Sharp 8K4K TV, 7680x4320p resolution, 85", the future of HDTV

[sorax333]

Can someone please give me a link/website to where I can buy this tv already. please.

[R3AN1MAT10N]

Not that fascinating at all. It's about 100ppi like the average laptop screen. It's the same technology, just bigger.

[Charbax]

@R3AN1MAT10N Pixel Density may not be much more, but the picture resolution is 32 times larger than on your laptop as most laptops have a 720p screen or less. That is an insane upgrade. Basically you are seeing the whole 36 megapixel photo, all pixels are displayed there on the same screen, that's a gigantic difference from a zoomed-in 36 megapixel picture where you can only see one 32th of the picture and you have to pan around.

[bornwisedistruction]

So then that's the secret to the universe "Its Ah Special"

[idan124]

3:34 lmfao the Japanese are surprised

[juliancito241]

@idan124 what means lmao? or lmfao?

[dahman511]

that tv is about 16 times better then the movie theater.

[dahman511]

where is that tv hideing?

[dahman511]

wow where can i buy-get-take-run for it the prototype.

[juliancito241]

@dahman511 yes take >> run>> hide>> in that order jaja

[lightrescuer]

go fuck your shittty English!!

[ZzRemorse]

we met again 720p

[vanilliiceman]

that has more resolution than the eyes of chuck norris

[taymi01]

two Asians struggling to speak English,nice one though!!!

[plung3r]

waste of money.. people should buy TV's at least every 5 years not every year !m companies should know that

[RRapDiss]

in russia 240p is ultra hd

[ahyhijooooo]

@RRapDiss fq

[siddrok123]

takes another 15 years to make these TVs into homes

[jgodshall7]

tha fukkkk, this jawn is sick

[sexydanny21awesome]

So 8K TV is said to be released in 2020 and Holographic TV will be released after 2030! So by 2030 TV will be like Star Wars.

[jokergallagherTV]

i have a 1080 tv thats about 7 feet away from my couch, i can see the pixels. so this is something i wouldninvest in, but not for a wile, i well wait, their is no content except imax movies, so i well wait for gaming concels and ...what ever takes the place of blue ray to support this, but imagen glasses free 3d when this comes out, even other smart tv functions...and oled screens

[sexydanny21awesome]

@jokergallagherTV The release date for 8K Tv as he said in this video will not be until 2020 so the next thing in HD will be 4K TV since it is cheaper to make also the PS4 is said to use 4K TV. And sony is said to release a 4K TV on the market by this year. :)

[MarineKingPride]

Seriously i think the questions you ask are soo stupid.

[kasetti55]

I already have a much bigger screen than this and its called an projection screen with image projected from a projector. The only problem with it is its "only" full hd. Novadays projectors dont cost that much so i recomend anyone who wants a big tv to buy a projector instead. Full hd projectors cost around 1k and sd you can get with only a few hundreds last summer i bougth a sd projector for my summer house for 300€. So go buy a projector!

[scrappyii]

@kasetti55 but the energy and lamp costs are too high.

[kasetti55]

@scrappyii so you think that this tv would use less energy? I dont think so.

The lamps cost 200-400€ each. So thats costly, but if you dont care about Full HD you can buy new sd projector at the same price.

[ahyhijooooo]

soon we are gonna need HD eyeballs to watch 8k , human vision can't see far from 1080p.......

[sourDeez2]

@ahyhijooooo so how do you live, with your eyes closed? you think the real world is in 1080p? LOLOL

[ahyhijooooo]

@sourDeez2 brainless much? and LOLOL? sorry i dont understand nerd lingo....

[sourDeez2]

@ahyhijooooo LOLOL means youre dumb as fuck.

[ahyhijooooo]

@sourDeez2 whoahahaha stop smoking that shit little kid and get the fuck out here sheldon my DICKKK....

[sourDeez2]

@ahyhijooooo ay the only thing on ur dick is your mom bro

[ahyhijooooo]

@sourDeez2 sure kid 

[jgodshall7]

@ahyhijooooo poopin on him!

[jellydee123]

You can always rely on the japanese.

[francisco3016]

con este tv no se le ven fea (con baja resolucion) las rayas de las camisas.

[donovanx3]

Why won't these TV's come out earlier?!! People would buy them! I know I would!!

