What about 12K res?

[avexhype]

Is this resolution going to be skipped or more so ignored? The jump is to 16K seems too rushed at least to me.

[GaragePoet]

but it's science

[oddbox83]

For production purposes, maybe. We have digital films captured at a mix other resolutions even when the DIs are finished at 2k or 4k.

[Ernest Rister]

16K? The optimal viewing distance of a 65" 8K display is (allegedly) roughly two feet, four feet for 4K, almost eight feet for HD. 16K or 12K? Why? Edumacate me.

[Bugg]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

16K? The optimal viewing distance of a 65" 8K display is (allegedly) roughly two feet, four feet for 4K, almost eight feet for HD. 16K or 12K? Why? Edumacate me.

So we can look at the new caps-a-holic shots, and 500x zoom in on eyes of the person in the background and notice black crush in the pupils.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

16K? The optimal viewing distance of a 65" 8K display is (allegedly) roughly two feet, four feet for 4K, almost eight feet for HD. 16K or 12K? Why? Edumacate me.

I don't know where you get your numbers from but the first mistake is assuming people don't have now and will never have displays that are>65". At this point in time the only display (except for computer monitors) that are <=65" is the one in my kitchen.

[BijouMan]

Originally Posted by avexhype

Is this resolution going to be skipped or more so ignored? The jump is to 16K seems too rushed at least to me.

Every increase in resolution has to be exactly quadruple compared to the previous in order for the previous resolution to still look great on the newer display.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by BijouMan

Every increase in resolution has to be exactly quadruple compared to the previous in order for the previous resolution to still look great on the newer display.

So, that means that 8K is "quadruple" 4K and that 16K is "quadruple" 8K? Is this the "new" math that I've heard so much about?

[BijouMan]

Originally Posted by Vilya

So, that means that 8K is "quadruple" 4K and that 16K is "quadruple" 8K? Is this the "new" math that I've heard so much about?

Full HD = 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
4K UHD = 3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400 pixels
8K UHD = 7680 x 4320 = 33,177,600 pixels

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by BijouMan

Full HD = 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
4K UHD = 3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400 pixels
8K UHD = 7680 x 4320 = 33,177,600 pixels

Ah, I never think of it in terms of total pixels...just 1080, 2160, 4320, etc.

Then there's "true" 4K, which is 4096 x 2160, to muck it up more....Maybe instead of 4K it should be called 8M for pixel count?...Too many damn numbers.

[mysticwaterfall]

They went with 4K because "2160P" didn't sound as impressive a jump from 1080P as it did going from 480. The terms are all marketing anyway, but 1080, et at least conveys some more actual information.

In any event, its going to be quite a long time before there's any point to 16K beyond an absurdly big screen nobody can afford. Production has to catch up as the majority of stuff we have today doesn't even max out 4K tech.

[Lee A Stewart]

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by mysticwaterfall

They went with 4K because "2160P" didn't sound as impressive a jump from 1080P as it did going from 480. The terms are all marketing anyway, but 1080, et at least conveys some more actual information.

In any event, its going to be quite a long time before there's any point to 16K beyond an absurdly big screen nobody can afford. Production has to catch up as the majority of stuff we have today doesn't even max out 4K tech.

The industry wanted to lead with just calling it 'Ultra HD' (which would've been handy to avoid all this "real/fake 4K" bullshit that people get so hung up on) but because Sony really pushed the 4K part of their marketing for their TVs then the industry felt they had no choice to keep the 4K part of it when it came time for wider adoption. It was 10 years ago that Sony's first 4K was released, where does the time go?

[mysticwaterfall]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The industry wanted to lead with just calling it 'Ultra HD' (which would've been handy to avoid all this "real/fake 4K" bullshit that people get so hung up on) but because Sony really pushed the 4K part of their marketing for their TVs then the industry felt they had no choice to keep the 4K part of it when it came time for wider adoption. It was 10 years ago that Sony's first 4K was released, where does the time go?

That probably would have been better all together, yeah.

[Lee A Stewart]

The issue would have been that there are two specs for Ultra HD as per SMPTE:

UHD1 = 4K

UHD2 = 8K

[thejoeman2]

I can see a Where's Waldo image being in 12k with thousands upon thousands of people, making it hard to find him. May need to use a magnifier.

[mysticwaterfall]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

The issue would have been that there are two specs for Ultra HD as per SMPTE:

UHD1 = 4K

UHD2 = 8K

Wouldn't have been any different then 720 and 1080 both being HD.

[Panson]

2 feet from the screen, is SPF 30 or 50 better?

[slimjean]

The human eye is capable of more. My issue is who is going to prove what they saw when there is no save state?

Fork beyond 4K. This is my stop.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by mysticwaterfall

Wouldn't have been any different then 720 and 1080 both being HD.

Both of those HD formats appeared at the same time for consumer use and were widely used. That is not true for 4K and 8K.