Effects of incoming 8K format on current and future 4K content

3 Stars

With the acceleration of technology by hardware manufacturers pushing the lifespan of hardware to shorter and shorter lifespans. Will the push of 8K displays have a negative effect on 4K content? We are finally seeing more and more 4K displays being sold and the expansion of 4K content via streaming and disc format for home consumption. The last quarter of 2019 we will have films like Scareface, Wizard Of Oz, It’s A Wonderful Life, The Abyss, Daniel Craig 007 collection and the Shinning coming to 4K blu-ray. Will studios pull back on 4K blu-ray releases because of the push of 8K displays? Did this factor in on the lack of a 80th Anniversary Gone With The Wind 4K release? As it is a large percentage of Americans do not have high speed internet or high enough bandwidth to stream HD and especially 4K content. So how will most people be able to stream 8K content which doesn’t exist other than some videos on YouTube. And are there any disc formats in existence that can deliver 8K content to consumers homes? But the main concern is what effect the incoming 8K displays will have on 4K blu-rays or even possibly 4K streaming. I see this being more of a concern for 4K blu-ray than streaming as it is a matter of creating physical discs the studios fear may sit unpurchased. Currently there is no release information to my knowledge for the months of November and December of 2019.

I can only speak for myself when I say that good solid 4K blu-rays will not be replaced by any 8K discs once they are made available. I would rather buy titles I currently do not own instead of continuously buying the same titles over and over again. I am not interested in 8K content at this time and in no rush to purchase an 8K display since I just got my Sony 4K OLED back on the 16th of January of 2019. Maybe in a few years I might consider an 8K display once there are reasonable prices for 100″ displays and I have my HDMI board on my Marantz SR-8012 upgraded to 8K switching.

Published by

Featured Thread

author

82 Comments

  1. They're really putting the cart before the horse this time. I don't see the need or benefit to 8K, especially for home theatre. There's no current 8K content, no push in the film and television industry to move towards 8K, and next to no existing content that can even begin to take advantage of 8K – aside from real IMAX 15/70 and a few dozen 65mm productions. And even then, you'd probably need to see a direct comparison of 4K on an IMAX-sized screen to tell the difference.

  2. I mean, broadcast television hasn't even gone to 4K yet (took them quite a long time to get to high definition), so 8K just seems like overkill to me. The TVs will come, but I'm expecting most everything will be an upconversion to that standard.

  3. 4K content has been generally given a collective meh outside of the internet web forum bubblesphere so I can't imagine some other hot air gimmick format is going to help. In fact I expect both to fall into the sea at this rate.

  4. I am guessing that 8k will become the default size for a new TV (just as 4K is now) but there may be little if any actual 8K content for home use.

    Perhaps streaming. The Blu-ray format would support it with more layers but would require new hardware.

    I am buying 4K for newly purchased content but am very seldom buying 4K Blu-ray disks of things I already have. I would buy many titles originated in 70mm but you can't buy what they won't sell.

    I try to avoid streaming in all forms and from all providers. I especially avoid CGI-based action films and most particularly superhero product.

    I do not know if the world is passing me by or if we are seeing the end of new good films. Probably both.

  5. I didn't know there was 8K monitors or projectors. I still think yer bog standard Blu-ray looks fantastic. I suppose if you're some very rich swine with a 200 foot wide projection screen (on the roof of your penthouse), but not enough of them around to make it viable.

    Na, make more films available on Blu-ray.

  6. What are those giant speakers? Are they the type that would be used in a big guitar amplfier (such as a Marshall stack) ? Or are they actual real woofers which can go really low in frequency ?

    They are commercial grade Concert venue/theater venue speakers! Altec Lancing Voice Of The Theater speakers and they do get some low frequencies and the 15" woofer are rated at 117db. There is another speaker made by Klipsch called a LaScala which is 105db effecient.

  7. Mike2001

    Did I miss an announcement for 4K The Abyss in the 4th quarter of this year?

    I missed that announcement (if there was one) as well. Still really want to pick up The Abyss and True Lies on 4K blu-ray, but I had heard that James Cameron won't sign off on upgraded versions until he has had time to review them. However, since he is currently so busy with the Avatar sequels, he just isn't in a place to be able to do so. In fact, I heard this week that he only "produced" the upcoming Terminator: Dark Fate from afar, with very little to no interaction with what was happening during on set filming.