[mitchboy1011]

@donovanx3 Because we don't have the technology to support it at the moment.

We have these Super HD screens but the files that the video's are on will be HUGE .

For example, i downloaded a full hd (1080p) movie at 9GB. This screen is 16 x a 1080p. 16 x 9GB = 144 GB . For 1 Movie. My computer is a custom made top of the range one and it could only hold like 40 movies.... That is crazy!

A Blue Ray disk couldn't even hold a movie in 8k (not only that, it doesn't have a fast enough read speed.

[Have6NiceDay]

strange .... no jokes about someone wanting to play Minecraft on 8k4k

[2ndAct]

The cable for this has to be made from pure platinum or some special super-conducting material...

[Charbax]

@2ndAct Regular HDMI 1.4 cables I think support up to 20Gbps which I think is more than enough. It's only a question of real-time compression and decompression technology.

[2ndAct]

@Charbax 1920x1080p at 120hz and 12bit color can saturate lower quality HDMI 1.4 cables with transfer rates of 14gbps.

[Carrotsalesman]

@Charbax the other video of this says its running 1.3b HDMI, so apparently even that's enough

[Carrotsalesman]

@Charbax search "World's First 8K Ultra High Definition Display" and it's on the display sign near the start of the vid

[leszken]

@Charbax Actually HDMI does not supports resolutions higher than old school D-sub. But DisplayPort will do :-)

[h4x0y]

@leszken thunderbolt will do it all! :P

[penisculatus]

@2ndAct Yea, or cheap plastic fiber optic. Shit, it's cheap now even when there's almost no consumer-level demand for it.

[rubikfan1]

@2ndAct no need, they use just like 2 or 3 cable at the same time

[Danny7930]

@2ndAct Platinum? Silver my friend, is the best conductive element for electronics, not gold, but most people don't know that.

[piotralex5]

but will it blend

[rameez51]

i used to watch TVs then i took an arrow on my knee.

[hydrofirm]

So Kazaakas are you saying the next time i meet with 240p on youtube..............

just step back/sit away from the screen?????????????????

[kazaakas]

This isn't really of any use at all, the human eye really wont see the difference anymore. Except of course if you want to sit 6 feet away from a HUGE ASS screen... which you probably wont :P

[Charbax]

@kazaakas I work about 5 feet from my 42" 1080p HDTV, so a 55" I could be at upwards 10-12 feet to get the same angle of vision per pixel, and you need to see the screen at a trade show, sure enough it makes you want to get up close, the quality is insanely awesome.

[hydrofirm]

@kazaakas

So using that logic the human eye can only see 1080 pixels or are you saying that the pixel density on the iphone retina display is beyound the human range.

I have a 1080p 24" montor for my PC and sit a few feet away at my desk when at work so a high density picture would be ideal. (by the way i can clearly see all the pixel on the iphone 4 and so can you)

[kazaakas]

@hydrofirm

The thing I meant is: a very high pixel density is only useful when one is close to the screen. This 85" screen had a pixel density even greater than most computer screens right now. Which only comes to use when one is very close to the monitor...

And being very close to such a huge screen is really not somewhere you want to be for long periods of time.

So you move further backward, which makes the very high resolution pretty pointless

[hydrofirm]

@kazaakas

Depends on your eye sight i guess

[TheCAS1983]

For that kind of clarity, I'll sit inside the TV.

[asyobekim]

its over 80 inches and people are walking up and putting their face on the screen

[estebanrey]

I don't think you can just times a current 1080p movie size by 16 because in the initial tests they also used Dolby 24.1 sound so you have to allow for the extra audio rates that we'll also want in the future.

[wilhamlin]

The feeling you get when you inserted your VHS and floppy disks were the best... too bad kids now-a-days probably will never get that feeling

[SuperCoolDude2014]

@wilhamlin dude, i had a vhs and it sucked. that was actually 2006, digital rules.

[wilhamlin]

@SuperCoolDude2014 You miss understood me. Yeah the quality was poor compared to today, but I was talking about the feeling you get when you put it in. I cant really explain it, it feels a lot better than just putting the disk on the tray

[SuperCoolDude2014]

720p will look like vhs soon

[whitestar111]

@SuperCoolDude2014 at this rate so will 1080p

[SuperCoolDude2014]

@whitestar111 yup.

