8K discussion thread

[Lee A Stewart]

World's first true QLED display with 8K resolution unveiled

China's BOE has showcased the world's first true QLED display with 8K resolution. The 55-inch display can be produced using inkjet printing.

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.ph...&id=1652964554

[Lee A Stewart]

BOE is reportedly planning to commercialize a 95" 8K OLED TV panel

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.ph...&id=1653990614

[puddy77]

https://www.twitter.com/FilmLight/st...85444326477824

'Das Boot' season 3 is the first TV series to be mastered to 8K HDR. The storyline is split into two narratives, one based on land around the French Resistance, the other set around a German U-boat. - Graded on Baselight by Ondrej Stibingr at UPP postproduction - #filmlight

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by puddy77

https://www.twitter.com/FilmLight/st...85444326477824

It has begun. 8K finishes for streaming/TV were always likely, it's a different world than finishing out for movies: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...m#post14594118

[LordoftheRings]

■ https://petapixel.com/2022/06/07/the...-ever-created/

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

■ https://petapixel.com/2022/06/07/the...-ever-created/

Is this where glasses free 3-D is headed? (But this costs an arm and 2 legs, I suppose.)

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by gkolb

Is this where glasses free 3-D is headed? (But this costs an arm and 2 legs, I suppose.)

No, it's Holography, a different vision. Glasses-free yes, multiple cameras (light technology) yes. The price I have no clue. If people are willing to pay, they'll develop it. It is developing right now; slowly and adventurously.

* With today's higher nits who knows when 3D will be back again, without 3D glasses and in 4K-8K. It always is...coming back, like in time and in phases.
And one day 8K TVs and projectors will replace 4K, it is inevitable, it's just a question of when.

Armageddon intro (High Definition) - YouTube

It's nice to see you gkolb.

[Buck Turgidson]

if 35 mm is equivalent to about 5.6k and 70mm to 12k is it a safe bet that the studios are gonna release new restorations in the future as display resolutions go up, to milk collectors once again? Or are we pretty much getting the best version of 35 mm films with 4k right now and the only thing we might get is new versions of 70mm films down the line?

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Buck Turgidson

if 35 mm is equivalent to about 5.6k and 70mm to 12k is it a safe bet that the studios are gonna release new restorations in the future as display resolutions go up, to milk collectors once again? Or are we pretty much getting the best version of 35 mm films with 4k right now and the only thing we might get is new versions of 70mm films down the line?

It depends; of who's buying in an inflated world.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Buck Turgidson

if 35 mm is equivalent to about 5.6k and 70mm to 12k is it a safe bet that the studios are gonna release new restorations in the future as display resolutions go up, to milk collectors once again? Or are we pretty much getting the best version of 35 mm films with 4k right now and the only thing we might get is new versions of 70mm films down the line?

Neither is equivalent to those resolutions

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Neither is equivalent to those resolutions

So the interwebs is lying to me or over simplifying things. Does the resolution vary and depend on what kind of film was used i.e film speed/grain size? I'm all ears just try to explain it to me like im 5 years old lol

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Buck Turgidson

So the interwebs is lying to me or over simplifying things. Does the resolution vary and depend on what kind of film was used i.e film speed/grain size? I'm all ears just try to explain it to me like im 5 years old lol

No, you got it spot on, and it’s not just the film stock but also the lenses, the lighting, stuff like that. Shooting a locked-off test pattern under lab conditions with the best glass and slowest stock will net you 4K on full 4-perf 35mm film or 8K on 65mm, sure, but for real world shooting those kinds of numbers don’t apply, especially because temporal resolution also takes a massive dive whenever things move @ 24fps.

Not that there isn’t a benefit to going 4K for 35mm but we’re talking small increases in detail vs a 2K transfer. And the thing about 8K for 65mm or 6K for 8-perf VistaVision is that most such movies are very old and the film stock of the day wasn’t as well resolved as modern stocks, I’ve been quite disappointed with most of the ‘large format’ epics I’ve seen on UHD thus far. They don’t look ‘bad’, they just don’t have the kind of insane detail we’re led to expect. Best 65mm movie I’ve seen on UHD is My Fair Lady.

So no, I don’t think that 8K will be anything more than a curio for legacy film content because of these diminishing returns. It’ll still happen when they get really desperate to sell them to us again (albeit on digital, not 8K disc) and some 8K masters have already been done for Japanese TV of 2001 and MFL, but I won’t be bashing down the doors to access such content when I get an 8K TV.

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No, you got it spot on, and it’s not just the film stock but also the lenses, the lighting, stuff like that. Shooting a locked-off test pattern under lab conditions with the best glass and slowest stock will net you 4K on full 4-perf 35mm film or 8K on 65mm, sure, but for real world shooting those kinds of numbers don’t apply, especially because temporal resolution also takes a massive dive whenever things move @ 24fps.

