8K discussion thread

[Robert Zohn]

New article on 8K Association interviewing Robert Zohn, Value Electronics, on understanding who is the 8K buyer and the advantages of an 8K TV.

https://8kassociation.com/industry-i...buying-8k-tvs/

[Lee A Stewart]

Synamedia Unveils VIVID 8K Compression Offering Real-Time Performance

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/sy...me-performance

[Lee A Stewart]

New York in 8K ULTRA HD - Capital of Earth (60FPS) - YouTube

[puddy77]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

8K vs 4K TVs: Double-blind study by Warner Bros. et al reveals most consumers can’t tell the difference - Techhive - Scott Wilkinson - 2/28/20



See the article for more details.

The paper that was written by the people that conducted the study is now freely available here: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9136829/

[Penton-Man]

Resolution aside – to be more pragmatic as a potential purchaser, which TV shows the superior Pictures Quality?, which is what a consumer really only cares about for they are about as knowledgeable and concerned about Snellen acuity vs. Vernier acuity as they are of catalysts for building molecules - https://www.chem.uci.edu/node/23707#...ng%20molecules.

which be it, the 8K Sony Z9J or the 4K Sony A95J? Shall we begin with which (intentionally by the manufacturer) possesses the better full array local dimming?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Resolution aside – to be more pragmatic as a potential purchaser, which TV shows the superior Pictures Quality?, which is what a consumer really only cares about for they are about as knowledgeable and concerned about Snellen acuity vs. Vernier acuity as they are of catalysts for building molecules - https://www.chem.uci.edu/node/23707#...ng%20molecules.

which be it, the 8K Sony Z9J or the 4K Sony A95J? Shall we begin with which (intentionally by the manufacturer) possesses the better full array local dimming?

In other words, the Smith et al. study provides some (using one TV, the LG 88Z9) strong evidence pertaining to the lack of value (unless perhaps for VFX) for a studio at this time to go thru any extra inconvenience and cost associated with capturing, rendering and delivering their content in 8K to consumers, but I would think consumers, including members here, would be more concerned with Robert’s Value Electronics doing a side-by-side shootout with for instance, the 4K tv King, the Sony A90J vs. the 8K tv King, the LG ZX adjacent to a HX310. And future side-by-side 4K vs. 8K tv challenges within the same brand, if folks generally always prefer a certain brand over another.

Or, do we wait for things like the adoption of 6P for consumer TVs - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...y#post18973754 to gain a discernible difference in picture quality which is irrefutable with regards to people with normal color vision.

If a manufacturer wants his/her 8K sales to be successful, they would be obligated, as compared to 4K tvs, to put the best ‘stuff’ in their 8K offerings as well as providing superior quality control of the panels selected, etc. to give their ‘8K’ tvs an edge. For if they were only to promote 8K tvs as being superior because of their higher static resolution, on paper, that would be a foolish for when the rubber meets the road and consumers actually compare 8K and 4K tvs side-by-side in a showroom.

[Lee A Stewart]

There are so many migitating issues when it comes to 8K. And so far, not one of them has been successfully dealt with. They STILL haven't agreed to all the specifications of the format (HINT: Frame Rates)

When 4K TVs were launched (April 2012), HD was at that time 16 years old (1996 - first HD broadcast). And those early 4K TVs are suffering what 8K TV are today . . . "I don't see a difference from my HDTV." In flies 4K TV's savoir: HDR and WCG (2015). NOW you can easily see a difference. And it doesn't require you to change your seating distance which for many can't be done due to furniture layout/wife acceptance factor.

4K begins gaining support from content providers. Netflix announces they will have limited 4K support. The BDA announces 4K HDR WCG UHD BD which means the major Hollywood studios will support the new enhanced format. Each year there is more and more 4K content available.

2019 - just 4 years later, here come 8K TVs. How are they being sold? "They will make your 4K Blu-rays look their very best. Better than your existing 4K TV."

If you really want to appreciate the benefit of your new 8K TV . . . move your seating position closer to the display.

Is the world really ready for 8K content? IMO - no it isn't. We need a new codec (H.266) to get the same quality/reduce the needed bit rates. We see some noise from VVC but no one is stepping up. Damn those pesky licensing fees. Not quite as good as VVC, which promises a 50% bit rate reduction, we have lots of support for AV1 - which promises around a 35% reduction and NO license fees. But it's still in the lab - not in new TVs.

