4K, 8K, UHDTV and the big megapixel EOS

[gnd]

Facts: In London 2012 BBC showcased footage of the games on huge outdoor screens in a newly launched UHDTV format. The image quality was like out of this planet. August 23rd UHDTV was offically approved by ITU standardizing the 4K and 8K resolutions. 4K (4,096x2,160) equates to an 8Mpixel image resolution, 8K (8,192x4,320) to 32Mpixels. Presently the so-called HD is just 2Mp image resolution equivalent. Moving to UHDTV is expected by 2020 in terms of reasonable marketing cost.

Question is, Canon already has the technology to launch high megapixel EOS. If we go to say 32Mp (and beyond) are our HD LCD computer monitors able to see the difference or we're just getting an image downgrade? Loading our images to HDTV via SD card are we getting these 32Mb (or even less) or are we fooling ourselves? Is 5D3 wisely staying at 22Mp to keep up with present day peripheral technology?

 

[gnd]

source: http://www.techradar.com/news/television/uhdtv-to-be-name-for-both-4k-and-8k-television-standard-1082328, http://news.techworld.com/personal-tech/3377560/tv-with-16-times-resolution-of-hdtv-passed-by-un-standards-body/

 

[preppyak]

Well, a few things. Most importantly, for many that want larger MP, their end usage is not a computer screen; it's a much larger, higher res print version. Whether its a billboard, a poster, a gallery print, etc. There, the difference between 22mp and 36mp can be a big difference, especially when you are talking dimensions of feet, not inches. Likewise, there are some that want the ability to crop with a great degree of latitude; a 36mp can be cropped in half and still have 22mp resolution (that's not to saw the pixel-level IQ holds up, but, its true in literal resolution).

So, if you're end game is just putting images on your website or facebook and never printing, then yes, 22MP is brilliant because it allows focus on other elements. You can get a faster frame rate, better high ISO handling, smaller files, etc. Heck, in that realm, a 12mp image is even more ideal. In reality, most modern displays can't do much better than 4mp at 100% (like my Mac Cinema Display). Of course, viewing an image at 100% is never as sharp as at 50%, or 25%, and so those large sizes are nice for that reason. Plus, the limitation on image size isn't a display problem, its an image server/bandwidth problem. There's a reason it took most social media sites forever to display images any larger than like 800x600.

Do I think our monitors could take full advantage of a 40mp image over a 22mp? No. But, I do think they have the resolution for us to notice a difference between the larger and smaller files

 

[DB]

Today's latest graphic cards for PC's can support multiple monitors, so there is no reason to down-sample any image at all. You can just look at part of it and scroll around, or alternatively, use multiple displays to show an image in it's entirety.

 

[cliffwang]

Thank about that
Can we see the difference between 480p and 720p?
Can we see the difference between 720p and 1080p?

How about
Can we see the difference between 1080p and 2160p(4K)?
Can we see the difference between 2160p and 4320p(8K)?

My answer is yes especial between 408p, 720p, and 1080p. If you have a 32 inch TV, 720p might be good enough for you. If you have a 46 inch TV, you might want 1080p. When you have a 60-80 inch TV, 4K and 8K is very important. By the time high MP surely will bring the benefit.
However, that depends on how big TV you are going to have.

 

[gnd]

Most importantly, for many that want larger MP, their end usage is not a computer screen; it's a much larger, higher res print version.

Absolutely; then there's the rest of us who don't print wedding material or do posters but exchange files for DTP or just see their holiday photos on screen. We should make clear that the elusive "high megapixel EOS" is a waste of money unless one belongs to the target group you describe.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Most importantly, for many that want larger MP, their end usage is not a computer screen; it's a much larger, higher res print version.

Absolutely; then there's the rest of us who don't print wedding material or do posters but exchange files for DTP or just see their holiday photos on screen. We should make clear that the elusive "high megapixel EOS" is a waste of money unless one belongs to the target group you describe.

high MP count with a crop mode to save space (ala D800) or medium count on a smaller sensor (ala 7D) can be good when you need to crop heavily such as for distant wildlife too

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Most importantly, for many that want larger MP, their end usage is not a computer screen; it's a much larger, higher res print version.

high MP count with a crop mode to save space (ala D800) or medium count on a smaller sensor (ala 7D) can be good when you need to crop heavily such as for distant wildlife too

I had a D800, cropping does not save space, it cuts away part of the image. SRAW that Canon has saves space, but Nikon has nothing similar.
I would not want to pay $$$ for a FF camera and then convert it to a crop.