kbk

8K and 33 megapixels are coming. For those who say that we don't need it, i have to disagree. when you compare resolution of digital cameras and film, we are still quite a distance off in obtaining the resolution that film provided (83mp according to ken rockwell) and if you want to enlarge photos and still provide a good quality print or project them onto a screen/wall and provide a good image, then one needs a higher resolution camera sensor. if you are happy printing 8x10 prints, then what we have right now is satisfactory for you with no need to upgrade.

gessman Loc: Colorado

I saw a few days ago that some in the tv industry are projecting that at the current rate people are buying 4k tv sets that in two years over 50% of households worldwide will have 4k sets. As usual, only those who can afford and want the latest, best viewing experience, will gravitate to 8k when it's available and about the time that 16k arrives some of us "laggers" will be moving from 4k on up to 8k when the price drops. Of course, the manufacturers are going to keep "improving" the products they make and sell - that's the "American way." Folks, it's comin' and there's no sense in arguing about whether we need it or not or who's behind it. We have a lot of things we don't need and we're going to get a lot more. It's like everything else, if you don't want it, don't buy it. At some point you really will have no choice but buy in if you want to watch tv just like right now when you cannot find an old tube tv on the store shelves even if you DO think they're better.

As for the issue of 4k programming, there's quite a bit out there, not from the big 3 broadcasters as noted, but Netflix and others, hulu, etc., has a growing selection of movies, some of which are upscaled oldies, and there are others getting into the fracas for the first time like PlutoTV that broadcasts only one 4k channel now on Roku but if the big 3 aren't careful, along with Dish and DirectTV, they will get outmaneuvered and lose their butts just like Wal Mart and Amazon have altered the face of the retail business. Often, entities get locked into a groove they can't get out of in time to make the adjustments soon enough to keep from losing their audience and it's starting to look like that's about to happen to the "big boys" in broadcasting. It can happen real easy and real quick if they're not careful.

Embrace it and enjoy it, folks, 'cause it isn't gonna stop.

James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA

I'm guessing we'll never arrive at THE ultimate video/photo resolution, given the complexity of vision. At least with audio we figured out that slightly south of 20Hz and slightly north of 20Khz is it. All that's left after that is to decide how many channels you want for spacial realism. Since I usually use headphones, 2 is often (and even only 1 if it's a 1930's Blues record!). enough. The movie (studios and theatres) will do what they have to to keep the seats filled, As for me and my TVs, I do what I did with SDTV to HDTV: Keep what I have until it quits, THEN I'll get the then current common standard. I'll let the "early adopters" amortize the costs of the NEXT standard.

Rdhalste

For one, it doesn't require we upgrade from 1080p, or even 720p to watch the higher resolution images. Many stations broadcasting PBS and college stations drop the 1080p and go to 4 channels broadcasting the 400 something and my 1080p set displays them jusr fine.. Few programs are broadcast in 4K. 4K receivers, "upscale" the 1080p to 4K

I only have a 40" TV as tat's all I have room for. At 40" I can see no discernable difference between 1080p and 4K.
Sitting at a reasonable distance, 300 dpi should look like a photograph. I base this on bothr 30-40" wide screen computer monitors and very large displays I have watched. I sit abour 18 to 24 inches from the 28" computer moniters. The larger screens necessitate sitting farther back, not because of the resolution but to easily view the entire screen. So for computers I have settled on 27 to 28" wide screen monitors. 30"? Ptobably if I can calibrate the colors and saturation.

I have exceptional periphial vision, but periphial vision detects motion, or objects, not detail. So to get the full impact of a larger screen, I need to sit farther back.
"For me" I have found ultra wide screens and curved screens to be useless for TV viewing. Few shows or movies that use the ultra wide aspect ratios, that They aren't worth the cost. Curved screens limit the useful viewing angle on TV or computer monitors. For the enthiuasist who wants the most and watches images in the UW aspect ratio then the extra money is probably fine.

In general, I see no positive gain or need for 8K. I do see the need for lot of extra band width as a negative for streaming on shared connections such as satellires and cable. At present I have a premium 100 Mbs service but when neighborhood kids get hone from school and go on line I get no where near 100 Mbs. After 11:00 PM and between 7:00 AM and ~4:00 PM I see 20 - 30% more than the subscribed limit. IOW, I do nor see where any uses except a very small percent will benefit from more than 4K. No where near enough ro cover the cost of the required overhead for handling this much data.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I don't believe Rockwell; using the same lens I used with Kodachrome, I'm getting much more detail with 16mp than I ever got with Kodachrome.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Same here. It can be even better with some of the new OEM lenses made for your camera.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

It will require 8K television sets to get the best out of 8K videos, in the same way that you need a 4K television to get the best from 4K video.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

For a lot of material, the quality difference between 1080P and 4K is quite significant. It's up to the individual to judge whether that difference is enough to require an upgrade.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

At some point perhaps, but not yet.