Let's go back to the specs for 8K. Got the same specs as 4K with an increase in the resolution. But when you raise the resolution with live sports, you need to raise the frame rate also. 60 FPS just isn't good enough. You need 120 FPS. And more frames = higher bit rate. Well maybe there is a compromise available. Ditch the HDR and WCG because are they really needed for sports and sub in the HFR which gets rid of the motion artifacts caused by the increased resolution. Still in the talking stage on this one.

There is no rush to provide 8K content. We are no further along than we were two years ago.

How about we forget the whole 8K content thing and stick with 4K for a while. But wait - not all 4K content is the same. We can shoot live sports at 1080P HDR then upscale it to 4K and send it over the internet using existing H.265 codecs. Well solves THAT problem.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

....How about we forget the whole 8K content thing and stick with 4K for a while. But wait - not all 4K content is the same. We can shoot live sports at 1080P HDR then upscale it to 4K and send it over the internet using existing H.265 codecs. Well solves THAT problem.

For live sports like soccer, shooting 1080p 100/120fps would be more worthwhile (even, dare I say compared to going from SDR -> HDR) to achieve superior picture quality and there is a temporal sub-layering solution for backwards compatibility for those with only 50/60 decoders - https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts...54v020301p.pdf

P.S.
And with regards to another sport, HFR's value already proven for ice hockey - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...y#post17244754

[unberechenbar]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Let's go back to the specs for 8K. Got the same specs as 4K with an increase in the resolution. But when you raise the resolution with live sports, you need to raise the frame rate also. 60 FPS just isn't good enough. You need 120 FPS. And more frames = higher bit rate. Well maybe there is a compromise available. Ditch the HDR and WCG because are they really needed for sports and sub in the HFR which gets rid of the motion artifacts caused by the increased resolution. Still in the talking stage on this one.

Could you explain why HFR is needed for sports when you increase the resolution? Is it for the same reason HFR is desirable for gaming? I wonder if advancements in technology to allow for HFR could also translate to more movies being filmed that way.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by unberechenbar

Could you explain why HFR is needed for sports when you increase the resolution?

See - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...n#post17182006
and make sure also to follow the hyperlink at the bottom of that post which takes you to Richard Salmon’s (https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/people/richard-salmon) demo.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by unberechenbar

I wonder if advancements in technology to allow for HFR could also translate to more movies being filmed that way.

Maybe. I call it "selective HFR." It's something supposedly James Cameron is using for his Avatar Sequels.

Todays Cinema Digital Projectors are multi-speed. With a bit of a software tweak they can be adjusted to show different frame rates within the same movie.

24 FPS for non-action scenes and 48 or 60 FPS for action scenes. The increased frame rate will cut down and even remove motion blur. More of what is happening in the scene will be in focus by using this. And because it's only used in high action scenes there is no "soap opera effect" because most of the movie is still shot and shown in 24 FPS.

[HDTV1080P]

Some people would like the natural look of movies that are shot at 60fps and 120fps. I hope more movies use 60fps and 120fps native frame rate. The soap opera effect comes from frame interpolation on OLED flat panels. Native 24fps, 48fps, 60fps,120fps, and higher all look good when displayed on a Christine projector at their native frame rate without needing to use double or triple flash technology. Also 100% of consumer flat panels, projectors, and other technologies are ideal for displaying 60fps (60Hz), therefore a native 60fps movie would be ideal to be displayed on modern displays. The 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray format that launched back in 2016 can handle frame rates between 24fps to 60fps. So releasing high frame rate movies one day at native 4K 60Hz would be ideal for the consumer market. All 4K Blu-ray players can output 4K 60Hz over HDMI, and then the 4K projector can natively display the image at 60Hz without any frame interpolation. Many flat panels would double flash or quad flash to 120Hz or 240Hz on the screen and some people would prefer disabling frame interpolation on the flat panel screen to get rid of the soap opera effect, but then disabling frame interpolation decreases the screen resolution on flat panel screens.

[sapiendut]

You don’t lose resolution when it’s a slower frame rate. What if the framerate is 0 (such as watching a 4K photo on your 4K TV? Using your logic then the photo must have an extremely poor resolution then.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

Some people would like the natural look of movies that are shot at 60fps and 120fps. I hope more movies use 60fps and 120fps native frame rate. The soap opera effect comes from frame interpolation on OLED flat panels. Native 24fps, 48fps, 60fps,120fps, and higher all look good when displayed on a Christine projector at their native frame rate without needing to use double or triple flash technology. Also 100% of consumer flat panels, projectors, and other technologies are ideal for displaying 60fps (60Hz), therefore a native 60fps movie would be ideal to be displayed on modern displays. The 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray format that launched back in 2016 can handle frame rates between 24fps to 60fps. So releasing high frame rate movies one day at native 4K 60Hz would be ideal for the consumer market. All 4K Blu-ray players can output 4K 60Hz over HDMI, and then the 4K projector can natively display the image at 60Hz without any frame interpolation. Many flat panels would double flash or quad flash to 120Hz or 240Hz on the screen and some people would prefer disabling frame interpolation on the flat panel screen to get rid of the soap opera effect, but then disabling frame interpolation decreases the screen resolution on flat panel screens.

