[Bglug] World’s first 8K TV broadcasts begin for Rio 2016 Olympics

LP linuxpusher2 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 14 18:03:13 EDT 2016

Your prediction, I believe will be true.
Remember the first Cell Phone "the BRICK" my dad had one it was so cool !

On 14 August 2016 at 16:51, ted leslie <ted.leslie at gmail.com> wrote:

> ​When I first remember digitized audio back on a apple ][ in 1982 time
> frame it was horrible, not even close to cassette tape even.​ But digital
> audio progressed up until the representation storage and reproduction (D2A
> chips) matched the real thing (limited in audio realm by reproduction of
> speakers vs. real instruments).
> In video, the screen, storage and D2A will a keep increasing until (except
> for the display limits with respect to pure light and contrast), the
> reproduced video is as close to the real thing as possible. I sit 2 feet
> away from my 4K 40" philips, and it has no where near the resolution i see
> when I peer out to the side of the monitor and look at "real things" with
> detailed surface textures and specular highlights. 8K would be nice over
> 4K, but I think the reproduction will start to get closer to "the real
> thing" at 16 32 or even I would guess when 64K is out, which hopefully will
> be soon i hope :) but seriously, I would hope 64k video is out in next
> 10-20 years, before my eyes get old and dim. You know you will have
> achieved reasonably good video res. when with one eye closed, just seeing
> through the one open eye, you can not tell the difference between looking
> in the display and looking into a high end mirror reflecting a vibrant
> image. Granted maybe 32K will be ok to view provided the other factors of
> brightness, contrast, triplet colour representation are all improved. But
> bottom line is, for computer monitor, 4k is still very grainy, and has a
> long way to go to be real life. Also 4k monitors are very inexpensive now,
> based on what you get (600$), for TV's in > 40" category, yeah they are
> pretty expensive I would bet as they are not as common. 4k is even out on
> small screen laptop monitors now (lenovo, etc). You may scoff at 8k now,
> but you will be laughing 10 years from now having a 16-32K display and
> looking back wondering what you were thinking :)
> -tl
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Brad Rodriguez <brad at bradrodriguez.com>
> wrote:
>> It depends on the size of the screen and how far you sit from it.  Within
>> a 60-degree viewing angle, most people resolve between 4 and 7
>> megapixels.
>> http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing
>> An 8K x 4K display would be 32 megapixels, which is a bit excessive.
>> Cheers,
>> Brad
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 10:19:41 -0400
>> Logan Streondj <streondj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Yea, I think like Concord there are limits.
>> > People don't need to see at such high resolution,
>> > or fly faster than the speed of sound.
>> >
>> > 720p is the most my computers/monitors can handle, and it's definitely
>> > enough. Buying 8k or even 4k equipment can be rather expensive.
>> --
>> brad at bradrodriguez.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Group mailing list
>> Group at bglug.ca
>> http://bglug.ca/mailman/listinfo/group_bglug.ca
> _______________________________________________
> Group mailing list
> Group at bglug.ca
> http://bglug.ca/mailman/listinfo/group_bglug.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bglug.ca/pipermail/group_bglug.ca/attachments/20160814/195fa355/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Group mailing list