
8K is now being broadcast in Japan - kungfudoi
https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/12/01/8k-is-now-being-broadcast-in-japan/
======
leguminous
There are a lot of comments debating whether 8K is worthwhile vs 4K, and
whether we can see a difference. I decided to do some math.

Let's assume someone has a 65in (165cm) TV and sits 6.5ft (~2m) away. This is
a larger TV than most people have, and a closer viewing distance than most
people sit. Let's also assume that the viewer has 20/12.5 (6/3.75) vision.
20/20 (6/6) is the low end of normal, and it isn't uncommon to have slightly
better vision. My optometrist (my fiancée) can correct me to about 20/15, but
20/12.5 is unusually good.

The screen width is 56.65in. At this distance, that subtends an angle of about
40 degrees:

    
    
        >>> math.degrees(2 * math.atan(56.65475464133182 / (2 * 6.5 * 12)))
        39.9191582380095
    

20/12.5 vision corresponds to 48 cycles per degrees, or 96 pixels per degree,
distinguishable (20/20 is generally accepted to be 30 cycles per degree).
Therefore, the viewer can distinguish 96 * 40 = 3840 pixels horizontally.
Which is UHD 4K resolution.

I chose the inputs to get to that result, but my point is that viewers would
need to have unusually good vision, and unusually large TV, and be sitting
unusually close to hit the limits of 4k. And that's only for very high
contrast images, like black text on a white background. Our eyes are less
sensitive to low contrast transitions, as found in most videos. Try reading an
eye chart with the letters printed in gray on a lighter gray background. It's
more difficult!

I think there are much better things we can use our limited bandwidth for than
increasing resolution: we could use better compression codecs at higher
bitrates, reduce or eliminate chroma subsampling, increase color depth and/or
gamut for HDR content, or use higher framerates for content where that is
appropriate.

EDIT: Here's a source for 20/20 = 30 cycles per degree, and 20/12.5 vision
being unusually good:
[https://www.opt.uh.edu/onlinecoursematerials/stevenson-5320/...](https://www.opt.uh.edu/onlinecoursematerials/stevenson-5320/L08Acuity.pdf)

~~~
hanoz
I'm sitting about 1.8m away from a 720p television showing a standard
definition UK terrestrial signal (which is 576p) and I'm honestly baffled how
anyone could want any higher res. In fact the only issue I notice is the
poorer picture quality on some of the lower bitrate channels, the major
channels are as clear and sharp as I'd ever want.

~~~
ams6110
I agree. 720p is good enough. And a 65" screen in a living room is obscene.

~~~
criddell
What about in a home theater setup?

~~~
ekianjo
its better to have 4k projectors because you can really see the difference but
its pretty much only Sony that makes consumer ones and they are super pricey
still.

------
apozem
As a movie nerd I was interested by the bit about the broadcast being in
120hz. This is... unusual for most visual content.

Where video games strictly benefit from a higher framerate, adding more frames
does weird things to movies and television. As you may know, most movies are
shot at 24 frames per second, which is low considering humans can see far more
fps than that.

This lower FPS means movies are actually impressionist paintings of reality.
The framerate blurs what is being filmed so it looks less like a set and more
like what we've been trained to think of as a movie.

Movies that experiment with high framerate like Billy Lynn's Long Halftime
Walk (120 fps) find it makes selling the fiction harder. Viewers can see the
cracks in everything a lot easier. This is one reason people disliked Peter
Jackson's 48 FPS version of The Hobbit. Instead of seeing a group of dwarves,
high frame rates made them look like a bunch of guys in funny costumes.

All this is to say it's _interesting_ they are making high frame rate a part
of their video future when its future within movies and TV is undecided.

~~~
hsivonen
Personally, I'm very disappointed that the higher frame rate of The Hobbit has
been interpreted as bad. For 3D, in my opinion, it was a much better
experience than using a lower frame rate for 3D. In my opinion, using a lower
frame rate for 3D has been a bug ever since.

------
reaperducer
I saw 8K demos at Yodobashi Camera a few years ago, and I couldn't tell the
difference between 4K and 8K.

I can tell the difference between HD and 4K, so my eyes aren't completely
shot. But I think we're getting to the point of resolution for resolution's
sake. Like having a speedometer that goes to 200 MPH, when the legal limit in
your state is 85, and the car simply isn't capable of 200.

I remember back when the Amiga came out. My friend who had one said it showed
4,096 colors because that was the limit of human perception. Now I know he was
wrong, but it made sense at the time.

