8K discussion thread

[Lee A Stewart]

To reiterate . . . 8K creates more problems then it solves. That does not bode well for growth of the format.

[Miku-91]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Obviously not against scientific applications. 8K is already used in astronomy, medicine, VR, and even gaming. The mistake here is to treat 8k like it’s just a another TV resolution which has little value.

I honestly don't think 8K offers much, if any value to TVs. I also just wish that the TV and home video standards would finally stabilize for good, since the current development is simply advancing too fast to the point where the current products feel dispensable, since you know that a new format is always looming in the background.

Why invest in all this new and expensive 4K setup, when a better one is likely to arrive in a few years afterwards? Also, why purchase the same old films in 4K, when you know that they're going to receive a "superior" restoration/transfer after a few years?

I know this kind of thinking could be applied to any technology to the point where it would be pointless to purchase anything, but new technology shouldn't be made just for the sake of new technology. DVD was obviously a major upgrade over VHS in many ways. Blu-ray was also a big step forward from DVD, as DVDs were pretty much designed to be played in small (by today's standards) CRT TVs in the 90s. Is 4K that much of a leap from Blu-ray? I personally don't think so. Again, I don't own a 4K TV or 4K Blu-ray player, but from what I've seen from a friend's 4K TV, it really isn't that big of a leap from 1080p Blu-ray. It's a bit better I guess, but not to the point where I'd like to purchase a complete new setup and buy the same films yet again.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

To reiterate . . . 8K creates more problems then it solves. That does not bode well for growth of the format.

Mostly from a digital streaming perspective.

8K video camera's have gone from being over a hundred pounds to be held in a consumers hands like a regular DSLR.

8K TV's have gone from massively large and heavy examples to being incorporated into the same size format of existing 4K examples.

8K video processing in consumer products has now been established to replace 4K in phones, AVR's, and so on.

Desktop Computers and workstations still need to rely on multiple GPU's to process 8K workflow. But that just reminds one of the advances we see with substrate architecture each year. Pretty much every computer out there can process 4K video, but not efficiently as dedicated SoC that performs 4K hardware based decoding in a 4K UHD BD player. The example of the recent Mac Pro with Xeon processors up to 28 cores combined with Radeon Pro Vega II shows what is needed to perform raw 8k processing. Still need that Apple Afterburner accelerator card for playback of three streams of 8K ProRes RAW video simultaneously. Just shows how powerful workstations have to be to support this.

But comparably how many years ago was the Japanese at Levi statium with a couple of moving van size setups to record a football game in 8K and then utilize a earth- satellite link to show off 8k broadcast in Japan?

When I think back to the Jurassic Park Silicon Graphics processing examples (they were huge) what we do these days is pure science fiction comparably.

[danman227460]

Originally Posted by Miku-91

I honestly don't think 8K offers much, if any value to TVs. I also just wish that the TV and home video standards would finally stabilize for good, since the current development is simply advancing too fast to the point where the current products feel dispensable, since you know that a new format is always looming in the background.

Why invest in all this new and expensive 4K setup, when a better one is likely to arrive in a few years afterwards? Also, why purchase the same old films in 4K, when you know that they're going to receive a "superior" restoration/transfer after a few years?

I know this kind of thinking could be applied to any technology to the point where it would be pointless to purchase anything, but new technology shouldn't be made just for the sake of new technology. DVD was obviously a major upgrade over VHS in many ways. Blu-ray was also a big step forward from DVD, as DVDs were pretty much designed to be played in small (by today's standards) CRT TVs in the 90s. Is 4K that much of a leap from Blu-ray? I personally don't think so. Again, I don't own a 4K TV or 4K Blu-ray player, but from what I've seen from a friend's 4K TV, it really isn't that big of a leap from 1080p Blu-ray. It's a bit better I guess, but not to the point where I'd like to purchase a complete new setup and buy the same films yet again.

Some movies on 4K are worth the upgrade. Some movies on blu were done poorly to begin with so when they remaster it in 4K, it looks amazing. I have bought a few remastered discs and it is like watching the movie for the first time. The level of detail, color is unmatched.

I get it about the standards. 4K movies also has HDR which currently has 2 standards. HDR10+ and DV. Not all TV and players support both. I still can't tell if having DV/HDR10+ has any benefits or if I am missing out for not having a set capable of displaying it.

It feels like I am not getting the full benefits of 4K because my set can't do HDR10+ or DV. On the other hand, if you can live without it. Then why have such a confusing standard? Blu-ray was simple.

