Will the push of 8K displays have a negative effect on 4K content?
No
Will the push of 8K displays have a negative effect on 4K content?
Looks like we have differences of opinion regarding the facts about whether somebody can see the differences between 2K and 4K.
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).
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....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.
You DO need a TV at a MINIMUM size of 150 inches to even begin to see the difference between 4K and 8K.That is sooooooooo absolutely NOT true.
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).
Right, that's one of the benefits that distinguishes 4K/UHD discs derived from 2K elements from Blu-rays derived from the same elements.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.
Moving video with the resolution of a high-end DSLR camera must be something to behold.
Heh.
Hollywood Director Barry Sonnenfeld Bashes ‘Problematic’ HDR, ‘Stupid’ 8K
https://www.cepro.com/audio-video/hollywood-director-barry-sonnenfeld-bashes-hdr-8k/
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.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.