First buyable 8K TV !

[Owen Rennie]

I can't contribute to this conversation cause I dont know the future or am I tech smart. All I know as an amatuer filmmaker/ consumer from Australia is that 1080 is still plenty good enough for me. I regret buying my new 4k TV last week cause I can't watch hardly anything in 4k anyway.. Plus I watch most things online at 720 or below cause HD takes too long to buffer.. Most of my friends and family don't even have a blue ray player yet and I don't know many people with 4k TVs.. Once again I don't know the future but I can't see many average joes from Australia dealing with 4k anytime soon than alone 8k..

 

[Marc Wielage]

HDR will most likely make 8k irrelevant from a content delivery standpoint to the home. Unless you sit very close to a big screen. From a content acquisition standpoint, that is another matter and I welcome 8k to create 4k delivery.

I agree with Stacey on both points. The thing about HDR is, even Joe Consumer will be able to see a large difference between a 100-nit monitor and a 1000-nit Dolby Vision display. Those will be torches on the showroom floor at Costco. HD vs. 4K vs. 8K won't be as dramatic a difference to average people as a display with 10 times the contrast range.

I also agree that it makes sense to have cameras shooting at a higher resolution than the delivery resolution, just for blowups and so on. I don't see a big future in an 8K home display just yet. Even 4K is going to take some time to get established.

I continue to complain that we can't get decent HD pictures at home yet -- "decent" in terms of 10-bit color, low compression, 422 images (not even 444) -- and HD has been out more than 15-16 years now. Broadcast, satellite, blu-ray, download, or streaming isn't there yet for HD.

None of this talk of 8K will really matter to most of the US and for that matter to most of the rest of the world until the bandwidth available to the home is a couple of orders of magnitude better than it is now. My internet provider says I have 30 Megabit download speed (the fastest available to my address) and yet I can't reliably stream HD from Amazon. 8K? Not until the infrastructure is completely rebuilt.

We've got 330mbps in our neighborhoods in the wilds of LA from Crime-Warner (about 2 miles from Red Studios), and I'm not very happy with the bitrate on Amazon or Netflix either. I would bet both are still below 10Mbps, vs. 16-17Mbps from off-air TV and 30Mbps on Blu-ray.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Christoffer, I do understand your point, but I don't agree with.

I will tell you some arguments I could say to promote 8K :

1) Full Ultra HD is what we can consider the Ultimate Resolution for no-VR viewing experience. Why ? ARRI Schema again. At the closest "relevant" viewing distance, you max out your vision. You can have a very large angle of vision for immersion, and you will still max out your vision. And no need to bring the problem with motion imagery, because between some counter-arguments, I can bring you the fact that Cinema is not stuck in a 24 fps universe. Moreover, a lot of consumer watch their TV in 120hz . On a 85" TV, I can sit at 1m and max out my vision. At 4K, I cannot. (This is not mainstream TV size, I know that...) Argument #1 : Better immersion

2) Futur-proofing. People KNOW there will be Full Ultra HD, because it was stantardized at the same time as UHD. People are investment shy. They will eventually wait for Full Ultra HD. Argument #2 : Better investment

Christoffer, see for yourself ! Go to NAB 2016 and go watch 8K TV. It's like seeing out of the window ! Better than speaking a thousand words !

Considering the bandwith and the storage needed...Technology is evolving. ALL technology. 20 TB hard drives will come, 8K optical disc will come, 10 gbps connexions will come...Decades ago, a 10 GB HD was HUGE. You have to see things globally.

Yes, I do consider consumer demand : Install a 85" 8K HDR OLED TV with a 8K 60 FPS footage in a expo. Watch people being hypnotised.

1) HFR hasn't even taken off yet, many people were off by the experience with Hobbit, so individual liking doesn't equal mass liking. While the sharpness is more retained with HFR, the perception of resolution is still lowered. No regular person sit 1 meter from their television, that's just not viable as an argument for viewing distance.