[SuperCoolDude2014]

@TheWalkingDeadHD2100 rofl

[laMarieSou]

15 years ago we had Vhs. Now we have this, the progress is insane!!!

[SuperCoolDude2014]

@laMarieSou yeah, im 15 years old and I remeber using vhs when i was a kid. Vhs is terrible lol

[v1Broadcaster]

yay more high def then our eyes!

[Octavideoz]

i went and took a close took at the pixels of my full HD tv (32") they look reaaaly small.. that i thought: 16 times smaller?? are you kidding me??? O_o

[Usul573]

@Octavideoz

Honest to god, I think unless you're using a screen bigger than 46'', you can't see anything beyond 1920x1080p, or what they call full HD these days often.

I could be wrong.

I'm curious wondering about going beyond 720p/1080i for Television broadcasts.

[xkiller213]

the retina display for TVs...

[GranTorino992]

but what's the point? hd sat channel and blu ray are already viewed at full resolution and would make no difference whatsover on this screen. the only reason people would buy it now is to (as they said) view camera photos which are very clear and cannot be fully viewed at their true nature with today's TVs but that reason doesnt matter

[MKzer0]

this still can't display the best footage you get out of a red sensor. speaking 28k holyness :D

[cory1337]

When you zoomed in at 6:09 it was like you were filming outside

[cory1337]

The Hobbit is being filmed in 5k as we speak!

[xeniosm]

i made my calculations. this is about a 103ppi display so... is comparable with most laptop displays in pixel density. what is the most amazing here is the camera that records at that resolution

[godofsex2]

This made my TV antique!!!

[caldrumr]

I want one of these in my bathroom.

[tulp35000]

The true HD will be when you can't see pixels anymore when you face slap the screen with your face.

[IronManPS3]

When u do the math, this comes out to be 16x the resolution of 1920x1080 correct?

[Charbax]

@IronManPS3 Yes, I think we are ready. They should start selling them now. Who cares about content. I can put my 24megapixel pictures in the SD card reader and Hollywood can rescan their 35mm movies into 4K or higher, they probably already have. And I think YouTube supports 8K already, having a 100mbitps is quite common where I live, and 1Gbitps to the home is realistic now.

[lusaka99]

@Charbax they have to change the whole grid to get this tv on market what is the point if the tv is 8k and the speed is not there

[Charbax]

@lusaka99 If 1080p fits in 8mbitps, then Quad-HD fits in 32mbitps, and 8K4K fits in 128mbitps, that's hardly too high a bitrate to fit in any standard fiber to the home network, or fiber to the building with a fast switch and gigabit lan to each home. Gigabit/s to each home is cheap to install, as cheap as continuing to use ADSL or Cable for internet. It's only a matter of politicians deciding that now everyone needs to get Fiber to the home. Over 100 million homes have Fiber worldwide.

[lusaka99]

@Charbax exactly , i don't like this top people they can give us so much they don't want to . we could live better homes cure a lot diseases drive better cars but they keep that because there is no money to be made

[ittelgimaf]

2 people are still using analog TV's...

[TheChemicol]

@ittelgimaf

they look pretty good you know. :D

[Charbax]

@scarface1224md It's cheaper to make Quad-HD than 3D HDTV. And of course you watch 4K movies, 55" is enough, Quad-HD 55" can be sold below $2000, like a normal 1080p 55", the price difference is $20 for a new processor, that's it. It's time for the industry to upgrade their HDTV processors, it does not matter I think if "there is no 4K content yet", there is, Hollywood already has all movies digitized for 4K, they can distribute online or by Blu-ray or 50 4K movies on a cheap 2TB hard drives

[scarface1224md]

@Charbax My question again is why release a Quad-TV below 60 or 70" when the picture quality for movies will be unchanged. Everyone can see the microscopic difference 1080p makes against 720p on a TV under 60". So why bother making a 2160p or higher 55" TV, when theres no performance gain to be had in movies and video content ?

