8K discussion thread

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Cadillac's 2021 Escalade to sport a 38-inch curved OLED display

Cadillac announced that the 2021 full-size luxury SUV Escalade will adopt a 38-inch curved OLED display. Cadillac says this OLED will enables bold imagery, perfect blacks and the largest color range available in the automotive industry.

The 38" OLED will sport "twice the number of pixels of a 4K TV". As it seems to be a very wide format, it could be a resolution of 8192 x 2160 or something like that. As this is the first time a 38" OLED is discussed, we do not know who is developing this display. A large number of companies are developing and producing automotive OLED displays - to learn more about this exciting new OLED market, click here.

https://www.oled-info.com/cadillacs-...d-oled-display

What’s the chance of burn in for this configuration?
Or won’t it matter? Same static displays all the time?

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by gkolb

What’s the chance of burn in for this configuration?
Or won’t it matter? Same static displays all the time?

A car display generally isn't all that bright for one thing. They could also employ a Screen Shift feature which, moves the screen slightly at regular intervals to preserve image quality and to prevent that.

[Geoff D]

So is it replacing the dials on the dash or what? I'm confoosed. If it's for the dials and doohickies they'd better put a screen shift feature on there, lest the wrong speed be burned into the speedo

[RalphoR]

Hey, GM....no atmos and DV...no buy

[JohnAV]

Given I seen even a law firm soliciting clients lately for Samsung's contrast modulation issue, that in 2020 you'll see Samsung correct that issue of 8k TV's at CES.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

A car display generally isn't all that bright for one thing. They could also employ a Screen Shift feature which, moves the screen slightly at regular intervals to preserve image quality and to prevent that.

Looks like a less cool Astra GTE

[JohnAV]

When will we actually see 8K content - Digital Trends live 12-19-19

https://rumble.com/embed/v5z26d/

[gkolb]

So Kay got banned, again? #noChristmasMiracles

[Blu-rayNut51]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

When will we actually see 8K content - Digital Trends live 12-19-19

https://rumble.com/embed/v5z26d/

Today even when Hollywood feature movies actually happen to be shot with 4k cameras, most of them still get downgraded to 2k for the post-production workflow, meaning that most so-called UHD 4k Blu-ray discs made from such 2k digital intermediates, are NOT genuine 4k discs, but are just the product of upconverting 2k intermediates.

Then, on top of that, world renowned film restoration expert Robert A Harris, who has restored such large format films as Lawrence of Arabia and My Fair Lady, to the point where they look like movies shot yesterday, has directly stated that 4k resolution for giant commercial theater screens provides such high quality, that Hollywood would be wasting its money and time producing 8k movies, because few, if any, moviegoers would see a difference, unless sitting so close to the screen, that the width of the picture would extend well beyond a person's field of view, so that such a person would have to constantly move his head or eyes, back and forth, from side to side, to take in the entire image. That's certainly no way that a person would feel comfortable watching an action movie, where people and objects quickly cross the screen.

Additionally, back when Sony was introducing its 4k SXRD commercial theater projectors to movie exhibitors, the company's promotional literature pointed out some very interesting, practical facts about resolution. Sony pointed out that most modern stadium seating movie theaters are designed so that the last row of seats is at a 3 screen height distance from a theater's screen. And the company was honest enough to mention that people having 20/20 vision, or whose eyes are corrected to 20/20 via lenses, cannot distinguish a difference between native 2k projection and native 4k projection material if sitting in the last row of the theater. And for most people, in order for them to notice a major difference between 2k resolution and 4k resolution in a commercial movie theater, such viewers must sit in the front half of the theater, and even be substantially closer than half way back if they want to see the finest details that native 4k resolution can provide. And of course, if Hollywood ever put out 8k movies, and theater owners would go to the expense of installing 8k projectors, people would have to sit even MUCH CLOSER than with 4k to theater screens to see any finer detail than with 4k. And as indicated earlier, very, very few people would be willing to sit so uncomfortably close to a movie screen. In the case of almost any couple, one of it's members would be extremely uncomfortable sitting close enough to a movie theater's screen to see any 8k advantage.