~~~
spiritcat
"car simply isn't capable of 200"

what if it's going down a steep hill?

~~~
reaperducer
If it's my car, the wheels will fall off before it reaches the bottom. Mine
starts to shake around 90, then smooths out until about 120, then starts to
shake again.

My mother-in-law in the back seat was not happy.

~~~
think-about-it
And you think it's because of the bumpiness of the ride? You're going to kill
someone driving like that on public roads.

I was in the backseat of a car driving like that in high school. Driver lost
control while changing lanes, we swerved across multiple lanes of traffic,
exited the interstate and flipped five times. The two people in the car not
wearing seatbelts were thrown from the vehicle as we rolled.

Nobody died, but by rights any or all of us should have.

Seriously, stop.

~~~
davrosthedalek
It is absolutely common to drive that fast on German roads. With less
accidents/mile than America. It needs good driver education, good roads and
good cars, and then it's fine.

~~~
bn-usd-mistake
It's 200 MPH, not KMH. Going ~320 KMH is not absolutely common on German roads

~~~
kenhwang
Even seeing cars capable of going 200mph is a rarity. Very few cars can go
200mph and they're all rather expensive.

------
rini17
Extrapolating from current consumer situation, we can expect 8K huge ass TVs
which display cringingly poor picture and users won't care. As usual
contemporary digital TV setup is:

1\. set top box is by default sending only 720p to the TV

2\. HDMI input on the TV is by default in "video mode", where it rescales the
picture even when fed native 1080p

It took me months to eventually figure this out, and now I have sharp pixel-
perfect FullHD picture...that makes compression artifacts pop up :(

~~~
culot
The overcompression/poor compression of streaming video is scandalous. Netflix
cannot even offer a decent DVD quality stream, it seems perverse for them to
even offer 4K.

~~~
aschampion
I have far, far worse compression artifacts in cable broadcast (apartment
provided, can't opt out) than from Netflix, and I can only pick out artifacts
in Netflix 4K if I'm actively trying.

Where streaming services do fall down for me is audio stream handling. If you
stream high quality in most services on most dedicated streaming devices you
get 5.1/7.1 by default, with awful, unconfigurable downmixing to 2.0/2.1 that
makes you crank the volume to make dialogue audible but is still immediately
drowned out by the slightest peripheral foley effect. Amazon video is the
worst about this.

------
Wowfunhappy
The article says they're not just broadcasting in 8K, but 8K at 120 fps!

How many displays are actually capable of not just displaying 120hz, but
actually accepting a 120 fps input (as opposed to just interpolating)?

~~~
mrob
120fps is the real news here. Most people will see no difference between 4K
and 8K, but 120fps is an immediately obvious improvement. People will probably
attribute the sharper image to the higher spatial resolution, but it will
really be the result of reduced sample-and-hold blur. I'd take 1080p120 over
8Kp60 any day.

~~~
lbotos
> is an immediately obvious improvement.

Technically, yes.

I'm one of those weirdos who thinks movies aesthetically look better at 24
frames for the "dreamlike" quality. Racing/Action Sports, yes, please more
frames.

~~~
Chazprime
A movie at a frame rate higher than 24 looks strangely “cheap” to some of us.
I believe it’s because on a subliminal level, the higher frame rate reminds us
of a television broadcast.

~~~
fred256
Also known as the "soap opera effect":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation#Soap_oper...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation#Soap_opera_effect)

~~~
josteink
This is definitely real.

This was quite noticeable to a trained eye in the finale episode of David
Lynch’s Twin Peaks returns season.

As I was watching it, somewhere mid episode where the story moves between two
realms of reality, I noticed the image suddenly had a much more real (or
“cheap”) appearance.

I was in awe. That was a super nice touch done a technical level which really
helped elevate the story itself.

------
NewEntryHN
To the question of how much resolution is enough, my answer is: can you see
the pixels when you approach your eyeball to the screen? If yes, then
resolution can be improved. If no, then there is no need for more pixels. On
modern big television (e.g. > 45in) then the resolution required to pass this
limit is well, well beyond 8K.