[Charbax]

There absolutely is a huge difference for movies, photo, everything. Even Quad-HD on 42" looks amazing. A previous commenter posted how 8K4K on 27" is the so-called "retina display", same pixel density as the iphone4. Obviously you don't hold the 42" TV at same arms length as the iphone4, but consider a minimum viewing distance of about 3x your arms length, then make it minimum 3x larger viewing area than 27"

[Charbax]

3x 27" viewing area is about 46", so that could be the minimum 8K4K screen size, even more than enough screen size for 4x less resolution Quad-HD

[scarface1224md]

@Charbax That sounds nice and all, but again, I doubt people who buy these to watch video content on are going to want to watch content that close to the screen just to see the detail and sharper images up close. I could see this on big HDTVs as a plus, and more so in Movie Theaters. But as far as the average consumer tvs that most people buy, it's a waste.

[Charbax]

@scarface1224md It's a waste not to make all HDTVs Quad-HD today, it really only costs a new processor, $20 more. The only reasons TV makers aren't doing 4K is because they don't understand that we want it, they don't understand how people will get the content. They want to sell you 3D crap now and 4K again in a couple years, that's the waste.

[Charbax]

@scarface1224md that means 46" Quad-HD can be seen at 6x arms length for the "retina limit" in terms of viewing angle per pixel for all pixels to still be visible. Viewing distance can be about 8x arms length with a 55" Quad-HD. And for distances larger than 8x arms length you still see a much higher quality than 1080p even though you might be too far from the screen to see the whole Quad-HD quality.

[scarface1224md]

The only purpose I see for this high of a resolution is for huge tvs like 70 and 80" tvs. It doesnt make any difference in smaller sized tvs at all. Just like a 720p 42" looks the same as a 1080p 42".

[filmviews]

@scarface1224md Quad-HD on 46" or 55" is fine. You don't look at art, paintings, photography from far away, it's great to approach the screen, hang it up a bit higher in your living room, make it the most awesome digital photo frame. People with 8 megapixel photo cameras can never see the full quality of their pictures, this is it. Sure enough for 8K4K 65" minimum might be a good size

[gatortpk]

@Charbax Thanks for the 8K4K demo video you uploaded. It is an amazing 33 MegaPixel, twice that of most high end still cameras! I agree with you, that I'd be happy with a cheap Quad-HD display for now. I just wish that they would at least make quad-HD displays as computer monitors, I'm still stuck with this 2560x1440 display (x 2 displays) with my 27" iMac.

If you were to shrink this 85" display to 27", you would COINCIDENTALLY get EXACTLY the same pixel density as the iPhone 4! (326 dpi)

[nawkwan]

HDTV < 3D TV < UHDTV < Volumetric displays,

IMO.

[SnovvVilliers]

Why do you need so much resolution? Are people really not happy with 1080p?

[Charbax]

@SnovvVilliers 1080p is old. The question is, if the TV makers can make a cheap 2160p screen today, they why aren't they making them? Your 8megapixel pictures look awesome on a 2160p screen, and if you have a 24 megapixel camera, or 32 megapixels, that one looks awesome on a 4320p display

[capcom23]

@SnovvVilliers there is always room for improvement! That's about that. I'm so used to 1080P that Its quite standard for me. But it can look MUCH MUCH better!

[BCEMCOCATb]

Dear Santa...

[bugatti94]

2020 is a long time :d

Hope they start the 4k2k a little earlier, maybe in 2014 or something :D

[LLUZION]

When you were zoomed in at that women's hand @ 5:50 I thought that was in real life!

[Ryuuken24]

This is kinda fucked up. First they show us an incredible piece of technology and art, and then they tell us they're not going to make it until a very distant future, if they're even in business by then. So here is what I'm hearing, we can totally make this tv today, for any size as we want, but we're not going to do that because we don't feel like, so if you aren't dead by the time we feel like doing it, you have to pay up a small fortune. Okay, Philips, I'm going Sony from now on.

[woienk2k]

"Hardware?" "hadwae :)"

[Rudde47]

Streaming services.

Problem? 

[gmax876]

This guy isn't giving up any details!

[LTal94]

Epic WANT.

[MatheusMK3]

Bitrate is about to 16 times Full-HD, so the bitrate for this TV is about... 448MBps (taking into account an 1080p being 28MBps)?!?!?!

[djpunk]

youtube already broadcast 4k2k probably could cast 8k2k also =]

[1909ViniColorado]

baixaqui

[stillFLiP]

lol

look the old man at 3:05

[bzdtemp]

How is this 8K4K - someone needs their school money back!

8K4K would be 8192*4096. The correct statement is 4xFullHD which also makes much more sense since it means 4 Full HD signals displayed at one time rather than having to much resolution horizontally and to little vertically as with 8K4K.

