POLL: Who will be first with 8K...

[KrisK]

...as a technical standard NTSC is way out there.

Look, if you shoot crystal-sync with a Nagra and a 60Hz Pilottone, and you're finishing your 16mm film on video, then you need to resolve your Nagra's audio using the external 59.94Hz Pilottone reference generator.

Try explaining that to a bunch of hoary-headed film instructors. I was practically stoned to death on multiple occasions.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

From Wikipedia.

Few video cameras have the capability to film in 8K, with NHK being one of the only companies to have created a small broadcasting camera with an 8K image sensor.[5] Sony and Red Digital Cinema Camera Company are both working to bring larger 8K sensors in more of their cameras in the coming years.[5] Although it is unlikely that 8K will become a mainstream resolution anytime soon, a major reason filmmakers are pushing for 8K cameras is to get better 4K footage. Through a process called downsampling, using a higher resolution 8K image downsampled to 4K could create a sharper picture with richer colors than a 4K camera would be able to achieve on its own with a lower resolution sensor.[5]

 

[deleteme]

Serious question. What exactly is the purpose of 4K, 6K or 8K?

Most video is being delivered on smart phones and tablets. That is only going to increase in the coming years. I still watch television, but I'm old. (I go to movies too.) My kids and most people I know under 30 seldom turn on a TV. Everything they watch they stream on a phone, tablet or at best a laptop.

So, is the main purpose of 4K etc., to make it easier to crop and stabilize video? Is there any other reason for it?

4K is the new broadcast standard, ATSC 3.0 and it'll be a global standard, no more worry about PAL and weird frame rates. 4K is also slowly becoming the standard resolution for phones, tablets, TVs, laptops and computers. For consumers, the biggest benefit of 4K is reduced aliasing. However, a 6K and 8K screen would be overkill, that's better for the content creators.

6K and 8K will actually serve a purpose for theaters, IMAX, video production and still photography. For video production, it will serve well in order to downsample an 8K image from a CMOS sensor to a relatively clean 4K image for final delivery to a 4K screen. I personally would like to use 8K for some of my visual effects work, it would help a lot for tracking, rotoscoping and the green screen.

If I understand correctly most digital projection systems in theaters today are 2K with some 4K installs. Most all cinematic releases are captured in 2K Alexas or scanned in 2K from film. Even at those "modest" resolutions many film makers complain of excessive sharpness and detail.
While I understand that more is better for the flexibility it may afford, it seems that there are only fractional visual improvements to be made at a great cost in bandwidth requirements.

 

[deleteme]

Here's a reminder... we invented the blooming telly.

And a special place in hell awaits you.

 

[Tinky]

Here's a reminder... we invented the blooming telly.

And a special place in hell awaits you.

We already have ongoing purgatory in the form of the great highland midge.

If you can imagine tiny flying vipers in swarms... And they only come out the one week we don't get rain.

 

[Tinky]

Sadly not. But it can use 59.94 interlaced.

I mean no ill will, just in terms of wierdness, as a technical standard NTSC is way out there.

and the 59.94 frame rate came about because some engineer did not know how to make a decent frequency multiplier/divider....

My point was that if you read Wikipedia then you'll find out the history behind "59.94", "29.97", etc.

Yes thanks.

But as a comparison to the relatively straightforward PAL standard....

As a light hearted riposte to 'no more worry PAL and weird frame rates' in the broad theme of people in glass houses shouldn't play darts indoors kind of thing...

Again, I apologise that you missed the joke.

 

[pwp]

Red...

-pw

 

[emko]

Serious question. What exactly is the purpose of 4K, 6K or 8K?

Most video is being delivered on smart phones and tablets. That is only going to increase in the coming years. I still watch television, but I'm old. (I go to movies too.) My kids and most people I know under 30 seldom turn on a TV. Everything they watch they stream on a phone, tablet or at best a laptop.

So, is the main purpose of 4K etc., to make it easier to crop and stabilize video? Is there any other reason for it?

4K is the new broadcast standard, ATSC 3.0 and it'll be a global standard, no more worry about PAL and weird frame rates. 4K is also slowly becoming the standard resolution for phones, tablets, TVs, laptops and computers. For consumers, the biggest benefit of 4K is reduced aliasing. However, a 6K and 8K screen would be overkill, that's better for the content creators.

6K and 8K will actually serve a purpose for theaters, IMAX, video production and still photography. For video production, it will serve well in order to downsample an 8K image from a CMOS sensor to a relatively clean 4K image for final delivery to a 4K screen. I personally would like to use 8K for some of my visual effects work, it would help a lot for tracking, rotoscoping and the green screen.

If I understand correctly most digital projection systems in theaters today are 2K with some 4K installs. Most all cinematic releases are captured in 2K Alexas or scanned in 2K from film. Even at those "modest" resolutions many film makers complain of excessive sharpness and detail.
While I understand that more is better for the flexibility it may afford, it seems that there are only fractional visual improvements to be made at a great cost in bandwidth requirements.

Sorry but 2k or 4k for theaters IS NOT GOOD enough compared to film projection, since they started doing this i don't bother going anymore i can see the damn pixels and feels very digital cant explain it. The last thing i was going for was the IMAX FILM projection then IMAX went digital yet still call them self's IMAX sure sure a 15 perforation 70mm film is NOT 4K its more like 18K but they still advertise it as the IMAX experience if you seen really IMAX film you would know how bad this crap looks compared.

35mm film is around 4k resolution but projected smoothly not via pixels.

So yes 8K and + will be good BUT only for theaters i think, for TV's etc i really don't know i am sure we will get tvs that will do it but wont do much compared to 4k etc it will just be a spec.

 

[jeffa4444]

NHK are indeed the first ones to have the first 8K camera and they have used it and its previous prototype at major sporting events. The Arri Alexa 65 is 6K and is currently out shooting on a number of movies, Red has just started delivering 6K Dragon / Weapon cameras without currently a fixed date for the 8K Weapon.

No one is expecting 8K broadcast anytime soon if ever the viewing distance is insanely close to the screen, cinemas in standard size multiplexes showing 4K only really provide this in the front three rows anything back from that and your seeing 2K. As stated elsewhere the theory behind 8K is oversampling to provide a wider color gamut and to aid visual effects for 4K viewing. Lenses as in the case of the Panavision Primo 70 lenses are required to get the most out of the system if its pure resolution your after and full implimentation of REC2020 and H.265 both of which mean more real time processing and much larger files.

Most people in the high end of the professional movie / TV market dont see 8K as a practical delivery, 4K is still posing many problems including available bandwidth although they are utilizing a new compression codec called "Perseus" at NHK for 8K developed by V-Nova a London based company they claim to half the bandwidth required for a given format i.e. 4K fitting into 1080P (2K).

 

[psolberg]

Why are you only listing tier 2 companies in video? If you said "consumer" 8K then maybe those names make sense.