Not that there isn’t a benefit to going 4K for 35mm but we’re talking small increases in detail vs a 2K transfer. And the thing about 8K for 65mm or 6K for 8-perf VistaVision is that most such movies are very old and the film stock of the day wasn’t as well resolved as modern stocks, I’ve been quite disappointed with most of the ‘large format’ epics I’ve seen on UHD thus far. They don’t look ‘bad’, they just don’t have the kind of insane detail we’re led to expect. Best 65mm movie I’ve seen on UHD is My Fair Lady.

So no, I don’t think that 8K will be anything more than a curio for legacy film content because of these diminishing returns. It’ll still happen when they get really desperate to sell them to us again (albeit on digital, not 8K disc) and some 8K masters have already been done for Japanese TV of 2001 and MFL, but I won’t be bashing down the doors to access such content when I get an 8K TV.

Cmon Geoff, I wouldn’t turn those 2 down for $30 or $40 ea, would you? Or a good handful of others (10 or 15 tops probs). If you could get them on a memory stick or card.

Of course none of this happens unless they’re released individually on 4K UHDBD first. Someday.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by gkolb

Cmon Geoff, I wouldn’t turn those 2 down for $30 or $40 ea, would you? Or a good handful of others (10 or 15 tops probs). If you could get them on a memory stick or card.

Of course none of this happens unless they’re released individually on 4K UHDBD first. Someday.

I’d always have a look see, but as I said: those diminishing returns are rushing up fast.

[Buck Turgidson]

Thx Geoff !

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Buck Turgidson

if 35 mm is equivalent to about 5.6k and 70mm to 12k is it a safe bet that the studios are gonna release new restorations in the future as display resolutions go up, to milk collectors once again? Or are we pretty much getting the best version of 35 mm films with 4k right now and the only thing we might get is new versions of 70mm films down the line?

depends. I am sure we have all seen badly re-released titles that where just there to make a quick buck.

But IMHO there are two things that make a new higher res copy better

1) even if the resolution was not there originally (let's say something recorded on an digital camera which could only record at an older resolution) you can still benefit by having a professional device upscale it and then have a person correct upscaling artifacts. so you can always get a "better" version

2) people think of resolution as a simple number (1080p,4k,8k) in reality it is not. it is the info that makes up the picture and so it affects everything.

---a) let's say the source is 4k 4:4:4 if it is distributed as 4k 4:2:0 the chroma subsampling is a 1/4 the resolution. if it gets distributed as 8k 4:2:0 the chroma is now the same as the 4k original

---b) what we get at home is way over compressed and you end up with compression artifacts

[Show spoiler](the simplest explanation of compression artifact is when one or more pixels are saved as the wrong color for the benefit of taking less space-because compression works two ways 1) say a block is all the same colour and so no need to have the colour value for all pixels in the block--- so if most of the pixels are blue we can pretend the red ones are blue too so that we don't need to have the colour for all of them, 2) give only the new colours for the pixels that changed from before-so if we pretend the pixel that was blue stayed blue instead of going red we save that info.)

. now how much compression artifacts there are depends on how much over compressed it is. But if it is 4k those compression artifacts will be bigger and if it gets upscaled on your Tv to 8k you wuill have upscaling artifacts added to the 4k compression artifacts. If it becomes 8k from the master then you end up with much smaller and less objectionable compression artifacts at home (all else being equal).

But in the end it all becomes a personal choice. There is nothing forcing the person that bought a title on DVD if they find it good enough to re-buy on BD, UHD BD or what ever comes next (I used disk as an example because it is simpler and shorter).

[nick4Knight]

This, still, for the 428th time does not mean that the INDUSTRY, related TV and movies production houses and studios will widely accept and so fill the content box required to get even a mainsteam streaming thing going... I think it will be digital downloads only in future for 8K scripted content. And the special events, documentaries and sports might be on 8K TV's delivered as VOD in apps.

And as to the point being made about chroma res? There's no incentive to go 8K even for the supposed reducing of upscaling artifacting and allowing 4 times chroma resolution. Better would be to deliver 4K 4:4:4 with less compressed video on the next compression standard. For instance there are already thousands of 4K masters already sitting there to output at whatever that would be agreed upon. The minimum/ideal bitrate to avoid any issues, and such...

Than to expect studios to re-scan filmed content AGAIN and to re-grade them again to just send 8K 4:2:0 and claim some technical advantage over 4K UHD disc specs of today?

Just move on to 4K being BETTER spec than it is now. In future

[unberechenbar]

Could DCPs be 8K at least?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

depends. I am sure we have all seen badly re-released titles that where just there to make a quick buck.

But IMHO there are two things that make a new higher res copy better

1) even if the resolution was not there originally (let's say something recorded on an digital camera which could only record at an older resolution) you can still benefit by having a professional device upscale it and then have a person correct upscaling artifacts. so you can always get a "better" version

2) people think of resolution as a simple number (1080p,4k,8k) in reality it is not. it is the info that makes up the picture and so it affects everything.

