of greater and greater resolution if the eye cannot tell the difference?

It's a function of distance versus screen size, or simply pixel density if you will.

1080p and 4K can be separated on a 50 inch screen say 8 feet away, but move 16 feet away and it becomes extremely difficult. Going to a 100 inch display at that distance, you can easily tell the difference between the resolutions again.

Everyone's eyes are different and people will argue over what difference they can see and what they can't, but there is a practical limit to what most people are really going to need in their living room. If only because unless you live in a mansion, average TV screen sizes can't go on increasing for much longer at the rate they have the past 15 years.
 

mosu

Posts: 561   +199
For educational purposes only and to highlight the extravagance of 8K TV and monitors, check this: link<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNBiAV4UnM>
 

Cycloid Torus

Posts: 4,845   +1,665
I think there is a significant gap between 'can tell a difference' and 'makes a pleasing difference'. Just being able to perceive a difference is unlikely to sell many units. Of course, there are those folks who buy 250+ mph cars to drive down 75 mph highways.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,287   +4,932
The difference between 4K and 1080p screens in most living rooms is virtually non-existant.... the reason you MIGHT be able to tell the difference is because high end 4K TVs also have better support for HDR and Dolby vision, etc, especially with OLED screens.

These early 8k screens, on the other hand, will not support any “better” HDR or Dolby, and will only be LCD, so will, if anything, be INFERIOR to high end 4k OLED screens... not to mention they’ll cost way more.... anyone buying one now is a complete fool.
 

p51d007

Posts: 3,083   +2,548
LOL, considering the content on television today, it's not worth the expense.
Plus, push 4-8k on mobile, will cause users to eat up more bandwith.
 

seeprime

Posts: 673   +885
So here's the $15,000 question. At what resolution can the human eye no longer detect a difference? I'm not being critical, maybe a little sarcastic, but it's an honest question. What is the limit?
4K, 8K, 16K, 32K???? From what I've seen so far, we are already there so what is the purpose or benefit of greater and greater resolution if the eye cannot tell the difference?
With 8k you'll be able to see the pores in the skin of people in the second row, not just the ones in front. Or, something like that. We jumped from 47" full HD to 65" 4k and are pleasantly surprised as how much more there is to see. TV tech has improved greatly in the past eight years, when we got our older HDTV's.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 2,104   +2,512
TechSpot Elite
For full motion video, 4K may already be overkill for typical TV sizes. However if you want a huge 45" monitor with Retina/HiDPI resolution for text display, 8K is the only way to go.
 

toooooot

Posts: 1,507   +753
No please no! Chillflixx will over crumble our fiber optic lines to the bottom! They will start making 8k tv shows and people will be using all of the internet's juice to watch them! Make it a law at least to ony sell 8k content on CDs and never stream.
 

Nocturne

Posts: 220   +116
So here's the $15,000 question. At what resolution can the human eye no longer detect a difference? I'm not being critical, maybe a little sarcastic, but it's an honest question. What is the limit?
4K, 8K, 16K, 32K???? From what I've seen so far, we are already there so what is the purpose or benefit of greater and greater resolution if the eye cannot tell the difference?

It's a bit more complicated than that, neuro-opt are saying from 1 inch away the pixel becomes unseeable at 320ppi, so with that being said if they make 8k panels and the panel is 2 large making the ppi at a lower rate then yes it's distinguishable. But, if they make let's say a PC monitor 36inch ultrawide then we are cooking full screen AA for the sake of jaggies will be a thing of the past, and AA can focus on aberrations instead which is basically trying to render an image smaller than the pixel itself. If I put it into graphic design language it's like they are trying to render the blue teapot in 1 pixel if it's only a small dot they failed. It's wired and complicated.
 

loki1944

Posts: 565   +382
I haven't even gone above 1080p, and I don't plan on it anytime soon...

I did and really not worth it in a typical living room setting. I didn't bother going to 4K for my bedroom tv and because I was so nonplussed the first time. It's not as radically impressive as going from 480p to 720p.
 

bandit8623

Posts: 363   +196
So here's the $15,000 question. At what resolution can the human eye no longer detect a difference? I'm not being critical, maybe a little sarcastic, but it's an honest question. What is the limit?
4K, 8K, 16K, 32K???? From what I've seen so far, we are already there so what is the purpose or benefit of greater and greater resolution if the eye cannot tell the difference?

It's a function of distance versus screen size, or simply pixel density if you will.

1080p and 4K can be separated on a 50 inch screen say 8 feet away, but move 16 feet away and it becomes extremely difficult. Going to a 100 inch display at that distance, you can easily tell the difference between the resolutions again.

Everyone's eyes are different and people will argue over what difference they can see and what they can't, but there is a practical limit to what most people are really going to need in their living room. If only because unless you live in a mansion, average TV screen sizes can't go on increasing for much longer at the rate they have the past 15 years.
yep, if you are blind might as well keep your old tube tv :D
My parents always warned me never to sit too close to the TV. At 8K resolution I intend to sit VERY CLOSE to the TV.
So here's the $15,000 question. At what resolution can the human eye no longer detect a difference? I'm not being critical, maybe a little sarcastic, but it's an honest question. What is the limit?
4K, 8K, 16K, 32K???? From what I've seen so far, we are already there so what is the purpose or benefit of greater and greater resolution if the eye cannot tell the difference?
With 8k you'll be able to see the pores in the skin of people in the second row, not just the ones in front. Or, something like that. We jumped from 47" full HD to 65" 4k and are pleasantly surprised as how much more there is to see. TV tech has improved greatly in the past eight years, when we got our older HDTV's.
unless you are watching 4k content u arent seeing anything more.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,527   +7,366
8K? It's another money grab. So dig deep kidz, Papa Chang needs a new Maserati....