  8. http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/the-4k-uhd-release-list

    One of my trips to 20th Century Fox I had heard about Cameron actually working on the Abyss restoration and True Lies may have been done right after or at the same time. While there is no current release date it still may happen in November or December. My next trip to Fox I will try and ask about The Abyss and True Lies 4K blu-ray release dates, that is if he can divulge that information.

  9. Dave, I think you're getting worked up about nothing. 4K is already absurd for most home use, and 8K is just idiotic, to be honest. The biggest real world benefit to 4K is HDR, which has nothing to do with resolution. 8K is just marketing gone insane. An awful lot of digitally sourced 4K media is just upscaled from 2K to begin with, and 8K from film sources is completely absurd. Even 4K is.

  10. 8K’s intended audience at this point is more for professional applications – large screen monitors for workplace presentations, digital display boards, theme park applications, etc.

    There is zero content or benefit available to the consumer with 8K at present time.

  11. Dave, I think you're getting worked up about nothing.

    Not sure where you feel I am getting worked up. The purpose of this thread is to talk about if the introduction of 8K displays will effect releases on 4K media or not? Currently I am not even thinking about a 8K tv, hell why would I with a beautiful Sony 4K OLED? So no not worked up at all, not even a little! But I am buying some digital content but the focus is some blu-ray with most of my purchases on 4K UHD Blu-ray. And I am happy with the 4K format and what it offers in the home environment.

    8K’s intended audience at this point is more for professional applications – large screen monitors for workplace presentations, digital display boards, theme park applications, etc.

    This may be so but not 100% because you can already purchase 8K consumer displays and a JVC e-shift 8K projector.

    I do however feel there is a great opportunity and need for 8K resolution and HDR/Dolby Vision commercial projectors for commercial theaters! With the screen sizes and the real dark rooms 8K should bring a higher quality picture even if they upconvert 4K DCP files.

  12. I don’t think most movie theaters need anything like that. If IMAX is comfortable with 2K and 4K for the world’s largest screens, multiplexes will be fine with those too.

    Yes, there are 8K monitors and projector for sale that you or I could buy, but they’re not really meant for us or home use. Those 8K screens are better served as digital display boards, for instance – they’ve installed a bunch in my office complex in different waiting rooms and elevator banks and you can walk right up to one without noticing the pixels. That’s what those are best suited for right now.

  13. The short simple answer is "No," the push toward 8K televisions will not affect the release of 4K Blu-ray or streaming. And as long as studios are content with releasing 4K Blu-rays from 2K DIs, 8K televisions are a complete waste of time and energy. I only support 8K at this time when it comes to cinema cameras, but am only using a combination of 6K and 4K cameras at the moment.

  14. jcroy

    I would love to watch Idiocracy in 8K.

    🙂

    President Camacho: S***. I know s***'s bad right now, with all that starving bulls***, and the dust storms, and we are running out of french fries and burrito coverings. But I got a solution.

    8K!!!!!!

  15. The only interest I have in 8K is that there is a glimmer of hope that the new ATSC 3.0 OTA Broadcast System Standard includes Video System Characteristics for MVC 3D and supports 3D in 1080i, 1080P, 2160P and 4320P.
    When the industry abandoned 3D support for 4K, I lost an interest in looking for any and all non 3D 4K products.

  16. My recurring questuon is, At what point does the state of video technology surpass the ability of the healthy human eye to discern any difference–or, for that matter, the human brain to even care?

  17. My recurring question is, At what point does the state of video technology surpass the ability of the healthy human eye to discern any difference–or, for that matter, the human brain to even care?

  18. Peter McM

    My recurring questuon is, At what point does the state of video technology surpass the ability of the healthy human eye to discern any difference–or, for that matter, the human brain to even care?

    We're already past it. The brain can only process 2k worth of visual information.

  19. Paul Hillenbrand

    The only interest I have in 8K is that there is a glimmer of hope that the new ATSC 3.0 OTA Broadcast System Standard includes Video System Characteristics for MVC 3D and supports 3D in 1080i, 1080P, 2160P and 4320P.
    When the industry abandoned 3D support for 4K, I lost an interest in looking for any and all non 3D 4K products.