You can argue that because you look at the screen from a distance this
criteria is irrelevant, but there are all sorts of discussions and argument
about perception of clarity and whatnots which makes calculations based on
distance hard to defend properly. The only way to be sure is to be unable to
perceive pixels even if it's right in front of your eyeball. Like actual
things in life.

I'm convinced resolution will improve until this limit is reached, as it
should.

~~~
cryptonector
No, it should not. No one puts their eyeball to the screen under any normal
circumstance. And each additional pixel has implications for bandwidth.
Bandwidth is a limited commodity. I don't want my internet bandwidth reduced
by your desire to watch TV from less than an inch away.

~~~
ezconnect
We need smaller pixels because the next gen tv will be a millimeter away from
your eyeballs

~~~
cryptonector
Yes, we need smaller pixels for that, but that doesn't mean we need more than
4k.

------
TheAceOfHearts
Wow, and I haven't even jumped up to 4K yet. It seems like technology might be
advancing faster than many producers can keep up.

As I understand it, in the anime world most airing shows are still being
animated at 720p or at slightly higher resolution, with a handful of them
occasionally being animated at 1080p. Although the best studios typically
clean things up and make a huge number of improvements for their 1080p BD
release. Movies are generally animated at 1080p.

Older cell-drawn anime are being scanned at 4K / 5K to produce new 4K
releases, and I'm told the level of detail in those is incredible, which makes
sense given that they're hand-drawn with extreme care. Currently the best
known release is probably Ghost in the Shell (1995).

Even the incredibly popular movie Your Name was animated at 1080p. The special
edition is upscaled 4K with HDR.

The high cost of 4K releases also creates a barrier. A standard 4K Blu-ray
movie seems to go for around ~$80. If you want both the English and Japanese
versions of Your Name at 4K you're looking to pay around ~$195, admittedly
that's for the 5-disk collector's edition. Compare that with a typical ~$20
1080p Blu-ray release.

Being unable to prepare a personal backup is also a problem. Ideally I'd dump
the movie right away so the physical medium can be stored in as pristine
conditions as possible. It would feel very frustrating to spend that much
money, only to have it casually damaged.

~~~
deadalus
Storing 8k media is going to be very expensive for a common man.

~~~
msh
The common man will stream 8k. Discs are slowly on their way out and local
media servers are for people on hn doing their own and rich people buying
things like the Stratos s.

------
tjoff
I saw nothing about bitrate? I can't help but thinking that the same bitrate
would look better at 4k, or even 1080p.

~~~
akvadrako
Sometimes higher resolution can even reduce the bitrate, since jagged edges
become smooth transitions. Basically, the codec has the freedom to reduce the
resolution if that's what will maintain the most quality.

I only know about this practically in regards to 10-bit anime being more
compressible than 8-bit, but I assume the same logic applies.

~~~
CarVac
I don't think so. 10-bit improves compression because posterization leads to
noisy patterns that must be encoded. By smoothing the posterization out,
encoding a gradient, and having the decoder produce the noise, you can save
bitrate.

But the equivalent in spatial resolution is encoding near-horizontal lines...
which isn't a common situation (unlike gentle color gradients) and isn't a
problem in the first place.

~~~
l33tbro
How does posterization differentiate from banding? I know when I encode videos
from an 8-bit color space, I sometimes have to generate an additional layer of
noise so that I don't end up with those horrible macro-blocking blotches you
get with banding.

~~~
CarVac
Posterization is the technical term for this sort of banding.

Banding can refer to all sorts of things that form bands, like fixed pattern
noise from a camera sensor.

------
hamilyon2
I remember original starcraft, 256 colors and 640×480 it was a feast for my
eyes. It will always be about content, not the medium.

~~~
superasn
You're absolutely right about that. I always thought getting a bigger screen
would dramatically increase my viewing pleasure but I don't think it hardly
even counts for 5%. Content still is king.

~~~
honestlyidk
there is actually a standard distance away from a screen that determines
maximum viewing pleasure , I think it is 10ft but that is a rule of thumb it
changes due to screen size.

[https://www.crutchfield.com/S-2baTDHKQBkY/learn/learningcent...](https://www.crutchfield.com/S-2baTDHKQBkY/learn/learningcenter/home/TV_placement.html)

I think it has something to do with full vision of the screen at any time so
your its centerted and a particular percentage of your field of vision. I
couldnt find the study which was for sports and movie watching but I bet such
a standard is even more important for gaming.

Basically relatively speaking your screen should be the same size in your
field of view but the fact that its bigger allows for better detailing.

4000px from 5 feet doesnt look at good as 8000px from 10 feet even thought
they fill up the same area in your field of view

------
monting
Been waiting and looking forward to 8k. It would make a significant difference
for me.

I use a UHD/4k 40" TV as a monitor, running at native resolution. It's
essentially four 1080p 20" screens in one. The pixel density is pretty good,
but not "retina"/high DPI level.

Things can be a bit too small as I sit further from the screen than a regular
monitor.

With 8k, it'll be four 4k 20" screens in one.

I'd be able to go to a larger screen without sacrificing much on pixel
density. I would no longer have to zoom in on certain websites and can just
get a larger screen.