Technology is improving at such a fast rate that FOMO (fear of missing out) is becoming real. I kept pushing back my 4K TV purchase because I knew if I kept waiting, eventually a set with all the whistles will come out. I then realized if I kept waiting for the unicorn, I might miss the boat all together.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Miku-91

I honestly don't think 8K offers much, if any value to TVs. I also just wish that the TV and home video standards would finally stabilize for good, since the current development is simply advancing too fast to the point where the current products feel dispensable, since you know that a new format is always looming in the background.

Why invest in all this new and expensive 4K setup, when a better one is likely to arrive in a few years afterwards? Also, why purchase the same old films in 4K, when you know that they're going to receive a "superior" restoration/transfer after a few years?

I know this kind of thinking could be applied to any technology to the point where it would be pointless to purchase anything, but new technology shouldn't be made just for the sake of new technology. DVD was obviously a major upgrade over VHS in many ways. Blu-ray was also a big step forward from DVD, as DVDs were pretty much designed to be played in small (by today's standards) CRT TVs in the 90s. Is 4K that much of a leap from Blu-ray? I personally don't think so. Again, I don't own a 4K TV or 4K Blu-ray player, but from what I've seen from a friend's 4K TV, it really isn't that big of a leap from 1080p Blu-ray. It's a bit better I guess, but not to the point where I'd like to purchase a complete new setup and buy the same films yet again.

Thanks for the candid thoughts.

I see more logic with 8K cinema or 8K business demos then 8K at home usage this early on, huge screen benefits, consumers get accustomed to content appearing and accumulating.

There is no doubt that TV manufacturers are rushing to obsolete past platforms because that is where the money is, without a sizable amount of native content being present. (need 8K DSLR cameras to generate that)

Interesting enough those same flat panel manufactuers told us not so long ago that 8k panel production didn't appreciably cost that much more to manufacture then 4K and that kinda went unnoticed. That is why 8K TVs are showing up so quickly, the panel technology was already developed. The only impairment was waiting 8K SoC processors being available along with the HDMI 2.1 interfaces, which are here now.

But now that you have 8K TV's arriving, these same TV manufacturers have now reached a very high wall of sorts. All the marketing in the world will not make something useful, the rest of the 8K ecosystem has to. The best attribute of 8K displays is the AI upscaling.

As for the benefits of going to a 4K UDTV when you eventually do, it presents you with a accumulation of online 4K content presently. My favorite example is not watching the same movies in 4K HDR as only a few really offer 4K DI. It is instead looking at the traveling and nature content via 4K UHD media or 4K streaming such as YouTube. You can explore the world without leaving your stuck in the house environment, something to appreciate right now.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by danman227460

I get it about the standards. 4K movies also has HDR which currently has 2 standards. HDR10+ and DV. Not all TV and players support both. I still can't tell if having DV/HDR10+ has any benefits or if I am missing out for not having a set capable of displaying it.

It feels like I am not getting the full benefits of 4K because my set can't do HDR10+ or DV. On the other hand, if you can live without it. Then why have such a confusing standard? Blu-ray was simple.

Dolby Vision adds dynamic metadata that is produced during content creation; the dynamic properties of each scene are captured. With this information, the Dolby Vision display manager is able to adapt the content to the properties of the display much more accurately.

Dolby Vision is 12 bit example that uses frame by frame information ( dynamic metadata) from the source to improve brightness, contrast and color performance. Comparably HDR10+ is a 10 bit example that uses scene to scene dynamic metadata.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Mostly from a digital streaming perspective.

8K video camera's have gone from being over a hundred pounds to be held in a consumers hands like a regular DSLR.

8K TV's have gone from massively large and heavy examples to being incorporated into the same size format of existing 4K examples.

8K video processing in consumer products has now been established to replace 4K in phones, AVR's, and so on.

Desktop Computers and workstations still need to rely on multiple GPU's to process 8K workflow. But that just reminds one of the advances we see with substrate architecture each year. Pretty much every computer out there can process 4K video, but not efficiently as dedicated SoC that performs 4K hardware based decoding in a 4K UHD BD player. The example of the recent Mac Pro with Xeon processors up to 28 cores combined with Radeon Pro Vega II shows what is needed to perform raw 8k processing. Still need that Apple Afterburner accelerator card for playback of three streams of 8K ProRes RAW video simultaneously. Just shows how powerful workstations have to be to support this.

But comparably how many years ago was the Japanese at Levi statium with a couple of moving van size setups to record a football game in 8K and then utilize a earth- satellite link to show off 8k broadcast in Japan?

When I think back to the Jurassic Park Silicon Graphics processing examples (they were huge) what we do these days is pure science fiction comparably.

I hope you enjoy your super-processed 8K content cause that is the only way to be able to watch 8K @ 30/60 FPS.

And watching that football game in 8K is what brought to the attention of everyone involved in 8K is that 60 FPS isn't fast enough.

