8K discussion thread

[JohnAV]

Advancing 8K Shooting and Recording Technology
8K slow motion system and 8K camcorder - NHK



You can see even if 8K/240Hz High-speed Camera are used its still slo motion playback at 60 fps for consumers.

NHK TO “MASS PRODUCE” 8K CONTENT - IBC.org

The picture quality of the broadcasts is up to 16x greater than that of HD, with audio delivered in 22.2 multi-channel. NHK is broadcasting in frame rates of 59.94, 60 and 120P, he added.

The problem is that HDMI 2.1 has 8K@60 Hz or 4K @120 Hz maximums. I don't think anyone is going to have a problem watching sports at 8K60Hz with a smidge of pixel blur if you could even see it?

Most of us can't watch sports even in 4k.

[Lee A Stewart]

John:

Are you interrupting your diagram properly?



To me that says real time frame rate will be 240 FPS with the ability to create slo-mo in 60 FPS - something used a lot in sports. Not shooting in 240 FPS then deescalating the frame rate from 240 to 60 for consumer use.

[Lee A Stewart]

Lee off on a tangent but IMO an important one . . .

Ateme, SES Collaborate on UHD Satellite Transmission Using VVC

Versatile Video Coding offers a 50% efficiency improvement over HEVC, the company says

EASTLEIGH, U.K., AMSTERDAM, PARIS, DENVER, SINGAPORE, SAO PAULO & SYDNEY—Ateme is partnering with SES, Videolabs and IERT for the first end-to-end UHD satellite broadcast transmission using the Versatile Video Coding (VVC) standard, the company announced.

The test transmission is using an SES satellite positioned at the 28.2-degree East orbital position and is relaying a 4K UHD video stream using VVC.

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/at...sion-using-vvc

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

John:

Are you interrupting your diagram properly?

To me that says real time frame rate will be 240 FPS with the ability to create slo-mo in 60 FPS - something used a lot in sports. Not shooting in 240 FPS then deescalating the frame rate from 240 to 60 for consumer use.

The only time you would want to see no motion blur is when examining a game play in slow motion for a decision. Does the public need that accuracy, no. During regular gameplay like you looking at fixed views from some distance away, the minor motion blur would be irrelevant compared the resolution uptick to image clarity.

Have you examined how bad motion interpolation and response time is on most TVs? You might start that true motion is evil, but this is not cinema, it’s watching sports.

Personally I think we need perspective from people have done 8k sports editing, or viewing.

[PeterTHX]

They're capturing films with 6K and now 8K cameras - granted they're downrezzed to 2K/4K 24fps but the action within doesn't look terrible. 60fps should be more than enough for sports.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

It's why they stopped shooting in 65mm and showing in 70mm even though it is a much better looking film format than 35mm. It's why they never shot an entire Hollywood movie in IMAX 15/70 (when all IMAX theaters used that format).

The reason they don't shoot an entire feature in those formats is because of camera bulk, noise and relatively low amount of film time they can hold.

Now that digital cameras are getting higher and higher resolution you'll see more features shot in those higher resolutions. VFX and post pipelines are the bottleneck though - you need some serious rendering power for that - as well as building new production pipelines for end-to-end Ultra-plus HD resolutions.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

They're capturing films with 6K and now 8K cameras - granted they're downrezzed to 2K/4K 24fps but the action within doesn't look terrible. 60fps should be more than enough for sports.

And yet there are numerous articles written by professionals (of which you are not one of them) that state that the minimum frame rate for 8K sports should be 120 FPS. 240 is even better though.

Comparing shooting a movie and shooting live sports is like comparing apples to bricks.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

And yet there are numerous articles written by professionals (of which you are not one of them) that state that the minimum frame rate for 8K sports should be 120 FPS. 240 is even better though.

Comparing shooting a movie and shooting live sports is like comparing apples to bricks.

Yet filming a movie, documentary is more about photography perfection then worrying about seeing some athlete perfectly. Yeah one is memorable the other forgettable, let’s argue which is a work of art.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The reason they don't shoot an entire feature in those formats is because of camera bulk, noise and relatively low amount of film time they can hold.

No. The reason was the print cost. A 70mm 6 track mag print ran $12,500 while a 35mm optical sound print was $2500. Just imagine the cost to the studio putting out 3000 70mm prints vs 35mm prints.

Now that digital cameras are getting higher and higher resolution you'll see more features shot in those higher resolutions. VFX and post pipelines are the bottleneck though - you need some serious rendering power for that - as well as building new production pipelines for end-to-end Ultra-plus HD resolutions.

Sure - directors love shooting with 6K and 8K cameras. It gives them all kinds of options when they do their editing; cropping, zooming, etc. All without a loss of resolution because the DI will either be in 2K or 4K. Plus they get a better looking product.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Yet filming a movie, documentary is more about photography perfection then worrying about seeing some athlete perfectly. Yeah let’s argue which is a work of art.

