16K TVs - Whether You Like It Or Not

[Zack Birlew]

Hey, everybody, I couldn't help but notice this clip that popped up in my Youtube feed today, a 16K 110" TV on display! As some have downplayed my requests in other threads for RED to aim for beyond even 12K, here's what I'm talking about, the tech is coming on fast for increased resolution whether they like it or not. Other videos going into detail about even the "18K" resolution of IMAX film for "Oppenheimer" shows that there is a use case and an absolute need for massively big resolution in the cinema space.

 

[Phil Holland]

For those here who haven't been at any live events where I've been discussing all of this to crowds and journalists, here's what I've been saying since 2016. And a smidge of what I've been saying since the early 2000s.

--

HD and 2K was born out of compromise due to a necessary technological step as we were bound to what could occur for a reasonable price due to bandwidth, media, and emerging LCD tech.

This was/is a good thing and I'll underline here, display resolution is all about Optimal Viewing Distance and if you can see any medium related fingerprints between you and the image. Things I've discussed in my "The Window Effect" Gray Paper. Small handheld displays, like in smartphones, certainly showcase the improvements going to HD and in some cases, beyond.

UHD 4K and 4K was and is the baseline goal and initially received a lot of pushback, par for the course for any new technology or change. But very, very quickly critics realized the advantages of 4K display in the home across smaller than you'd think displays to monitors, to televisions as well as larger exhibition displays.

Side bar to tech in my life. The only HD 1080p/2K screens I have in my life are "field monitors" and occasionally a smartphone. I entered into the 2020s with only UHD 4K, DCI 4K, and 8K screens used in my office as well as in my home.

The journey to 8K followed the same pushback as 4K, but for some that "get it", it's been understood. No there isn't much advantage to an 8K screen in say a smartphone. However, for screens in the size of personal monitors and televisions of decent size.

People in general began to comprehend semi-recently that increasing the resolution of the display technology can be visually powerful, but also come with diminishing returns if we are hitting certain metrics. But also key, as we learned with 2K and 4K prior, crap in and upscaling isn't where the "joy" is on any of this, despite increased and amazing performance related to upscaling. Quality in combined with quality out is the way to the best experience in visual entertainment in all categories.

By the time a 70" 8K television ended up in my life in 2016 we knew years prior that it was a valid because we were used to testing the smaller displays and could imagine the results scaled. 8K would show it's strengths in screens as small as 13 inches through 27 inches, but really showed what it was all about in screens 32 inches and up.

Between the start of 8K through now we've had many "blind taste tests" and all have lead to a positive result, even if the test revealed marginal benefits depending on the testing method itself.

In 2019 I took the stage at a display summit in New York during the Samsung. And I posed a question to an audience of about 75 industry professionals and technology journalists. We already knew the validity of 8K screen technology, but my personal curiosity, which was a shocking question to the crowd at an 8K event, was if people would find the potential in screen technology beyond 8K in the home.

That stirred a pot during the Q&A portion of things and for many 4K or 8K is "enough for them" for a decent sized television. I did bring up 16K as there were several projects I have already produced at well beyond that for exhibition display with custom screens with arrays. But I'll give you the hard numbers to maybe save a few years of arguments maybe.

Where 16K will show it's biggest strengths is on screens 55 inches and up. But also, an extremely high quality experience can be found in screens as small as 27 inches. But we have a long, long way to go here, which isn't shocking due to the stagnated nature and leap frogging of technological development.

UHD 8K streaming is still in it's infancy in my mind, despite being available in some countries for a while now. And arguably, UHD 4K has some welcomed improvements coming into homes with increased data rates and even new streaming codec options.

http://phfx.com/tools/optimalViewing/

I created a tool, a long while ago now, called "optimalViewing", which is tied to the research myself and THX have done years ago to help define optimal seating and viewing distances, which I have developed mainly to impact where and how people could setup their home viewing experience, but the numbers apply to theatrical setups down to literally holding a smartphone in front of your face. Inside that tool I applied my theories regarding "The Window Effect" into a rating system to describe how good the viewing experience would be perceived for a given screen size, resolution, and viewing distance.

Without going into the math, the ratings are as followed: Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, Excellent, Stellar, and Unreal. I would say aim for setups that land in the Good range and up to have an enjoyable experience. We hit "Excellent" in the technology timeline last decade. From here there's mainly only two places to go. And if you're very curious I see no real reason to pursue beyond the "Unreal" rating based on my research as it pertains to human visual acuity.

Though I can work with arrays still, we will need tools to make quality 8K and 16K happen on the acquisition side. We'll also need an improved pipeline overall for mass adoption. But the focus for now is 4K and 8K growth in the world of televisions and distribution. But sooner than you'd expect, we'll get there. And even more apparent is the difficulty in finding "certain size" HD 1080p screens now and the rather impressive economies of scale regarding the affordability of a UHD 4K screen that nearly everybody can afford in their home.

To touch on a few other interesting things, without a wall of text. Also mixed in here is the development of HDR delivery as well as improved signal and refresh rates. The importance of 120Hz is glaringly important for 4K and up, and we'll see if 240Hz will need to be involved at higher resolutions. This doesn't necessarily need to be tied to acquisition time base, but rather how even 24 frames per second content is displayed well on higher resolution displays. And though some felt or still feel that HDR may or may not be more important than resolution gains in the display world, where the real wow factor can be found is when you are using those technology themes in tandem to create amazing images.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I believe very strongly that Red is absolutely going to release a 16K sensor.

I agree with you, Phil, that there are very good reasons for more resolution. I'm still using an HD display for my computer, my laptops are both HD, and my TV is an old HD plasma. We all have our priorities and 4K+ isn't mine yet. Eventually you won't be able to buy any kind of laptop with an HD display. That's for sure.