2) Why is it a better investment? Future-proofing something that is a higher step than something that hasn't even taken off yet (4K) ? It's insane to think that 4K masters aren't future proof just because they aren't 8K. Future proof for what? IMAX experience?
People watch movies on smaller screens nowadays, phones and tablets. If they watch something on larger screens they are probably watching 65 inch screens as the maximum standard size, 120 inch as projectors, but most people won't watch something on larger screens. A very small percentage of the worlds population are cinephiles who actually see the difference between 8K and 4K. You can't use your own preferences as a guide to what the general public think. Most people I know who aren't working in the industry (and even some people who does) don't even know what 4K is... think about that. Future proof has nothing to do with resolution right now, it has to do with retaining the color depth and dynamic range of the image so that future HDR and Rec2020 screens might play them back at better values than our current standards. You aren't future proofing anything else than your own bankruptcy if you are going to keep masters in 8K for everything you do in the coming five years and to be fair, there are very few projects that would be considered worth having 8K masters of ten years from now. Maybe big and important films and series, but 99,99% of all content created will be worthless in ten years. Not every information and project will be considered important, probably most of the things any of us do will be considered worthless, that's just the hard truth.

I know that 8K looks better than 4K, but no one is going to be watching stock footage of mountains and drone footage over cities on these TV's. We are going to watch something that will be shot by cinematographers who use many creative means to deliver an image. That might include shallow DOF, anamorphic glass with imperfections that give the image character and so on. All those things reduce the perception of the actual resolution since there are very few who look for a 120 HFR wide image without any DOF at all, which is where you actually see the difference between 8K and 4K. I was at a gathering for new technology and they showed a nice 4K television with some 4K footage. It was shot by cinematographers and at the normal viewing distance it looked like 1080p. It was impossible to see the difference if you weren't staring at pixels from like 1 meter, which no one does.

You say that you see people at expos getting awed by 8K HFR. Well, people at expos aren't the audience and consumers we aim to give content to and that is my point. You can't use your own preferences and cinephiles preferences the prime argument for 8K when that's such a tiny fragment of the worlds consumers of moving images. And those millions of consumers aren't seeing any difference between 8K and 4K. I don't know how many times I've showed 4K expecting to hear those "awed" oohs and aahs from regular people and when I don't get the reaction I point out that it's 4K and people are like... what? What's 4K? Even as they see it in front of them. They aren't stupid, they just don't have a trained eye for it like we do and in essence, they don't give a shit.

And as for the technology, yes, tech is evolving, but storing data is only one part of it, a part where the world is at a problem point since the big data society hasn't even taken off yet and technology isn't really there yet. If you know anything about the problems that exist right now you wouldn't really be so optimistic with storage tech. The bottom line, technology doesn't evolve fast enough to keep up with the growing big data demand and an 8K infrastructure isn't really helping that fact.
Then you also have the problem with workflow, how many VFX artists would be ok with doing 8K VFX work? You would probably be laughed at for at least ten years on if you aren't James Cameron or filmmakers of that kind. The cost of doing VFX work in 8K compared to 4K is going through the roof, would anyone lower shader quality to have higher resolution? Not a chance.

This is exactly the problem with this industry; The narrow minded view on technology evolving with no regard to the real world out there. How is content actually viewed? What is the general publics view on this tech? Just because Japan is broadcasting 8K, does that mean we are two years away from having 8K as a standard globally and 4K considered the 720p of this generation? Seriously? Ask people about these things, people who aren't the same as you and me. Then you might understand that people actually doesn't give a shit about resolution. If you can't sell something using sales-arguments then it won't be a sellable product for consumers. People barely get the idea about 4K and why they would want it. I will be amazed if 8K takes off at all for general consumers.
It will definitely be used in theaters, but with the decline in audiences going to theaters will that matter? IMAX will be popular, but will all films be shown at an IMAX theater? No.

I think it's time to stop being awed by new tech and think hard about what the future will actually be like in the eyes of the consumers. What is important is good storytelling and quality movies. People watch series like Game of Thrones because of the characters, not the resolution. The last thing anyone cares about is resolution while that is exactly what people in the industry seem to focus the most on. If that's not a detachment from the reality we live in I don't know what is.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

HDR will most likely make 8k irrelevant from a content delivery standpoint to the home. Unless you sit very close to a big screen.

