3D What’s Better, 8K 2D or 4K 3D?

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
13,089
Real Name
Robert Harris
8k exists, but there seems to be no rational reason for it to do so.

I’m unable to rationalize a commercial purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMF

Brian Kidd

Effects Supervisor
Premium
Joined
Nov 14, 2000
Messages
2,552
Yeah, I can only imagine it being really useful for motion simulators and, perhaps as a true replacement for film-based IMAX. With theme parks like Disney and Universal investing heavily in screen-based attractions, 8K with a high frame-rate could be useful.

8K in home televisions just seems like snake oil.
 

jcroy

Producer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
5,754
Real Name
jr
Would 8K (or higher) make any difference in watching something like soccer or tennis as a live broadcast (or stream) ?
 

Josh Steinberg

Film Editor
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,760
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I think the issue is that you'd need the bandwidth to get all of that transmitted from source to final destination, and the only way to do that right now is by severely compressing the image - so I'm thinking that a 4K stream or broadcast with lower compression would end up looking better than an 8K stream with higher compression.

I also think screen size and seating distance is a factor. For a 50" television set that you sit halfway across the room from, I don't think it would make a difference.

On the other hand, for a specially designed video wall at a sports bar or something like that, maybe.

But on the flip side, 2K DCPs are frequently used by IMAX for projection on the world's largest screens. So if you can get away with 2K for a 100 foot screen, is it really necessary to have 8K for a 50 inch screen? I would think not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Interdimensional

Gary Seven

Grand Poo Pah
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
2,145
Location
Lake Worth, Florida
Real Name
Gaston
8k exists, but there seems to be no rational reason for it to do so.

I’m unable to rationalize a commercial purpose.
I would think 8k more apropos to medical applications... monitors and such, where one needs access to the finest detail in imaging. Overkill for anything else... at least for the time being.
 

Interdimensional

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
472
Real Name
Ed
The correct answer is 'it depends'. Depends on the needs of the viewer, the vision of the viewer, the quality of the content, the purpose required.

I am short-sighted. If there's even the slightest smudge on my glasses, I'm probably not going to get the full benefit of 8k. Eventually everyone's vision declines, so by the time 8k is as mainstream and ubiquitous as HD, it may not make a huge difference for many of us. For me 3D is the significantly higher priority.

Of course there are also people with otherwise perfect vision who may have stereoblindness, either due to misalignment or loss of sight in one eye. 8k will offer them more than any form of 3D.

I'm very much inclined to believe that going beyond 4k will be a case of diminishing returns.

I consider 3D functionality an absolutely vital function on any TV I will buy. It may not be something that is used on a regular basis, but it's a function that needs to be reinstated. I presume 8k will be nice to have, but not something I'd be inclined to pay a premium for.
 

Dave H

Producer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
5,772
The industry always seems so damn desperate to sell something new. I fully suspect we'll be hearing about 16K in a few years, and a new HDMI standard, of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sam Posten

sleroi

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
456
Real Name
Gavin Kopp
You couldnt have 4k 3d without an 8k display, correct? Full 4k in each eye. So you shouldn't have to choose, just have to convince manufacturers to invest in 3d technology again. Good luck.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some 3d. But now that ive got a 4k 3d display I'm more interested in saving up to improve the audio side of things. Ill never say never, but I'm pretty sure 4k is my stopping point. Full hd in each eye on my display looks pretty darn good.
 

Worth

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
3,733
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
...I'm very much inclined to believe that going beyond 4k will be a case of diminishing returns.
I think anything beyond 720p is a case of diminishing returns. I'd rather have a flawless 720p picture, particularly from cable, than an over-compressed image of any number with "k" next to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blimpoy06

Vincent_P

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,051
I had to get closer than 42-inches to my 65" 4K OLED before I could kind of, sort of see the pixel structure, and even then only if I was really looking for it in a bright part of the image. At 42" away, the field of view on said set was akin to enormous the Lincoln Square IMAX theater in New York City.

So yeah, I really don't see how 8K can bring anything to home viewing. For theatrical-projection on a true IMAX-size screen? Sure, I could go for that.

Vincent
 

rsmithjr

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
1,228
Location
Palo Alto, CA
Real Name
Robert Smith
Until the evening of September 30, 1952, no one thought Cinerama had any value. Numerous studio people had already seen it and were skeptical.

Once it was seen, it was a sensation, and it changed the public expectations completely and all studios tried to copy its effect.

It is too early to tell about 8K.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
344,475
Messages
4,711,143
Members
141,274
Latest member
Wadeheat3