Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Dave Moritz, Sep 1, 2019.
We all want to watch the best quality possible picture. Thus a true 4K movie will look its best on a really large screen viewed from a distance where the resolving power of the eye approximately matches the resolving power of the screen (and the disc).
But presumably we all have to watch our standard definition DVDs or HD Blu-ray discs on the same big screen and things start to look awfully soft. Hence, screen size becomes a deciding factor. As we reduce our desired (or affordable) screen size or increase our viewing distance we can accept a lower screen resolution (since we can no longer see the small pixels).
So it all becomes a matter of our chosen screen size.
In my case, a 55inch 4K OLED viewed at 3 metres (10 feet). I invested in UHD discs but at that distance I can’t see the difference between 2K and 4K discs. (And I have close to 20-20 vision.)
So let 8K and higher continue to develop. Whether we choose to adopt it is our choice.
Looks like we have differences of opinion regarding the facts about whether somebody can see the differences between 2K and 4K.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Olympics. The 2020 Tokyo Olympics will be the first big push of 8K to an American audience, brought to you once again by NHK. I don't know how we'll be able to see it, but it will be recorded in 8K. Most likely it will run on the 4K satellite channels in the US. I would think sports in general will be the next big push. They have more money to throw at new tech than G#d.
I was quite doubtful about 4K TV and discs, and only upgraded when I was forced to by the old set failing far earlier than it should have. The upgrade in resolution, color, brightness, etc. are all quite obvious and more than I was expecting. As others have said, even if you can't see the extra resolution for 8K, we're also going to get an expanded color space and brightness, and new chips that can tone map better than what we have now. 8K at the home will also force more films to be scanned at 8K and movie CGI to be completed at higher resolution. These are all positives for the home, whether you personally decide to upgrade or not.
That said, I don't think physical discs are going beyond the 4K format we have now. It's going to be streaming or digital download only next time around.
If this is indeed the case, then perhaps sports over satellite/cable/internet would be the "killer app" for 8K screens in the home? (In addition to video gamers).
4 K is it for me.
Got a great 4 K set up.
And getting 4 K DVD's when the price is good.
Have (2) 4 K TV's And (2) 4 K DVD players.
This will be fine for me.
Not going to do a upgrade.
I think that nobody would deny that it can be seen at a close enough difference and at the same time that it is impossible to see if one gets far enough away from the screen, even with true 4k
Sports in 4k will already be the killer app for the home unless you want to sit at less than one screen width away from your screen.
I have seen 4k football a few times and it puts 1080i football to shame so the Olympics and other sports would certainly look fantastic.
I don't believe 8K sets offer anything other than a resolution bump over 4K. And you can scan existing movies movies at 8K, but there isn't much of a reason to - a 35mm negative has somewhere between 3-4K of real image detail. Anything shot in 65mm or IMAX would benefit from 8K, but that's only a handful of titles in the history of film.
The vast majority of films from the last 10-15 years have completed at 2K. They're not likely to go back and redo the entire post-production process in order to help sell new TV sets. As for CGI, that's still mostly done at 2K because big films have tight schedules and don't have the time to render everything at 4K, though that may change as processing power continues to improve.
You DO need a TV at a MINIMUM size of 150 inches to even begin to see the difference between 4K and 8K.
I have seen 8K on an 85 inch screen and it is a tremendous leap over 4K. It actually does practically look like real life. And according to some people on this thread, you can't see beyond 2.8K anyway (which, of course, isn't true at all).
I think the real issue is, how many will practically have an 85" screen?
I only recently got a 65" OLED, and of course couldn't resist the itch to get a UHD as well and some 4K discs. Most 'conveniently' come with a BD as well, so I connected both the new UHD and older BD players, playing back the same movie at the same time and flipped between the two (I did this with Saving Private Ryan and the Matrix). I could some differences, but I really had to be looking for it; the most noticeable improvement was dynamic range (as previously pointed out).
The leap forward (upwards?) from VHS to DVD was obvious on our old 29"CRTs, and from DVD to BD was also obvious on 42-50" plasmas. My eyes don't show a clear and obvious improvement from BD to UHD on a 65" OLED, and 65" is really reaching the upper end of TV size in a modest living room. Obviously die-hard enthusiasts will have a dedicated HT room with an even larger screen, but that's a limited market.
So what I'm trying to say in a very roundabout fashion is that it seems unlikely there will be significant consumer demand for anything beyond 4K, at least not any time soon. 4K itself is already at or slightly beyond the limit of what the ordinary consumer might want. And without consumer demand, 8K can't/won't take off.
Right, that's one of the benefits that distinguishes 4K/UHD discs derived from 2K elements from Blu-rays derived from the same elements.
Given the limited penetration of 4K content in the consumer market, I don't get the introduction of expensive 8K displays.
YouTube is capable of storing and streaming 8K content, but it takes a very powerful PC and video card to play back 8K videos.
Until HDMI standards, ATSC 3.0, etc. are updated to cover 8K, there won't be movies and TV shows available.
I expect to be on 4K for several years and will then upgrade when there is more content and prices drop on 8K displays.
I am curious to see 8K video though - every frame is 33 megapixels. Moving video with the resolution of a high-end DSLR camera must be something to behold.
So any early adopters of an 8K TV can't display true 8K content as there are no interface standards defined yet. It can only upscale 4K or 2K content. Do people buy 8K TVs due to fear of missing out (FOMO)?
I don't think 8K televisions will catch on as a viable home medium for a very long time, if at all all. I will want it, of course, because I work with high resolution cameras and more pixels in a camera is always a good thing for my job, and being able to see your work at it's highest capable resolution is also a good thing. But as long as studios continue to upscale 2K DIs and call it 4K, I can't see 8K being anything but extremely niche for the vast majority of people, especially if most can barely tell the difference between 1080p and UHD.
There are no DSLRs capable of shooting in 8K. Even mirrorless DSLR-like cameras don't shoot in 8K. The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera now has a 6K resolution if shooting in RAW and Panasonic just unveiled a camera that can shoot in 6K if shooting anamorphic. But nothing on that level is capable of shooting 8K.
Hollywood Director Barry Sonnenfeld Bashes ‘Problematic’ HDR, ‘Stupid’ 8K
That is one man's opinion, who contradicts himself during his criticism. On one hand he says movies should not "look like reality" and then says 4K and 8K makes things "look more and more not real." His issue with the studio actually has nothing to do with HDR, since HDR can be applied however you want it to be. A movie can have HDR and still look very flat and desaturated. Apparently whoever messed with the color timing simply didn't like the look Sonnenfeld wanted, and I have no idea why someone else was allowed to mess with that. It's also the opinion of the man who made "Wild, Wild West," and, therefore, doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
You can hold that against him if you want to, but, there are very few directors that haven't directed a "dog" film or two. IMO, he's been a better cinematographer than director.
The problem as I see it, is that Netflix shouldn't be applying HDR without the input of the filmmakers. When HDR passes are done for movies (even some of the older ones) it is commonplace for the director and/or cinematographer to sign off on it. Changing the color palette after Sonnenfeld had already approved it is just wrong. Though I guess if studios like Netflix are contractually stripping filmmakers of these types of approvals, then there is no recourse.