That's just like observing customers in a video store expressing amazement at seeing a genuine native 4k video clip on an 85 inch flat panel as they stand just 5 to 5 and a half feet in front of it, and it still looks so sharp without people seeing its pixel structure. But VIRTUALLY NOBODY will be comfortable having himself & his guests watching an entire movie on his new 85" 4k TV while they sit on a couch that places their eyes just 5 to 6 feet from that big of a screen.

So, summing up, why would Hollywood want to go to the great expense of shooting and finishing movies in 8k, when the typical person sitting in a movie theater seat, would barely notice a difference between a quality presentation of a movie in 2k compared to that same movie presented in 4k? And as mentioned before, people with 20/20 vision can see no difference between native 2k and native 4k resolutions, if sitting at the back of a theater. My wife always insists we sit in the last row of the theater when we attend movies, because she hates hearing people talking behind us. And with me having good distance vision that statistic that folks with 20/20 can't tell the difference between 2k and 4k in the back row, actually does explain why none of the movies presented with 4k projectors have struck me as being any sharper or more detailed, than viewing excellent 1080p BDs such as Skyfall, Avengers Infinity Wars or Planet Earth II.
Because of course, 1080p Blu-ray's resolution of 1920X1080 pixels is only a bit less than commercial 2k's resolution which is 2048X1080 pixels.
(Actually, 1080p Blu-ray has 93.75% of the resolution of commercial 2k)

I guess, if it's important for me to appreciate 4k in a movie theater, with that RARE Hollywood movie that was actually finished in native 4k, I'll just have to leave the Mrs back in the theater's last row, & get much closer to the screen.

Anyway, we can forget about Hollywood wanting to waste money shooting and finishing movies in native 8k, plus theaters having the 8k projectors to present them, anytime in the next 10 years. And if it should even happen at that time, it's still a stupid idea, since a tiny few moviegoers would derive any benefit from 8k, compared to the 4k experience. So the studios doing 8k movies would be them spending huge sums of money to achieve almost ZERO improvement.

[Blu-rayNut51]

Someone sent me an email notification regarding my #1309 post, that provided me no link for responding, so I'll answer it here. The complaint about my post seemed to indicate that the 20/20 vision standard greatly underestimates what people can actually perceive. But there's a huge problem with folks, like my critic, putting forward the notion of how people can perceive amazingly small differences when comparing some extremely tiny stationary lines. Because we, as consumers, or even as Home Theater enthusiasts, don't acquire video equipment so that we can study stationary pictures, but rather, we use such equipment to view MOTION pictures, so these line comparison studies are not real world situations, and signify little. I also know that about 3 months ago, a video editor at Sound & Vision magazine wrote that he'd personally seen that on his 11 ft wide projection screen displaying 8k resolution on that screen offers no visual advantage over displaying 4k resolution. And he concluded his remarks by saying that, in his view, the reason we are seeing 8k being promoted, has much more to do with marketing considerations, than with anything else. Also since renowned film restoration expert Robert A Harris, who knows more about motion pictures (not stationary ones) than just about anyone, has said 8k is overkill for even large movie theater screens, I'll defer to his knowledge & experience. But, sadly, many people will always be impressed by ever larger numbers, and would be first in line to lay down some big bucks for 64k, if anyone develops such an absurdity. And BTW, higher orders of resolution are among the very easiest performance factors to increase in designing video displays. That's why I recently saw both Sam's Club, as well as BJ's Wholesale Club, featuring sales on Samsung 75" UHD 4k TVs for $749.99. That's a LOWER price than I can recall seeing a Samsung 1080p TV of that size, selling for in the recent past, when 1080p TVs that large were still sold. I don't even recall seeing Vizio 1080p TVs with screens that large, selling for as low as $750. And I keep close track of the marketing and pricing of large flat panels. Obviously, raising the resolution of flat panel TVs doesn't really increase the cost to manufacturers, substantially, so a guy who wants to be the first on his block to own an 8k TV, will probably get seriously ripped off if he feels that he just must have one now. (And if he loves movies, he's probably unaware that Hollywood still completes most of its movies with 2k intermediates, and studio executives have NO plans to even consider shooting feature length movies in 8k, anytime in the foreseeable future.)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