---a) let's say the source is 4k 4:4:4 if it is distributed as 4k 4:2:0 the chroma subsampling is a 1/4 the resolution. if it gets distributed as 8k 4:2:0 the chroma is now the same as the 4k original

---b) what we get at home is way over compressed and you end up with compression artifacts

[Show spoiler](the simplest explanation of compression artifact is when one or more pixels are saved as the wrong color for the benefit of taking less space-because compression works two ways 1) say a block is all the same colour and so no need to have the colour value for all pixels in the block--- so if most of the pixels are blue we can pretend the red ones are blue too so that we don't need to have the colour for all of them, 2) give only the new colours for the pixels that changed from before-so if we pretend the pixel that was blue stayed blue instead of going red we save that info.)

. now how much compression artifacts there are depends on how much over compressed it is. But if it is 4k those compression artifacts will be bigger and if it gets upscaled on your Tv to 8k you wuill have upscaling artifacts added to the 4k compression artifacts. If it becomes 8k from the master then you end up with much smaller and less objectionable compression artifacts at home (all else being equal).

But in the end it all becomes a personal choice. There is nothing forcing the person that bought a title on DVD if they find it good enough to re-buy on BD, UHD BD or what ever comes next (I used disk as an example because it is simpler and shorter).

I’d be the first person to list 4x chroma resolution as one of 4K’s advantages, but it’s one of those things that only the nerdiest nerds would notice. Thankfully 4K brought with it other advantages over 1080p like wide colour gamut, HDR, higher resolution (on paper) and betterer compression (again, on paper) and when combined with dat 4x chroma rez then it can all make a huge difference vs the older format.

But as a theoretical 8K home video version of whatever movie would have the same HDR, the same colour, very few titles that actually have >4K resolution and no guarantee of improved compression - unfortunately it’s a dying art, and a new codec won’t change that as 8K will be massively compressed - then rebuying just for 4x chroma is one of the hardest sells you’re ever gonna get on home video.

And I don’t buy the upscaling argument either from the perspective of “upscaling artefacts” being magnified. Sounds like the fear that people had 10 years ago that 1080p would suddenly look like trash on a 4K TV when in reality it’s such a simple upscale (2x along each axis) it’s harder to get it wrong than to get it right. As such the process is essentially transparent, so whatever “artefacts” I see on a 1080p disc are inherent to that source and are not created by the upscaling itself. Exact same situation applies for 4K on an 8K TV, and as you’re starting with an even better source than with 1080p into 4K then the eye is more readily fooled into thinking it looks great as it is, as proven by the 4K/8K blind testing that Warners did recently.

Diminishing returns all round.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I’d be the first person to list 4x chroma resolution as one of 4K’s advantages, but it’s one of those things that only the nerdiest nerds would notice. Thankfully 4K brought with it other advantages over 1080p like wide colour gamut, HDR, higher resolution (on paper) and betterer compression (again, on paper) and when combined with dat 4x chroma rez then it can all make a huge difference vs the older format.

But as a theoretical 8K home video version of whatever movie would have the same HDR, the same colour, very few titles that actually have >4K resolution and no guarantee of improved compression - unfortunately it’s a dying art, and a new codec won’t change that as 8K will be massively compressed - then rebuying just for 4x chroma is one of the hardest sells you’re ever gonna get on home video.

And I don’t buy the upscaling argument either from the perspective of “upscaling artefacts” being magnified. Sounds like the fear that people had 10 years ago that 1080p would suddenly look like trash on a 4K TV when in reality it’s such a simple upscale (2x along each axis) it’s harder to get it wrong than to get it right. As such the process is essentially transparent, so whatever “artefacts” I see on a 1080p disc are inherent to that source and are not created by the upscaling itself. Exact same situation applies for 4K on an 8K TV, and as you’re starting with an even better source than with 1080p into 4K then the eye is more readily fooled into thinking it looks great as it is, as proven by the 4K/8K blind testing that Warners did recently.

Diminishing returns all round.

I agree with what you said. But
1) I am the nerdiest of nerds and proud of it.

2) I did not go in the resolution of film , you covered that well enough, and yes the question was about film and 4k vs8k but I h focused more o just generally answering "are we pretty much getting the best version". Do I agree with you in diminishing returns? absolutely for some VHS was good enough and others digital SD, DVD, digital HD, BD, digital 4k, UHD BD is good enough. I was answering is it the best version (i.e. no more returns by going higher res) he and everyone else can make up their own mind (and possibly on an individual title basis) when they want to get off the merry-go-round.

3) yes upscaling HD->4k and 4k->8k is easier then SD->HD and yes some just take the one pixel and replicate it 4 times but if your compression made a pixel green that should not have been green and you quadruple it you know end up with 4 pixels that are green that might not have been green. and let's face it with such a dumb scalar you are really looking at a 4k picture and not 8k even if your display is 8k

4)I am sorry if my post came off as insinuating that upscaling will make it trash. That was no where near my intent. A dumb upscaler will just make that one pixel into 4 identical pixels a smart one will try and predict what those 4 pixels should be based on the one source pixel that covers them and adjoining pixels but it will still only affect at most some of those 4 8k pixels.