~~~
porphyrogene
I've seen setups like this but have never really understood the point. You're
either left sitting far away and scaling everything up (reducing the
resolution) which defeats the purpose of having a larger display or you're
exposing your eyes to the constant light of more screen space than you can
actually see and putting up with the eye strain of looking at a 1:1 virtual-
to-physical pixel ratio. It seems to embody the stereotype of American
consumer logic, i.e. bigger and more is always better.

~~~
monting
The setup is fantastic for me, and would be even better with 8K screens.

I'm running at native resolution, so not doing the "sitting far away" option.

"More screen space than you can actually see" \- This is somewhat true.
There's an upper limit to the size where it becomes impractical for most use
cases. I'd say that limit is 40"~55", and mitigated somewhat by curved
screens.

It's not too different from having a large quantity of screens you'd see at
say, a trading desk, but all conveniently in one screen.

------
paavoova
_To be able to watch 8K you not only need an 8K capable television_

Why is all this high-resolution media walled behind decoder boxes and DRM? 4k
blu-rays have some fairly intrusive DRM as far as I understand, and then
there's 4k streaming like on Netflix, which requires hardware DRM to playback
on PC.

~~~
notyourwork
Consumers need to speak with their wallets if they want to impact change in
this arena.

~~~
josho
That isn’t quite fair.

Consumers aren’t told about DRM. The spec sheets don’t speak about what
restrictions are in place. You only discover after the purchase that some
capability you had assumed you could do no exists.

E.g. for me I’ve had this twice. Trying to view an HD movie over a component
cable—nope not allowed. And second my daughter discovering she can’t use music
from a streaming music service in a home video. Both occurred well after
initial purchases.

~~~
decasia
"my daughter discovering she can’t use music from a streaming music service in
a home video"

Can you say more about where the DRM applied in this case? I would expect it
to kick in, say, if you upload a home video to YouTube that incorporates
copyrighted media, but I would be surprised if something prevented you from
making a video (say on your phone) that included whatever music playing over
speakers.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
I imagine the OP was more referring to trying to whip something up quickly in
iMovie (or similar). If you own the track, this is trivial. If you're used to
Spotify, not so much.

------
linkmotif
The environmental impact of all the TV churn... :/

~~~
notyourwork
Agreed, I'm still not convinced I really need to upgrade to 4k yet let alone
8k.

~~~
cbg0
If you're happy with your 1080p TV, you'll probably continue to be so, unless
you get a 4K OLED TV, which may blow your mind a bit.

~~~
paganel
> 4K OLED TV, which may blow your mind a bit. reply

Genuine question: does it display movies in a "natural light" the same way as
a plasma TV does or does it display it under a "fake light", the same way as
the LED screens do? (even the 4K ones). I'm asking because I'm a movie buff
who's really attached to his plasma TV but looking at the available LED
options up on the market I don't see anything that satisfies me. Yes, the
image is "clearer" on the latest LED 4K screens but it also looks "fake-ish"
when it comes to watching movies.

~~~
pault
OLED is not back lit, so it probably looks better than plasma once you account
for the higher pixel density. I haven’t done a side by side comparison though.

------
kachurovskiy
8K sounds scary but if you think of it as a sequence of 33MP photos it starts
to sound quite OK. Plenty of cameras shoot photos with higher resolution than
that already.

------
mark_l_watson
I used to be skeptical of very hires video but two weeks ago I got a System76
laptop with a 4K display - I love it.

I think that people are missing the value of 8K which in my opinion is home
(or business) video walls as seen in the 1990 sf movie Total Recall. When
walking up to part of the wall, you still get hires anywhere you look. And oh,
I want that to be touch screen.

