8K by 2016

For my comparison I use a mirror. Totally different than screen technology, but if I could pause an image in a mirror I'm sure the resolution I'd be looking at is over 2K. So when screen technology can mimic a mirror in terms of resolution, laditude, depth, color, etc. that's when we have hit the limit.

But I do think other technology will come into play. I don't think it's all about just resolution. Frame rates and even shooting styles will come into play. Like watching a stage play in your living room with explosions and everything. I think we may have to shift the way we shoot some films. Going with wider shots, deep depth of field and faster frame rates will create and entirely different kind of cinema experience then we're used to. It will be this kind of experience where I think 8K will be a beneficial resoution.
 
Beyond that. I don't think anyone cares if any of us believe it is too much. The fact that the 2012 Olympics have pieces shot in 8K and certian manufacturers are already showing 8K television prototypes means that is is coming no matter what. The big question is when and how do we make best use of the technology as content creators once it arrives.
 
Well, let's play with that mirror analogy: how close do you have to get to a mirror to see your eyelashes individually? With my eyes, about 2 feet, and at that distance what I'm looking at is a head-and-shoulders portrait shot. For that kind of shot, on a good 1080p image, I'd probably be able to see individual eyelashes too.

What the miror has that the 1080p image doesn't is that I can get closer to the mirror and "resolution" increases, but I don't need that capability when I'm seating in a theatre.
 
Overkill is probably the reason why 8k is getting so much backing by the industry. With 4k a consumer could argue that the difference in picture quality is not worth the upgrade. But with 8k which is 16 times the resolution of 1080p the difference will be so dramatic it will be like night and day. 1080p will pale in comparison and consumers will have to upgrade. At that time the frugal consumer will choose a 4k television and the home theatre buffs will get the 8k television. 1080p televisions will no longer be available except at garage sales.
 
actually a mirror is a bad example as you are effectively trying to focus on two plains (or one fake focal point past the mirror's surface) as such what you are looking at is a softer out of focus image, funny thing I learned recently so looking at a high res images of yourself is a better representation of what you look like to others, and eventually we might have ultra high res camera's and displays replacing mirrors! you never know! another bit of that eye brain trickery that goes on that we have little knowledge of!
 
androbot2084 said:
At that time the frugal consumer will choose a 4k television and the home theatre buffs will get the 8k television. 1080p televisions will no longer be available except at garage sales.
Click to expand...

Do you know how long HD was an actual technology before it went mainstream?

From Wikipedia:
In 1979, the Japanese state broadcaster NHK first developed consumer high-definition television with a 5:3 display aspect ratio.[SUP] [/SUP]The system, known as Hi-Vision or MUSE after its Multiple sub-Nyquist sampling encoding for encoding the signal, required about twice the bandwidth of the existing NTSC system but provided about four times the resolution (1080i/1125 lines). Satellite test broadcasts started in 1989, with regular testing starting in 1991 and regular broadcasting of BS-9ch commencing on November 25, 1994, which featured commercial and NHK programming.
Click to expand...

Will 8k be any faster to adopt? If so, why? How will content me delivered?
 
People don't really understand the concept of high definition television. They will buy an hdtv and a blu-ray player and they will hook it up using a standard definition composite cable. There is no socially acceptable way to explain to them that they are not getting a high definition picture and they will refuse to buy a $10 hdmi cable.
 
It's also a good thing for some of the indie filmmakers too. I'd imagine if there's a large market going for the 8K, the prices in some 4K models may drop.
 
Gary Huff said:
Do you know how long HD was an actual technology before it went mainstream?

From Wikipedia:


Will 8k be any faster to adopt? If so, why? How will content me delivered?
Click to expand...

Even with 4k or 8k screens, not all content will need to be in 8k. Especially if we are talking about delivery of films, films do not need to be viewed at those resolutions.

Ultra high def screens will go beyond traditional viewing of feature films and sitcoms. TVs are no longer passive boxes.
 
So that means that 1080p at 60 frames per second is no sharper than interlace 480i unless you have a gigantic screen? Maybe that's what the broadcasters told us 10 years ago when they did not want to pay to replace their obsolete analog equipment.
 
roxics said:
Beyond that. I don't think anyone cares if any of us believe it is too much. The fact that the 2012 Olympics have pieces shot in 8K and certian manufacturers are already showing 8K television prototypes means that is is coming no matter what. The big question is when and how do we make best use of the technology as content creators once it arrives.
Click to expand...

