Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 8K?  (Read 2290 times)
RFPhotography
Guest
8K?
« on: September 14, 2012, 07:59:06 AM »
ReplyReply

A new ultra HD spec (two actually) were approved within the last few weeks.  One is for 8K.  Are there even any cameras that can record at that level?  Do we really need 4K or 8K in a home living room?  Are most rooms even big enough for an 80+ inch TV set? 
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1666


« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2012, 08:11:58 AM »
ReplyReply

A new ultra HD spec (two actually) were approved within the last few weeks.  One is for 8K.  Are there even any cameras that can record at that level?  Do we really need 4K or 8K in a home living room?  Are most rooms even big enough for an 80+ inch TV set? 
Many rooms can be fitted with wall-sized or near wall-sized displays. So I would say that most rooms are "big enough" for 80"+.

The needed resolution is a function of display size and distance. _If_ there is a perceptual sound reason to go 180 non-cropped megapixels in a camera, there might be equally sound reasons to want similar resolution in a display device or print, everything else being equal? Of course, everything else is not equal, and content delivery is a lot harder for that display device, but still...

-h
Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2012, 08:19:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Do we really need 4K or 8K in a home living room?  Are most rooms even big enough for an 80+ inch TV set? 

I have a 720p projector with an 80 inch screen in a pretty normal sized room ... 4K would be perfect for that use-case and I will without a doubt be buying a 4K projector at some point.
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1662


« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2012, 10:23:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a 720p projector with an 80 inch screen in a pretty normal sized room

Good point.  Front projection changes everything.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2012, 12:16:59 PM »
ReplyReply

h, I'm not saying the tv won't fit on the wall.  But in a normal sized room can you get far enough away to make it practical?  And if you can, do you really need 4k or 8k at that point since the need for resolution drops with increased viewing distance.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1666


« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2012, 02:18:11 PM »
ReplyReply

h, I'm not saying the tv won't fit on the wall.  But in a normal sized room can you get far enough away to make it practical?  And if you can, do you really need 4k or 8k at that point since the need for resolution drops with increased viewing distance.
What do you mean by "practical"? People are covering a larger part of their FOV today than they did 10 years ago. Part of the reason seems to be the availability of large, cheap televisions (assuming that the viewing distance is fixed by their furniture/spouse/...). Part of the reason seems to be the availability of higher-quality material (Bluray, over-the-air HD, gaming consoles, high-resolution still images...). Most people did not like viewing blurry VHS video on their 28" CRT up close both because it looked lousy, and because tv viewing tends to be a social activity where the guy blocking the view for the others is irritating. Now we can occupy the couch with spouse/kids/... and still be at a distance equal to 3/4 times the display height and (at good times) not notice the coding artifacts/individual pixels. The next step might be to fill even more?

Based on bold extrapolation, I assume that in the future we will have wall-sized moving images with a resolution to suit sitting real close. Perhaps content will be made so as to concentrate the "relevant" parts of the scene in the centre (so as to avoid whiplash while following the lead actor), while the periphery is (to a larger degree) reduced to ... peripheral stuff. Light and mood-setting visual elements that does not need our attention in the same way.

Pure speculation.

-h
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 02:23:35 PM by hjulenissen » Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2012, 02:38:25 PM »
ReplyReply

3/4 the display height?  That's what you consider a proper viewing distance?  A 70" TV is about 3 feet high.  That puts you at 27" away from the screen, or just over 2 feet.  WAY too close.  You'd never see the sides of the screen without having your head on a swivel.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1666


« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2012, 07:19:18 AM »
ReplyReply

3/4 the display height?  That's what you consider a proper viewing distance?  A 70" TV is about 3 feet high.  That puts you at 27" away from the screen, or just over 2 feet.  WAY too close.  You'd never see the sides of the screen without having your head on a swivel.
By "3/4", I meant "somewhere between 3x and 4x". Sorry about the unclear writing.

-h
Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 721


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2012, 04:29:46 AM »
ReplyReply

On HD i get confronted with faces 5x the normal size...
with 8K i get confronted with living nose hair 5x normal size...

You need it if your work involves nose hair

Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 484


« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2012, 07:19:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Most people view their TVs at a distance where it is barely possible to tell the difference between SD and HD, actually being able to differentiate between HD and 4K is not possible with the same setup. People would have to sit much closer to the screen to see the difference, which would make the viewing angle too wide for comfort. Going to 8K would be insanity with TVs as we know them (immersion wall systems might benefit form 8K like a previous poster speculated). Instead of wasting the bandwidth with more resolution it should be used for higher frame rates, less compression artifacts and wider color gamut.

In audio we already have media delivery systems with claimed 0 to 100 kHz frequency range and over 120 dB of dynamic range, and most people buying them listen to old recordings with maybe 25 to 18000 Hz frequency range and 50 dB dynamic range, even less. Numbers sell.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7252


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2012, 12:58:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

We have 8K cameras, don't we. D800E is almost 8K.