In fact, you've gotten so wrapped up in this crap, they don't even have to bother trying to sell it to you. You're too busy selling it to yourselves... :rolleyes:
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 1,134   +1,032
Gosh the industry is pathetic these days. Always looking for the next big thing to swindle unsuspecting buyers. 4K has barely got traction with still pitiful content available and gaming just starting to be viable and only then on very high end GPU's. Editing 4K video from cameras also needs a lot of resources. Imagine tryiung to push 8K around. I go out on a limb and say even by 2025 this will be a niche, it'll be then before we even dare imagine getting 4K TV channels, hell we've only had 1080p for a few years in Australia.
 

Ean Mogg

Posts: 176   +79
Why??? Because every digital TV station gives free 720p broadcasts well they do in the UK except the main terrestrial channels and every 1080P station is pay to watch why again if they want take up of these 1080/4k channels only they need to stop charging us but then they haven't hardly set up 4K yet because of bandwidth limitations so how are they going to get us buying 8k when they still charge us for 1080p???
 

Digitalzone

Posts: 181   +108
So here's the $15,000 question. At what resolution can the human eye no longer detect a difference? I'm not being critical, maybe a little sarcastic, but it's an honest question. What is the limit?
4K, 8K, 16K, 32K???? From what I've seen so far, we are already there so what is the purpose or benefit of greater and greater resolution if the eye cannot tell the difference?

The purpose is making money by introducing new models, higher resolutions etc.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 13,141   +6,439
One if not all phone makers will try selling 8K phones. When 4K is overkill for anything less than 30 inches. 8K is pointless on anything less than 60 inches. That is unless one is planning on watching from a distance, they can touch the screen with their nose.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,527   +7,366
One if not all phone makers will try selling 8K phones. When 4K is overkill for anything less than 30 inches. 8K is pointless on anything less than 60 inches. That is unless one is planning on watching from a distance, they can touch the screen with their nose.
I have a cheapo 8" Windows 10 tablet. Its resolution is 1920 X 1280. So , that's a much more favorable aspect ratio, about 16:11, than any of this 16:9 crap which is standard.

The drawback is, (it's not a big one mind you), but with the standard Windows desktop, (touch in operation), you can't open file or navigate in any way without a stylus.

Gosh, I'm old, and I certainly can't see the pixels, and yet your basic 5" or 6" iPhone has way more resolution. Apple was more successful in convincing people they needed "Retina Display".

The upshot of this 8K movement will be, with only the gentlest push, people will convince themselves they're "entitled to", "deserve", or "need" 8K, and in fact it will be most likely be, a combination of all 3 factors.

But someone from my era who has witnessed the atrocities which were 480i (NTSC) 60" and possibly as big as 72" rear projection TVs, 1080p seems like it's plenty.

Although I confess I have grown to like my 1440p (2K) monitors. But 8K, no way.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 18,527   +7,366
Why??? Because every digital TV station gives free 720p broadcasts well they do in the UK except the main terrestrial channels
The US ATSC standard allows OTA channels the choice of either 720p or 1080i <(note, not p scan). These are all free channels,(ranging from ch 2 to ch. 69) obviously sponsored by advertising. Sideband channels X-2, X-3, X-4, (X-1 would be primary) are likely to be heavily compressed 480l, the old NTSC standard..

I'm a little confused by your use of the term "terrestrial channels", as here in the US, the upcharge for high def, is only applicable to cable providers.

But then our OTA channels, (as I said earlier), only go to 1080i (*), not the 1080p "full high def" standard.

(*) AFAIK, the 1080l is only 30 fps, not 60 fps.
 

DaveBG

Posts: 618   +284
Finally, my 4K monitor is starting to show its age after the many years it has served me. This time I will not be early adopter though. I will wait until 8K is capable of running on 120Hz and there is decent model.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,472   +6,252
The US ATSC standard allows OTA channels the choice of either 720p or 1080i <(note, not p scan). These are all free channels,(ranging from ch 2 to ch. 69) obviously sponsored by advertising. Sideband channels X-2, X-3, X-4, (X-1 would be primary) are likely to be heavily compressed 480l, the old NTSC standard..

I'm a little confused by your use of the term "terrestrial channels", as here in the US, the upcharge for high def, is only applicable to cable providers.

But then our OTA channels, (as I said earlier), only go to 1080i (*), not the 1080p "full high def" standard.

(*) AFAIK, the 1080l is only 30 fps, not 60 fps.
If ATSC 3.0 ever hits the airwaves, 4K and above will be supported OTA. Maybe it is one of the extremely few things Pai will get right in his tenure as FCC shill.
TV channels in Canada are still mostly 1080i or 720p. Not even 1080p yet. What a shame that TV providers (and bandwidth) can't keep up with tech
ATSC 3.0 is on the platter in the US, and I suspect that Canada will also adopt it. There is obviously the cost of conversion and the reality is that it looks like it is going to take a while - http://www.videa.tv/2018/10/what-is-atsc-3-0-the-latest-updates-on-the-new-standard/