Don't Know About Anyone Else But 4K Is the End of the Line For Me (1 Viewer)

[Lord Dalek]

Because it was a low budget show produced by Britain’s equivalent of PBS, and that was their standard operating procedure at the time.

To add to this, the BBC considered moving the show into "tapeless" HD starting with Tennant's first season but the cost of the visual effects were deemed too much.

FYI no British show was being produced in HD when they were shooting Eccleston's run.

 

[Indy Guy]

There is one more upgrade that will take the public by storm. I only hope I live long enough to see it happen! Perfect quality "glasses free" 3D.
Most everyone who has 4K and 3D BR would agree that great 3D can be much more immersive and resolve spaces dimensionally than can 4K.
I saw Guardians 3 in IMAX 3D and also 2D...there was no contest as to which experience was better. Avatar goes without saying. At home, films like Hugo, Tangled and even Titanic's 3D conversion are stunning even while wearing uncomfortable 3D glasses. Glasses require absolute attention to the screen...no reading, texting and even conversing with friends becomes cumbersome. Once glasses are banished, screens will be able to duplicate what we see with our eyes.
4K, 8K or even higher 2D resolutions are not how a pair of eyes see. 3D is the only format that mimics human sight.
2D is limited by what can be printed, recorded or streamed to a flat plate in a variety of resolutions, none of which are true game changers. Higher resolution is more evolutionary like getting a new pair of glasses to improve vision.
Every upgrade from VHS forward was enjoyed as a step forward in progress. Perfect "glasses free" 3D would be a revolution more like television and radio were in the last century. Capturing 3D content would finally have a reason to make the leap from novelity to reality, dealing with imagery we can't even dream about now.

 

[Radioman970]

I've been watching the trek movie in 1080 and decided for now I'm fine with those. No need to update unless it's pretty cheap. STTMP is probably the main one I'd want but really the regular blu ray looks great!
I guess I won't be going out of my way to get 4K. 3D? now that's a different story. I still want everything that has one in that format

 

[Carl David]

4k is the end for me.

4k movies are as close as you are going to get to films projected onto a screen like the old days in cinemas.

Even Spielberg said that Jaws on 4k is even better now than how it looked when it was released in theaters.

Assuming some movies shot on film have a resolution above 4k would a 8k release be beneficial?

My guess is you would need a huge screen to notice any difference from 4k to 8k. Even then the difference will probably be minimal. The human eye would probably not notice much difference if at all.

4k technology for consumers has still yet to maximize its capabilities allowing for superior home viewing of movies never seen before.

TVs colour reproduction is still not 100% accurate in relation to showing images transferred from film. Contrast is another area for improvement. Peak nits are improving year after year but there is still room for improvement there. Many TVs cannot reproduce with accuracy what is encoded on 4k discs hence Dolby Vision.

High end 4k TVs perhaps.

The TV manufacturer companies still require innovations in improving 4k technology to reach its full potential.

If those improvements continue there is no need to go to 8k.

However, the companies always need some new gimmick that can boost sales and encourage upgrading from older models and 8k is probably the best way to achieve that.

Simply improving 4k capabilities is not going to tempt the average consumer to upgrade from a previous 4k TV they may have.

Unfortunately, this is why it may be more than a possibility that TVs in the near future will be 8k only with no 4k options available or if so maybe a select few niche models for enthusiasts.

 

[DaveF]

I’ll buy a new projector in a few years and it will probably have 8K. And streaming will eventually start serving 8K. So, I’ll passively upgrade to 8K.

I think that’s how it will go: 8K will be the next standard and everyone will eventually upgrade into it.

 

[Worth]

…4k movies are as close as you are going to get to films projected onto a screen like the old days in cinemas...

Projected 35mm is nowhere near 4K. It's mostly sub-blu-ray.

 

[John Dirk]

The way I approach this is, "I'm in the game until I'm no longer in the game." As long as I'm in the game I may make purchases I know to be interim at the time. By this I mean I may compromise on feature set with the intent of upgrading again down the road.

Now that I'm [semi] retired I'm exiting the game. As such, any purchase I make needs to have the best overall feature set I can reasonably afford at the time because I don't intent to upgrade again. As an example, I am not a gamer so I don't really care about 4K @120HZ and I also don't really care about 8K. What I do care about are native contrast and a laser light source, so when I went shopping for a projector those were key considerations. I ponied up for the JVC NZ8 over it's lesser expensive little brother, the NZ7, because of it's better native contrast and added lumen output. While I didn't care about 48Gbps HDMI inputs or 8K E-ShiftX, they were part of the package if I wanted the other features, so I ended up with them by default. Now that I have an 8K capable projector, when I eventually replace my Marantz AV7702MKii processor, it's successor will need to be 8K capable as well.