    I have zero interest in 3D, but I think it was a huge missed opportunity when the transition from PAL and NTSC to HDTV occurred not to have one global standard, with support for 24p, 25p, and 29.97i. ATSC, DVB, and ISDB leave us in the same place we were before — maybe worse, since there are three commonly adopted standards instead of two (if you count SECAM as part of PAL).

  20. The TV manufacturers got to sell most people new High Definition TV’s when HD came out and it seems they wanted to sell more TV’s so they pushed 4K. At a normal viewing distance the human eye can’t see the difference between HD and 4K. Now the TV manufacturers are getting greedy because the higher number of K’s sounds more impressive. Broadcast is still HD and looks terrific. 8K in the home is ridiculous and even 4K is overkill. I love my Sony XBR-55X900F 4K TV for the excellent black level, color…not necessarily for the added resolution.

  21. I’m stopping at UHD BluRay. My modest little home theater looks more than fine with UHD
    (I still have to upgrade my TV to UHD/HDR, which I will do in the near future- dying to see what Toy Story looks like in UHD).

  22. Lord Dalek

    There have been no studies but its a fact that's been branded about (even by our RAH) for several years.

    Ok.

    So for now, it is strictly anecdotal by the subjective experiences of experts and movie enthusiasts ?

  23. I don’t know why 8K matters for home use. 4K barely matters, it just bundled into new stuff by default. Sorry to break it to the CE industry, but they hey-day of upgrading everything to get HD isn’t coming around again. I can’t imagine anything like that is going to drive sales again. If anything these newer formats are becoming niche as you have a whole generation that just streams content on their tiny little phones. Even with some of this stuff dropping into commodity price ranges, I still can’t be bothered to replace a 12yo 32″ 720p set I still have around, because it still just works on the rare occasion that I use it.

  24. jcroy

    Ok.

    So for now, it is strictly anecdotal by the subjective experiences of experts and movie enthusiasts ?

    Yes, and so obviously and easily disproven by the clear difference between true 4K and 1080p, which is almost 2K already. Also obviously easily disproven by the clear difference between a true 4K Blu-ray and a 2K upscale to 4K.

    Also easily disproven by simply going outside and seeing far more detail with your naked eye than you can see on a 4K Blu-ray.

  25. Bradskey

    I don't know why 8K matters for home use. 4K barely matters, it just bundled into new stuff by default. Sorry to break it to the CE industry, but they hey-day of upgrading everything to get HD isn't coming around again. I can't imagine anything like that is going to drive sales again. If anything these newer formats are becoming niche as you have a whole generation that just streams content on their tiny little phones. Even with some of this stuff dropping into commodity price ranges, I still can't be bothered to replace a 12yo 32" 720p set I still have around, because it still just works on the rare occasion that I use it.

    Quality is more important to some than to others.

  26. AcesHighStudios

    I've already answered that in subsequent posts.

    No you said you can see more than 2k. That's true. At an acceptable distance with a tv less than 80" wide you can see about 2.8K. Maybe 3.2 but that's with 20-20 vision which only 1/3 of humanity has. YOU CAN'T SEE 4K. Not unless you want to stick your face directly in front of your tv and soak in that radiation or waste some 2 grand on a 100" monitor and even then you STILL can't see it because your eyes don't perceive pixels!

  27. Hell, I'm still waiting for thousands of beloved films to make it to good old 1080. I'll probably never own a 4K disc…unless maybe if by some miracle they release Ben-Hur. I'm not interested in the recent stuff at all, and for me that's the last three decades plus some. All I can hope for in the 8K realm is that they offer digital downloads of great classics for sale in 8K which I could download overnight and have on a hard drive, or better, burn onto an 8K disc (which isn't invented yet). The shape of things to come? To be optimistic, I'm sure that these would look great…like maybe the restored The Golem.

  28. Lord Dalek

    No you said you can see more than 2k. That's true. At an acceptable distance with a tv less than 80" wide you can see about 2.8K. Maybe 3.2 but that's with 20-20 vision which only 1/3 of humanity has. YOU CAN'T SEE 4K. Not unless you want to stick your face directly in front of your tv and soak in that radiation or waste some 2 grand on a 100" monitor and even then you STILL can't see it because your eyes don't perceive pixels!

    You know something I don’t?

    Like where can one get a quality 100” screen (not a projector ) for 2 grand?

    (But you can get quality 75” 4K TV in the $1400-$2109 price range)

  29. I’m in like mind with Paul H’s post: the abandonment of 3D also has me uninterested in new display tech, including 8K, until I can watch my 3D collection on it.

