Article pushing 8K hard

[NorBro]

My personal opinion is brains are developing differently than they did 100 years ago because of the exposure to so much information at all times so quickly.

I can't prove it, and I don't know what you would call it.

But I think people are evolving faster than previously thought.

 

[ahalpert]

My personal opinion is brains are developing differently than they did 100 years ago because of the exposure to so much information at all times so quickly.

I can't prove it, and I don't know what you would call it.

But I think people are evolving faster than previously thought.

I agree with the first part - people are very malleable/flexible neurologically (at least before they reach maturity) and so we're all adapted to a different pace and intensity of informational inputs. I expect that that trend will continue.

But as far as evolution in terms on genetic changes - I wager we are evolving more slowly than we did in the past. Evolution is driven by number of offspring who survive to reproduce. Nowadays (in the industrialized world), your number of offspring is more a function of choice than survival advantages. Yes, some people may not reproduce because they can't find a partner. But it's not like Jeff Bezos will have 1,000 times as many offspring as I will. And then there are lifesaving medicines and procedures... I just don't see the survival advantage of intellect being as relevant as in the past. (See: Idiocracy)

 

[NorBro]

But what surprises me about your overall thoughts is that it seems like you're not open to seeing a world that's different from the current one you're living in. Am I wrong?

Half of my own life was experienced through interlaced standard-definition...

What if the future primarily consists of 8K/60p? What if 24p was eventually phased out? Is that hard to imagine or accept? (Kind of similar to how resolutions are phased out.)

Too realistic for 2020 folks? But how will it look for 3020 ones?

 

[ahalpert]

I'm excited for the world to change. I'm writing a movie about a guy who travels further and further into the future as a time tourist.

But I feel about high resolution much the same way I feel about 3D - do I even want it? I don't really enjoy 3D even though I've tried to. And it seems like it's not going to take over. I think VR/360 will be a bigger deal. But honestly, that's a different ball of wax than regular image compositions. Just looking at a photograph is already a sort of limited VR (illusion of depth etc). You don't get shot compositions and leading the viewer's eye with VR. It's just different. It will not replace cinema because of "superiority" - it will provide an alternative medium.

I would be happy if someone said: "the ideal resolution of cinema is whatever-K because that's as much detail as 20/20 vision can resolve from X size screen at X distance." It's just that personally I don't always appreciate super-sharp imagery and I just don't see what the end-goal is of never-ending resolution increases.

As for 24P - I think it's a romantic sweet-spot of motion rendering. MAYBE I'm biased due to exposure and don't even realize it. But I do not want high frame rates in movies. I'm open to change, but I don't like the feel.

 

[NorBro]

LMK what you think about the video above, especially if you have a higher-resolution monitor.

 

[Guest]

I'm excited for the world to change. I'm writing a movie about a guy who travels further and further into the future as a time tourist.

But I feel about high resolution much the same way I feel about 3D - do I even want it? I don't really enjoy 3D even though I've tried to. And it seems like it's not going to take over. I think VR/360 will be a bigger deal. But honestly, that's a different ball of wax than regular image compositions. Just looking at a photograph is already a sort of limited VR (illusion of depth etc). You don't get shot compositions and leading the viewer's eye with VR. It's just different. It will not replace cinema because of "superiority" - it will provide an alternative medium.

I would be happy if someone said: "the ideal resolution of cinema is whatever-K because that's as much detail as 20/20 vision can resolve from X size screen at X distance." It's just that personally I don't always appreciate super-sharp imagery and I just don't see what the one-goal is of never-ending resolution increases.

We are still a little trapped in the SD vs HD mentality. Best Buy and Netflix are perpetuating the resolution wars. But we are actually moving towards being resolution agnostic.

 

[ahalpert]

LMK what you think about the video above, especially if you have a higher-resolution monitor.

I'm on my phone but the Peru video looks sometimes really beautiful and sometimes garish. I notice some highlight detail that isn't fully retained, and some.of.the colors seem a little loud and not nuanced.

But I would put this video in the category of a nature film essentially - and I've said all along that nature footage is well served by maximum resolution and hyper realism because essentially we're trying to get a close look at the subject. There's much less impetus for effect and aesthetic style or human beautifcation.

 

[ahalpert]

We are still a little trapped in the SD vs HD mentality. Best Buy and Netflix are perpetuating the resolution wars. But we are actually moving towards being resolution agnostic.

Agnostic? How so?

SD vs HD - I think I agree. Resolution is a spectrum. I just want to have an ideal or some sense of absolute parameters.