Shooting docs is TOTALLY different than shooting a movie. You know this. Your trap sprung too soon

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Shooting docs is TOTALLY different than shooting a movie. You know this. Your trap sprung too soon

You messed up very badly.

Planet Earth is a 2006 British television series produced by the BBC Natural History Unit. Five years in the making, it was the most expensive nature documentary series ever commissioned by the BBC and also the first to be filmed in high definition.

If we use Planet Earth II 4K and Blue Planet II 4K they are 4K DI examples.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

You messed up very badly.

No I didn't. You fell into your own trap:

Planet Earth is a 2006 British television series produced by the BBC Natural History Unit. Five years in the making, it was the most expensive nature documentary series ever commissioned by the BBC and also the first to be filmed in high definition.

What movie took 5 years to make?

If we use Planet Earth II 4K and Blue Planet II 4K they are 4K DI examples.

Which was shot using 6K RED Epic Dragon and 4K Sony A7S II.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5491994...ef_=tt_dt_spec

[gkolb]

Boys, boys, boys,

You both make some interesting points. Don’t say something regrettable.

Lee, I wish you had bought a Sony 65” Z9D When they were $2000 on close out.
You’d have had probably the best LED tv ever made and see what these Sony, Warner and Universal HDR masterpieces look like at home. They’re friggin’ awesome.

(btw I retired at 60 eight years ago).

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by gkolb

Boys, boys, boys,

You both make some interesting points. Don’t say something regrettable.

Nah . . . John and I are just bantering back and forth not arguing. Look at all the symbols used.

Lee, I wish you had bought a Sony 65” Z9D When they were $2000 on close out.
You’d have had probably the best LED tv ever made and see what these Sony, Warner and Universal HDR masterpieces look like at home. They’re friggin’ awesome.

I am very happy with my current TV. It has served me well. A definite improvement over it's predecessor which was a 50" Samsung not full HD Plasma. Yes I miss my HT, just like I miss my fully restored 1963 Fuel Injected Corvette Convertible which I also sold: moved to Ft. Lauderdale from Long Island.

(btw I retired at 60 eight years ago).

Got out of the Rate Race early. Good for you!

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

No I didn't. You fell into your own trap:
What movie took 5 years to make?

If you need some reading see 15 Movies With Longest Production Time

Your right gkolb. Time to move on.

[peterv]

Well, this thread is less than three years old and has AFAIK always been on the front page of this section of the forum, 92 pages and counting … So I guess 8K is probably an intriguing subject for forum members.

I am mostly a lurker here and I have read most of the posts in this thread so I wanted to share my first impressions of daily use of an 8K TV in 2020. I have been lucky this past week because I got a 65 inch 8K Samsung Q800T for free from a local retailer. I'm going to have to write a review about the TV in return though but hey, no problem

And there I was just a few months ago selling off my lowly Samsung 49 inch KS7000, one of the earliest 4K TVs from 2016. I really wanted to try and see with my own eyes what OLED looks like, so I bought the Panasonic 55 inch GZW2000, which is supposedly one of the most accurate televisions a consumer can buy. I really wanted to experience Dolby Vision on my Apple TV and HDR10+ on the Samsung UBD-M7500 UHD Blu-ray player that I own, to see for myself how big an improvement OLED and dynamic metadata would bring. I really liked what I saw, very nice colours and contrast and my plan was to keep this TV for a few years until affordable Micro LED arrives and see what that is going to look like. And then, suddenly I was the owner of an 8K television and I have to decide now which one to keep, the 4K Panasonic or the 8K Samsung.

Well, after one week I have the impression that the Samsung is not as accurate colour and contrast-wise, but I think I am keeping it and I'm going to sell the two months old Panasonic. Not because the Samsung is an 8K television, but there are a few other practical reasons. First of all, it does a really nice job with daytime viewing, which is to be expected of course since it emits a few more nits than the Panasonic OLED. One of the disappointments with the Panasonic was that after I bought it in the beginning of March, the days and especially the evenings quickly grew longer and brighter and around this time of the year, the sun is in our living room until nine o'clock in evening.

Another reason for keeping the Samsung is that it's 40% bigger and my wife likes to watch talkshows on television from the kitchen and so she likes the bigger screen. The last reason for keeping the Samsung I would like to mention is that although I bought the Panasonic for watching movies and series as accurately as possible, with the pandemic and all going on at the moment I watch a lot of CNN and other news channels and I noticed I quickly started to feel really nervous with static imagery because off fear for a burn-in on the OLED. All this goes to show that 8K for me is not really a factor in the decision-making process of which television to get/keep in 2020.

