Samsung bets on MicroLED and 8K for its premium 2023 TVs(engadget.com)
engadget.com
Samsung bets on MicroLED and 8K for its premium 2023 TVs
https://www.engadget.com/samsungs-bets-on-micro-led-and-8-k-for-its-premium-2023-t-vs-030033433.html
111 comments
Anecdotally, I recently switched from streaming 4k to physical 1080p content. It looks just as sharp, and has more presence, and is much more captivating for me.
> It looks just as sharp, and has more presence
on an lg oled display i instantly notice when something is 1080p vs 4k.
i suggest watching an old movie in 4k. for example die hard in 4k is absolutely incredible compared with the DVD release.
on an lg oled display i instantly notice when something is 1080p vs 4k.
i suggest watching an old movie in 4k. for example die hard in 4k is absolutely incredible compared with the DVD release.
Compression artifacts (common in even 4k streaming) are way more than the lower res from 1080p blurays. Compare e.g. smoky scenes.
The 4Ks I've upgraded to are much lighter, much brighter, much much clearer, and make every second of entertainment that much better. They also use less power and cost a fraction of what my nice 1080p was like 10 years ago. I gift the old models to those that can't afford it. I'm excited for you to join the 4K club whenever you feel ready to make the leap!
I find the difference between 1080 and 4K quite visible. I don't think I can see much of a difference between 4K and 8K, though.
I had a 1080p plasma up until last year and decided it was time to upgrade. For me it was less about the resolution and more about the picture quality and blacks. Plasma did pretty good for the time it was around but on the OLED the 1080p content looks amazing and so does 4k. For the first few months I was just blown away about how much better it was even on sub-par content. I do agree that few people will upgrade simply because 8 > 4 unless they need a new TV. These newer technologies have better HDR color depth/contrast/brightness and latency which will be the features worth upgrading for rather than resolution.
Same here, plasma for 10 years and now an OLED. The difference is night and day. I don't notice much difference between 1080p and 4K content because of the distance to the screen but HDR is amazing, especially for gaming.
I'd guess your 1080p plasma also weighed 50+ pounds and consumed a few hundred watts of electricity vs. new TVs that are super light and much more energy efficient. So that's another big reason to consider upgrading from a plasma (or at least one less reason to hang on to old tech).
I've still got one of the last (NeoPDP) plasma displays. While it uses a bit more energy than OLED it's not 'a few hundred watts', but tens of watts. Also, since TV's have become cheaper a new TV will probably be a bigger one which uses more energy so there's less energy saving. Manufacturing a new TV will be a bigger energy sink than just using the old one a bit longer.
You're right about power usage but why would i care how much my TV weighs? I don't regularly have to carry it and if you're moving once every few years it doesn't matter is a tv is 100 lbs or 10 lbs.
Yes, for specifics (I still run a 50" Plasma "in the garage,
" which was recently replaced with a 55" OLED 4K):
50" Plasma: 290-430 watts, depending on image; refresh rate is SLOW & obvious; I only run this in the wintertime, for "space heating"
55" OLED: 90 watts, twice as bright; colors are INCREDIBLE, almost as good as my ICR10 monitor that costs 3x per pixel;
The 55" OLED has the same pixel density as a 30" Cinema Display, but the pixels are brighter and take up more of the area (i.e. there isn't as much "support network" / black) and is obviously 4K.
50" Plasma: 290-430 watts, depending on image; refresh rate is SLOW & obvious; I only run this in the wintertime, for "space heating"
55" OLED: 90 watts, twice as bright; colors are INCREDIBLE, almost as good as my ICR10 monitor that costs 3x per pixel;
The 55" OLED has the same pixel density as a 30" Cinema Display, but the pixels are brighter and take up more of the area (i.e. there isn't as much "support network" / black) and is obviously 4K.
8k will be helpful primarily for significantly larger TVs (77"+) depending on the view distance. These higher resolutions will be really valuable for computer monitors so we can have high DPI screens available across all sizes.
I'm really looking forward to a hopefully affordable 6k 32" monitor from Dell this year!
I'm really looking forward to a hopefully affordable 6k 32" monitor from Dell this year!
Really though?
I'm on a 4K 27" monitor right now and I can see no edges or pixelation. I'm not really sure what higher resolution would do.
Honestly for the work I'm doing I'd struggle to justify a move to OLED (this is IPS), but at least there'd be a reason. I don't get what the point of ever higher resolutions is when I can't tell the difference.
Sure, someone will say "you can't see the difference but I can", but at that resolution I'm very skeptical.
I'm on a 4K 27" monitor right now and I can see no edges or pixelation. I'm not really sure what higher resolution would do.
Honestly for the work I'm doing I'd struggle to justify a move to OLED (this is IPS), but at least there'd be a reason. I don't get what the point of ever higher resolutions is when I can't tell the difference.
Sure, someone will say "you can't see the difference but I can", but at that resolution I'm very skeptical.
If you have a 5k 27 inch screen directly next to it you will see a difference, but it’s not huge and I agree that 4k at 27 inches is sufficient from a pixel density perspective. But the scaling is not so nice, 5k at 27 inches allows integer scaling and getting a reasonable size out of it. Same for 6k at 32 inches or more for even bigger screens. I am waiting for the 6k dell mentioned above as well.
I think a good reference is Apple's "retina" brand [1]. For a 27" monitor to be (basic) retina it must be 5K.
But yes, there are diminishing returns and resolution isn't everything (I've tried terrible 4K monitors...).
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display
The point of higher resolutions is bigger screens with the same quality.
I was able to snag a 8k 55" tv for USD ~1000 a couple of years ago and it's absolutely glorious as a monitor. Basically it functions as 4 4k monitors in one unified canvas.
When I sit down to work, most of my field of view is screen real-estate. I can have several pages of code vertically surrounded by handfuls of terminal windows and reference material, and it's all perfectly crisp since it's 8K on only 55".