 

[NorBro]

I'm sure you know, but a lot people already use diffusion filters on their 4K cameras, so there's no doubt they would be going on the 8K sensors too.

It makes sense you'd personally be worried about the effect a higher-resolution may and does have on your personal clients/projects, but in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't be a concern with advanced post-production in the future.

And that's if you're still shooting and not a machine! (I know you don't like to think about that, or believe in it just yet. lol)

 

[ahalpert]

I'm sure you know but a lot people already use diffusion filters on their 4K cameras, so there's no doubt they would be going on the 8K sensors too.

It makes sense you'd personally be worried about the effect resolution may and does have on your personal clients/projects, but in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't be a concern with advanced post-production.

I guess I would say I don't always like the outcome, I don't like the emphasis, I feel like it encourages crappy filming and editing in a few different ways, and I'm also triggered by the idea that more is always better... but I suppose that none of those issues is a given. People can do better

 

[ahalpert]

And that's if you're still shooting and not a machine! (I know you don't like to think about that, or believe in it just yet. lol)

We'll have 8K or 16K before human operators are phased out. And even if humans are phased out (not a given), they may still want to jump in from time to time like how Brawley said he jumps in to handheld operate a G2 and get "visual jazz" coverage of a scene in addition before moving on

 

[paulears]

Are people willing to pay for higher and higher qualities? I'm not. I could shoot in 4K, I don't (well apart from when I need to do things planned in post) and the reason is simply that my HD chain from acquisition to delivery is not yet paid for, by no means ineffective or limiting, and clients are not willing to pay more money.

BBC here have HD channels nationally, but the local BBC (news, weather etc) is still SD, and because the sets are nice, the chain set up properly and lit well, NOBODY complains. Some of these 8K examples, even when crunched on YouTube and down converted to HD look stunning, because they were chosen well, photographed well and presented well. The minute hairs are there - in HD, so they display well on TVs that are set up to emphasise these things. So many TVs nowadays have display mode, for use in shops and stores where they need to stand out. We see the Sony and think it's stunning, and it is on the preselected material they play through them. In fact, the picture is artificial and in these modes, which many use at home too, the results on properly balanced output are very weird. Shadows lose their detail, but detail unintended appears elsewhere.

I'm left with the opinion that just because we can up the pixel count, what is the purpose? It makes investment worthless, it makes obsolete equipment that's very capable, and just seems detached from the viewers.

How many people watch YouTube set to automatic resolution, and are watching very often 720 res material very happily, on their HD or 4K TV. The arguments for the very best acquisition hold up, assuming that in the future somebody wants to revisit material and re-edit it, but does that ever happen. All the examples of re-edits of movies to 'enhance' them hardly warrant any press coverage, because the product is old, so while we can revisit old products, these re-issues are just collectors material.

James Bond, Dad's Army, all the old war movies - they're still run on British TV and NOBODY ever comments that the 1970s series recorded on quad or the new fangled helical scan recorders is sub-par. Who is 8K for? I've just bought an old HD camera on ebay for pocket money, and I'm smiling. The current version is 4K, and other than that, very little different. If I'm still alive, maybe if 8K takes off, in 7 years I'll be able to buy a 4K for silly money. One client just asked for a re-edit of a 4:3 SD video I did years ago. I asked about the 4:3 rather than 16:9, thinking maybe we could reshoot some of it to update it. He asked if I could just crop the 4:3. I did, and sent him the DVD of the 720x576 image cropped and stretched to fit, and he's very happy. In fairness, on laptops it does look OK. Which audience are we playing to? I fully understand the merits of increased res, and the business demand for some to be on the crest of the wave, but it's not for all of us - the water is calmer in the troughs, and just as warm!

 

[Guest]

Agnostic? How so?

Paulears actually answers how we would be in a resolution agnostic world.

8K tv’s are a canvas. Cellphones with retina screens, are a canvas.

Digital content isn’t like analogue formats, and as long as the devices can scale, it all happens automatically. And AI scaling helps a little sometimes. Not exactly good enough yet though.

Digital just means you are free from a lot of the more traditional constraints. It is a fluid medium.

The 8K raw camera and the 8k TV are different resolution, but that doesn’t seem to be worried about? It is all just content. Why someone is watching will effect if they care about the details. But by and large, we already live and operate in a strict resolution or frame.

 

[NorBro]

Are people willing to pay for higher and higher qualities? I'm not. I could shoot in 4K, I don't (well apart from when I need to do things planned in post) and the reason is simply that my HD chain from acquisition to delivery is not yet paid for, by no means ineffective or limiting, and clients are not willing to pay more money.

