Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'High Definition' started by Ash28M, Aug 20, 2012.
Yes, the "Pet Rock" as well as the "Shamwow!
I'm not attacking the technology itself, just pointing out, like others here, that an 8K television in the home is probably overkill, and that on normal size displays an average viewer is not going to get a huge advantage in 8K compared to 4K. Now if you want to talk about an IMAX theater switching to 8K projection or a sports bar that wants to buy an 120" 8K display for NFL games, that's a little different.
And scanning a film at 8K is abhorrently expensive right now, and even the films cited that have been scanned in that resolution are downconverted to 4K for the actual digital restoration because of the cost.
Although I agree with your post, I wanted to point out that, while that 120" display at a "sports bar" or the like might benefit somewhat from a 4K upgrade, even for it, 8K is overkill. I'm not even sure that it wouldn't be overkill for IMAX as well, though I'd certainly welcome it.
Plenty of people said HD was overkill and not enough of a visual difference to be worth the upgrade. Perhaps you personally didn't say that but you can't pretend these same arguments weren't made against HD.
After all how many people on this forum argued that Texas Chainsaw Massacre shouldn't even be released in anamorphic video on SD-DVD and that VHS was good enough? Now we have the same song and dance over 8K.
Video technology will not end at 2k, 4k, 8k or even 16k. It will continue to increase well past the day that you die. You can chalk that under life, death and taxes.
I want 32K.
Yeah, but the Japanese also gave us Bukkake...*barf*
What you're apparently still missing is that there is a biological limitation to the eyes' ability to resolve detail. Once that limitation has been reached, it officially becomes superfluous and amounts to nothing more than a marketing buzzword as, no matter HOW many more pixels they put on the screen, your eye is physically incapable of perceiving any additional detail.
For example, perhaps you have a great new digital camera. Perhaps it is a fine new 24MP digital SLR. However, no matter how great, that camera is, it cannot possibly resolve any detail finer than that contained within 24 million pixels. Nontheless, if you use that fine camera to take a picture of, say, a printed poster comprised of 48 million dots, the camera will still only capture 24MP.
Your eye functions the same way. Once you reach the limit of the eye to resolve detail at a certain viewing angle (calculated using viewing distance and screen size), any additional resolution is wasted. At typical viewing angles, 1080p is sufficient to reach that resolution limit. At very wide viewing angles, such as those is the front section of a commercial theater or in many homes with very large (>= 110") front projection displays, the benefits of 4K can be reaped but is more than sufficient to reach that physical barrier. In fact, even at the maximum viewing angle, where the entire frame just fits into the entirety of your field of view, you must have better than 20/20 vision to resolve any benefit from 8K. If you get any closer than that, any advantage are now irrelevant as you are no longer capable of viewing the entire frame and, thus, defeating the purpose of viewing the film anyway.
So, regardless of what arguments were made against HD, scientifically we can see that there is no benefit to 8K resolution over 4K resolution for motion picture viewing. It could be argued that 8K might provide a benefit to those who want to get up from their chairs, pause the film and take an especially close look at details in a scene. It will also be great for visual artists, life walls and advertisements- applications where there is no "maximum" viewing angle. However, for traditional movie watching, biology tells us that there is just no benefit. As such, display technology can increase as far beyond 4K as it wants, but, unless impressed by the specs alone, no one will care as they just can't physically tell the difference.
Sorry to be a party pooper.
For the record, I probably WOULD be one of the suckers that would buy an 8K projector as I'd be impressed by the specs and would be the sort to pause the movie, get up out of my seat and go take a close-up look at some gory death scene. However, I wouldn't be so delusional as to try to convince myself that I was getting any sort of benefit over "good ol' 4K" when I am just sitting on my duff watching a movie.
And for the most part I still agree with that. On my old 32" 720p television when I put in a DVD followed by a blu-ray of the same film with the same transfer, I saw no to very little difference between the two until I got uncomfortably close to the screen. At normal viewing distance DVD was good enough. I was never against the notion of higher definition for larger sets. I always thought that for a great many people blu-ray was (and still is) overkill. But 8K is clearly theatrical level resolution and not for home use for the casual viewer. I mean, manufacturers can build 8K 32" screens if they want and I'm sure they're going to find a few suckers, but it's completely unnecessary.
I read the higher resolution will allow for 3D without glasses. That's huge.
4K would allow for full resolution 1080p 3D with just the cheap, throw-away polarized glasses like the ones used in most theaters. Currently, several makers offer these "passive" systems in1080p television but due to the way they function, with every other line of resolution alternating between eyes, the resolution is effectively 540p. A 4K system would function similarly but the end result would be a vertical resolution of 1080p rather than 2160p. In each case, the horizontal would remain full (1920 for 1080p or 3840 to 4096 for 4K depending on standard) and provide some increased benefit- however, the eye is more sensitive to the change in vertical resolution.
Actual glasses-free 3D is much more complicated, expensive and unrelated to resolution. However, it essentially has the same effect of halving resolution. As such, 8K could be a benefit here as it could allow for full 4K auto-stereoscopic display. However, this technology, to my knowledge, only works with fixed-pixel displays, not projectors, and, as such, would have to get truly massive, and ungodly expensive, for it to be of any real advantage.
What no one is mentioning is that even if there is a huge difference in 4K will many companies actually spend the time and money to redo every film in 4K? Yes, the Wizard of Oz's and Casablanca's of the movie world will be fine, but I can't see companies spending too much money and/ or effort into a 4K presentation of a low budget horror film or 80s action flick, or sex comedy, ect. How many half ass releases do we get on Blu already that are only slightly better then their DVD versions. I just don't see it becoming more then just a niche thing. And if the TVs are selling for $30,000. Even with the way technology advances and becomes cheaper it will still be at least 5 or 6 years before those are in an affordable price range. By that time everyone will have replaced their catalog with Blurays, or switched to downloads. i don't see them wanting to replace their collection for something you need a theatre like set up for. Bluray has been a hard enough sell, and prices are still high for some. Asking them to do it again any time soon is just ridiculous.