Well, 'They' did the same thing with 3D and look where that got them. I can't see the future, but
I will say this. The success or failure of 4K or 8K, like that of 3D, will NOT depend on what
'They' make or what some people say on Internet forums. It will depend on consumers.
Will they buy the TV sets? The answer to that question probably depends on another....
what is the price? My guess, is that you will NOT see widespread adoption of 4k or
8K until the TV sets are relatively cheap.....I'm talking nowadays HD set cheap.
Of course that's just a guess and consumer behavior will rule the day....as it has with
3D.
 
David Jimerson said:
I have not tested this, but I'm thinking Joe Average very much can.

Whether or not it matters to them is a different question.
Click to expand...

Good point... but I think it does matter, or will matter even more along the way. I can very much tell the difference between SD and HD, I even think it's pretty obvious that SD is worse. It simply doens't look good. I also remember the older generation like my mom and dad talk about how they thought HD was too crisp for their taste, but hiihaa... here we are 4-5 years later and now they prefer Full HD over any old DVD.

My private tv is a measly 32" Full HD tv... our oldest has a small HD tv and my parents / in-laws all have at least 42" tvs.

The funny thing I noticed is that there was a comment here that you would need a tv so and so big in order to benefit from 4K / 8K. Couldn't be futher from the truth. Just look at the retina tech. We are already seeing full HD being crammed into 3.5" monitors. I wouldn't be a feat at all making a 37" tv carry 4K or 8K... yes, it will be expensive at first, but once the first manufaturer has started making them, the others HAVE TO follow suit and when then do, the first ones will HAVE TO go down in price.

So why not get a 4K tv? I simply cannot see a reason why not. The images are bound to be better than HD, and that is all that matters to me. I really don't care if I really need it or not. If it was a question about that I might as well be sitting watching some s*%tty tv with tubes from the 70s/80s.

Even now, when the most basic private internet connection in Denmark has reached 50mbit down / 5mbit up, I move away from anything less than 720. I simply can't be bothered to watch something in such a low quality. I almost feel like being spat in the face if presented with something that looks like it was grabbed from a old VHS tape just for the sake of being there. There's no romance to it, no nostalgia.... it's just... old.

Also keep in mind that we are in the middle of an economic crisis that might not even have hit full strength yet. This most definitely has an impact on consumer mentality.

But once it has passed and the wheels start running again, all that saved up money will go straight to tech and the sale of tvs will hit a new high. People will skip what ever is now (super large HD.... what's the point of those? and 3D... 3D is fun, but not entirely enjoyable in the current shape), and go straight for the new thing, which I predict will be at the time of the first 4K / 8K consumer tvs.

Also... I have to admit, everytime I talk to someone "un initiated" in tech, I make a fuzz trying to make them notice how bad anything less than HD look :) I will keep doing this once 4K hits..... along with dumping the price on hi res productions. Anything to make the wheels turn in favor of progress.
 
The question of high-definition display really can't be separated from the visual limitations applied by circle-of-confusion. When it strays beyond those limits, we're simply wasting bandwidth.

Personally, I think 'smart' TVs, televisions that can simply and easily deliver and store content, will have far more pull in the market than 4K, 8K or whatever.
 
Grug said:
The question of high-definition display really can't be separated from the visual limitations applied by circle-of-confusion. When it strays beyond those limits, we're simply wasting bandwidth.

Personally, I think 'smart' TVs, televisions that can simply and easily deliver and store content, will have far more pull in the market than 4K, 8K or whatever.
Click to expand...

Seems like the sweet spot for TV in the traditional sense has been met. (Although, I agree there is no big benefit between SD and HD for viewing satisfaction of film and sports, I can definitely see the difference between SD and HD, even from across the room.) So, while I am all for 4k and 8k tv's and cameras, I don't see it as effecting much in how people watch fast and the furious. Traditional broadcast doesn't need high definition. But... there is much room for higher resolution in other applications. Chiefly more interactive content. I think it will be difficult to change the minds of the 'heritage' generation, and they will still insist on couch surfing the latest movie and watching reruns of Lost.

Broadcast is one function. Interactive content and multitasking, or showing family pictures from your hard drive or cloud are completely different. Imagine having an 8k screen and showing your grand-kids some photos you took with a dslr way back when? Seems better than showing them on your iPhone.
 
Grug said:
The question of high-definition display really can't be separated from the visual limitations applied by circle-of-confusion. When it strays beyond those limits, we're simply wasting bandwidth.

Personally, I think 'smart' TVs, televisions that can simply and easily deliver and store content, will have far more pull in the market than 4K, 8K or whatever.
Click to expand...

And they are still working on convergence between internet and TV, and still haven't figured it out.

There is a difference between googling for youtube videos and flipping through the channels with the remote. Every year someone thinks they've figured out how to glue those two different things together, but it usually turns out they're wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top