Here's a BBC report on 8k, NHK seems to be going for the Super Hi vision.

BBC News - Will 8K be the ultimate TV screen? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9774380.stm)

I'd prefer to see less compressed, or more efficiently compressed SD broadcasts in the UK. I get the need for more resolution in production, but I'm becoming more skeptical of it's use in all but very large screens and can't help think that for the consumer, this will ultimately be a step sideways rather than forward.

It could be argued that 720 is enough for the majority of the population, with more mobile devices and laptops being used to consume TV.

Thanks for the link, Brian.

I can't help thinking there's a law of diminishing returns, and one thing they don't say too much about in that report is framerate. I saw the Super HiVision demo during the Olympics and it was acknowledged that framerate needed to be increased for a future system. - otherwise, yes, it's spectacular.

And even if they solve the technical problems of huge screens in the home (the report refers to flexible screens, able to be rolled up to get in the house!!) will people really want an entire wall as a screen? Current 42" etc met with enough objections, but flat screen and wall mounting went a long way to overcoming that, and current HD matches those sizes well.

Point about 4k is that it's relatively easy to manage (at least compared to true 8k!) but does offer worthwhile benefit for cinema viewing. I can also see it becoming the de facto production format for high value television productions fairly soon (especially with the Sony F5/55 now on the scene) but when finding the bandwidth to currently transmit 1080 is an issue, surely home broadacsting of anything better must be a long way off?

Let's go with 128K. We need to make sure the kids can't afford the kit and make better stuff than us.

8k is only good for hugh screens and the same applies for 4 and 2k, any screen you"ll find in the living room doesn't need anything more then 1080p.

Hardly anybody cared for 4K five years ago. But look where we are today:

5K at 48 fps, with a Dragon upgrade coming soon that Jim Jannard promises will finish 65mm film. Not to mention the 4K player for the masses that both Red and Sony have announced.

If 6K at 60 fps is here now, 8K at 120 fps isn't far off.

As a case in point, a few years ago everyone raved about how perfect the iPad 1's display was. Today, everyone's raving at how perfect the Retina display is. The 'what's cool' meter of the human race has shifted from 132 ppi to 264 ppi in 2 years - that's a 100% increase.

If it's here, I want it!

8k is only good for hugh screens and the same applies for 4 and 2k, any screen you"ll find in the living room doesn't need anything more then 1080p.

I used to think that as well, but I've seen some demos where the 4K material looks outstanding up close compared to the 1080p version and you can still see a significant difference from the back of the room.

One reason I'm excited to have a UHD set in the living room is for photos. I can shoot 5.6K (bayer) photos, but I only see the full resolution when I make a large print - and I almost never make large prints. Viewing UHD slideshows will finally let me get the most out of my camera.

When you saw the 4K demo, how large was the screen where you saw this on? And was it a 4k res screen?