From a content acquisition standpoint, that is another matter and I welcome 8k to create 4k delivery.

Yup.

 

[Hugues Dagallier]

Christoffer,

I agree with some points you made. But I disagree with some.

Firstly, let's talk about theaters first. People decline in audiences is due to the no-so-big difference between a Home-cinema experience and a theatrical experience. Give the people a reason to go to the cinemas. So this is exactly the opposite, it's because the audience declines we must do something, not doing nothing because the audience declines. Greater immersion is the key.
So, while I of course agree on the saying "IMAX will be popular", because of the screen size and the resolution increasing the immersion, I think that standard "theater" could get more audience if the sound and the viewing experience were more immersive, and thus the theatrical experience is different than one can get at home.

Secondly, you spoke about people watching things on tablet and smartphones. I TOTALLY agree with you. But what is the point ? Let's all shoot 720p and export that to h264 720p 420 in final because content will be watched on small device ? No. I want to make content for EVERYONE. Cinephiles & general public. I can downgrade my 8K HFR HDR footage, I cannot upgrade my 2K LDR LFR one. You are telling me : F*** cinephiles and people wanting a better immersive experience, let's give shitty IQ because the general public don't see the difference. It's exactly the problem in the industry ! "VHS is good enough", "DVD is good enough"...Story repeats. Without innovators and people wanting to INCREASE the standard and INCREASE the exigence, we would all be stuck with low quality things. Before 2K cinema, we were happy with 1K image from the 35mm projector. Now, I do NOT want to see a film 35mm projector again in a cinema. Before DVD, we were happy with VHS. Now I don't want to see VHS again. We have trained eyes, but we aren't born like that. We trained our eyes. Give people really beautifull things, continually, you will soon understand that they don't want a rollback.
I want to make content for everyone, including the cinephiles, and ESPECIALLY the cinephiles. Why ? Because If I fullfill their wishes, I automatically fullfill the wish of the lower-exigence people (because I can downgrade anything), and I show to general public what a fantastic viewing experience is, and thus giving them the desire to increase their exigence. I want tech to evolve, and I want quality to increase. Don't think first about economical issue, because you are not in this industry without being passionate about beautiful imagery, and because it's indeed a reverse problem. Some people wants to follow the market (make low-quality IQ - I don't say you do that - because today people watch stuff on small and low quality screen size) and can earn a excellent living with that, and some people want to CREATE a new market. Because if there is no demand, you can CREATE it, , and that's the key to really make an big amount money. And to create a wish to get more caviar, you must give people the taste of it. Trust me, from a pleasure standpoint, when you are usually driving a LaFerrari, you don't want to drive a Prius anymore. (Now, I would drive a Smart in parking-limited city and a 4x4 in desert, but you get the point...) I know that everyone here get the point, because if we don't, we would not be here to discuss how Dragon roll-off highlight nicely, or how this lens is having a little bit less of CA than another one. Do you really think that general people give a sh** to how the highlight roll off or if there is some purple in the image ? Same argument, same answer.

Thirdly, How can you say that no one sits at 1m close to a 85" screen ? The people you know, maybe. But as you said I cannot use my personnal preference to know what the general public wants, I want to say to you that you cannot know what everyone does by watching what your friends are doing. I am maybe not in the norm, but my very existence makes your statement a false one. I've a nice sized 4K monitor, and I am sometimes at 10-15cm of the screen. Because I don't see nicely ? No, I have lasiked eyes so my vision is not the problem. But because I want to, because I like to. Give me a 85" 8K HDR Oled screen with a properly shot 8K footage, I will watch it at 1m, trust me I will.

Moreover, yes I know reality and I don't have narrow view on technology at all. Exactly the opposite. Just a realistic view based on logic and historical experience. Tech is evolving, denying that is like denying that earth is earth. It's a fact. Period. Storage is evolving, period. Compression is evolving, it's a fact. Now the increasing number of people who have access to this technology has a two edged swords : Yes, bandwidth are more used, and the actual progress done are somewhat hidden, but more people using tech means more people paying this tech, which means more money, and more money means more possibility of innovation. And the innovations found make the previous problem obsolete. Do you know the story in France, when during the Absolute Monarchy, Colbert asked to plant Tronçais forest to have wood reserve to still be able to build ships 300 years later ? Do I have a narrow point of view on technology ? No, just the opposite : Just a bigger point of view.

