Skipping 4K and waiting for 8K?

[GunZenBomZ]

Already we know that the future format will be 8K, so are there anymore members committing to missing out on 4k UHD. I sure love physically owning films & can not see streaming taking over although cheap streaming is a revenue field movie makers need to garner more attention into. Having other large investments to focus on does narrow my financial outlay over the next few years but I'm happy to wait for 8K. Are you?



I could also add I've suffered a certain amount of upgrade-fatigue so going down the atmos route has already caused friction & large deposits going missing. But I do not want to feel burnt with a movie industry seemingly drip feeding titles & not hugely pushing 4K as 8K is just around the proverbial corner.

[mogwai_macabre]

I'm holding out for 16k

[filmlover1]

Originally Posted by mogwai_macabre

I'm holding out for 16k

32k, here.

[HeavyHitter]

Nah, 32K is where it's at.

[PenguinMaster]

If 8K comes out it probably won't be for another decade. And if 4K doesn't sell well then 8K will never happen.

[bruceames]

Have fun waiting for 8K, probably be another 8-10 years. 4K HDR is a huge jump as it is and it's very unlikely that 8K will get a physical format. I choose not to wait 8-10 years for a physical format that will never come to pass and will be digital-only.

[Brad1963]

I'm holding out for 401K

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

I'm holding out for 401K

I'm holding out for a hero. (Not really )

[sukraj]

4k is good enough for me

[SlaughterX]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

I'm holding out for 401K

Haha, nice... I'm holding out for mine too, though I am tempted to cash it out and pay off all my debt.

Anyway I think I saw a Sharp 8k LCD @ CES several years ago. It might have just been 4, I don't really remember, but it did look awesome. That shit was putting out some heat though, I think it was like 80 inches.

[Brightstar]

70MM film is far to big and expensive for homes its best used on the big screen

[Dubstar]

considering way too many studios aren't even able to transition from 2K DI to 4K DI - 8K is pissing in the wind.

[KubrickKurasawa]

I still enjoy regular blue rays and 4k uhd with Atmos is really going to hold up for a long time imho.

Fact is most people have 65 inch or less Tv's and projectors in 4k are unrealistic for home owners so far....yep gonna be awhile. I might not even care about 8k honestly. 4k and a 4k 3d format with Atmos and Im set till death lol

[theone2610]

How many pixels can human eye resolve anyway? I heard 16k is the limit.

[ray0414]

8k will be extremely niche. Cable upscaling is bad enough, upscaling cable TV to 8k would be atrocious. Takes up too much bandwidth, etc. There will be 8k tvs as selling gimmicks but no real content unless u live in Japan apparently.

[darkedgex]

8K makes absolutely no sense unless you're using a screen larger than 100" (and sitting as close, or closer, to it as you do to a 4K UHDTV today). I also have doubts about older titles seeing any improvement with an 8K release (an 8K scan downscaled to 4K would be nice though). Newer titles might be a possibility, but even now most movies are rendering their CGI in 2K and often times releasing 2K digital intermediates (DIs).

I think a better use of R&D would be to expand the color gamut further (12-bit) and work on better contrast ratios (push HDR further with brighter displays, for example).

I DO think 8K would be useful for specialty events: sports or concerts, live events, etc. But here again, those same physical restrictions on screen size and sitting distance creep in: I think in the case of sports it's more likely you'll be closer to the screen, so the added resolution makes sense. For a film or TV show that you're likely relaxing at a comfortable distance from, you'll very likely never notice a difference.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by darkedgex

8K makes absolutely no sense unless you're using a screen larger than 100" (and sitting as close, or closer, to it as you do to a 4K UHDTV today).

not true at all
all the claims about how you need this insane sized screen have always been rubbish
they said the same thing about 1080p OMG you'd need 100" for it to even begin to be noticed

[krismate]

Originally Posted by darkedgex

8K makes absolutely no sense unless you're using a screen larger than 100" (and sitting as close, or closer, to it as you do to a 4K UHDTV today). I also have doubts about older titles seeing any improvement with an 8K release (an 8K scan downscaled to 4K would be nice though). Newer titles might be a possibility, but even now most movies are rendering their CGI in 2K and often times releasing 2K digital intermediates (DIs).

I think a better use of R&D would be to expand the color gamut further (12-bit) and work on better contrast ratios (push HDR further with brighter displays, for example).

I DO think 8K would be useful for specialty events: sports or concerts, live events, etc. But here again, those same physical restrictions on screen size and sitting distance creep in: I think in the case of sports it's more likely you'll be closer to the screen, so the added resolution makes sense. For a film or TV show that you're likely relaxing at a comfortable distance from, you'll very likely never notice a difference.

Definitely there would be more benefit to do this but it's the marketing and business side that "prevent" it. Trying to educate your average consumer on what bit depth, HDR, bitrates etc. etc. are and then trying to sell them on it is faaaaar more work than just slapping 8k on the box.

[SuperFlyHighGuy]

Sweet, I can't wait to watch the Olympics this summer.

[Joce]

Then enjoy your waiting if you want to wait 10 years (in the case if you plan to buy a 100inch screen, at least).

I will enjoy my futures 4K blu-ray in my case.