Forget 4K, Now 8K is Coming

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I think you could be right.

Just an opinion, but heck, who am I to talk . His city (the big Apple) fares better than L.A.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...#slide=1221525

[Jack9909090]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

ridiculous.... they're reaching for levels that the average consumer doesn't care about and will never pay big bucks for....

I don't see the point. 4k might be good for tablets. At least you're close enough to see the difference. Most people don't have their noses stuck to the screen. But even then i think its overkill. Most movies were never filmed in 4k. It is like buying an old TV show on Blu-Ray. You're just getting an upconverted copy. Also Format wars just ended 5 years ago. It seems stupid to force another media format on the market. Hell there is a lot of movies that never made it to DVD, Alone Blu-Ray. And Frankly I don't think anyone other than videophile cares. I think the proof of that is the Market Share for Blu-Ray is still small compared to DVD. I have not seen it stay above 35% for long. If everybody was a Videophile. Blu-Ray would have already taken over DVD. Frankly I am not going rush out a buy and new TV, new player, and new disc. Because they will release 30k in a year. and the cycle starts all over again. Its too much of a pain in the ass. Besides if quality was the only thing people cared about. Then CD's should be selling like hot cakes and Mp3 players would be failed product. And Netflix and Hulu would be dead in the water.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Jack9909090

I don't see the point. 4k might be good for tablets. At least you're close enough to see the difference. Most people don't have their noses stuck to the screen. But even then i think its overkill. Most movies were never filmed in 4k. It is like buying an old TV show on Blu-Ray. You're just getting an upconverted copy. Also Format wars just ended 5 years ago. It seems stupid to force another media format on the market. Hell there is a lot of movies that made it to DVD, Alone Blu-Ray. And Frankly I don't think anyone other than videophile cares. I think the proof of that is the Market Share for Blu-Ray is still small compared to DVD. I have not seen it stay above 35% for long. If everybody was a Videophile. Blu-Ray would have already taken over DVD. Frankly I am not going rush out a buy and new TV, new player, and new disc. Because they will release 30k in a year. and the cycle starts all over again. Its too much of a pain in the ass. Besides if quality was the only people cared about. Then CD's should be selling like hot cakes and Mp3 players would be failed product. And Netflix and Hulu would be dead in the water.

It's for collectors. Those that appreciate the quality. Who cares about the sheep?

[swaseem]

I bet 16k isn't looming too far behind either LOL

The more sophisticated the disc gets the more applications it'll have to offer beyond home entertainment. The applications seem much better suited to astronomy or microbiology or something that requires enchancing acute detail for research.

[MaxxFordham]

Originally Posted by singhcr

So if 70mm negatives top out at about 8k, IMAX would be roughly 24k.

No. Still 8K. You're getting the number of what would be compared with vertical electronic lines mixed up with total resolution. IMAX film is 70mm wide too. It's just taller than standard 70mm. 4K and 8K picture sizes are the number of *vertical* lines, not horizontal ones like 1080 (almost 2K) and 720 (just over 1K) and 480. I don't know why the industry changed from noting the number of horizontal lines to the number of vertical ones instead, but since 70mm is 70mm no matter how tall it is, then it's the same 8K either way. However, of course the total resolution (if you can translate analog film grains into an average electronic resolution) in megapixels would be way different.

Along the way, film that's projected isn't negative; it's positive (a print).

[albey000]

Originally Posted by Jack9909090

Most movies were never filmed in 4k.

TRUE - but the resolution was still similar.
Most movies were filmed in 35mm, which is the equivalent or slightly better than 4K. In fact some were filmed in much higher quality formats than 4K.
The sound of music was filmed in 70mm, which is the equivalent of 8K. And that was done in 1965 !!!

[punkguy03]

8k Jeez, good luck getting this to take off.

[Tok]

4K is going to be a nonstarter. The only way you'll get content now is streaming which means 4K in-name only.

No native broadcasts. 4k/UHD is just a gimmick to sell TVs.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by albey000

TRUE - but the resolution was still similar.
Most movies were filmed in 35mm, which is the equivalent or slightly better than 4K. In fact some were filmed in much higher quality formats than 4K.
The sound of music was filmed in 70mm, which is the equivalent of 8K. And that was done in 1965 !!!

But on screen sizes under 100 inches at typical viewing distances it will be very hard for most to tell the difference between 2K(HD) and 4K(UHD).

4K and above have their place... at commercial theaters.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Tok

But on screen sizes under 100 inches at typical viewing distances it will be very hard for most to tell the difference between 2K(HD) and 4K(UHD).

4K and above have their place... at commercial theaters.

Nope they have a place in my home.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by MaxxFordham

No. Still 8K. You're getting the number of what would be compared with vertical electronic lines mixed up with total resolution. IMAX film is 70mm wide too. It's just taller than standard 70mm. 4K and 8K picture sizes are the number of *vertical* lines, not horizontal ones like 1080 (almost 2K) and 720 (just over 1K) and 480. I don't know why the industry changed from noting the number of horizontal lines to the number of vertical ones instead, but since 70mm is 70mm no matter how tall it is, then it's the same 8K either way. However, of course the total resolution (if you can translate analog film grains into an average electronic resolution) in megapixels would be way different.

Along the way, film that's projected isn't negative; it's positive (a print).

No, no, no. If you're judging film, you have to go by the area to determine overall PQ and even that's a simplification. You really have to look the ability to resolve grain. And an IMAX 70mm print is 15 perfs wide. It's 70mm tall. A regular 70mm Todd-AO print is 5 perf high and 70mm wide. But that's the whole strip of film including the soundtrack. The picture area is 65mm wide.

