• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

8k vs 4k and Upscaling: Is 8k Worth the Upgrade? – RTINGS.com

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,759
Likes
37,603
I think it is pretty clear 8k isn't worth it currently. I agree with the 3-5 year estimate of when it will be.

OTOH, are we approaching the situation we have in audio? It isn't clear there any benefit to greater bit depth and sample rate than 16/44.1, and it seems very clear there is no benefit beyond 24/96. Yet we have 192, 384, and now many DACs do 768 khz sample rates, and I'm not aware of any recordings done at 768.

Regular HD was a big jump in basic video quality. 4k is a perceptible increase though not necessarily in all domestic situations. Many with 4k TV's watch them at a distance they can't see the improvements. 8k is getting pretty close to no useful improvement I think. Of course I've had the same idea about digicams once we reached 12 megapixels. Other than cropping I don't see the utility of it, but the megapixels keep going up even if most low end cameras have lens systems unable to give a real photo with that kind of resolution.
 

bravomail

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
817
Likes
461
I'd venture to say that even 4k is not so widely adopted. For desktop monitor - sure, there are benefits, more text, you can view your 50mgapixel photos less scaled. But for TV - HD is where it is, you will need more colors, not pixels to enjoy it properly. And less compression when viewing streamed video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DDF

scott wurcer

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,501
Likes
2,822
I'll put my usual rant here. As demoed at the usual outlets TV's these days look horrifying, the color gamut is usually distorted and unnatural. Typically after passing through a few DSP algorithms the cinematographer's intent is completely lost. I won't purchase a TV unless there is a clear path to remove all the "enhancements".
 

Willem

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,723
Likes
5,353
I could not agree more. I will hang on to my HD Panasonic plasma for as long as I can. The colours and dynamic range are just beautifully subtle. As for pixels: here in the Netherlands normal TV is still 720, so not even proper HD.
I just installed a new media box from our cable company, and I am a bit concerned because picture quality seems somehow worse (darker with lots of contrast), and the audio tinny (optical out into my main stereo system). Lip synchronisation has also deteriorated, so I may have to delve into the manuals (grrr). The good news is that the new unit is far more energy efficient (saving me some 75 euro a year!) so it can do without the obnoxiously noisy fan of the old box.
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,759
Likes
37,603
I'd venture to say that even 4k is not so widely adopted. For desktop monitor - sure, there are benefits, more text, you can view your 50mgapixel photos less scaled. But for TV - HD is where it is, you will need more colors, not pixels to enjoy it properly. And less compression when viewing streamed video.

If you look at bitrates for uncompressed HD video (bluray), you'd possibly be surprised how hugely compressed other forms of it are. It does appear to me that hugely compressed 4k gives some room for fewer artifacts than you get for 2k. I suppose someone has done it somewhere, but I'd like to see a good comparison with the same data rates. Typically you'll need 6 mbps for regular HD in streaming form. And 4 times that for 4k and a bit more if you have the greater color gamut. I'd like to see regular HD at 25 mbps. That might be the better trade off.
 

invaderzim

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
320
Likes
563
Location
NorCal
I agree with the above.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the bigger number often looks better to the masses. They don't care about actual picture quality or how the colors look; just if it has a bigger resolution number.

I'm in the process of trying to replace our plasma TV that is failing and when I told a co-worker I was looking at new TVs their first response was "8K?" And when I tried to explain that I would much rather have a high quality picture over a higher number he looked so confused because 8K is automatically better.

If I could get a new HD plasma like ours I would buy it in second.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,759
Likes
37,603
I could not agree more. I will hang on to my HD Panasonic plasma for as long as I can. The colours and dynamic range are just beautifully subtle. As for pixels: here in the Netherlands normal TV is still 720, so not even proper HD.
I just installed a new media box from our cable company, and I am a bit concerned because picture quality seems somehow worse (darker with lots of contrast), and the audio tinny (optical out into my main stereo system). Lip synchronisation has also deteriorated, so I may have to delve into the manuals (grrr). The good news is that the new unit is far more energy efficient (saving me some 75 euro a year!) so it can do without the obnoxiously noisy fan of the old box.
Yes, I gave my parents a Panasonic plasma and wish someone still made plasma displays. And that I had purchased one for myself.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,233
Likes
9,360
I have tried 1080p at 1080p and upscaled to 2160p, the native resolution of my TV and saw no improvement. That's video. Switching to a 4k monitor for editing photos made a big difference.
 

Willem

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,723
Likes
5,353
I am sure that unless the plasma screen packs up I will buy a 4k screen for text editing before I buy one for video.
 

garbulky

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 14, 2018
Messages
1,510
Likes
827
If you look at bitrates for uncompressed HD video (bluray), you'd possibly be surprised how hugely compressed other forms of it are. It does appear to me that hugely compressed 4k gives some room for fewer artifacts than you get for 2k. I suppose someone has done it somewhere, but I'd like to see a good comparison with the same data rates. Typically you'll need 6 mbps for regular HD in streaming form. And 4 times that for 4k and a bit more if you have the greater color gamut. I'd like to see regular HD at 25 mbps. That might be the better trade off.
I compare Blu Ray to Netflix 4k (and other streamers) on a 4k OLED 65 inch. For me the Blu Rays have a much nicer look to them feeling more detailed with better color. Having said that streaming 4k vs streaming 1080p is a step up on the major video services. Interestingly on smaller screens I didn't think the difference was all that noticeable for 4k vs regular Blu Ray.
 

BostonJack

Active Member
Editor
Joined
Jul 2, 2019
Messages
288
Likes
350
Location
Boston area, Cambridge, MA
Only tangentially related: I work on a macbook pro laptop with retina screen, which is really nice. I'd like a higher res 21" monitor and the 5k ones are pretty pricey: ~$1000.

the nearly perfect screen makes a difference to me after several hours a day.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,657
Likes
240,866
Location
Seattle Area
I look forward to 8K OLED TVs in very large sizes (100 inch+) as a projector replacement. Otherwise, it is hard to justify 4K right now let alone 8K.

Ready or not though, next year's CES will be all about 8K and roll out will accelerate next year. Margin is long gone from 4K so that is inevitable.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,759
Likes
37,603
Recorded with RME ADI-2 Pro at PCM768kHz. You can buy with PayPal.

https://ototoy.jp/news/86785

https://ototoy.jp/_/default/p/82298
Yes, there are now a handful of ADC's that do this. I'm unaware of anyone releasing recordings at that rate. I'm might be wrong, and I'm sure it is only a matter of time until it happens if it hasn't already.

If you look at the specs for the RME, it says frequency response is - 3db at 180 khz. Sampling at the higher frequency seems rather useless in a number of ways. Somewhere near 200 khz is where many of the analog sections of good recording gear drop off.
 
Top Bottom