    Until then, 8K provides this longtime early-adopter an unfamiliar outlook on my home theater:

    Good old fashioned 4K OLED looks good enough to me.

  30. My observation is, while it’s great to be able to view the highest resolution images on a huge screen, what about the more-often-times that one has to view lower resolution images on the same huge screen. There has to be a compromise screen size/resolution.

  31. These won’t really be for me or you just yet. While I’m sure they’ll be displayed at some high end showrooms, they’ll probably be used in more corporate spaces than consumer ones. Think in terms of digital billboards that you can walk right up to without seeing pixels and that sort of thing.

    Eventually they may take over in the way that it’s now easier to find a 4K set than an HD set in many places. But I don’t think content producers will be making a shift to 8K anytime soon so it’ll be a capability sets have that no one is taking advantage of.

  32. Like with 4k TV's the overall quality of TV's will continue to improve regardless of resolution. The best TV's will be 8k and they will not only be on top within their respective categories with regard to resolution but also because of other parameters that for most customers will be more relevant than resolution, like tone mapping and color accuracy, light output, color space coverage, black level and so on.

    As for resolution I do not think that we need to have a different discussion than for 4k as there are the same limits to what the eye can see that apply for 8k as for 4k. While this is a bit of an oversimplification as absolute size plays a certain tole one can start by cutting distances and viewing angles in half with everything else being the same.

    if one does the test for the distance at which 4k resolution can be appreciated for a meaningful percentage of content and then cuts that distance in half for the same screen size it will not be very far from the screen.
    So probably not a distance that too many people would want to sit at but maybe it helps a little bit to get more movies out in 4k instead of 2k.

  33. Since buying a 65" OLED I have been captivated by 4k content. The uplift in image quality is greater than I expected and I bought a Panny 4k camcorder for family/holiday filming. Looking forward to 8k if for no other reason than it gives a boost to 4k content.

  34. If you consider that more than half of what is passed on as 4K is actually up-converted 2K masters (which means those extra pixels are not real new information), why would anyone think that 8K is going to be ACTUAL new information either. Until the studios start making real 4K masters we won't even be getting actual added pixels for 4K. As long as they continue to make movies with 1000+ CGI shots that already take huge amounts of hard drive space and hours to render, we'll probably not see actual 4K masters for a long time. If that ever happens, then 8K for years will just be up-converted 4K masters. For me, on my 110" screen, my Epson pixel-shifting projector showing a blu-ray with a touch of Darbee added before reaching the projector is about as sharp and detailed as I could ever see with my aging eyes.

  35. 8K will become the next standard for TV sets because that is all that they will build. Most of the content displayed will be uprezzed. I would not be shocked to see 8K content in some form but likely not in physical media.

  36. crowe-t

    8K in the home is ridiculous and even 4K is overkill. I love my Sony XBR-55X900F 4K TV for the excellent black level, color…not necessarily for the added resolution.

    I agree. Anything over 4K is overkill. The greatest improvements with modern TVs are great black levels (if you have an OLED), wider color gamut, extended dynamic range, non-reflective screen, etc. My Panasonic OLED has a very useful Gamma control (great for uncrushing blacks.)

  37. One question I haven't seen really addressed, is who exactly will be the first-adoptor audience for such 8K screens?

    I suspect tv/movie folks might not be the target audience this time around.

    The tarage audience might be somebody else, such as video gamers ? For example, will the next generation of video game consoles support 8K straight out of the box ?

  38. OLDTIMER

    I agree. Anything over 4K is overkill. The greatest improvements with modern TVs are great black levels (if you have an OLED), wider color gamut, extended dynamic range, non-reflective screen, etc. My Panasonic OLED has a very useful Gamma control (great for uncrushing blacks.)

    I think people get too hung up on the "4K" designation as those other attributes are more important to me watching my two LG OLED displays which is why UHD discs derived from 2K elements don't bother me as much as others.

  39. jcroy

    One question I haven't seen really addressed, is who exactly will be the first-adoptor audience for such 8K screens?

    I’ve said multiple times in this thread – they are being adopted for business and commercial use to begin with. My company, for example, has replaced static signage in the building with these types of monitors, which allow you to stand super close without seeing the pixels due to the super high resolution. Instead of paying someone to print out new signs and put up new displays, they can now just change the image on the monitor from a remote location. You’ll see other people using them for billboards, in store signage, that sort of thing. NYC is in the process of replacing printed billboards with digital screens for advertising and information.