------
cthalupa
I want 8k, especially for when OLED on plastic comes out and it becomes less
expensive for massive screens.

But as a current owner of a 65" 4K LG OLED, while I can see a difference
between 1080p and 4K, HDR is a significantly bigger deal to me for picture
quality than 4K is.

HDR and going to an 11.2 (from 7.2) Atmos setup have had the biggest impact on
my movie viewing at home. The 4K upgrade was nice, but if I had to choose
between HDR and 4K, it wouldn't even be something I had to think about.

Another big upgrade for very specific types of movies has been getting a
Dreamscreen, which is similar to the Philips Ambilight TV setups. I like it a
lot for sci-fi movies with lots of action and scenes with a variety of colors
in high contrast situations. I keep it turned off for most other types of
movies, so it's pretty niche.

------
unixhero
So a 4k H265 HVEC stream is 12mbit./sec. I assume 8k is the double,
24mbit/sec. That doesn't sound too outrageous from the point of view of media
consumption. Syndication, multiplexing, production, post production and
handling of 8k .. sounds harder

~~~
trendia
8k has four times as many pixels as 4k, so at the same bitrate/pixel it would
be around 48mbit/sec

~~~
jrobn
You don’t need 4 times the bitrate because compression technology scales
better than linear the higher the resolution.

------
workingpatrick
Does that camera have an SFP+ port out the back of it?

~~~
ken
Yup:
[http://www.sharp.co.jp/business/8k-camera/download/catalog/p...](http://www.sharp.co.jp/business/8k-camera/download/catalog/pdf/catalog201711.pdf)

Makes sense. You probably won't want to pop out the 2TB SSD every time you
need to get data off, and 8K footage takes a ton of bandwidth.

It looks like the newest versions of USB and Thunderbolt support comparable
speeds, but SFP+ has been around for a while and is probably much more widely
supported.

------
readbeard
Steve Yedlin (cinematographer of The Last Jedi) posted an excellent analysis
of image resolution in cinema on his website. It utterly convinced me that
resolution beyond 2K/1080p is superfluous on most normal-sized cinema screens
at normal viewing distances. IMAX will, however, benefit noticeably from
higher resolutions.

[http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html](http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html)

~~~
derekdahmer
I just can't believe this. Watching Mad Max in 4k on a 65" from 12 feet away
there's still an obvious difference in detail and texture. You can see the
bumps on skin, and grains in the sand.

So many ppl ITT throwing around equations but I have both 4k and 1080p content
and all I can say is the difference is very real. Planet Earth II vs Planet
Earth I is another example. Netflix 4k vs 1080p shows. Things like forest
scapes, schools of fish, snowy mountain ranges all have just awesome
differences in detail.

------
mmaunder
Dithering in lossy compression algorithms destroys picture quality for me. No
matter if it's 1080 or 8k. Particularly with dark scenes. Anyone else feel
this way?

------
newaccoutnas
I worked with NHK on the London 2012 Olympics. It was unreal. Generally more
static shots as that much screen real estate / clarity gives you so much to
look at. Probably not that important at home though, as there's a golden
ration of distance/pixel density+size and 4k is probably at that edge, even HD
is fine for small front rooms (unless you've got a very large front room and
TV). Better pixels, not more pixels

~~~
ksec
>Probably not that important "at home" though

Exactly. So what is the point in terms of 8K Broadcast, where I presume it is
targeting precisely, at home?

Not trolling, but a genuine question.

------
the_clarence
What really matters now is directors moving to HFR or 60fps to shoot movies.
Resolution is already good enough that fps is lagging behind.

~~~
blck
I don't think audiences want HFR movies. It's fine in sports and gaming but
you pretty much have to upend the entire movie industry to get HFR not looking
like crap. The more frames you're shooting per second the more light you need
to use on set to capture the movement.The more light you use the more you see
make-up and how bad some costumes actually look IRL.

Look at Peter Jackson's The Hobbit movies or Ang Lee's Billy Lynn.

~~~
criddell
> The more frames you're shooting per second the more light you need to use on
> set to capture the movement.

You don't think cameras will improve enough that 8k can be shot with same or
even less lighting than is used today? Is it a physical limitation?

~~~
jobigoud
Yes it's physical. The max exposure time is inversely correlated with the
framerate. If you shoot at 100fps for example you cannot keep the shutter open
(and capture photons) for longer than 10ms, as you need to close and start the
next frame, and it will look dark. And the standard for movies is to use 180°
exposure meaning half the inverse of the framerate.

