8K is available yet 4K hangs on like a disease that killed someone dear to you. Why?

[I KEEL YOU]

Why is 4K talked about so much when 8K technology is already available? Can't we skip this over and avoid the inevitable while we can? 8K broadcasts are already starting in Japan. The hilarious thing is that we keep talking about 4K like it's the future when in fact 8K is already the present.

4K only has 6.220.800 more pixels than HD.
8K has a whopping 29.454.336 more pixels than 4K!

So as you can see 8K is a way bigger upgrade over 4K than 4K is over HD. By adopting 8K and skipping this temporary 4K nonsense we would automatically future proof ALL motion pictures filmed EVER, from Lawrence of Arabia and 2001: A Space Odyssey to newer releases like The Master and various IMAX films. Not to mention the fact that we could also shut down the debate of whether various 35mm films such as super 35mm ones benefit more from a 6K scan than a 4K one, since 8K obviously covers 6K. I blame the uninformed masses who are obviously satisfied with inferior technology and are ready to be milked for profits by corporations who would of course rather have them gradually buy into several technological steps when we could have it all right now.





Adopt 8K now!
8K master race! 4K and 2K = simpleton peasants.

[rdodolak]

The BDA needs something to use for the next physical media after UHD of course.

And to think that the "simpleton peasants" are satisfied with DVD (0.4K).

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

The BDA needs something to use for the next physical media after UHD of course.

And to think that the "simpleton peasants" are satisfied with DVD (0.4K).

4K has 9.091.584 more pixels than DVD.
8K has a 29.454.336 more pixels than 4K.

8K over 4K is obviously a waaaaay bigger leap forward than 4K is over DVD. We're talking over 19 million pixels more here. That ain't no chump change. Yet for some mysterious reason there seems to be the least debate about what should be the most demanded upgrade by far. The 4K people have done an excellent job at brainwashing people into thinking that it's a major upgrade while convinently disregarding 8K.

[BluBonnet]

So what's going to come after 8k - 12k or 16k?

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

So what's going to come after 8k - 12k or 16k?

These are hypotheticals. The only thing I've read about 12k or 16k so far is when the image is spread over several 4K screens.

I'm only talking about current available technology, on one screen. And 8K exists in this form.

[Joce]

Ok sorry but unless you have a 100 inch tv at your home, a 8k Tv will be totally useless. These TVs will not be sold in the public market for years, and like you said a niche of movies have been shot in 70mm (8k). So it will be upscaled from 4k most of the time.

Japan=/= rest of the world.

Japan plans to democratize 8k for 2020. So don't expect this before 10 years in Europe or America.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/1279...tokyo-olympics

For the moment enjoy 1080p

[Derb]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

These are hypotheticals. The only thing I've read about 12k or 16k so far is when the image is spread over several 4K screens.

I'm only talking about current available technology, on one screen. And 8K exists in this form.

Indeed,

I posted this awhile ago.

Sharp is making them & 8K will broadcast in Japan sometime this winter.

[DRC72]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

So what's going to come after 8k - 12k or 16k?

More than likely i'll still be enjoying my 2k 1080p plasma tv when 100k comes out.

[steve1971]

Originally Posted by DRC72

More than likely i'll still be enjoying my 2k 1080p plasma tv when 100k comes out.

I agree with you DRC72. I will also be still enjoying my 1080p Sony 55W900A when 100K comes out. Hell I'm still enjoying it while you have 4K out there. 4K, 8K, 100K I dont care because I aint buying into it.

[Schfooge]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

So what's going to come after 8k - 12k or 16k?

I would guess 16k. Technological things tend to increase by doubling: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc.

As for where I stand in this debate, I can't even afford 4k at the moment, so I'll stick with 1080p HD for now and consider my options when my finances improve.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

The 4K people have done an excellent job at brainwashing people into thinking that it's a major upgrade while convinently disregarding 8K.

You don't know much about manufacturing or marketing, do you?

[Steve Smith]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

4K has 9.091.584 more pixels than DVD.
8K has a 29.454.336 more pixels than 4K.

8K over 4K is obviously a waaaaay bigger leap forward than 4K is over DVD. We're talking over 19 million pixels more here. That ain't no chump change. Yet for some mysterious reason there seems to be the least debate about what should be the most demanded upgrade by far. The 4K people have done an excellent job at brainwashing people into thinking that it's a major upgrade while convinently disregarding 8K.

Blah--Blah--Blah------

Do You have a 200 Inch TV Screen ?????

NO, I did NOT think So !!!!!!!!

8K is OVER KILL !!!!!!!!

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Steve Smith

Blah--Blah--Blah------

Do You have a 200 Inch TV Screen ?????

NO, I did NOT think So !!!!!!!!

8K is OVER KILL !!!!!!!!

Remember the first PC's, 1Mb of RAM and 20Mb HDD. They said we will never need more than that....It's OVER KILL! You can never say that about Technology, and I say we are headed for Fiber Networks to access all the Data Servers where 8K+ is Stored!

[mastadge]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Remember the first PC's, 1Mb of RAM and 20Mb HDD. They said we will never need more than that....It's OVER KILL! You can never say that about Technology, and I say we are headed for Fiber Networks to access all the Data Servers where 8K+ is Stored!