As has been said many times before in this thread, there is not much 8K content. Our friends over at the marketing department tell us that's okay because the upscaling is doing such a great job in making the images on the television look much better and 3-D like. Indeed, the upscaling is really something when you think about it, interpolating an HD signal and making it 16 times bigger is no small feat but it's quite obvious that you have to sit further away from the television because otherwise it looks like, well, an upscaled image. And with unfortunately a lot of edge sharpening going on, which gives - especially HD television with a 10 - 12 Mbps stream - a cheapish video–look. 1080p Blu-rays actually look quite good!

Of course there is only so much the upscaling algorithms can do and I must say that especially 4K Ultra HD Blu-rays look very nice and there is an uptick noticeable in micro-contrast which indeed makes the images look more three-dimensional and richer, in a way. But of course the trade-off is that there is also an increase in noise which makes - again especially HD television - not easy to watch unless you're backing up one or two meters, because if you don’t, it's very tiring for your eyes to watch the restless image due to all the busy noise jumping around. The thing is, by then you're back to square one so to speak, because if you want to follow the SMPTE guidelines and like your image to occupy approximately 45 - 60 degrees of your field of view, you could just as well sit closer and enjoy the - arguably better and easier to watch - 55 inch OLED 4K TV.

Well, I thought I would share my first impressions of 8K television in daily life in 2020 and I hope this will help people getting information from a practical perspective. Of course in my case it's all apples and oranges with the different size and the difference between LCD/QLED and OLED. Anyway, I'm happy I got this TV for free and one of the advantages I like a lot is that the old adage of garbage in > garbage out, holds very true and since I used to be a cameraman in my younger days, it's interesting for me to see that whether it's HD, 4K or 8K, the resolution of the 8K television makes it very obvious to see what kind of camera was used. Got to say I just love the Alexa 65, yesterday I logged into my Netflix account and watched a bit of both the series ‘Dark’ and ‘Altered Carbon’ and those sure look gorgeous in ‘8K’

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

8K Blu-ray is a joke.....

It will never happen anyway

lol ha ha .thats what they said about 4k ,it will never happen. Yet here we are.
I guess you haven't been around long, but if they see a buck in it , they will make it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

As in life there are many tradeoffs. That will be one of the outcomes when they do standardize the 8K format. Even at 120 FPS the result is not perfect. But perfection is never the goal of content creators. Acceptable. THAT is the goal because the difference between Perfection and Acceptable is a whole lot of money. It's why they stopped shooting in 65mm and showing in 70mm even though it is a much better looking film format than 35mm. It's why they never shot an entire Hollywood movie in IMAX 15/70 (when all IMAX theaters used that format).

The TV manufacturers want you to believe that 8K TVs are the absolute latest and greatest of all TVs ever made. They have very good marketing departments and well paid spokespersons hawking their newest wunderkind.

Call me a skeptic when it comes to the whole 8K ballgame. Touting 16X the resolution of HD and 4X the resolution of 4K makes great marketing but it doesn't say anything about what new pitfalls have to be dealt with when you show native 8K content on an 8K display. That's the ultimate purpose of an 8K TV isn't it?

While I agree that 8K is mostly hogwash (it's great to read someone's actual experience with an 8K TV above) you're wrong about IMAX as there are many other practical reasons as to why there was never a full-length feature shot on it, not that it was anything more than a documentary format until Nolan used it for TDK in 2008 anyway.

As Pete said, the MSM cameras are massive and those giant mags only hold three minutes of film, they're not sound proofed either (again, because of their documentary background) so when they get up to speed they sound like they're gonna take off which makes dialogue scenes difficult. Not that it can't be looped afterwards but some actors find the noise distracting. The cameras are also prone to breaking down and need constant maintenance, Nolan usually keeps an additional IMAX body plus his 'dialogue' format (previously 35 anamorphic, latterly 5-perf 65) on standby in case they break down.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

And yet there are numerous articles written by professionals (of which you are not one of them) that state that the minimum frame rate for 8K sports should be 120 FPS. 240 is even better though.

Mmm hmm. I know quite a few "professionals" and the consensus is far from unanimous.

Comparing shooting a movie and shooting live sports is like comparing apples to bricks.

Yet here we are talking about frame rates which ARE comparable when it comes to things like motion. You imply that anything less than 120fps is somehow unwatchable. Yet most people seem to have no issues with 1080i/30 in MPEG2. 2160p/60 with HDR in HEVC or another advanced codec would still be a quantum leap in quality.

We're not talking perfection. I'm talking improvements. You seem to be arguing why bother if it can't be what you want.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Mmm hmm. I know quite a few "professionals" and the consensus is far from unanimous.

Yet here we are talking about frame rates which ARE comparable when it comes to things like motion. You imply that anything less than 120fps is somehow unwatchable. Yet most people seem to have no issues with 1080i/30 in MPEG2. 2160p/60 with HDR in HEVC or another advanced codec would still be a quantum leap in quality.

We're not talking perfection. I'm talking improvements. You seem to be arguing why bother if it can't be what you want.

You forget, the lower the resolution, the less inherent motion blur. That was already covered.