BBC: "Will 8K be the ultimate TV screen?"

[combatentropy]

Anything beyond 2K is idiotic. Why? Because you want to watch your movies with a 30-degree angle of view.

Think about it. Do you like to sit on the front row of the theater?

And at a comfortable viewing angle, your visual acuity hits a hard limit (called "rods and cones") at around 2K.

There are so much better things to spend pixels on. Let them be bigger, for greater dynamic range. Let them be fewer, for cheaper media.

If a tree falls in a forest, but there's no one around to hear it, does it make sound?
If manufacturers make more and more megapixels, but it exceeds the limit of the human eye, does it make a difference?

 

[Subhadip]

Anything beyond 2K is idiotic. Why? Because you want to watch your movies with a 30-degree angle of view.

Think about it. Do you like to sit on the front row of the theater?

And at a comfortable viewing angle, your visual acuity hits a hard limit (called "rods and cones") at around 2K.

There are so much better things to spend pixels on. Let them be bigger, for greater dynamic range. Let them be fewer, for cheaper media.

If a tree falls in a forest, but there's no one around to hear it, does it make sound?
If manufacturers make more and more megapixels, but it exceeds the limit of the human eye, does it make a difference?

The often quoted 30 degree figure is a minimum as per SMPTE, or equivalent of the last row in the theater. THX's recommended minimum is 36 degrees. Ideal viewing distances vary depending on personal preference and viewing situation. The middle rows are about 45 degrees and that is where I prefer to be, and this is where 4K makes sense. Right now I am sitting 3 feet away on a 27 inch 2560x1440 monitor, and this is how I watch films. The difference between 4K material downscaled to 2560x1440 versus 1920x1080 is immediately evident, particularly in detailed wide shots. For close ups with shallow focus - not so much.

Of course, we could flip the situation and think of a fairly common one - 46 inch TV from 8 feet away by someone with average vision (i.e. 20/20) - in such a situation 2K is certainly more than most eyes can work out, and the same applies for someone who prefers viewing from the last row in the theater. On the other hand, consider a large screen watched up close - the kind of new age viewing experience BBC is referring too - and 8K suddenly starts making sense.

Some simply prefer to have the image fill up more of their vision, while others who have not experienced such a situation may be surprised when they do - like many of the people participating in BBC's 8K Olympics trials. And of course, many who simply want to keep their distance. I feel there's no one way that would merit branding others "idiotic".

 

[Samuel H]

When I go to the movies, I like to sit at a distance that is between 1.25 and 1.75 times the screen width. That's a viewing angle of between 32º and 44º. At my home (11 feet from eyes to screen), this would mean a screen that is betwee 85" and 120". With the chart from the previous page, 1080p would be enough for 84", but 4K is overkill even for 120".

 

[roxics]

I think we're going to be having this debate for a long time.

Just get me an affordable 8K camera that resolves true RGB for each pixel, quality compression, 0-480fps recording, some fancy new single-lens-3D method and a computer that can handle the post. Whether I will actually want to display 8K later on doesn't matter. I'd love to shoot with it right now to future proof my productions. I already got burned shooting my first feature on DV, which looks like crap on a 1080p set now.

Just give me something affordable that won't be outdated for the next 3 decades. I don't care what resolution, I care more about stability. Film provided stability for decades. Just give us a video platform that will as well.

 

[Oller Visuals]

Just give me something affordable that won't be outdated for the next 3 decades. I don't care what resolution, I care more about stability. Film provided stability for decades. Just give us a video platform that will as well.

1080p will be an acceptable/desired delivery format for years, people won't see any difference except on large screens. And people won't suddenly buy Larger screens at home to SEE IT...... they might buy movie tickets for 4K/48fps/whatever but I don't know anybody who even has a 3D TV yet the market has pushed soooo hard for people to upgrade their TVs here in Sweden, there's been 3D shoved down our throats this entire year,I don't know anybody who actually cares other than "oh yeah that effect when Voldemort died looked kinda cool, except the expensive ticket...".

Think big.... I doubt any of this is interesting 7 years from now... we're heading towards new ways of consuming entertainment. Video games & movies will merge into a seamless "experience" that we've actually been working on for years (VR and so on...) but I think soon watching movies the classic way will be like black-and-white in comparison.

 

[Samuel H]

Now that you bring up video games...
5 years ago, all the video industry cared about was the eye candy: make the game that's most realistic, the hardware that can render the highest resolution at the most fps, etc. Then came the Wii. It seems most people cared a lot more about having fun than about eye candy.
In movies, it could be the same with 3D, 4K, 8K, 22.2 sound...

 

[dracalat]

I don't want to go through a tangent, but on this game subject, has anyone played The Walking Dead? It's like a graphic novel-meets-film-meets-game and it is absolutely brilliant. My wife who has never ever ever ever played any games is completely immersed in it. I can see the genre evolving and incorporating real moving images in the future and playing it on big large screens...Just a thought.