dustylense
Veteran
http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2012/04/01/sonys-8k-f7-16000/
Whatever. My K is bigger than your K.
Whatever. My K is bigger than your K.
I'll see your 4K and up you to 8K.
- Thread starter dustylense
- Start date
dustylense
Veteran
It's not April fools yet. But all the same, I find it funny.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
It is in Europe/UK ;-)
dustylense
Veteran
I did. It's why I laugh. But it's not the 1st here. So I can still believe and ponder? By the time we are invested in 4k, there will be 8k. See how these companies are making a living off us. Just dangle more carrots.
Of course this is a joke. A joke that will become reality sooner that later, but not before you all rush out and buy your 4k system. LOL
Oh, I agree. There was an April 1st joke last year, or the year before from HD Warrior about a Super-35 Canon video camera. Ha ha.
And yet, look what we have now.
We may not be laughing at 8K in a few years.
dustylense
Veteran
Yeah, and them actors with the not so good complexions (cough cough, Cameron Diaz and Brad Pitt) will find it ever so lovely. You know how much face they need to put on to look good a 1080p? There is only one thing I would want to see in 8k. Sports.
dustylense
Veteran
it's like all these cameras are a bunch near naked girls on a beach stretch and were rubber necking left and right. Eventually you have to pick one and have a go with it (or her).
bruceallen
Well-known member
Thank you for the link!
Aha - so that one is going to have Genlock! F7 with genlock, FS700 no genlock... because, you know... it makes total sense to put the heavier F7 in a 3D rig, and make it so that the FS700 can't have shutter sync. Gnash teeth at the Sony. I hope I'm wrong!
BTW, Sony's definition of 8K has always been a bit odd. It basically has 6K worth of pixels, rotated 45 degrees.
But the alignment of pixels is good for making really, really nice 4K with 4:2:2 chroma resolution. Personally, yes, I would absolutely love to shoot oversampled 4K with Sony's "8K" camera.
OK now you have me completely confused. Human eyesight is much closer to 8K than 4K (especially Bayer sensor 4K).
You're saying that life would be better if we wore slightly blurry glasses to get our eyesight down to 4K?
Personally I like my life seeing things at high resolution and do not find normal human faces viewed crisply a terrifying thing.
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
dustylense
Veteran
Yeah, human vision is 8K. I'll TELL you this. I've been in studio with Camron Diaz, and I wish I had 1080p vision that day. I've assisted and worked this guy (sebreephoto.com) off and for many years. I've seen most of them before makeup. 8K would be a disaster for 70% of them. Even with makeup, making a wardrobe adjustment on her I was shocked!!!!! The only one that could handle 8k would be Halle Berry, and she ain't getting any younger....
bruceallen
Well-known member
Look - I'm not going to fight you on older female stars sans makeup... or with makeup at extreme close range.
But there's a huge step between that and saying you only want to see sports at 8K!
Sure - when we to wall-sized 8K screens, maybe certain stars will need to either play characters more appropriate for their look... or act so compellingly that we don't notice... or spend a lot of money on digital makeup. Also I'd damn well hope that extreme closeups were used sparingly.
Other nice thing about high res is that you can still diffuse it in a myriad ways and bring up subtle points of detail. Versus shooting low res and then having either soft... or oversharpened.
I guess I just don't understand the anti-8K thing. To me part of the problem of HD is that it's trying so hard to look sharp that it makes peoples' faces look ugly by having un-subtle oversharpening that tends to emphasize the wrong bits?
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Steve Castle
Well-known member
Not really. Its Sony's definition of 4K, as evidenced in the F65, is using a 20.4MP 8k2K sensor rotated 45 degrees, to make a 16-bit 4K image without using interpolation. Its akin in concept to Canon using a 8.3MP 4K sensor to make a 1080p image without interpolation in the C300. The final output resolution of the F65 is 4096 x 2160 but is made from 20.4 million photosites. Sony calls it "True" 4K.
combatentropy
Veteran
Human vision is 2K. Where oh where do you get 8K?
I am anti-8K. The people who are anti-8K are anti-8K (even anti-4K) because they are pro-(other things), like:
- pro-12-or-more-stops-of-dynamic-range
- pro-cheap-memory-cards
- pro-rendering-quickly
- pro-low-light
- pro-global-shutter
bruceallen
Well-known member
I think you need to get your eyes checked, Sir!
If human vision is 2K then you should be able to go right up to the nearest 1920x1080 monitor, get so close that it fills about 90% of your vision (think a few inches if you have a 24" monitor handy, a little more if you have a TV)...
...and not see any pixels. Really?
1. Talking to Tom Holman, the THX guy.
2. ...backed up by simple observation:
On my desk, I have a 2560x1440 monitor, flanked by two 1920x1080 monitors. So that's 6400 pixels across, all told.
If I sit in the right spot, I can see all of the monitors in my field of view clearly... and still see individual pixels if I use a pattern with high luma contrast. Add in bezels etc and you get a figure of roughly 7-8K of resolution right there.
Well good for you. I am pro-8K and pro all of those other things too.
And doing movie trailer titles yes I WISH that I never had to render stuff at 4K. Let alone stuff like the Captain America title for billboards (6K).
Nevertheless, I'm pretty confident that innovation will eventually solve problems like storage, rendering, CMOS skew, low light and dynamic range.
We've come a really long way in terms of electronics in the last while... I don't really see any huge roadblocks in the future (low light / dynamic range would be the one possible exception - but the performance of the pretty-much-8K still mode on Nikon's D800 gives me hope).
BTW you missed nice skintones, which I think are really imporatnt.
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
I don't know.. I'm going to call 8K right here right now "ZITS-A-Vision". But I posted the link because when the so called FS700 hits, the narrative will just turn to 8K, then 16k, and so on. Part of what I like about HD or 2K is the separation of reality. To further separate me from the everyday hustle and bustle of high def life. 4K is plenty, 2K is plenty. "ZITS-A-Vision", maybe for watching weekend golf so I can read the green from home.
What's funny about his April fool's post, is there really will be 8K video cameras in London this year
at the London olympics.
I like the NHK-BBC future vision of 8K 120Hz and also the Showscan 120Hz concept.
I look forward to the London games and seeing some stills pulled from their
8K broadcast, seeing if they capture motion extracted stills as clearly as the best Canon and Nikon stills!
If so, I think I'd be happy with that resolution for the next 20 years or so, while image quality
advances and RAW technology improves...
combatentropy
Veteran
Ah, I see where we are talking past each other. When I say 2K, I mean in the normal viewing angle, which is 30 degrees.
I'm all for 8K, once all those other things I listed are already here --- which they're not, and more pixels are a hindrance to that, since more pixels equal smaller pixels.