I posted a link that discusses this over on the HDR thread. You should read it.

[Lee A Stewart]

If you desire content with static images then 8K is definitely the way to go. But when those images become dynamic, it all goes to shit.

That's why they will continue to use 1080P native upscaled to 4K for sports especially when ATSC 3.0 goes live. #1 it saves on bandwidth and #2 it doesn't make motion blur worse like shooting in native 4K will.

[Scottish Punk]

Originally Posted by Miku-91

I honestly don't think 8K offers much, if any value to TVs. I also just wish that the TV and home video standards would finally stabilize for good, since the current development is simply advancing too fast to the point where the current products feel dispensable, since you know that a new format is always looming in the background.

Why invest in all this new and expensive 4K setup, when a better one is likely to arrive in a few years afterwards? Also, why purchase the same old films in 4K, when you know that they're going to receive a "superior" restoration/transfer after a few years?

I know this kind of thinking could be applied to any technology to the point where it would be pointless to purchase anything, but new technology shouldn't be made just for the sake of new technology. DVD was obviously a major upgrade over VHS in many ways. Blu-ray was also a big step forward from DVD, as DVDs were pretty much designed to be played in small (by today's standards) CRT TVs in the 90s. Is 4K that much of a leap from Blu-ray? I personally don't think so. Again, I don't own a 4K TV or 4K Blu-ray player, but from what I've seen from a friend's 4K TV, it really isn't that big of a leap from 1080p Blu-ray. It's a bit better I guess, but not to the point where I'd like to purchase a complete new setup and buy the same films yet again.

I am with you for the most part. I plan on buying the PS5 which will be my first 4k player. I will buy my first 4k TV this year as well. Wanted to buy one earlier, but I am hoping some of the technology settles in - HDMI 2.1, ASTC 3.0, etc. Taking a pay cut during this covid mess seals it for the waiting game a little longer. I have been buying new releases in 4k for awhile since they come with the blu-ray.

I think the reason you don't see much improvement on some of these movies is that heavy CGI movies are all done with 2k intermediaries. So put in a 1K blu-ray that gets up-rezed or a 4k that has been down-rezed during the process. Sort of meet in the middle. Obviously, there is a ton more data on the 4k on it will look better regardless. I want to see stuff like Planet Earth in 4k, no CGI to deal with.

[Lee A Stewart]

I . . . am . . . a . . . Luddite!

I still use my excellent 55" Panasonic Plasma. I have an old DD 5.1 Sony AVR with some really old Radio Shack speakers and twin 10 inch subs. I have a brand new Sony BD player cause my old Samsung crapped out.

I only buy used DVD and BDs. I have Disney+, Hulu and Netflix along with a bunch of freebees like Roku, Tubi, Plex and Pluto

Oh, I forgot . . . I love my Samsung flip phone. It does EXACTLY what I want it to do: act as a phone and receive text messages.

When and if the Panny dies which I hope it doesn't, I will buy a compatibly sized OLED.

I am in my twilight years; approaching 70. In my big earning years (30 - 40) I had the big house with the big (30' x 15') HT with a 144" 16x9 perforated Stewart screen with Zenith Pro900X projector. BIG sound system fed first by AC3 LD then DD 5.1 DVD. Seating for 5 in black leather recliners with foot stools.

When I sold the house I took all the profits and made the very best investment I could . . . into my retirement. I knew I would have to live a much more frugal life but it was well worth it to stop working at the age of 55.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

If you desire content with static images then 8K is definitely the way to go. But when those images become dynamic, it all goes to shit.

That's why they will continue to use 1080P native upscaled to 4K for sports especially when ATSC 3.0 goes live. #1 it saves on bandwidth and #2 it doesn't make motion blur worse like shooting in native 4K will.

If it was so bad why is broadcasting recording sports events in 8K?

From his article:

Not being a motion picture Creative or a film aficionado, I still think the right solution is High Frame Rate, preferably 48fps or 60fps. I think it is silly to cling to a nearly 100 year old technology to give a “film look” and still adopt 4K resolution, wide color gamut, high dynamic range and multi-channel surround sound.

Ok we have his opinion but it seems like one I saw in the past, like this is just reposted again.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

If it was so bad why is broadcasting recording sports events in 8K?

The only way to learn is "trial by fire." Then you can see where the improvements have to be made.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I . . . am . . . a . . . Luddite!

I still use my excellent 55" Panasonic Plasma. When and if the Panny dies which I hope it doesn't, I will buy a compatibly sized OLED.

If you wait too long the 8K's will be too mainstream, instead of the 4K ones, then your buying choices will be worse.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

The only way to learn is "trial by fire." Then you can see where the improvements have to be made.

Exactly!