Finally, 8K is not only for big DOF 120 fps imagery. Personnally, I will tell you something : I am not a fan of HFR at all, at least I am not a fan of what I've seen, and I am a fan of ultra-shallow DOF imagery. We can speak for hours about motion vision at the level of the eyes and at the level of the screens etc, I can show you schema and stuff like that, but nothing beats real world experience. When NARRATIVE stuff will be shot on 8K, and maybe diffused in 8K (even for tech purpose), please go to see it. If you sit not too far away, you will understand. Now I want people to see what you will see. We cannot train their eyes by showing them crappy stuff all day long, but only by giving them beautiful imagery.

We all know that story is king ! But as I would tell to the people saying HDR is better than 8K, why must it be always 8K/4K OR OLED OR HDR OR HFR OR Story OR Good acting OR good cinematography ? You can't have that at the same time ? You can't have good IQ with good stories ? You can't have a good movie shot on 8K HDR ?

8K HDR is the future, just before VR Cinema. The question is...When ? I and some people say soon, some say latter, you say never.





PS : I need to focus on work now, so no more post from me on this subject, just some reading ;-).

 

[Michel Hafner]

8K is irrelevant for > 99,99 % of all consumers and will stay that way for a very long time. People don't have Imax screens in their homes. 4K is a hard enough sell already. Hell, I'm among the very few people who have a high end home cinema and care about resolution and the tech behind it all. And even I see no reason at all to move from 4K to 8K in my home anytime soon. Not interested since there is no content I want to see and even if there were the difference to the same in 4K is minuscule on my screen which is larger than almost all other people's screens or TVs.
8K may have uses in VR goggles (no pixels at all visible) or as a an overkill TV because nothing else is available/cheaper anymore in the year 20xx (same as now with all the 4K TVs playing crappy SD and some HD at times).

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

It all starts with the wetware, the parameters of the human visual system. For example: if you sit too close to a large screen then the sides of the image will be outside your peripheral vision. If you move back far enough that the edges of the screen are within your peripheral vision then the difference between 4K and 8K mostly disappears.

IMO, for home viewing (even HT buffs like me or Hugues) the difference between 1080P HD and 2160P UHD/4K - well presented - is clear enough to be worth the data load and able to drive sales. I am much less convinced that the bump from 4K to 8K will be perceivable in 99% of viewing scenarios. I do imagine 8K will come, whether we "need" it or not, but it may be more functional for providing massive screen real estate for multi-window viewing - SportsCenter up in the left corner, email in the right corner, Facebook lower right, Nanny-cam lower left, Resolve in the center, etc.

Cheers - #19

 

[scott devitte]

I spent a bit of time at IBC talking with Ikagami about their 8k cams, they have an s35 and a 2/3 sensor size coming out for NHK and why NHK is pushing it- s35 for dramatic and 2/3 for sports. It has a lot to do with that 4k only gives a single row or two deep of actually seeing 4k the right distance from the screen, but 8k does 4 times that envelope. They were indicating about $180 thou for 2/3 sensor body and will make it available for evaluation soon.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

There is nothing wrong with 8K. Not a thing. But: a well-mastered DVD (a hard thing to find, sadly) is pretty good on a big TV. Interlace artefacts piss me off, though.

Of course, I eventually will want a projector in my house, so I'll want it to be 1080 HD. Enlarge a DVD to the size of a wall and it starts to get a little soft. HD is actually very good for domestic use.

Somebody on one of these forums related a job he had, shot on RED and delivered in HD (I didn't save the link): he shot some footage, and after the shoot, the client wanted him to crop the frame significantly. Well, if he was shooting only HD, and cropped that, he'd have SD. But he shot 4K for 2K and that allowed him to zoom in that much.

Acquisition should always be better than delivery. That's why I'd never shoot a serious production with a 2K camera. No way.