I think we are basically brainwashed when it comes to monitors. Monitors grow a few pixels in resolution and a few inches in size every decade or so, and I've heard the argument repeated - "I got a 21" (22", 24", 27") screen, it's nice but that's as big as I want to go". Somehow when a new few inches larger becomes the norm in the market, everyone thinks that's OK too.
I think most knowledge workers would get hooked on 55" within a few hours of using it. I know I was.
Unfortunately this TV seems to have been a bit of an anomaly. The market today is filled with worse products costing more money. :(
LG was able to make this and ship it everywhere in the world for sub-1000 usd years ago. The technology exists and is not expensive, it just needs to be set free!
I was able to snag a 8k 55" tv for USD ~1000 a couple of years ago and it's absolutely glorious as a monitor. Basically it functions as 4 4k monitors in one unified canvas.
When I sit down to work, most of my field of view is screen real-estate. I can have several pages of code vertically surrounded by handfuls of terminal windows and reference material, and it's all perfectly crisp since it's 8K on only 55".
I think we are basically brainwashed when it comes to monitors. Monitors grow a few pixels in resolution and a few inches in size every decade or so, and I've heard the argument repeated - "I got a 21" (22", 24", 27") screen, it's nice but that's as big as I want to go". Somehow when a new few inches larger becomes the norm in the market, everyone thinks that's OK too.
I think most knowledge workers would get hooked on 55" within a few hours of using it. I know I was.
Unfortunately this TV seems to have been a bit of an anomaly. The market today is filled with worse products costing more money. :(
LG was able to make this and ship it everywhere in the world for sub-1000 usd years ago. The technology exists and is not expensive, it just needs to be set free!
>8k will be helpful primarily for significantly larger TVs (77"+) depending on the view distance.
Even for THX recommendation for 40 degree FOV, 4K is above that threshold. And most people would prefer 30 FOV. There are cases where people prefer 50 FOV, then 4K would be at its limit. But even if we were to include 20/10 vision, 50 FOV viewing usage, 5K or 6K would still be enough with room to spare.
We really should have pushed for 6K. 5K would likely get pushed back from marketing because 1K increase isn't enough. While 6K has double the pixel of 4K. ( Great for marketing ). Enough to satisfy even the most demanding, high end users.
Even for THX recommendation for 40 degree FOV, 4K is above that threshold. And most people would prefer 30 FOV. There are cases where people prefer 50 FOV, then 4K would be at its limit. But even if we were to include 20/10 vision, 50 FOV viewing usage, 5K or 6K would still be enough with room to spare.
We really should have pushed for 6K. 5K would likely get pushed back from marketing because 1K increase isn't enough. While 6K has double the pixel of 4K. ( Great for marketing ). Enough to satisfy even the most demanding, high end users.
Don't underestimate the power of marketing.
That being said, when I walk into a TV store, I'm impressed by the quality of the demo videos. What I'd like to see though, is how these new TV compare to my old one for the content I watch (basically, YouTube videos, and occasionally streaming some movie).
That being said, when I walk into a TV store, I'm impressed by the quality of the demo videos. What I'd like to see though, is how these new TV compare to my old one for the content I watch (basically, YouTube videos, and occasionally streaming some movie).
There's actually a lot of processing done to the picture in the store and typically in the out-of-the-box settings, that's pretty annoying and overdone when watching regular content. During my first weeks with a 4K OLED TV I've disabled almost all processing possible, so the image is more neutral and life-like. I don't really notice much difference between 1080p and 4K with that settings.
One thing that I found to be a huge improvement though is Dolby Vision.
One thing that I found to be a huge improvement though is Dolby Vision.
I recently pulled my 2008 46" Samsung LCD from my storage unit and started using it again. It lasted a few weeks until the capacitors gave out. Then I dug around some forums (literally "badcaps.net") located the right values, rode my bike to the local hackerspace, dug through some bins to get the parts I needed, swapped them out at home, and now its going strong again.
I could have bought a 4k TV for $300 but it would be full of surveillance hardware, and I hate that. This TV doesn't even have a network connection, it's just a big monitor. Works great!
8k seems amusing, but definitely seems like a point of diminishing returns.
I could have bought a 4k TV for $300 but it would be full of surveillance hardware, and I hate that. This TV doesn't even have a network connection, it's just a big monitor. Works great!
8k seems amusing, but definitely seems like a point of diminishing returns.
Great that you fixed your old TV!!
About those new TVs. You always have a choice to not connect your smart TV with the internet and connect something you trust more with internet access to watch what you want to watch. At least that is what we do at our home. I never see or even update the software on the TV itself. What I like about the new 4K OLED TV we have is not the 4K but the HDR, deep blacks and the colors. It was a definite very big upgrade over our old 2010 HD TV.
About those new TVs. You always have a choice to not connect your smart TV with the internet and connect something you trust more with internet access to watch what you want to watch. At least that is what we do at our home. I never see or even update the software on the TV itself. What I like about the new 4K OLED TV we have is not the 4K but the HDR, deep blacks and the colors. It was a definite very big upgrade over our old 2010 HD TV.
Yeah I have always liked OLED tech for the blacks and colors. It's good to hear that you haven't had to connect your TV to the internet. I have some vague memories of news stories about TVs connecting to nearby open networks and stuff like that, so I don't like the idea of network hardware in my TV at all. Maybe if I get a well known brand it would be okay. Something to think about for when my TV dies. Just before moving I had been playing Xbox on a monitor I found by the side of the road, and somehow my 2008 TV feels like it has WAY better blacks and colors than that old monitor, so I feel like I've upgraded anyway!
There's a lot of not very technical consumers who buy based on these kind of numbers. The way the camera pixel count wars used to be. It's an easy fallacy to fall into if you don't understand the tech, to "want the most for my money".