Someone sent me an email notification regarding my #1309 post, that provided me no link for responding....

Records show that post was made by JohnAV who was quoting and using as a reference (equal to yours, arguably superior) the 14 year as pro calibrator Jeff M. As an aside, back in the day, Jeff graciously calibrated a couple of my TVs and audio systems in one of the places we keep in SoCal and stayed over for a fine meal (my wife’s cooking) to boot. He’ll be retiring by the end of this month, but will be doing a YouTube channel to dispense knowledge based on his years of experience calibrating video (motion pictures)….also, eventually he’s planning to produce an Atmos test Blu-ray from what I’ve heard.

Regardless, to learn something indisputable and non-speculative about them peepers and TVs/monitors that display motion, see the eyes hyperlink from this post (#16647271) - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...g#post17186270

P.S.
I don't blame John for pulling the post which I assume was to avoid engaging in an endless back-and-forth debate over what has already been discussed on prior pages of this and other threads.

[JohnAV]

As you said I reread some prior posts and felt it was just not worth battling someone that has never compared photographic resolution improvements between say a 35mm film camera (roughly native 4K) and a profession landscape 4x5 film camera that the professionals used to produce those gorgeous calendars that has 16 times the resolution. So I deleted the previous reply.

It’s like no one thinks in what’s best quality, only judging the merely adequate imaging in cinemas as examples of content resolution.

[sapiendut]

And people only think about resolution

Repeat after me. 4K also involves colour space, compression and HDR. Even 2K DI have better colour space, compression (or lack thereof), and dynamic range than regular bluray.

[Lee A Stewart]

I am confused concerning this "opinion" that 8K for movies is a waste. How do you explain those movies shot in 65mm and shown in 70mm? Or the thrill of IMAX 15/70 (which unfortunately became too expense to continue)?

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I am confused concerning this "opinion" that 8K for movies is a waste. How do you explain those movies shot in 65mm and shown in 70mm? Or the thrill of IMAX 15/70 (which unfortunately became too expense to continue)?

The majority of film's ever made don't have 8K worth of information on the negative.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

The majority of film's ever made don't have 8K worth of information on the negative.

Agreed. But at one time during the 1960s "Golden Age Of Cinema" it was very important to show movies in 70mm. It became "an event" which people flocked to see. This birthed the 70mm blowup craze (shoot on 35mm - shown on 70mm) which lasted for decades.

And at the time, we are talking about 2000, 3000 and even 5000 seat theaters versus today's "large" theaters that have less than 1000 seats.

IMO, all I hear is a bunch of whining from the theaters, many who recently made the upgrade to 2K Digital Cinema, not wanting to go to 4K let alone 8K.

Yes - the tail is waging the dog. This happened when the TV OEMs released 4K TVs earlier than they wanted to due to the failure of 3DTV.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I am confused concerning this "opinion" that 8K for movies is a waste. How do you explain those movies shot in 65mm and shown in 70mm? Or the thrill of IMAX 15/70 (which unfortunately became too expense to continue)?

Considering that the VAST majority of movies shot on film were at 35 or below then 8K is a waste for such shows. For stuff shot on 8/35 or the 65 variants then yes, 8K would start to see returns above 4K but we're talking about, what, a few hundred films and documentaries out of the tens of thousands of movies ever made so no, it's not "confusing" at all if you look at the comments in context.