------
anomaloustho
4K TVs at normal distance already exceed the resolution the eye can see.

This seems impressive, but also seemingly pointless.

[https://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-
stup...](https://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid)

~~~
cptskippy
I recall in the 90s when they said a 640x480 image was the equivalent of a 3x5
photo print. I think it's naive to assume our vision can be diluted down to a
fixed resolution at a given distance.

No, I cannot see the pixel grid of my 55in 4k OLED TV at a viewing distance of
more than about a foot. However I can see a single pixel illuminated at about
25ft.

So to say there is not benefit to 8k is like saying we'll never need more than
640k of RAM.

~~~
ajross
> I think it's naive to assume our vision can be diluted down to a fixed
> resolution at a given distance.

You have an alternative theory of vision where resolution is not limited by
photoreceptor density? Look, there are only so many cells on your retina.

> However I can see a single pixel illuminated at about 25ft.

And you can see a star (which subtends a MUCH smaller angular size than that
mere pixel) at hundreds of light years. Yet it takes a skyscraper-sized
telescope and mindbendingly crazy interferometric and occlusion techniques to
detect even the planets in that system, much less the disk of the star itself.

No, this is wrong. Your eyes can't detect the difference between 4k and 8k at
routine (i.e. 90 degree width or so) distances. They just can't.

~~~
Retric
People can tell the difference between a 4k and an 8k TV. 4K is still only
2,160 vertical pixels. That’s normally plenty but some images have really
obvious issues at that resolution. EX:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiré_pattern](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiré_pattern)

PS: Eyes have 120 million rod cells, and 6 million cone cells. Further, those
cells are not in a grid pattern. A 4K TV is approximately 8.3 million pixels
so it’s approaching the right order of magnitude, but still has some room
before you can individually activate each cell.

~~~
aidenn0
Yes bad mastering is an issue; a properly anti-aliased 4k master would not
have any moire effects. By all means shoot in 8k or 70mm film and then master
it to 4k, but 8k broadcasts are silly.

------
mensetmanusman
Resolution like this helps experiment with breaking the 60/120 Hz paradigm by
refreshing multiple overlaid 4k displays at varying frequencies to to improve
realism.

Also has application in AR/VR which can use more pixels up close to the eye to
improve clarity.

------
firexcy
“640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.”

However, I would like the redundant bandwidth and computing power to be used
to implement HDR first. It’s a more perceptible and immediate improvement than
8k.

------
javchz
I thinks this cameras could become really useful in an indirect way, just
something that come to my mind is the ability to have zoom crops in post
production still keeping the 4K final render.

------
gryz
8k broadcasting could be the path to realistic 360/3D videos -- where at each
moment your eye gets only some fraction of full resolution video.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
You're likely going to want more than 8K for that.

------
rb666
8K is completely pointless, you need to be sitting about 50cm from your
already-giant TV for it to make a difference over 4K.

------
oh-kumudo
How many people have the TV/Monitors to actually watch 8K? This is impressive
yet feels like redundant innovation.

~~~
koala_man
Would your adoption plan have been to not provide any 8K channels until a
sufficient number of people had bought 8K capable sets without anything to
watch?

------
sdfjkl
I found 720p quite sufficient for almost everything. I think I once selected
4k on a YouTube video that was showing how to do something technical and
didn't zoom in close enough to really see what was going on. The extra pixels
were helpful there, but a better detail shot would've been better.

------
grecy
It seems more likely every day the 2019 Mac Pro will be an 8k editing monster.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
And cost north of $10K.

~~~
grecy
quite possibly. I think it's clear it will blow the iMac Pro out of the water,
which is already not cheap.

------
Koshkin
I was perfectly fine with my 24in CRT TV set (and a DVD player that produced
the amazing picture on it) until they came out with the 32in flat screens... I
think it’s all in the head.

------
darkhorn
Unnecessary traffic for satellites.

------
imaginenore
Youtube has had it for a while now, and at 60fps, no less.

Example:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1La4QzGeaaQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1La4QzGeaaQ)

~~~
Koshkin
Looks good on a 9” iPad, too!

~~~
KayL
Apple's product can only watch 1080p Youtube.

------
maa5444
now you can wank in super hd #motherfuckers