People are also not considering that unless you get a 4K feed (which is not that common or costs a lot more) 1080p will look blurry or not as a good on a 4K screen of that size
> 4K feed (which is not that common or costs a lot more)
from my experience 4K and 1080p costs the same. not only that, but i haven't really seen popular youtube uploads or movie streams in 1080p for a good chunk of years now.
from my experience 4K and 1080p costs the same. not only that, but i haven't really seen popular youtube uploads or movie streams in 1080p for a good chunk of years now.
To get 4K content on Netflix, Paramount+, Hulu, you need to pay more for the premium subscription. On Prime Video and Disney+, the 4K content is usually limited to only the original content. You can get 4K movie/TV show rentals (pay on demand) that will cost more. Digital linear TV services like YouTube TV or fuboTV don't provide 4K feeds for live content most of the time (not including on demand). News streams are still 1080p and sports streams are occasionally in 4K but it's not very often. I didn't know more people are uploading 4K content on YouTube though.
damn, you’re right. thanks for the thorough comment! i do pay more for 4k for netflix and co.
my mistake was thinking about renting titles on prime and rakuten, where i get 4k(uhd) and 1080p at the same price.
my mistake was thinking about renting titles on prime and rakuten, where i get 4k(uhd) and 1080p at the same price.
This is something I don't get - why aren't four 4k pixels in square used to render 1 pixel from 1080p signal? Unless you mean that input device does have 4k connection to TV, but content being played is 1080p, thus some interpolation happens (but still I would expect modern hardware should make it hard to spot, with good photo editing you don't lose quality dramatically when resizing).
I'm not an expert on this, but I don't think the dimensions and aspect ratio would work with that? I do mean that the input device has a 4K connection to the TV. Like you mentioned, interpolation (upsampling) needs to happen. It depends on the algorithms or hardware chips used, but it's been pretty noticeable for me. I was trying to imply that it might be worth keeping a 1080p display/TV depending on what type of content you want to watch. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to get a 4K display if all the content you watch is in 1080p.
1080p content is 1920x1080. 4K content is 3840x2160. You just literally double-up the pixel size in each dimension; there's no need for interpolation or anything else that will cause blurring.
I've been working on an FPGA project that involves 1080p into a 4K monitor over HDMI and it looks very sharp to me, even on high contrast edges with a pretty critical eye.
I've been working on an FPGA project that involves 1080p into a 4K monitor over HDMI and it looks very sharp to me, even on high contrast edges with a pretty critical eye.
This definitely shouldn't be the case. 1080p can be cleanly upscaled simply by displaying every pixel 4 times. If you have blurry results your display or output device is doing wonky stuff.
4K for me is about gaming. The Series X can do 4k @120 fps (although most games do not play at this framerate). For me that's the main reason to go for a 4k TV.
It's less about the resolution and more about the screen itself. I bought a new 720p TV for my grandmother a few weeks ago, and the colors and contrast make for a better experience than her old 1080p TV (my only criteria for the new TV was 'sort-of-hackable' so I could simplify it for her).
I got a 4k OLED last year after using a 30" 1080p LCD for about a decade. Honestly I could take or leave the 4K, but HDR is nice!
My biggest problem nowadays is not display hardware but content.
The experience of acquiring content is terrible - I have to browse many various storefronts which only have subsets of the content I might want and then pay money to "buy" media knowing full well it's ephemeral and will eventually get lost when the company shuts down, discontinues their service or closes my account for an alleged violation of ToS.
Back in the day I used to pirate and watch tons of stuff as a result, but ironically despite my disposable income rising to a level where I don't need to pirate I pretty much gave up on watching movies at home.
The experience of acquiring content is terrible - I have to browse many various storefronts which only have subsets of the content I might want and then pay money to "buy" media knowing full well it's ephemeral and will eventually get lost when the company shuts down, discontinues their service or closes my account for an alleged violation of ToS.
Back in the day I used to pirate and watch tons of stuff as a result, but ironically despite my disposable income rising to a level where I don't need to pirate I pretty much gave up on watching movies at home.
At the beginning, piracy was the only way to access content. It was also about building a large library without having to wait for content to become available. Some people saw the Blu-ray era as a relic of the past because they didn't want to deal with physical media.
During the HTPC era (with programs like XBMC, Kodi, and later Plex), it was possible to download the top 100 movies automatically and watch them on your TV. Some major media companies noticed this and released their own streaming platforms, which improved the user experience.
Now, all of that has changed. Most major media companies have their own stores, and the content is fragmented. You have to think and search before you can play anything because you don't know who owns the rights to a particular piece of content (this also varies depending on your location). Some content can even disappear from a platform. The user experience is broken again.
Today, piracy is not about access to content, but about the user experience. Having one store is better than many.
During the HTPC era (with programs like XBMC, Kodi, and later Plex), it was possible to download the top 100 movies automatically and watch them on your TV. Some major media companies noticed this and released their own streaming platforms, which improved the user experience.
Now, all of that has changed. Most major media companies have their own stores, and the content is fragmented. You have to think and search before you can play anything because you don't know who owns the rights to a particular piece of content (this also varies depending on your location). Some content can even disappear from a platform. The user experience is broken again.
Today, piracy is not about access to content, but about the user experience. Having one store is better than many.
I'm pretty sure I'm in minority, but I couldn't handle the 16" M1 MBP screen which is MicroLED. It was too glossy and gave me eye strain. I'm assuming these will be based on similar technology.
I did not get headache or anything, just that within 5-10 mins my eyes would feel strain and discomfort, which vanished as soon as I moved to my older 15" MBP.
EDIT: As several people noted, I made a mistake, got confused between mini LED and microLED.
embarrassed
I did not get headache or anything, just that within 5-10 mins my eyes would feel strain and discomfort, which vanished as soon as I moved to my older 15" MBP.
EDIT: As several people noted, I made a mistake, got confused between mini LED and microLED.
embarrassed
It’s not micro LED - it’s mini LED.