Puzzled by your comments about 15/70 too, as next year will see WW84, Bond 25 and Nolan's Tenet which have all used 15-perf IMAX for select scenes.

[Blu-rayNut51]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I am confused concerning this "opinion" that 8K for movies is a waste. How do you explain those movies shot in 65mm and shown in 70mm? Or the thrill of IMAX 15/70 (which unfortunately became too expense to continue)?

Lee, I'm very glad that you brought up large format films. Lawrence of Arabia, which was shot in Super Panavision 70, is generally regarded as one of the very finest looking feature films ever made. And world renowned film restoration expert, Robert A Harris, knows more about "Lawrence" than anyone else does since he personally restored it and has seen it projected many times on various types and sizes of commercial movie screens. But though Mr Harris did the meticulous job of physically restoring that film back in 1988-89, he did not take part in Sony's digital mastering of "Lawrence" in 2012. That process involved scanning each frame of the original camera negative at 8k, before down converting the resulting data to create 4k digital files suitable for presenting the film via 4k digital movie projectors in commercial theaters. Plus, the 4k files served as the basis for the absolutely superb 1080p Blu-ray of "Lawrence" which was put on the market in late 2012.

But here's the thing folks, after seeing Lawrence of Arabia presented in its 4k digital form at different commercial theater venues, Mr Harris who is as familiar as any person alive, in how terrific that "Lawrence" can look, wrote on Home Theater Forum's site that the 4k digitally projected version of "Lawrence" does an "essentially perfect" job of recreating how the movie looks when shown as a large format film. However, it must be pointed out that when an audience views any filmed movie being shown by a film projector, even a new "virgin" film print, as pristine as it may seem, possesses a little less resolution & detail than its camera negative does. Because even the finest print of a film, is at least one generation away from that negative, and film prints shown in most theaters are further removed from the negative, than that.

Just 1 last thing I wanted to note, is that if memory serves, it was in the same article where Mr Harris raved about the visual quality of 4k digital presentations of Lawrence of Arabia, where he also stated his position, that in his opinion, the presentations of true native 4k movies via commercial 4k movie projectors, can be of such high quality that they provide all of the visual detail that is useful for audiences in commercial movie theater settings. But if Robert Harris did not make that statement in his article which discussed the 4k version of LOA, he definitely stated that position in another of his Home Theater Forum columns.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Considering that the VAST majority of movies shot on film were at 35 or below then 8K is a waste for such shows. For stuff shot on 8/35 or the 65 variants then yes, 8K would start to see returns above 4K but we're talking about, what, a few hundred films and documentaries out of the tens of thousands of movies ever made so no, it's not "confusing" at all if you look at the comments in context.

Puzzled by your comments about 15/70 too, as next year will see WW84, Bond 25 and Nolan's Tenet which have all used 15-perf IMAX for select scenes.

Which IMAX theaters still show 15/70 prints? The cost of a single print is $93,000! For those IMAX theaters which showed 3D, that would be two prints. This was the reason for IMAX going to twin digital projectors and abandoning 15/70 prints.

It is one thing to shoot in 15/70 and a whole different cost in projecting 15/70.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Considering that the VAST majority of movies shot on film were at 35 or below then 8K is a waste for such shows. For stuff shot on 8/35 or the 65 variants then yes, 8K would start to see returns above 4K but we're talking about, what, a few hundred films and documentaries out of the tens of thousands of movies ever made so no, it's not "confusing" at all if you look at the comments in context.

Totally agree , but you see common sense will impede the discussion and sustainability of this thread.
Anyway as a nuanced factoid, back in 2018, Lowry Digital got a shoutout (“this was the most encouraging”) at the Academy’s Linwood Dunn Theater in Hollywood - https://www.etcentric.org/the-reel-t...scans-of-film/

Of course, keep in mind Lowry Digital is a part of Prime Focus and they don’t frown on sharpening.