BBC here have HD channels nationally, but the local BBC (news, weather etc) is still SD, and because the sets are nice, the chain set up properly and lit well, NOBODY complains. Some of these 8K examples, even when crunched on YouTube and down converted to HD look stunning, because they were chosen well, photographed well and presented well. The minute hairs are there - in HD, so they display well on TVs that are set up to emphasise these things. So many TVs nowadays have display mode, for use in shops and stores where they need to stand out. We see the Sony and think it's stunning, and it is on the preselected material they play through them. In fact, the picture is artificial and in these modes, which many use at home too, the results on properly balanced output are very weird. Shadows lose their detail, but detail unintended appears elsewhere.

I'm left with the opinion that just because we can up the pixel count, what is the purpose? It makes investment worthless, it makes obsolete equipment that's very capable, and just seems detached from the viewers.

How many people watch YouTube set to automatic resolution, and are watching very often 720 res material very happily, on their HD or 4K TV. The arguments for the very best acquisition hold up, assuming that in the future somebody wants to revisit material and re-edit it, but does that ever happen. All the examples of re-edits of movies to 'enhance' them hardly warrant any press coverage, because the product is old, so while we can revisit old products, these re-issues are just collectors material.

James Bond, Dad's Army, all the old war movies - they're still run on British TV and NOBODY ever comments that the 1970s series recorded on quad or the new fangled helical scan recorders is sub-par. Who is 8K for? I've just bought an old HD camera on ebay for pocket money, and I'm smiling. The current version is 4K, and other than that, very little different. If I'm still alive, maybe if 8K takes off, in 7 years I'll be able to buy a 4K for silly money. One client just asked for a re-edit of a 4:3 SD video I did years ago. I asked about the 4:3 rather than 16:9, thinking maybe we could reshoot some of it to update it. He asked if I could just crop the 4:3. I did, and sent him the DVD of the 720x576 image cropped and stretched to fit, and he's very happy. In fairness, on laptops it does look OK. Which audience are we playing to? I fully understand the merits of increased res, and the business demand for some to be on the crest of the wave, but it's not for all of us - the water is calmer in the troughs, and just as warm!

This reminds me of a relative from the old country.

Walked everywhere. Refused mobile transportation.

He never experienced a car or bus ride, but he didn't need to.

 

[DLD]

... But yeah I remember someone describing the feeling of seeing Lawrence of Arabia in a theater and picking out the tiny character amidst a huge wide shot and being struck by the grandeur. (That film was shot in 65mm which IMAX claims is equivalent to about 12K resolution, so maybe there's something to it...)

35mm is about 3.5K/6.5MPX in monochrome, 65mm is about 5K/15. You can roughly double it for the perception of color as film is multi-layered and not monochrome (aside of the B&W). So, a pristine 65mm print is just about 8K in 4:2:0 or 4K RGB or 6K 4:2:2, depending on the filter pattern and so on.

PS. I don't mind the "extra sharp" look of the Helium/Monstro. It helps create better separation of the in-focus spots within the frame vs. the blurred spots (i.e., foreground vs. background, most of the time). While it's definitely not a "film" look or am Alexa look, it is a different look.

And, as a side note, some people like photo realism.

 

[ahalpert]

This reminds me of a relative from the old country.

Walked everywhere. Refused mobile transportation.

He never experienced a car or bus ride, but he didn't need to.

Ouch sick burn.

Is higher res really such an improvement? I went to see Dark Knight Rises in IMAX and I didn't feel like the extra resolution added anything to my experience.

(As a side-note, I also thought the movie was just not as good as Dark Knight. And a small part of that seemed related to a lack of camera movement and the many static tableaus they had set up - which I imagine were inspired by having an unwieldy camera.)

 

[NorBro]

In the walking guy's case, he didn't know what he was missing. Ignorance was bliss, if you will - so it didn't matter.

People are also perfectly happy with they have or what they know. I'll still watch 90s sitcoms on a 4:3 and I'll love it.

But to question the technological improvement (it's an improvement, an increase; it's better whether we need it or not), or bundle everyone into the same group of "resolution relevance" isn't something I'd agree with.

You can definitely question its necessity for yourself though. I can't answer if higher-resolutions are an improvement for you, but they are for me. But you don't have to use higher-resolution cameras. Ignore them.

There is a lot of technology around you that you probably don't use. And I understand that this one directly impacts your life/business, but just like there is no set standard for what is 'enough' visually (something you'd like), there will be no set standard or requirement - at least anytime soon - for 8K acquisition.

My own personal opinion is what I mentioned before; it may not matter to us right now in this very second that we're living in, but it will in the future and you will see changes as you continue to live.