Regular 70mm Todd-AO format (AR 2.2:1) is designed to project at 1.912" x .870" for a frame area of 1.663 square inches.

IMAX 70mm is projected horizontally and is 15 perfs wide. The negative area is 2.772" x 2.072" in native IMAX format. It is projected in different frame sizes, depending upon whether it's true IMAX or a 35mm conversion, but for a 35mm conversion of a widescreen (2.39:1) movie, the maximum frame size would be 2.362 x .988 = 2.334 square inches.

So at the same screen size, an IMAX DMR print would have 1.4x the overall resolution of a 35 to 70mm blowup print.

People have said that 70mm is the equivalent of 8K, but it's really just a vague generalization.

[franken_psycho1990]

Originally Posted by Visco.

Dammit Japan.

Dammit, Janet, I love you...

The road was long but i ran it, Janet
There's a fire in my heart and you fan it, Janet
If there's one fool for you then I am it, Janet
Now I've one thing to say and that's
Dammit, Janet, I love you...

[StatenMan18]

Mannnn.. Is this for real? I won't be getting 4k for like 10 years already , so I guess I'll just wait for like 16 or 32k

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Nope they have a place in my home.

That's good. But where's the widespread native content. I might be interested if a real physical media is available. But at best with the push away from discs, 4K content is going to be lucky to have LD level numbers and I really don't think the content industry is supporting another LD-type niche product. Faux 4K/UHD for the long term through craptastic streaming services.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Tok

That's good. But where's the widespread native content. I might be interested if a real physical media is available. But at best with the push away from discs, 4K content is going to be lucky to have LD level numbers and I really don't think the content industry is supporting another LD-type niche product. Faux 4K/UHD for the long term through craptastic streaming services.

Surely 4k via streaming will just be closer to bluray quality than 4k. Maybe 8k will be closer to 4k lol

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by StatenMan18

Mannnn.. Is this for real? I won't be getting 4k for like 10 years already , so I guess I'll just wait for like 16 or 32k

Would you prefer we go back to standard def? The minority need high end dude.

[StatenMan18]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Would you prefer we go back to standard def? The minority need high end dude.

I'm all for high end but I'm also like broke being a blu ray collector, which hasn't been very long. It's disappointing to have these manufacturers start a new line of products just when everything started to come down in price. But I guess that's just business.

Will all these 4k and "8k" tv's at least have a bigger life span than what is currently out on the market? Tv's used to last 20 or 25 years, now a normal lifespan is 5 or 6 years, although I heard some plasmas can hit ten years if they're kept well.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by StatenMan18

I'm all for high end but I'm also like broke being a blu ray collector, which hasn't been very long. It's disappointing to have these manufacturers start a new line of products just when everything started to come down in price. But I guess that's just business.

Will all these 4k and "8k" tv's at least have a bigger life span than what is currently out on the market? Tv's used to last 20 or 25 years, now a normal lifespan is 5 or 6 years, although I heard some plasmas can hit ten years if they're kept well.

I bought my sister a LCD and she has had it for 8 years. Still going strong. Before my plasma I had a Sony and it lasted for around 9 years. That's only my experience though of course.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Tok

That's good. But where's the widespread native content. I might be interested if a real physical media is available. But at best with the push away from discs, 4K content is going to be lucky to have LD level numbers and I really don't think the content industry is supporting another LD-type niche product. Faux 4K/UHD for the long term through craptastic streaming services.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Surely 4k via streaming will just be closer to bluray quality than 4k. Maybe 8k will be closer to 4k lol

Nothing "faux" about Netflix UHD streaming. It was demonstrated over the internet at CES Las Vegas. It beats Blu-ray quality to a pulp. The Netflix app will be on the new UHD TVs from several manufacturers including Sony, LG, Samsung, Vizio and others in a few months. Access to UHD streams from Netflix will be included in the $8 per month service. This UHD content availability will certainly increase the adoption rate of UHD.

The BDA will not have a 4K BD spec soon enough to offer competition for UHD streaming services. Don't be surprised if you see little or no progress on 4K BD until the success or failure of UHD streaming/downloading can be determined. Consumers are embracing digital content delivery in a big way. Digital delivery of UHD will be embraced as well. 4K BD, if it is ever introduced, will never leave niche status. I doubt that many manufacturers will want to take the risk on physical 4K as a result.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/06/t...ng-looks-like/

http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/with...estly-in-2013/

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Nothing "faux" about Netflix UHD streaming. It was demonstrated over the internet at CES Las Vegas. It beats Blu-ray quality to a pulp. The Netflix app will be on the new UHD TVs from several manufacturers including Sony, LG, Samsung, Vizio and others in a few months. Access to UHD streams from Netflix will be included in the $8 per month service. This UHD content availability will certainly increase the adoption rate of UHD.

The BDA will not have a 4K BD spec soon enough to offer competition for UHD streaming services. Don't be surprised if you see little or no progress on 4K BD until the success or failure of UHD streaming/downloading can be determined. Consumers are embracing digital content delivery in a big way. Digital delivery of UHD will be embraced as well. 4K BD, if it is ever introduced, will never leave niche status. I doubt that many manufacturers will want to take the risk on physical 4K as a result.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/06/t...ng-looks-like/

http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/with...estly-in-2013/

But adoption of 4k sets etc can take several years. It will be virtually impossible to quickly evaluate 4k streaming take off until sufficient people have new 4k capable sets. Are you suggesting no 4k bluray for another 4 or 5 years?

There is no disguising optical 4k would be far and away superior to 4k streaming.