Mini LED uses an array of white LEDs to provide somewhat-localized dimming / illumination. You can get close to true blacks with this, but you might notice a halo around areas since the mini LED array resolution is lower than that of the RGB pixels.
Mini LED uses an array of white LEDs to provide somewhat-localized dimming / illumination. You can get close to true blacks with this, but you might notice a halo around areas since the mini LED array resolution is lower than that of the RGB pixels.
[deleted]
I'm not sure halo is an issue with modern miniLEDs. I've actually worked with research-grade local dimming algorithms and it's relatively easy to get a perceptually nearly perfect picture if you have a calibrated backlight and some image processing software. These algorithms have been known known for a while but it looks like only recently got to production due to need for efficient realtime implementation (they need to run at full 60 or 120 Hz after all).
And, maybe more important, let's not forget the glare effect in our eyes [0] that tends to mask smaller halos.
A couple papers for example, [1] describes one of the better classical algorithms, and [2] is about a modern NN-based approach.
[0] https://resources.mpi-inf.mpg.de/hdr/TemporalGlare/
[1] (2015, pdf) https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01362368/file/IVMSP2016...
[2] (2020) https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08352v1
And, maybe more important, let's not forget the glare effect in our eyes [0] that tends to mask smaller halos.
A couple papers for example, [1] describes one of the better classical algorithms, and [2] is about a modern NN-based approach.
[0] https://resources.mpi-inf.mpg.de/hdr/TemporalGlare/
[1] (2015, pdf) https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01362368/file/IVMSP2016...
[2] (2020) https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08352v1
I apologize for not reading those papers first, but I don't see how this is possible. With miniLEDs you have a small area of the screen which has a single backlight - if half of that area is 100% white and half 100% black, you'll need the backlight 100% on.
How can that black be as black as in the neighboring area where the backlight is off?
How can that black be as black as in the neighboring area where the backlight is off?
I read the papers - it can't, they just seem to have novel ways of controlling the zones available. I supposed the smaller the miniLED array the more control you can have over the zones and the better it works. But there doesn't seem to be anything that really solves the bleeding issue.
The human eye perceives colors relative to their surroundings, so a black pixel next to a white pixel will look blacker. You can exploit this effect to enhance the perceived contrast ratio. How well this works in practice varies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion
This, and in general setting LED brightness to minimum necessary to get target brightness with fully open LCD, taking into account interaction of nearby LEDs (light from one LED spreads to adjacent cells, thus you could minimize brightness of boundary LEDs even farther).
MBP is miniLED, with LCD as a primary light modulator and a relatively (compared to older local dimmed displays) high-resolution backlight. I.e. you have 3456‑by‑2234 LCD pixels that filter light, but like 300-by-100 light sources (LEDs) behind it.
MicroLED (uLED) is still an exotic technology, it’s in principle similar to OLED, but with inorganic LEDs. It has better color rendering and less burn in problems, but is difficult to manufacture for now.
Basically, display technology names are deceptive, similar names may mean completely different things.
MicroLED (uLED) is still an exotic technology, it’s in principle similar to OLED, but with inorganic LEDs. It has better color rendering and less burn in problems, but is difficult to manufacture for now.
Basically, display technology names are deceptive, similar names may mean completely different things.
Some people get much more severe symptoms including migraines at LEDStrain.org
I had the exact same issue and spent a lot of time figuring out why this was a problem for me, as I would alter between my old 15 inch and new 16 inch and feel the difference each time.
Long story short, I found a solution that removed all my issues;
- Use the accessibility «contrast» feature set to level 2
- Use an app[0] that applies a gamme filter to adjust the white level down to account for the contrast increase
- (optional) use an srgb color profile that disables temporal dithering of colors
This reduces you max brightness level to the same amount as the old 15 inch (I don’t need the extra brightness) but allowes you to keep the backlight at max output, minimizing the pvm strobing effect[0] that some people seem to be sensitive to.
[0] https://michelf.ca/projects/gamma-control/
[1] https://osxdaily.com/2021/05/14/workaround-pwm-oled-iphone-i...
Long story short, I found a solution that removed all my issues;
- Use the accessibility «contrast» feature set to level 2
- Use an app[0] that applies a gamme filter to adjust the white level down to account for the contrast increase
- (optional) use an srgb color profile that disables temporal dithering of colors
This reduces you max brightness level to the same amount as the old 15 inch (I don’t need the extra brightness) but allowes you to keep the backlight at max output, minimizing the pvm strobing effect[0] that some people seem to be sensitive to.
[0] https://michelf.ca/projects/gamma-control/
[1] https://osxdaily.com/2021/05/14/workaround-pwm-oled-iphone-i...
It also helps to use the default resolution to avoid supersampling/anti-aliasing effects.
Just saw this - I had played with numerous settings for a long time and some seemed to make it better, some not so. I did not try your solution.
BTW, I don't run into any issues with the 13" M1 AIR also. So, decided that it wasn't worth it for me to have to fiddle around with setting on a rather expensive piece of hardware and decided to return it and wait in case Apple launches a 15" MB Air with a regular (as in not mini LED) screen.
In they don't, I'll give the 16" MBP another shot and might try your solution.
BTW, I don't run into any issues with the 13" M1 AIR also. So, decided that it wasn't worth it for me to have to fiddle around with setting on a rather expensive piece of hardware and decided to return it and wait in case Apple launches a 15" MB Air with a regular (as in not mini LED) screen.
In they don't, I'll give the 16" MBP another shot and might try your solution.
> 2,000 nits of peak brightness
Is this much brightness even needed for a TV?
Is this much brightness even needed for a TV?
In a sunlit room, or to be able to be seen outdoors in full sunlight, yes. For normal indoor use in a non super brightly lit living room, no.
That's nowhere near good enough to see in full sunlight, which is about 10k - 30k nits.