    They’ll also be adopted for theme park applications where they’ll be used to display custom made 8K video both in waiting areas and integrated within the attractions.

  40. Josh Steinberg

    I’ve said multiple times in this thread – they are being adopted for business and commercial use to begin with.

    I was thinking more along the lines of home users. Which part of the "hardcore" crowd, would be the first to be widely buying 8K screens ?

    (I assume commercial / business usage would be first adopters for many newer technologies, when there's significant benefits to the bottom line).

  41. AcesHighStudios

    Yes, and so obviously and easily disproven by the clear difference between true 4K and 1080p, which is almost 2K already. Also obviously easily disproven by the clear difference between a true 4K Blu-ray and a 2K upscale to 4K.

    Also easily disproven by simply going outside and seeing far more detail with your naked eye than you can see on a 4K Blu-ray.

    Lord Dalek

    No you said you can see more than 2k. That's true. At an acceptable distance with a tv less than 80" wide you can see about 2.8K. Maybe 3.2 but that's with 20-20 vision which only 1/3 of humanity has. YOU CAN'T SEE 4K. Not unless you want to stick your face directly in front of your tv and soak in that radiation or waste some 2 grand on a 100" monitor and even then you STILL can't see it because your eyes don't perceive pixels!

    I can certainly see the difference between an HD screen and real life with the naked eye in some scenarios.

    As a very crass extreme example, I can certainly see the difference between an HD recording of myself having sex with my gf, in comparison to seeing the same / similar sex act in real life from a slightly different point-of-view angle / perspective. (Such as recording sex from a first person perspective).

    🙂 🙂

  42. Lord Dalek

    No you said you can see more than 2k. That's true. At an acceptable distance with a tv less than 80" wide you can see about 2.8K. Maybe 3.2 but that's with 20-20 vision which only 1/3 of humanity has. YOU CAN'T SEE 4K. Not unless you want to stick your face directly in front of your tv and soak in that radiation or waste some 2 grand on a 100" monitor and even then you STILL can't see it because your eyes don't perceive pixels!

    Apparently you presume to speak for the entire world when you are only able to speak for yourself. I work in film and television. I have 8 4K cameras, which are an extremely noticeable upgrade from the HD cameras I had previously. I also have two 6K cameras, which are noticeably better than my 4K cameras. Not as large an upgrade as the jump from HD to 4K, but it's definitely there.

    I don't really care whether you believe that or not. It doesn't change the actual facts I work with every single day.

  43. 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 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 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 chose to adopt it is our choice.

  44. 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.

  45. Robert Crawford

    Looks like we have differences of opinion regarding the facts about whether somebody can see the differences between 2K and 4K.

    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

    jcroy

    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).

    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.

  46. cstegall

    …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.

    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.

  47. CC95

    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).

  48. AcesHighStudios

    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.

  49. Yee-Ming

    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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. Colin Dunn

    Moving video with the resolution of a high-end DSLR camera must be something to behold.

    There are no DSLRs capable of shooting in 8K. Even mirrorless 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.

  53. jcroy

    Heh.

    Hollywood Director Barry Sonnenfeld Bashes ‘Problematic’ HDR, ‘Stupid’ 8K

    https://www.cepro.com/audio-video/hollywood-director-barry-sonnenfeld-bashes-hdr-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.

  54. AcesHighStudios

    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.

  55. 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.

  56. Mark-P

    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.

    I agree. HDR should only enhance what is already there, not change it.

  57. I went 4K—- sorta. I bought a 65" TCL 4k set and a Samsung UHD player from Costco a year ago. Has it changed my life? No. Do UHD discs look amazing? I dunno, I guess. Blade Runner 2049 is probably the best disc-based content I've seen. 4K YouTube videos are pretty gorgeous.

    But average TV viewing? Meh. Pixellation galore if anything moves. But that's down to Comcast. I don't blame TCL.

    What I really want is an LG OLED set. If I can just get that, then I'll never need to upgrade again. And if I'm still alive when it dies, then (and only then) will I entertain 8K. Until then…. eff off. Imagine if Blu-ray was being introduced just as DVD was beginning to overtake VHS. That's 8K to me. Too soon.

Leave a Reply