[Naphoc]

@bzdtemp Err, "4xFullHD" would be just as (if not more) misleading.

It' has 4 times the pixel density in width, and 4 times the pixel density in height. Now, how much is 4 * 4?...

The screen fits, as mentioned in the clip, 16 Full-HD clips.

[bzdtemp]

@Naphoc I see your point about 4xFullHD being wrong and I guess the most correct would be either the actual resolution or something like "4xFull HD in both horizontal and vertical resolution" which is a bit long. Maybe 16xFullHD would work :-)

[dreamer77dd]

this would be great for PC Games. I wish they bring this to market sooner then 2020

[foo9883]

there is content! just run a light source engine game with 2 gtx 590 and you'll have a fluid (hopefully) video at its native resolution.

[MrJiYung]

IS THIS REAL LIFE?

[Chopsta123]

just came back from the IFA and this was definately the highlight for me

[canyon25]

The density of this screen is about the same of a 22" TFT with 1920x1200 resolution (pixel pitch 0.245mm), a display with retina density (iPhone4) and 8k4k resolution would be about 27" (pixel pitch 0.077mm)

[michae1971]

Haben will !!

[Zelgartis]

@michae1971 du sagst es !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cnxtrans]

2hour 1080p movie takes about 4 GB, so that mean the same movie in 8Kx4K would be around 64 GB... That's mad :)

[Charbax]

@cnxtrans 64GB per movie? Piece of cake. That means a 8K4K compressed in H264 high profile could nearly fit on a Blu-ray disc, and you can definitely fit 30 8K4K movies on a 2TB hard drive. I really don't see why some people say we haven't got the content. Just release those 8K4K TVs now and tell those hollywood people to digitize their movies in 8K4K and people can get them by mail on a 2TB hard drive or something.

[justinkissinger85]

Charbax ... u relied a bad source... you could fit ~20min or 1/6th of a 2hr movie on your 2TB drive

[filmviews]

@justinkissinger85 You can fit a 1080p movie on a 9GB dual-layer DVD. That means you can fit that same movie in 8K2K in about 144GB, that means that you can fit about 14 movies in 8K4K on a 2TB hard drive. Or 56 movies in 4K2K on that same $50 2TB hard drive.

[JamHavoc]

@Charbax In a few years we'll use 160 and 320TB harddisks so it wont be much then

[bishopdante]

@Charbax

We don't have the video content. 35mm Film doesn't have that resolution. This will kill as a computer display, especially for image editing and architecture. Also for visualisation, military and mapping uses. Masses of data is the ideal use. Sharp would be the word!!

[Charbax]

@bishopdante I guess 35mm is perhaps similar to 4K2K Quad-HD quality, I guess though that upscaling can always make things look better until all new movies are filmed in 8K4K or on 70mm film.

[TheXtraGuy]

@Charbax you wouldnt have to compress it if they used a triple layered blu ray disc.

[justinkissinger85]

@cnxtrans are you retarded??? a 2hr 1080p video needs a blu-ray disc at 25gb or 50gb disc depending on compression... raw video 8 bit @ 1920 x 1080 @ 24fps = 95 MB per/sec, or 334 GB per/hr. The movie industry uses mad compression to get the video to even fit on a Blu-Ray disc....

Now for the fun of it 8k4k is 16 times more data or 5.3TB per hour or 10.6TB for the 2 hours... your math is WAY off!!!!!!

[cnxtrans]

@justinkissinger85 OK I got a bit too optimistic with the 4 GB for 2 hours at 1080p... but you can get 720p for 2 hours with around 4 GB or 1080p with 8 to 10 GB without noticeable quality issues using H.264 codec. I used lots of those files (MKV).

[sKratch1337]

@justinkissinger85 They ain't releasing this TV in a few years, they'll probably use a new version of H.264 to compress it, just wait. :D

[CMatomic]

@cnxtrans , Have you ever seen an movie in bluray, "2hour 1080p movie takes about 4 GB" what ? at least a 2 hour movie in 1080p on Blu-ray has 25GB .

[electrodacus]

Is a 10 bit / color all most all monitors are just 8bit x 3 = 24bit now.

[vickyguts]

This is fucking awesome TV.!!!!!!

[Roboburrr]

it really IS sharp