I was just answering the op's question why you would need a brighter TV. A 2000 nit TV would certainly be better in thrse situations, hence why someone would want one, answering ops question.
Also, you're way off on your units or something. Specifically built, very expensive digital signage lcd displays only go up to a max of 6000 nits, which is crazy high and results in a display that draws 20 amps at 220v. Source below, and I've designed them. A 65" display at 30k nits would draw more than a thousand amps at 220v, it just isn't true. 6k nits is the practical limit of a display like this. Even jumbotrons don't go to 30k nits.
https://ultravisionledsolutions.com/blogs/news/what-are-nits...
Also, you're way off on your units or something. Specifically built, very expensive digital signage lcd displays only go up to a max of 6000 nits, which is crazy high and results in a display that draws 20 amps at 220v. Source below, and I've designed them. A 65" display at 30k nits would draw more than a thousand amps at 220v, it just isn't true. 6k nits is the practical limit of a display like this. Even jumbotrons don't go to 30k nits.
https://ultravisionledsolutions.com/blogs/news/what-are-nits...
The power usage of signage isn't relevant to the brightness of a sunny day. It's easy to lookup the numbers I gave directly.
Please link to a commercially available display that has the brightness specs you say.
The power usage of signage is relative to its power (light) output. The energy to create those photons has to come from somewhere.
The power usage of signage is relative to its power (light) output. The energy to create those photons has to come from somewhere.
Who said there is a display?
I said that's the brightness under full sunlight; that's the ambient light which a readable display needs to compete with.
I said that's the brightness under full sunlight; that's the ambient light which a readable display needs to compete with.
You said 2000 nits is nowhere good enough to be seen in daylight. 5000 nits is about the maximum you can get in specific high power outdoor displays, 2000 nits is common in applications like digital signage, etc. I personally know that 2000 nits is plenty to be seen in daylight, it's a common choice you see every day in your day to day life.
The display doesn't need to compete with the brightness of the sun u less you want a display as bright as the sun, which is crazy. You just want to be able to read it in daylight, not light the world.
The display doesn't need to compete with the brightness of the sun u less you want a display as bright as the sun, which is crazy. You just want to be able to read it in daylight, not light the world.
Daylight is different than "full sunlight". A 2000-nit display is readable, but it looks washed out if in an exposed area on a sunny day. Probably why those 5000 nit displays exist.
Peak brightness typically refers to how bright a display can get over a small surface area (usually 2% of screen real estate).
[deleted]
It's not just how bright it can get, but also how specular highlights are retained. Instead of having a white blob of white blob, a screen with high peak brightness can show details in that white blob.
For example, clouds could be just white (low max brightness) vs. clouds could have details (high peak brightness). And this is especially important in how the HDR movie is graded (and which peak brightness it is targetting).
Vincent (HDTVTest) made a good video on the subject.
For example, clouds could be just white (low max brightness) vs. clouds could have details (high peak brightness). And this is especially important in how the HDR movie is graded (and which peak brightness it is targetting).
Vincent (HDTVTest) made a good video on the subject.
If you want a TV for true HDR content you need a couple orders of magnitude more brightness than that. 2000 nits is a fraction of the peak brightness you see by just going outside. If you want to recreate an outdoor scene on your TV you just can't do it with the current displays.
If you want the video camera to be able to point up to the sun and your TV to display the sun in the video with the same brightness as the actual sun, then yeah, you will need a very very bright TV (and a pretty special video camera and video coding format as well).
You are missing my point. I'm talking about an inside theater use case. In order to recreate an accurate image of what an outside scene looks like 2000 nits is not enough.
This is not about being able to see the image with good enough contrast, it is about creating an image that is life like.
This is not about being able to see the image with good enough contrast, it is about creating an image that is life like.
I’m talking about the same thing. It’s not realistic or even desirable to have a screen outputting/reflecting with the same brightness as the sun.
Seems we are very close to perceptual perfection in display technology.
I feel like we're already a little beyond not perfection, but "good enough", where anything better is kinda pointless and very difficult to even perceive the difference.
The other problem with these extreme hi-res displays is the amount of data or bandwidth necessary to make use of them. Storage sizes aren't doubling every year like they used to.
The other problem with these extreme hi-res displays is the amount of data or bandwidth necessary to make use of them. Storage sizes aren't doubling every year like they used to.
Not in the consumer market. Eizo's professional reference monitors look much better than the latest TV's do; even to the untrained eye.
Except when it comes to virtual reality display technology.
I was once burned by a Samsung TV whose backlight LED's got so hot they melted the innards of the TV...
Any engineer designing stuff with high power LED's knows how important thermal design is. The LED's should have had temperature sensing and software feedback to reduce the brightness to stop everything melting.
That could have been implemented by measuring the forward voltage... Or with a dedicated temperature sensor.
But on a $1000 TV, Samsung didn't want to pay the 1 cent per unit plus a day of engineering time that would have taken.
And as a result, the TV's had a high failure rate and they lost me as a customer.
Any engineer designing stuff with high power LED's knows how important thermal design is. The LED's should have had temperature sensing and software feedback to reduce the brightness to stop everything melting.
That could have been implemented by measuring the forward voltage... Or with a dedicated temperature sensor.
But on a $1000 TV, Samsung didn't want to pay the 1 cent per unit plus a day of engineering time that would have taken.
And as a result, the TV's had a high failure rate and they lost me as a customer.
A friend bought a Samsung TV and after 13 months it broke, when he took it to guy that does the service in our town he had like 3 more (same model) that had the same problem. We live in a small town.
Nice to know that it isn't just their exploding washers/dryers and their 1000$ fridges that fail right after the warranty expires, its also their TVs that burn you. Lets not forget their exploding phones. That was a fun meme for a hot second.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4ddIfgarPg
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_FbhYzmNHQ
Its amazing how they managed to really become the leaders(or near leaders) in a lot of fields while still shipping so much junk.
This sounds like a great opportunity for American firms to come back in and really shine.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4ddIfgarPg
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_FbhYzmNHQ
Its amazing how they managed to really become the leaders(or near leaders) in a lot of fields while still shipping so much junk.
This sounds like a great opportunity for American firms to come back in and really shine.
I don't think I will ever need 8K.
When I got a 1920x1200 display in circa 2004 that was pretty beast but I could still see pixels, I knew it could be better in theory even if it was already so much better than what else was on the market.
However when 4K IPS and especially the latest generation of 4K OLEDs came along I realised at my viewing distances (and my degrading eyesight) I'm never going to see another pixel again.
So for me I don't see what 8K is going to do for me. OLED with it's perfect blacks and awesome peak brightness and fast refresh times haven't left me wishing for much other than a GPU that can keep up.
When I got a 1920x1200 display in circa 2004 that was pretty beast but I could still see pixels, I knew it could be better in theory even if it was already so much better than what else was on the market.
However when 4K IPS and especially the latest generation of 4K OLEDs came along I realised at my viewing distances (and my degrading eyesight) I'm never going to see another pixel again.
So for me I don't see what 8K is going to do for me. OLED with it's perfect blacks and awesome peak brightness and fast refresh times haven't left me wishing for much other than a GPU that can keep up.
So, to be honest, I used to think this too, until I got an old crt television so I can play my old console games properly[0]. It sits next to my normal tv, and so me and my fiance can play splatoon together side by side on screens I hooked up an hdmi to rca converter to it and my switch dock. The loss of resolution makes it hard to read the text, even though the screens are relatively the same size. May be in 1995, I never thought I really needed that much more resolution, but a 1K screen does fit in more details, some of them important like text, into a screen in a manner that I appreciate once I've seen it in a game.
I do think high frequency rate monitors are a gimmick, but I did read somewhere (lost the link) that scientists do think the human ability to see resolution isn't really physically restricted beyond just the limits with one's own eyes. So, don't knock it I guess and claim 640K ought to be enough for anybody just yet.
[0] it is an "in" thing to play "retro games" now, although generally some older games do just look better on a crt over blocky pixellated hdmi converters.
I do think high frequency rate monitors are a gimmick, but I did read somewhere (lost the link) that scientists do think the human ability to see resolution isn't really physically restricted beyond just the limits with one's own eyes. So, don't knock it I guess and claim 640K ought to be enough for anybody just yet.
[0] it is an "in" thing to play "retro games" now, although generally some older games do just look better on a crt over blocky pixellated hdmi converters.
Thing is I looked at the 8K side by side with my new 4K LG G2, I genuinely couldn't see the difference in 8K Dolby Vision content running natively vs 4K on the G2. (which is why I took the LG home instead of the 8K Samsung I was comparing it to, subjectively I preferred the LGs HDR presentation).
Maybe someone with better eyes than me can but I'm never getting younger so my eyes are downhill from here so if I can't see it today I'm not going to see it in the future.
I'm not talking about something subjective like "I don't think it's worth the difference", I'm talking "my eyes literally can't see the difference".
Maybe someone with better eyes than me can but I'm never getting younger so my eyes are downhill from here so if I can't see it today I'm not going to see it in the future.
I'm not talking about something subjective like "I don't think it's worth the difference", I'm talking "my eyes literally can't see the difference".
> I do think high frequency rate monitors are a gimmick
Do you mean refresh rate? If yes, I used to think that but couldn’t be more wrong. Nowadays I have a 144hz monitor and I’m considering even going >240hz.
If you have the gear to push that much fps it’s a night day difference.
Do you mean refresh rate? If yes, I used to think that but couldn’t be more wrong. Nowadays I have a 144hz monitor and I’m considering even going >240hz.
If you have the gear to push that much fps it’s a night day difference.
> I do think high frequency rate monitors are a gimmick...
Same. I don't scroll often enough to care. Or rather, I don't try reading and scrolling at the same time.
Same. I don't scroll often enough to care. Or rather, I don't try reading and scrolling at the same time.
I mean, if scrolling is your use case, they're probably not for you. High refresh rate is mainly worthwhile for gaming, being nicer on the desktop is a pleasant bonus but hardly the reason to pay for one.
> I don't think I will ever need 8K.
I won't need it until I can't buy anything else. 95% of the content I view on my 4K TV is 1080p. At living room distances, it's fine.
I won't need it until I can't buy anything else. 95% of the content I view on my 4K TV is 1080p. At living room distances, it's fine.
Agreed for monitors, but there's significant room for improvement in the VR space.
[deleted]
Hasn't the EU banned 8k TVs? https://thenextweb.com/news/the-eus-8k-tv-ban-will-be-a-nigh...
No.
They are planning to ban the least energy efficient products (not only TVs), which means that companies have to produce more energy efficient products.
They are planning to ban the least energy efficient products (not only TVs), which means that companies have to produce more energy efficient products.
For some products, like TVs, it's not clear what 'efficiency' is measured with respect to. The end product is a maximum energy use, not an `efficiency` measure.
Efficiency is typically understood to be a the ratio of the useful work performed to the total energy expended.
For something like a light bulb, you can calculate a theoretical maximum amount of light that could be produced per Watt of power (assuming for the sake of argument a single wavelength of light) and then compare the amount of light being produced to the number of Watts being used. The ratio is the efficiency.
But as the 'output' of the TV is 'entertainment', and there's no ISO unit of entertainment, it's hard to measure what the output is. If one produces a `better` picture quality, but uses an extra 100 Watts of power, you can easily measure and compare the extra power used, but not the picture quality. If a TV produces a brighter picture for the same power, is that a good or a bad thing with respect to efficiency? Surely it must be one or the other?
As you can't measure the output in a meaningful way, these limits end up being arbitrary lines in the sand with respect to energy usage.
I must concede it might end up influencing manufacturers to make more energy efficient products to `get the grade`, but it still rankles to call these grades measures of efficiency.
sidenote:
It's slightly amusing that the limits apply to the `default` mode provided on a TV, I wonder whether you'll start seeing TVs ship with very dark picture 'defaults' that end users then have to manually switch from.
Efficiency is typically understood to be a the ratio of the useful work performed to the total energy expended.
For something like a light bulb, you can calculate a theoretical maximum amount of light that could be produced per Watt of power (assuming for the sake of argument a single wavelength of light) and then compare the amount of light being produced to the number of Watts being used. The ratio is the efficiency.
But as the 'output' of the TV is 'entertainment', and there's no ISO unit of entertainment, it's hard to measure what the output is. If one produces a `better` picture quality, but uses an extra 100 Watts of power, you can easily measure and compare the extra power used, but not the picture quality. If a TV produces a brighter picture for the same power, is that a good or a bad thing with respect to efficiency? Surely it must be one or the other?
As you can't measure the output in a meaningful way, these limits end up being arbitrary lines in the sand with respect to energy usage.
I must concede it might end up influencing manufacturers to make more energy efficient products to `get the grade`, but it still rankles to call these grades measures of efficiency.
sidenote:
It's slightly amusing that the limits apply to the `default` mode provided on a TV, I wonder whether you'll start seeing TVs ship with very dark picture 'defaults' that end users then have to manually switch from.
Couldn’t you calculate efficiency by measuring the energy usage and visible light output, just like a light bulb? A (hypothetical) 100% efficient TV would use the exact amount of energy as it outputs as visible light (and therefore emit no waste heat).
Yes, a TV that is bigger and/or brighter would still use more energy, but there are reasonable limits on the practical visible light output of home TVs anyway.
And yes, it would also depend on the brightness and other characteristics of the specific video content. A video with less visible light output is obvious not inherently “less entertaining” than a video with more visible light output. But benchmarks could use some reasonable large “corpus” of video content.
Yes, a TV that is bigger and/or brighter would still use more energy, but there are reasonable limits on the practical visible light output of home TVs anyway.
And yes, it would also depend on the brightness and other characteristics of the specific video content. A video with less visible light output is obvious not inherently “less entertaining” than a video with more visible light output. But benchmarks could use some reasonable large “corpus” of video content.
You could potentially have that as another dimension.
But imagine you have two TVs, identical sizes. A 4K TV that uses 900W and a 8K TV that uses 905W.
Which is more efficient?
You have two TVs, one only supports stereo sound that uses 800W and one that supports Dolby Surround, Atmos etc. that uses 801W. (for the sake of argument, we're talking about passthrough to an external audio device with its own power rating)
Which is more efficient?
It's hard to create non-subjective measurements/comparisons between TV outputs that can be compared as they are potentially multi-dimensional comparisons.
But imagine you have two TVs, identical sizes. A 4K TV that uses 900W and a 8K TV that uses 905W.
Which is more efficient?
You have two TVs, one only supports stereo sound that uses 800W and one that supports Dolby Surround, Atmos etc. that uses 801W. (for the sake of argument, we're talking about passthrough to an external audio device with its own power rating)
Which is more efficient?
It's hard to create non-subjective measurements/comparisons between TV outputs that can be compared as they are potentially multi-dimensional comparisons.
> But imagine you have two TVs, identical sizes. A 4K TV that uses 900W and a 8K TV that uses 905W.
Assuming the same amount of visible light output, the 900W one is more efficient. What’s controversial about that? It’s no different than how a car might have a more appealing appearance but that causes it to be less fuel efficient. The efficiency calculation is not complicated by the fact that sometimes people value things other than efficiency.
Assuming the same amount of visible light output, the 900W one is more efficient. What’s controversial about that? It’s no different than how a car might have a more appealing appearance but that causes it to be less fuel efficient. The efficiency calculation is not complicated by the fact that sometimes people value things other than efficiency.
The controversial aspect is that this is a TV, not a simple light source. A light bulb would by this definition be a very efficient TV.
The 'useful' part of a TV is the moving pictures, and one could argue that a 'quantitatively' better picture should have some bearing on an efficiency metric. I would argue that a TV that can only show 1 frame a second for the same energy that another TV can show 60 should be considered less efficient.
The comparison with a car is an interesting one.
From that perspective, we would hold all things equal, and then compare the easy to measure metric. i.e. Showing 480p content at 24 frames per second, stereo only, non-HDR content.
This might then be similar to the way we measure fuel efficiency for given speed + driving conditions, AC off etc.
The 'useful' part of a TV is the moving pictures, and one could argue that a 'quantitatively' better picture should have some bearing on an efficiency metric. I would argue that a TV that can only show 1 frame a second for the same energy that another TV can show 60 should be considered less efficient.
The comparison with a car is an interesting one.
From that perspective, we would hold all things equal, and then compare the easy to measure metric. i.e. Showing 480p content at 24 frames per second, stereo only, non-HDR content.
This might then be similar to the way we measure fuel efficiency for given speed + driving conditions, AC off etc.
> A light bulb would by this definition be a very efficient TV.
Well, no, it’s not a TV. I never defined the term “TV,” I merely defined “efficiency” for a TV. We could quibble on some edge cases (is a digital photo frame a TV?) and I’m sure any environment regulations would need to go into excruciating detail, but that doesn’t mean we can’t immediately dismiss the notion that a light bulb is a TV.
> I would argue that a TV that can only show 1 frame a second for the same energy that another TV can show 60 should be considered less efficient.
You seem to be stuck in the mindset that efficiency is the only thing that matters, as if “efficient” simply means “good.” But no, efficiency is just one attribute. A hypothetical TV that clearly can’t function as a TV for the vast majority of people doesn’t illustrate a problem with my straightforward notion of efficiency.
If there were strict environmental regulations for this stuff, of course they would need to define some classes of devices and define some reasonable efficiency requirements based on the capabilities of each class of device.