My favored way of displaying images is projection. Sitting two meter from a 1.7 m wide screen. In that setting 4K would be nice, standard HD is not really good enough.

We have IMAX and OmniMAX so there is obviously need for large screen covering a wide FOV. So yes, would 4K be affordable I would buy tomorrow. 8K? I don't know.

Best regards
Erik

A new ultra HD spec (two actually) were approved within the last few weeks.  One is for 8K.  Are there even any cameras that can record at that level?  Do we really need 4K or 8K in a home living room?  Are most rooms even big enough for an 80+ inch TV set? 
Logged

NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2012, 09:10:16 AM »
ReplyReply

In that setting 4K would be nice, standard HD is not really good enough.
You mean that for static images, don't you?


On HD i get confronted with faces 5x the normal size...
with 8K i get confronted with living nose hair 5x normal size...

You need it if your work involves nose hair
Good point, indeed.  Grin
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 480


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2012, 10:35:14 AM »
ReplyReply

A new ultra HD spec (two actually) were approved within the last few weeks.  One is for 8K.  Are there even any cameras that can record at that level?  Do we really need 4K or 8K in a home living room?  Are most rooms even big enough for an 80+ inch TV set? 

Well, I'm with you on this one. I only switched to an HD TV about a year ago. I get my signals off-air via antenna here in Ottawa. I happen to live in a neighbourhood that's within line of sight of many transmitters. As much as I like the new resolution, I am ticked that I can no longer use my el cheapo old VHS recorder to record programs for later viewing. I will NOT spend another dime on cable or satellite reception to watch television. Not enough of the content warrants spending the money. For movie viewing I was perfectly happy renting the occasional DVD, given the size of my TV and viewing room (the TV is a 36 or 42 inch diagonal, can't remember).

I'm told that the cable and satellite signals are highly compressed and that off-air reception provides a better picture, but I don't know if this is true. I do know that I've rented both SD and HD movies from iTunes, and I mostly can't tell the difference, and even when I do it doesn't matter. I understand that others have different interests and requirements, but if we do move to a 4k or even an 8k world, they'd better find some way of providing backwards compatible HD signals, because if they don't, I'll just stop watching TV. I'm not upgrading again. I threw a 27 inch SD TV last year that was only 15 years old that still worked fine. That's a waste, and I'm not doing it again. HD is fine for home use, imo. Everyone is watching on iPads and iPhones anyway. And I'm not a Luddite, I'm just sick and tired of spending money for no damn good reason. If they spent half the effort on content as they do on the capture and delivery technology, we'd be better off.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2012, 11:08:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Robert, I'm with you 100%.

I'm sick of having to upgrade anythng, cars and cameras very much included. I think it's also largely due to maturity: comes a point when you realise that you are chasing ephemeral things that hardly exist, and to the extent that they do, certainly don't matter that much. But money does matter, and it's never easy to replace. Comes a time to conserve. That's why I changed my two telephone contracts to one that includes both fixed and mobile on a single invoice, gives me 500 minutes a month free calls on each as well as ADSL and a router, which I thought wasn't included, but turns out that it is. I saved about 40/50 euros a monthy doing that.

I should now be paying @60.38 a month instead of around 110!

Rob C
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1889


WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 10, 2012, 01:44:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Are there even any cameras that can record at that level?
Yes, it's nothing particularly new, check out http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/superhivision/ and note the first camera was built TEN years ago.

As ever, the BBC are ahead of the game and have been working with NHK on trials for several years. The most recent public demonstrations (if you could lay your hands on a ticket) was the London Olympics;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/07/super_hi_vision_ultra_hd.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19049341

The BBC helped develop and trail current HD technology. I first worked on early HDTV programmes in 1984 and it's only in the last two years it's really becoming easily available. On that basis we might see 8k hitting the market in around 2030. Assuming there's any demand.

If they spent half the effort on content as they do on the capture and delivery technology, we'd be better off.
If you have any appreciation of how much it costs to make films and TV programmes you'd know what a daft comment that is.
Logged
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 480


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 10, 2012, 04:43:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, it's nothing particularly new, check out http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/superhivision/ and note the first camera was built TEN years ago.

As ever, the BBC are ahead of the game and have been working with NHK on trials for several years. The most recent public demonstrations (if you could lay your hands on a ticket) was the London Olympics;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/07/super_hi_vision_ultra_hd.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19049341

The BBC helped develop and trail current HD technology. I first worked on early HDTV programmes in 1984 and it's only in the last two years it's really becoming easily available. On that basis we might see 8k hitting the market in around 2030. Assuming there's any demand.
If you have any appreciation of how much it costs to make films and TV programmes you'd know what a daft comment that is.


I am sure it is daft. I should have simply said the program content is more important to me than the delivery technology. The technology is already good enough for my needs. The previous technology was good enough for me, for that matter, but I understand the move to digital.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad