Will 4K ever be obsolete? Is 8K the next big thing?

4K display is unlikely to be "obsolete" in the near term. Everything changes in the LONG term, but not everything is dictated by tech advances. Practicality has a big role too.

4K looks good. It looks really good. And so many people view content on smaller and smaller screens, and live in areas where land becomes increasingly expensive and don't have room for massive screens, etc.

Yes, all encompassing VR type of content will require more resolution, but those are often shot with multiple cameras to begin with (3 4K cameras = 12K).

Upscaling algorithms to most eyes already look very good, and continue to get better. 4K has even more data to work with, so for many consumers, 4K content if ever needing to be upscaled to a larger display would work quite well.

Today, theaters still debate if the jump from 2K to 4K is that visibly noticeable.

I just don't see 2025 market as being one that will not accept 4K content for standard 2D film and videos, especially if you are working in the mid market producing video content for mid size businesses or consumers, or web delivery. VR and special large format screens have always been their own separate niche market. And practically speaking, 4K looks good. Objectively. While our primary form of media consumption may or may not change in the future (AR, VR, etc.) in terms of viewing a 2D video or film as we know them today, even in 50 years, the clarity and quality is perfectly acceptable for even very large displays, even without future advances in upscaling technology.

Bottom line, I think a question like this is far too broad to really answer ("obsolete" in terms of stock footage? or in terms of 2D flat video even being a common media type? or in terms of hollywood productions, or large corporate shoots? Obsolete in terms of ability to demand high rates, or in terms of a consumer being able to enjoy it? etc.).

So again, it comes back to practicality, in which I'd say, in the foreseeable future I do not see 4K delivery formats as being an unacceptable delivery format in the way SD is. We've reached too far into diminishing returns for the vast majority of viewers. YMMV depending on your clientelle, industry, project type, etc. But the more poignant question may be, will 2D video still be the leading format of communication and/or media delivery in the future?
 
I still have a 42” 720p TV. It is fine for viewing movies/shows, a little small for gaming at the distance I sit. I would like to at some point get a bigger (and at this point probably 4k) set. Still shoot 1080, never had a request for more (from anyone willing to pay a proper rate) so that won’t change for me anytime soon (probably).
 
Surely there is going to be a point soon where the technology that is available, will outgrow the infrastructure networks?

As an example, 4K streaming is basically non-existent in Australia because we don't have fast enough internet. This is despite the fact the government has just rolled out a new nation-wide broadband network. They just simply cannot afford to keep up with with increasing data rates. Some of our TV Networks have actually reverted backwards to SD broadcasts too, partly because with the same amount of bandwidth & infrastructure as one HD broadcast, they can deliver multiple SD channels.

Of course, other countries are in a very different position in this regard - Japan, for example, is well placed to trial 8K broadcasts, but most markets will not be able to keep up with the constant need to upgrade everything.
 
Oller Visuals said:
Now: is there any reason to believe that we will we reach a point when shooting in 4K isn't good enough?
Click to expand...

IMHO, no. 4K is the sweet spot, at least for delivery. To actually be able to see the increased resolution of 8K, you have to be so close to the screen that you can't see the whole image at once. To my mind, 8k delivery is actually a detriment.

There's something similar that happens with 8k capture -- the pixels have to be so small in an S35 format that low light capacity and therefore shadow detail suffers. To make the pixels big enough to be practical, you're looking at considerably bigger sensors, with the required bigger / heavier / more expensive glass, worse (or better, depending on what you want) depth of field, etc.

To me, 4k capture and either HD or 4k delivery is the sweet spot. I don't understand the push for 8k. Just like I didn't understand the push for 3D.

Oller Visuals said:
Are resolutions adequate today?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Oller Visuals said:
Should one focus on other aspects like HDR, noise levels and good optics? Maybe even Virtual Reality will be a bigger thing than 8K?
Click to expand...

The biggies for me are better dynamic range (the only place left where film wins over digital), and better tonality (I'd like to see at least 4:2:2 and 12 bits become the norm). I don't need more resolution, so won't buy it.

Oller Visuals said:
I've never seen a comparison with 4K/8K, but I've heard people say it's a noticable difference. "8K is what 3D should have been", and similar statements.
Click to expand...

There is a noticeable difference -- if you're standing so close you can see it. But it feels like to me that the screen is invading my personal space. It's really uncomfortable to me; I wouldn't buy it -- I would pay more money to not have it.
 
A bit of future peeping here.

I think we are all being tied down by the limitation of our understanding of sensors as we assume they must have discrete light gathering photsites. The way we measure these sensors is by the number of photsites (pixels) they have, 2k, 4k, 6k, 8k etc. Light itself is analogue and is 'pixeless' and has infinite resolution. The perfect aim is to capture light in its infinite glory without the images being defined by the number of photosites used. Eventually I think sensors based on digital technology will be replaced by organic capture such as a capture technology based on polymer film known as a luminescent concentrator. This technology is in its infancy but will develop just as Fox Talbot's original images developed into modern day film. When this comes of age, back to working with organic light capture undefined by the physical limitations of photsites. I think photsite based capture will be looked upon at as a transitional step on the way to capturing images based on the infinite curves of analogue light. How will we store these images? We may not have to store these images in a binary digital manner because organic DNA based computing is showing massive leap forwards in storing and processing. Taken broadly, DNA computation has enormous future potential.

I believe the time will come, not in my lifetime but within the foreseeable future where the expression 'K' will be meaningless in imaging because imaging resolution could become infinite, beyond the scope of our eyes. Now that would be something to see :) I often say i wouldn't be dead for $$$s as I would miss all this amazing development. I started in film in the 60's. Color reversal had about 1/3rd stop latitude. Color neg had a safe 4-5 stop exposure latitude. TV had 405 lines and was B&W. Now look at where we are! The future of imaging will leave all we know and understand today for dead.

Check out some of these developments going on behind our backs that most likely will have a massive impact on imaging as we know it today.

https://www.osa.org/en-us/about_osa...aging_device_that_is_flexible,_flat,_and_tra/

http://theconversation.com/organic-computers-made-of-dna-could-process-data-inside-our-bodies-46364

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160714120650.htm

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/515651/bell-labs-invents-lensless-camera/

Chris Young
 
cyvideo said:
I believe the time will come, not in my lifetime but within the foreseeable future where the expression 'K' will be meaningless
Click to expand...

This is exactly my point as well.
Not only is it a possibility, it is guaranteed.
None of our references will be relevant 100 years from now...heck probably even 50 years from now.
Everything moves on, and NOTHING is future proof.
Except perhaps human stories, and eventually even those will end too.

In the meantime, as long as consumo mode is easier than creativity, people will spend more time browsing camera forums and ebay rather than practicing their art.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
IMHO, having shot all of these formats:

HD - meaningful, significant technolgical advance from what preceded it
4k - gimmick to sell crap nobody needs
8k - gimmick to sell crap nobody needs
VR/360 video - to sell crap nobody needs
3D - to sell crap nobody needs
Click to expand...

From a cinematographer's point of view this is totally correct. But technology changes perception and the change of perception changes the way we perceive technology. There could come up a totally new and yet unknown way of audiovisual media which relies on extremely high resolution content. For the classical screen though even 720p was good enough.
 
joe 1008 said:
From a cinematographer's point of view this is totally correct. But technology changes perception and the change of perception changes the way we perceive technology. There could come up a totally new and yet unknown way of audiovisual media which relies on extremely high resolution content. For the classical screen though even 720p was good enough.
Click to expand...

True, but I'll be dead within 25-30 years probably so... ;-)
 
HE'll be dead. The other "he", the virtual one, will awaken, confused, slowly come to understand what it is, go insane, and embark on a murderous rampage.
 
Josh Bass said:
HE'll be dead. The other "he", the virtual one, will awaken, confused, slowly come to understand what it is, go insane, and embark on a murderous rampage.
Click to expand...

The world human population need to come down to below 5 billion as that is the limit of sustainability. Guess his virtual one going on rampage may not be enough. :)
 
indiawilds said:
The world human population need to come down to below 5 billion as that is the limit of sustainability. Guess his virtual one going on rampage may not be enough. :)
Click to expand...

But well below 5 billion. The Georgian Guidestones recommend 10% of that number. And a virtual rampage is a virtual rampage. It's GTA all over again. Once you die, you'll walk out of the hospital again. Start next game.

But while we are making fun here I repeat that extremely high resolutions only make sense for immersive experiences. The traditional screen was – or better IS – sharp enough in 2K. And if there's any real advantage of 4K it is, that ordinary consumer codecs achieve pro levels by downconversion to HD.
 
I can’t really disagree...I remember seeing Crimson Peak in the theater...and however it was shot and projected, it was TOO sharp. You could see makeup powder, little flaws in things, pretty much the opposite of what you want from the theatrical experience.
 
Batutta said:
8K will happen for one reason. VR. 2k in VR is practically VHS quality. 4k is like 720p. 8k is the bare minimum for pixels to not be visible. Some think 12k is the point at which VR will be indistinguishable from reality.
Click to expand...

VR realism is based predominantly on material surfaces, particles and lighting. The resolution isn't the most important part, just as it isn't with every other medium.
We're barely beyond 1080p...actually, we AREN'T beyond that yet. Most developers can't even maintain a proper 60p framerate at 1080p with all modeling and post processing, let alone in 4k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top