No evolution textbook can teach us about what it will be like in 2120 or 3020, but if we're still around in at least 20 years, let's talk about it then.

 

[John Brawley]

My own personal opinion is what I mentioned before; it may not matter to us right now in this very second that we're living in, but it will in the future and you will see changes as you continue to live.

No evolution textbook can teach us about what it will be like in 2120 or 3020, but if we're still around in at least 20 years, let's talk about it then.

Indeed...

We went through the same kinds of arguments when going from SD to HD. I mean you can't even buy a HD TV anymore can you ? And yet there's people here saying 4K is enough and no one is doing 4K so why even go 4K... I don't think it matters much when the cameras and display technology are going to keep on moving on anyway. You can stick your flag in the sand and scream "you shall not pass" but who still thinks an F900 is the be all and end all ?

JB

 

[puredrifting]

Not too much discussion about the business viability of 8K acquisition or exhibition? For me, personally, I am with Paul, I think anything over 2K is sort of wasted on most people in most viewing situations. As we shot our Docuseries largely in DCI RAW,
I don't regret it and we can deliver a 4K master, which commercially, I think was worth the hassle and money, but if it would have been up to me, the whole thing would have been a lot cheaper and easier at 2K or 1080.

From a business standpoint, I'm thrilled to shoot at 8K, edit at 8K and deliver at 8K if the client is willing to pay for the entire workflow and up the
budget for hair, makeup, wardrobe, sets, props and production design, if it's that kind of project. I can then mark all of that up as a producer because
it all costs more and is more hassle and more time consuming.

So the takeaway is, let resolution, HDR, Dolby Atmos, FF, etc. all of these sorts of new technology standards to be client driven and paid for. If they want it, pay for it,
then they get it. As far as me as a producer, director or DP wanting to deliver any of those things with no extra cost or markup, hell no, why would I want to indulge in any of that?
I think 1080 is now super easy to work with, small, efficient and looks great, all other things being equal. Even 4K compressed like XF-AVC, really adds up in the increased
storage, shooting media, rendering time. Why keep increasing all of this if clients aren't willing to pay more for it?

 

[NorBro]

Indeed...

We went through the same kinds of arguments when going from SD to HD. I mean you can't even buy a HD TV anymore can you ? And yet there's people here saying 4K is enough and no one is doing 4K so why even go 4K... I don't think it matters much when the cameras and display technology are going to keep on moving on anyway. You can stick your flag in the sand and scream "you shall not pass" but who still thinks an F900 is the be all and end all ?

JB

Yup...and HD to 4K was a brutal one too. I only experienced that one, but I can only imagine what SD to HD was.

Not too much discussion about the business viability of 8K acquisition or exhibition? For me, personally, I am with Paul, I think anything over 2K is sort of wasted on most people in most viewing situations. As we shot our Docuseries largely in DCI RAW,
I don't regret it and we can deliver a 4K master, which commercially, I think was worth the hassle and money, but if it would have been up to me, the whole thing would have been a lot cheaper and easier at 2K or 1080.

From a business standpoint, I'm thrilled to shoot at 8K, edit at 8K and deliver at 8K if the client is willing to pay for the entire workflow and up the
budget for hair, makeup, wardrobe, sets, props and production design, if it's that kind of project. I can then mark all of that up as a producer because
it all costs more and is more hassle and more time consuming.

So the takeaway is, let resolution, HDR, Dolby Atmos, FF, etc. all of these sorts of new technology standards to be client driven and paid for. If they want it, pay for it,
then they get it. As far as me as a producer, director or DP wanting to deliver any of those things with no extra cost or markup, hell no, why would I want to indulge in any of that?
I think 1080 is now super easy to work with, small, efficient and looks great, all other things being equal. Even 4K compressed like XF-AVC, really adds up in the increased
storage, shooting media, rendering time. Why keep increasing all of this if clients aren't willing to pay more for it?

Everything you're saying makes perfect sense...in an old world, in our current one.

Think about it this way: 5-10 years ago, people were charging extra for 4K.

Some common thoughts:
"4K storage costs are insane!"
"My computer can't handle 4K!"
"It's too sharp!"

Who's charging extra for 4K these days? If you are and you're getting away with it, I salute you.

In the above example, you will not be able to charge more for a resolution in a future more modern world where it's so common and many people won't be charging more and clients will be paying less, and machines will be helping humans with production, and post-production will be doing all kinds of crazy stuff we can't even imagine!

Change, change, change.

2010: HD is super easy to work with, it looks great.

2020: 4K is super easy to work with, it looks great.

2030: 8K is super easy to work with, it looks great.