 

[Tony Bensley]

Even on youtube when I'm listening/watching to a music clip, or content which doesn't have any interesting video such as video feeds from live podcasts, lectures, seminars, news, etc ... I deliberately set the video resolution to 240p or even 144p.

"Not interesting video" is stuff like an entire youtube feed is just a video of the host talking.

I find it interesting that anyone deliberately sets video resolution that low, especially 144p, which just looks terrible to my eyes. The lowest I'll deliberately go is 480p whenever a YouTube stream becomes buffer bog city!

However, much to my annoyance, whenever buffer bog city occurs, my streaming will often automatically adjust downward to 240p or sometimes even right down to 144p, UGH!! Whenever that happens, I always go back up to 480p as a compromise resolution. On my PC Laptop, my default is 720p, as that is the maximum screen resolution with my current setup, anyway. On my 10.1 inch Galaxy A Tablet, with 1920x1080p resolution, I usually select 1080p for YouTube videos, if that is an option (Some YT videos have made that a premium only option!). Still, even on that device, the YouTube video resolution often defaults at 240p, like why even?

CHEERS!

 

[YANG]

I'm still on standard 1080p HD screens, until my tv dies and I have to buy a new screen. 1080p screens are not available anymore.

By the time my tv dies, who knows. It might already be common 8K by then?

110inch 16K Display is already in demo in the latest Display Tech Event...

...which i believe is a modular assembly of 4 x 8K panels in 2x2 formation, as a unibody 110inch display is more fragile in transportation, and in construction.

 

[roxy1927]

There is a you tube where a guy puts a 4k tv next to an 8k and has two friends try to figure out which is which. They need to spend a lot of time watching to figure it out and only one gets it right.

Not only is 4k it for me but so are cds. No streaming no iphones(are they still called that?) I have a good collection and it's good enough for me.

 

[YANG]

It's an interesting topic because manufacturers aren't dumb or blind to consumer preferences. If we [as enthusiasts] have essentially no interest in 8K, then the average consumer is clearly not concerned or interested, yet the products are still being produced. I can't explain it... ... ...

as high as the highest resolution from a source can achieve, if i'm not wrong, Japan is the only place where they have public broadcast content in 8K. 8K recorders are even available as well.
however, some other regions have 4K public broadcast, such as HongKong and other countries...

Ultra-high-definition television - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

8K TV in current state may not be just about public broadcast content, 8K display video engines provides upscaling of 4K inputs to output into 8K which further "enhance" the details of lower resolution image... as well as refresh rate.

however, pragmatic consumers would shun 8K, not just the limitation of the source, such as movie physical media-which is yet available, streaming media will require higher speed network connection to deliver 8K content for stable processing... like most here, i would be content with 4K, until the day comes, and i'm still "ALIVE" to see the day 8K get to kick 1080-FHD out from the world, and be as mainstream as current 4K.

 

[cineMANIAC]

The pool of consumers who legitimately appreciate higher formats and improvements in tech is continually dwindling. That pool consists of people from my generation (I was born in the early 70's) and earlier who still think of films as an art form. Today's consumers are just that: consumers, and those folks don't give a rat's posterior about picture quality. They'd just as well watch content on their phones or any cheap store brand LCD TV. And these are the people manufacturers are building expensive TVs for? Forget about superior formats - they need to focus on improving existing tech and make it more consumer friendly.

 

[Desslar]

There is one more upgrade that will take the public by storm. I only hope I live long enough to see it happen! Perfect quality "glasses free" 3D.
Most everyone who has 4K and 3D BR would agree that great 3D can be much more immersive and resolve spaces dimensionally than can 4K.
I saw Guardians 3 in IMAX 3D and also 2D...there was no contest as to which experience was better. Avatar goes without saying. At home, films like Hugo, Tangled and even Titanic's 3D conversion are stunning even while wearing uncomfortable 3D glasses. Glasses require absolute attention to the screen...no reading, texting and even conversing with friends becomes cumbersome. Once glasses are banished, screens will be able to duplicate what we see with our eyes.
4K, 8K or even higher 2D resolutions are not how a pair of eyes see. 3D is the only format that mimics human sight.
2D is limited by what can be printed, recorded or streamed to a flat plate in a variety of resolutions, none of which are true game changers. Higher resolution is more evolutionary like getting a new pair of glasses to improve vision.
Every upgrade from VHS forward was enjoyed as a step forward in progress. Perfect "glasses free" 3D would be a revolution more like television and radio were in the last century. Capturing 3D content would finally have a reason to make the leap from novelity to reality, dealing with imagery we can't even dream about now.