> From that perspective, we would hold all things equal, and then compare the easy to measure metric. i.e. Showing 480p content at 24 frames per second, stereo only, non-HDR content.
That could be useful information to have, for consumers and perhaps for regulators. I mentioned that benchmarks would probably need to use some large corpus of content. But efficiency would still be defined as I proposed, and it’s very possible and not at all problematic for a less capable TV to be more efficient (just like it’s possible and not problematic for a faster car to be less fuel efficient).
Well, no, it’s not a TV. I never defined the term “TV,” I merely defined “efficiency” for a TV. We could quibble on some edge cases (is a digital photo frame a TV?) and I’m sure any environment regulations would need to go into excruciating detail, but that doesn’t mean we can’t immediately dismiss the notion that a light bulb is a TV.
> I would argue that a TV that can only show 1 frame a second for the same energy that another TV can show 60 should be considered less efficient.
You seem to be stuck in the mindset that efficiency is the only thing that matters, as if “efficient” simply means “good.” But no, efficiency is just one attribute. A hypothetical TV that clearly can’t function as a TV for the vast majority of people doesn’t illustrate a problem with my straightforward notion of efficiency.
If there were strict environmental regulations for this stuff, of course they would need to define some classes of devices and define some reasonable efficiency requirements based on the capabilities of each class of device.
> From that perspective, we would hold all things equal, and then compare the easy to measure metric. i.e. Showing 480p content at 24 frames per second, stereo only, non-HDR content.
That could be useful information to have, for consumers and perhaps for regulators. I mentioned that benchmarks would probably need to use some large corpus of content. But efficiency would still be defined as I proposed, and it’s very possible and not at all problematic for a less capable TV to be more efficient (just like it’s possible and not problematic for a faster car to be less fuel efficient).
Even light bulbs have this problem - see all the smart bulbs getting F/G ratings because they're being compared to regular bulbs and when the competition is "a handful of LEDs", it's hard to have the margin for your bluetooth receiver.
They compare TVs of the same size and give them a rating based on the amount of power used; or fail them if they exceed some maximum power usage.
It's linked from the article in GP's post. https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environme...
It's linked from the article in GP's post. https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environme...
The EU hasn't banned 8k TVs per se. As written in your article, it has only banned energy inefficient TVs (which 8k ones were except of until now)
[deleted]
[deleted]
I want an 8k display as a monitor soon can split my different machines as a see fit across arbitrary divisions on a monitor.
But getting Samsung to deliver a monitor that is in the right PPI (150+) and in the right dimensions is going to be challenge.
But getting Samsung to deliver a monitor that is in the right PPI (150+) and in the right dimensions is going to be challenge.
this ^^
For movies and couch viewing (even at 150"), I've hit my eyeball needs (as far as resolution is concerned). I am however all about buying 8k if the panel/software offers PiP for 4 separate quadrants and in effect give me 4 seamless 4k screens. Would be awesome for productivity.
For movies and couch viewing (even at 150"), I've hit my eyeball needs (as far as resolution is concerned). I am however all about buying 8k if the panel/software offers PiP for 4 separate quadrants and in effect give me 4 seamless 4k screens. Would be awesome for productivity.
I dabbled in 4k video editing as a hobby. It transformed into a storage related fascination (ceph on a pi cluster), just because of the sheer volume of data 4k processing needs.
I just can't imagine how the video editing industry could adopt 8k realistically without any significant technological breakthroughs.
I just can't imagine how the video editing industry could adopt 8k realistically without any significant technological breakthroughs.
8k is already common for digital cinema. GoTG was shot 100% in 8k 5 years ago.
shooting 8k means you can make more framing mistakes and still have a full 4k resolution. it also allows video stabilization without sacrificing resolution. always assuming you are targetting 4k but shoot in 8k.
All I really want is Dumb TV: takes HDMI input, no software updates, no f*cking WIFI, has a remote with power, input select, and volume, nothing else.
Time for a startup called ‘DumbTV’
https://twitter.com/timse7/status/1609862090054828033
There's recent IEEE research which shows that 8K is useless, there's also a stack of other well founded research which shows that viewer engagement on video content tops out at 1080p60+HDR (which is still classified as 'UHD' in some definitions of UHD).
8K is just marketing and trying to sell people things they don't need.
There's recent IEEE research which shows that 8K is useless, there's also a stack of other well founded research which shows that viewer engagement on video content tops out at 1080p60+HDR (which is still classified as 'UHD' in some definitions of UHD).
8K is just marketing and trying to sell people things they don't need.
I wish these companies would stop trying to meet each segment of the market because it's really bad for people who need quality.
I used to be able to buy a Samsung LCD and it was good, no bleeding, good colors, good for work monitor.
Now that it's a race for price I don't know if the monitor I am looking at is complete garbage or not because they are all advertised the same with bullshit words. I have to go down into the detailed specs and watch countless reviews because many are just paid shils. I don't need a high speed gaming monitor, just something that doesn't bleed left/right and has a good viewing angle.
My hope with OLED and micro led that monitors will generally all look good even the bottom of the barrel and I won't be fisted with my purchase when I turn it on for the first time.
I used to be able to buy a Samsung LCD and it was good, no bleeding, good colors, good for work monitor.
Now that it's a race for price I don't know if the monitor I am looking at is complete garbage or not because they are all advertised the same with bullshit words. I have to go down into the detailed specs and watch countless reviews because many are just paid shils. I don't need a high speed gaming monitor, just something that doesn't bleed left/right and has a good viewing angle.
My hope with OLED and micro led that monitors will generally all look good even the bottom of the barrel and I won't be fisted with my purchase when I turn it on for the first time.
I feel that the amount of people who care about the jump to 4K (for watching movies / shows) is pretty small.
The amount that care about the jump from 4K to 8k will be a fraction of that.