This is completely different. We can always find a use for more storage and for greater processing speed etc etc etc. But with resolution you're coming up against limits of what the human senses can detect. Sure, for archival purposes let's have immensely high-resolution scans made and saved. 99.999% of people who don't have an imax theater in their basement will not be able to see a difference between 4K and 8K on their home TVs. Like, I care more than your average consumer and even I find most differences between HD and UHD moderate at best on a 65" screen. Most people either can't tell or don't care the difference between DVD and BD, can't tell or don't care when motion interpolation is on, etc. For the home consumer there are massively diminishing returns the more we increase resolution.

[Steve Smith]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Remember the first PC's, 1Mb of RAM and 20Mb HDD. They said we will never need more than that....It's OVER KILL! You can never say that about Technology, and I say we are headed for Fiber Networks to access all the Data Servers where 8K+ is Stored!

Yes, you side stepped what I said.

You dont NEED 8K !!!!!!

to get a good 8K Picture, you need a HUGE-----TV Screen.

Is your Wall Big enough for a HUGE TV Screen.

What are YOU going to say when they come out with 12K Hmmmmm ???

[Naiera]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Why is 4K talked about so much when 8K technology is already available?

Nobody really needs UHD. Blu-ray with better bit depth, less compression, etc. would be more than enough.

Thus, ABSOLUTELY NO CONSUMER IN THE WORLD needs any sort of 8K.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Naiera

Nobody really needs UHD. Blu-ray with better bit depth, less compression, etc. would be more than enough.

Thus, ABSOLUTELY NO CONSUMER IN THE WORLD needs any sort of 8K.

At typical 55"-70" screen sizes, no. Tests have shown that even 4K can't be perceived in most footage by most viewers and that improved color gamut and HDR are far more perceivable by consumers. But if true wall-sized screens ever become popular like you see in futurist films - where the TV is not just used to watch broadcasts, but to make the walls invisible and create atmospheres, then you sort of do need 8K. In fact, you would need it more than a movie theatre would need it because viewing distances are so much closer in the home. You would also need it for 4K 3D, although I've heard rumblings that 3D is not part of the UHD spec.

Remember that in the still photography world, Nikon's D810 is 36.3 MP (7360 x 3912), Sony's A7RII is 42MP and Canon's 5DSR is 50.6MP (8688 x 5792). So we're already at 8K in still photography for images that are generally displayed at much smaller sizes than TV/Movies, except when blown up to billboard size. In another five years, they'll probably be 100MP.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

At typical 55"-70" screen sizes, no. Tests have shown that even 4K can't be perceived in most footage by most viewers and that improved color gamut and HDR are far more perceivable by consumers.

Which behooves making the point that despite all the hoopla in the blogger press about modern digital cameras having 14 or more f-stops of dynamic range and capable of capturing a wider color gamut than P3, I can not overemphasize the relatively unknown (by Tech writers) significance as to the value of shooting in RAW and from there….

going thru a high quality workflow (i.e. openEXR with 16bit float) and ending in a 16bit master….rather than the imagery being truncated down to a lesser quality file format which is commonly done in many productions, i.e. they don’t harvest all the possible range of the camera recording because it is then squished down by the post house (often to a 10-bit DPX type file) in order to become more bandwidth friendly.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Which behooves making the point that despite all the hoopla in the blogger press about modern digital cameras having 14 or more f-stops of dynamic range and capable of capturing a wider color gamut than P3, I can not overemphasize the relatively unknown (by Tech writers) significance as to the value of shooting in RAW and from there….

going thru a high quality workflow (i.e. openEXR with 16bit float) and ending in a 16bit master….rather than the imagery being truncated down to a lesser quality file format which is commonly done in many productions, i.e. they don’t harvest all the possible range of the camera recording because it is then squished down by the post house (often to a 10-bit DPX type file) in order to become more bandwidth friendly.

And the same best practices *16bit* concept applies not only to digital acquisition, DI workflow and finishing (masters) but also to the scanning of modern motion pictures which are still shot on film (Kodak Vision3 stock).

In other words, as I mentioned to fellow Blu-ray.com member singhr almost a year ago now (in a post reassuring him that the BT.2020 color primaries would be included in the Ultra HD Blu-ray spec), 4K 16bit scans are necessary to capture all the color fidelity and dynamic range of modern motion pictures that are shot on film. Is this being done by every producer? No. For example, even for some blockbusters (e.g. Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation), the Vision3 was scanned to 10bit DPX.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And the same best practices *16bit* concept applies not only to digital acquisition, DI workflow and finishing (masters) but also to the scanning of modern motion pictures which are still shot on film (Kodak Vision3 stock).

In other words, as I mentioned to fellow Blu-ray.com member singhr almost a year ago now (in a post reassuring him that the BT.2020 color primaries would be included in the Ultra HD Blu-ray spec), 4K 16bit scans are necessary to capture all the color fidelity and dynamic range of modern motion pictures that are shot on film. Is this being done by every producer? No. For example, even for some blockbusters (e.g. Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation), the Vision3 was scanned to 10bit DPX.

The IMAX DCP seemed particularly horrible. Certain shots literally looked like a pixelated Youtube clip. I attributed it to IMAX overcompensating with the sharpness, but if they're just using the same pre-set DNR settings as they do with everything (which they said as much in one of their videos), is it possible that the particularly "overcooked" movies are just a by-product of IMAX getting a 10 bit DPX?

What site can I use to check and see if a particular movie is 10 or 16 bit?