When you increase the frame rate, you increase the Temporal Resolution. When you increase the number of pixels per frame you increase the Spatial Resolution.

4K UHD Blu-ray can do 24 FPS and 60 FPS (along with 23.97, 25, 50 and 59.94). It can't do 48 FPS.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Maybe. I call it "selective HFR." It's something supposedly James Cameron is using for his Avatar Sequels.

Todays Cinema Digital Projectors are multi-speed. With a bit of a software tweak they can be adjusted to show different frame rates within the same movie.

24 FPS for non-action scenes and 48 or 60 FPS for action scenes. The increased frame rate will cut down and even remove motion blur. More of what is happening in the scene will be in focus by using this. And because it's only used in high action scenes there is no "soap opera effect" because most of the movie is still shot and shown in 24 FPS.

It's not even that complicated, there's no need to use "a bit of software tweak". And DCPs don't allow for "multi speed" applications AFAIK so even if the projektors were jury-rigged to show it there'd be no content anyway.

No, all they have to do is decide what content they want to be at 24fps and what content they want at 48fps (the Avadah sequels have been shot at 48fps, or near as damn it) and frame double the 24fps material to 48fps at the mastering stage, then conform it with the native 48fps content. That way the master still runs at an industry standard 48fps rate throughout with no adjustments needed to either PJ or DCP tech to make it work.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's not even that complicated, there's no need to use "a bit of software tweak". And DCPs don't allow for "multi speed" applications AFAIK so even if the projektors were jury-rigged to show it there'd be no content anyway.

No, all they have to do is decide what content they want to be at 24fps and what content they want at 48fps (the Avadah sequels have been shot at 48fps, or near as damn it) and frame double the 24fps material to 48fps at the mastering stage, then conform it with the native 48fps content. That way the master still runs at an industry standard 48fps rate throughout with no adjustments needed to either PJ or DCP tech to make it work.

James Cameron seriously looked into shooting the Avatar sequels in a higher frame rate which, as he stated, takes the glass out of the window to reality. The industry standard is 24fps, but possible high frame rates of interest included 48fps and even 60fps. Cameron later opted out of this route, stating in an interview that as groundbreaking as the format is for cinema, moviegoers have always been used to a specific way to view films and altering that in any way would simply take the audience out of that experience.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1630029...ef_=tt_trv_trv

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1630029...ef_=tt_trv_trv

So some rando putting in a piece of “trivia” on IMDB counts, does it? Fookin hell. Such is what we have to contend with when fighting misinformation and FUD.

How about having Geoff Burdick, the VP of Production Services at Lightstorm (Cameron’s production company), telling you what they’re doing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=de...8CaXs#t=24m32s

Chapeau to Penton for posting that link a few months back.

[Lee A Stewart]

James Cameron Disagrees With Ang Lee About the Future of High Frame Rate Filmmaking

Speaking to Collider, Cameron cleared up a rumor about his upcoming “Avatar” sequels and said they will not be released at 120fps because he does not believe the technology should be used in all aspects of a movie.

“I have a personal philosophy around high frame rate, which is that it is a specific solution to specific problems having to do with 3D,” Cameron said. “And when you get the strobing and the jutter of certain shots that pan or certain lateral movement across frame, it’s distracting in 3D. And to me, [high frame rate is] just a solution for those shots. I don’t think it’s a format. That’s just me personally. I know Ang sees it that way. I don’t think it’s like the next 70 millimetres or the next big thing. I think it’s a tool to be used to solve problems in 3D projection.”

Cameron said that he only shot select scenes of his “Avatar” sequels at 120 frames per second so that he could smooth out some of the 3D.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/10/ja...ar-1202184115/

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

....Chapeau to Penton for posting that link a few months back.

Geoff, you have a good memory.

Personally, I’d like to see the exhibition community at least give Doug’s Magi solution a chance (thrive or fail) and be available closer to me than the Berkshires -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR-jx_dHIno#t=8m26s

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by unberechenbar

Could you explain why HFR is needed for sports when you increase the resolution? Is it for the same reason HFR is desirable for gaming? I wonder if advancements in technology to allow for HFR could also translate to more movies being filmed that way.

I thought people hated HFR.