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

If you wait too long the 8K's will be too mainstream, instead of the 4K ones, then your buying choices will be worse.

I will live with the risk of not being able to buy a 55" 4K TV say 5 years from now. Look how long HDTVs were on the sales floor. It wasn't until this year they finally disappeared.

I only watch TV about 1 hour per day. I would much rather read. Though I have well over 1000 discs my hardcover library greatly exceeds that.

But I thank you John for looking out for my well being.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

If you desire content with static images then 8K is definitely the way to go. But when those images become dynamic, it all goes to shit.

That's why they will continue to use 1080P native upscaled to 4K for sports especially when ATSC 3.0 goes live. #1 it saves on bandwidth and #2 it doesn't make motion blur worse like shooting in native 4K will.

If 1080i/30fps looks fine I don't see why they can't do 2160p/60fps.

Bandwidth wise it shouldn't take all that much more since there's fewer changes between 2 frames in a 60fps stream than a 30fps stream. We see this with the couple UHD-BDs that are 2160/60

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

If 1080i/30fps looks fine I don't see why they can't do 2160p/60fps.

Bandwidth wise it shouldn't take all that much more since there's fewer changes between 2 frames in a 60fps stream than a 30fps stream. We see this with the couple UHD-BDs that are 2160/60

When you increase the spatial resolution you increase the amount of motion blur. The same goes for brightness levels - something that HDR introduces. Doubling the frame rate from 30 to 60 might be fine for 4K but it doesn't work for 8K.

Broadcasters have no intention of using their new 57 mbps bandwidth per channel for a single UHD feed. Not when they can offer many more channels at HD and still use one for 1080P HDR which under the specs of ATSC 3.0 is considered a UHD format. It gets upscaled to 2160P then sent over their IP. Just like what was used for the last Super Bowl. The name of the game is money. Not to offer the very best quality video to consumers. More channels = more ad revenue.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

When you increase the spatial resolution you increase the amount of motion blur. The same goes for brightness levels - something that HDR introduces. Doubling the frame rate from 30 to 60 might be fine for 4K but it doesn't work for 8K.

Seems your quoting that article again. Why does frame rate have to go way up as resolution goes higher?

The Filmmaker’s Guide to Video Frame Rates in 2020 - studio binder 2/2/20

What is the best frame rate for video?

The most popular frame rates for video is 24 FPS, 30 FPS, and 60 FPS. However, this changes depending on the desired effect you're looking to achieve.

The best frame rates for video:
1-16 FPS: This movie frame rate will look choppy, but it's ideal for recreating the look of the silent era movies
24 FPS: Footage will not look as smooth as higher frame rates, but this is the most cinematic look
30 FPS: Often used by live TV broadcasts and excellent for live sports
60 FPS: Ideal for people walking, candles being blown out, etc.
120 FPS: Ideal for slowing down things that move fast (people running, animals running, etc.)
240 FPS: Ideal for slowing down action (balloons exploding, water splashes, etc)
480 FPS: Perfect for fast moving objects, like skateboard tricks, skiing, surfing, etc.
960+ FPS: Hyper-slowed down motion. Think about the explosion sequences from The Hurt Locker

Cinema determined that films should be captured at 24 fps, and then displayed by double and triple shutter projectors at 48 fps or 72 fps.
This allowed the motion in the recordings to remain smooth and natural.

[Lee A Stewart]

There are many articles written on the subject of increased motion blur with 8K resolution. I like this one:

I saw a recording of a football match. When the players were standing still, or walking, it looked amazing: absolutely pin-sharp. And then they started moving, and suddenly looked like ghosts.

I'm told the recording was made at 60 fps. In HD, that's normally regarded as pretty good for motion. In 8K, this was nowhere near enough.

We were shown the same match but this time recorded at 120 fps. It was better but nowhere near perfect. The figures moving on the pitch would, I suspect, have looked sharper at HD resolution.

So, what was going on here?

It's a very simple effect. The smaller the pixels (or the more of them on the screen) the more susceptible the image will be to motion blur.

You don't have to delve too deeply into theoretical physics to understand why.

https://www.redsharknews.com/technol...me-motion-blur

In cinematic action shots, Routhier’s models on resolution and camera speed demonstrate frame rate technology has to be significantly improved to make 8K technology practical.

“The main factor here is motion. At classic frame rates like 24 frames per second (fps), the blur due to motion is too high to achieve detail due to the low frame rate,” said Routhier. “Increasing spatial resolution just means blur will be covered by more pixels – the image will not be clearer to the viewer. Our studies show below incredibly high frame rates – like 240 fps, which is 10 times the standard fps – most of the shots in a movie or a TV show will be blurry and not benefit much from 8K.”

https://innovate.ieee.org/innovation...al-resolution/

[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?