From there, to my mind the next step would be virtual immersion. As in, you are no longer sitting on your living room couch watching a 3D Han Solo pilot the Millennium Falcon on your screen, but rather you're sitting in the cockpit with him, surrounded by a 3D Falcon environment on all sides.

As for stopping with 4K - My collection is at least 80% TV titles, and I doubt they will ever get beyond Blu ray (most stopped upgrading with DVDs).

 

[Tony Bensley]

Another issue that hasn't yet been addressed in this thread is the limit to which the human eye can detect, in terms of resolution. This is where screen size also comes into play.

As for our homestead, we're still on 720p and 1080p screens, which I anticipate we'll continue to utilize until they go kaput. The 720p 32 inch Toshiba LCD flat screen TV which I am currently using as a PC monitor as I type this post is over 10 years old. However, I have found Toshiba to be impeccably reliable when it comes to their TV sets (Though not necessarily so much for other appliances and devices, sadly!), having ended up getting rid of our 2 CRT monitor style sets while they were still functional. As we're not in a financial position to do that these days, it is now use until no longer usable!

CHEERS!

 

[Carl David]

Projected 35mm is nowhere near 4K. It's mostly sub-blu-ray.

In relation to resolution perhaps.

I think it might be better in relation to accurately reproducing the colour from film.

Not sure, however.

Perhaps RAH can chime in?

 

[John Dirk]

like most here, i would be content with 4K, until the day comes, and i'm still "ALIVE" to see the day 8K get to kick 1080-FHD out from the world, and be as mainstream as current 4K.

As @Josh Steinberg pointed out in a previous post, however, the abundance of content sold as "4K" is actually derived from 2K intermediates. If the drive to deliver suitable content were closer to the drive to deliver higher resolution displays there might be a conversation to be had. Absent that, the whole thing seems rather pointless.

 

[John Dirk]

Another issue that hasn't yet been addressed in this thread is the limit to which the human eye can detect, in terms of resolution. This is where screen size also comes into play.

Excellent point but when you get into larger screen sizes the increased pixels do matter, assuming they're derived from a good source and not an up-conversion of a poor one.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Worth pointing out, apropos of nothing - as we get further and further away from the era of making movies and television shows on film (and by and large, that’s been over for a decade or longer), the amount of resolution or color capability that 35mm is capable of will become increasingly irrelevant as a discussion point to what new displays are capable of. The overwhelming majority of viewers the overwhelming majority of the time watch new and recent content, not legacy material. The question with 8K displays isn’t going to be “does film even have 8K of resolution in it?” - the question will be whether the present day content creators are creating 8K material for these displays.

 

[Indy Guy]

There is one more upgrade that will take the public by storm. I only hope I live long enough to see it happen! Perfect quality "glasses free" 3D.
Most everyone who has 4K and 3D BR would agree that great 3D can be much more immersive and resolve spaces dimensionally than can 4K.
I saw Guardians 3 in IMAX 3D and also 2D...there was no contest as to which experience was better. Avatar goes without saying. At home, films like Hugo, Tangled and even Titanic's 3D conversion are stunning even while wearing uncomfortable 3D glasses. Glasses require absolute attention to the screen...no reading, texting and even conversing with friends becomes cumbersome. Once glasses are banished, screens will be able to duplicate what we see with our eyes.
4K, 8K or even higher 2D resolutions are not how a pair of eyes see. 3D is the only format that mimics human sight.
2D is limited by what can be printed, recorded or streamed to a flat plate in a variety of resolutions, none of which are true game changers. Higher resolution is more evolutionary like getting a new pair of glasses to improve vision.
Every upgrade from VHS forward was enjoyed as a step forward in progress. Perfect "glasses free" 3D would be a revolution more like television and radio were in the last century. Capturing 3D content would finally have a reason to make the leap from novelity to reality, dealing with imagery we can't even dream about now.

Reading all that has followed my early comment above, there seems to be agreement that extracting additional details from film reels scanned at 8K is not reality for 35mm and probably not much value for 70mm as well. Therefore 8K's real attraction lies with digital 8K content.
Returning to the idea of perfected "glasses free" 3D systems, It's the only remaining untapped market for capturing additional revenue from classics that have approached full saturation in existing media markets.
When the Wizard of Oz was re-released in (glasses required) 3D IMAX and BR, it made a very positive impression. The 3D was breathtaking. For the first time it brought dimensionality to the flat painted backdrops of Oz.
If classic photochemical films from the 30's onward could be transferred to glasses free 3D, it's the only obvious way studios can once again tap their deeply exploited libraries to score big numbers on yet another title upgrade. Once again, I would be in the queue for day-one purchases!

 

[roxy1927]

I want Seven Brides for Seven Brothers in 8k.