DSLR also don't show the true DOF for certain apertures because the focusing screen tends to increase it. Only in LiveView or an EVF will DOF preview really do what it is supposed to.
Sure, but in case of an OVF the DOF you're seeing is altered beyond just the viewing dependent aspect.Unless the EVF has the same resolution the final image, you're not getting a "true" DoF preview. Blur too small to see on a scaled down version seen in the EVF may be large enough to see on the full resolution image.
I think your trying to teach me to suck eggs! Were renting Red 8K camerasImpractical to view is not the same thing as impractical for capture before post processing. With 8K, cropping, panning/scanning, etc. are all on the table before outputting to 4K, 2K, or even FHD.
I think your trying to teach me to suck eggs! We rent Red 8K cameras Im well aware as Ive stated that oversampling / pan & scan are available to those that chose to shoot full 8K (which often they dont). My point was outputting 8K as a viewable image is impractical unless you know something I dont?Impractical to view is not the same thing as impractical for capture before post processing. With 8K, cropping, panning/scanning, etc. are all on the table before outputting to 4K, 2K, or even FHD.
They are. However viewing distances remain the same so practically they add very little to the viewing experience.Aren't 8k televisions available right now? Think I saw some on Amazon. Yup. There are several 8k UHD televisions there right now.
Then what did agitate you so much in this post?I think your trying to teach me to suck eggs! We rent Red 8K cameras Im well aware as Ive stated that oversampling / pan & scan are available to those that chose to shoot full 8K (which often they dont).
Your point was irrelevant, unless one really needs to output the captured 8k as a 8k viewable image (for example, for security applications).My point was outputting 8K as a viewable image is impractical unless you know something I dont?
Yet they detract much from your savings.They are. However viewing distances remain the same so practically they add very little to the viewing experience.
Its not irrelevant when TV companies are trying to sell consumers 8K TVs without them understanding the limitations, its not irrelevant when movie theatres will not be able to handle 8K content yet producers are being told they are future proofing.Then what did agitate you so much in this post?
Your point was irrelevant, unless one really needs to output the captured 8k as a 8k viewable image (for example, for security applications).
So what are the limitations again? If I am sitting 10' from a 55" screen that is outputting my 720, 1080, 2k, 4k, or 8k... what are the limitations to me as a consumer at those various outputs if I happen to have an 8k television? Are you saying I will see no difference? After all, I won't be in a theater and viewing from 100' away or changing my viewing distance at all. My viewing distance is a permanent constant. After that is considered, then what is the benefit to the content producer? I'll see no difference in video between my 1080 vs 8k SOOC? My assumption is that the bigger the screen the higher the resolution needs to be to look good.Its not irrelevant when TV companies are trying to sell consumers 8K TVs without them understanding the limitations, its not irrelevant when movie theatres will not be able to handle 8K content yet producers are being told they are future proofing.
Refresh rates, and wider color gamut are worthwhile investments, 8K origination for oversampling but people need to understand the physical limitations of the human eye and viewing distances. Security applications by comparison to domestic is a much smaller market and even then it only relates to using specific enhancing technology most ordinary people would not need.
Are you talking about... Sony?Its not irrelevant when TV companies are trying to sell consumers 8K TVs without them understanding the limitations, its not irrelevant when movie theatres will not be able to handle 8K content yet producers are being told they are future proofing.
What is really being broadcast in 8K at this point to take advantage of your screen rez handling it? 4K broadcasting is still not at the saturation level.So what are the limitations again? If I am sitting 10' from a 55" screen that is outputting my 720, 1080, 2k, 4k, or 8k... what are the limitations to me as a consumer at those various outputs if I happen to have an 8k television? Are you saying I will see no difference? After all, I won't be in a theater and viewing from 100' away or changing my viewing distance at all. My viewing distance is a permanent constant. After that is considered, then what is the benefit to the content producer? I'll see no difference in video between my 1080 vs 8k SOOC? My assumption is that the bigger the screen the higher the resolution needs to be to look good.
My present screen is just 1080, which looks great to me. However, I am comparing to what I was used to watching on a CRT television or projection TV for most of my life. Big 4k televisions can be had now for under $500. I would imagine 8k will get cheap too. It's funny because I can remember when 1080 HD DVD players were going for near $1,000 20 years ago.
Yeah, but that is not my question. My question has to do with video I "might" take with an 8k or even 4k camera and playing it back on my television... which isn't 4k right now, but might be by Christmas. I just saw a 55" 4k UHD TV in Walmart for $398. Am I to understand that if I shoot in 4k on an R5 (no crop) that the picture wouldn't be any better than if I had shot at 1080 if played back on a 4k TV? That's what I am getting at since it seems a bunch of us now have the capability to shoot 4k and that 4k televisions are getting dirt cheap compared to 3 years ago. I should have been more clear, but I assumed that what was being said was that there is no advantage to 8k camera video for a consumer. Isn't there if that consumer is playing back on an 8k TV? All this talk about viewing distance vs human eye resolution, when most everyone at home is sitting 10-15" from the screen, is getting a little cumbersome on my brain. It is like reading about DR. I won't be broadcasting or have my video shown in theaters. Like most everyone else here, my stuff will be shown at home.What is really being broadcast in 8K at this point to take advantage of your screen rez handling it? 4K broadcasting is still not at the saturation level.
My laptop screen is 4k and I'm nearsighted, so if I want to say "your non-4k youtube video looks like crap", I have every right to do so, especially if the video was shot at 24p.Yeah, but that is not my question. My question has to do with video I "might" take with an 8k or even 4k camera and playing it back on my television... which isn't 4k right now, but might be by Christmas. I just saw a 55" 4k UHD TV in Walmart for $398. Am I to understand that if I shoot in 4k on an R5 (no crop) that the picture wouldn't be any better than if I had shot at 1080 if played back on a 4k TV?
Hey, DVD was a 720i resolution capable. No 1080P at the time.So what are the limitations again? If I am sitting 10' from a 55" screen that is outputting my 720, 1080, 2k, 4k, or 8k... what are the limitations to me as a consumer at those various outputs if I happen to have an 8k television? Are you saying I will see no difference? After all, I won't be in a theater and viewing from 100' away or changing my viewing distance at all. My viewing distance is a permanent constant. After that is considered, then what is the benefit to the content producer? I'll see no difference in video between my 1080 vs 8k SOOC? My assumption is that the bigger the screen the higher the resolution needs to be to look good.
My present screen is just 1080, which looks great to me. However, I am comparing to what I was used to watching on a CRT television or projection TV for most of my life. Big 4k televisions can be had now for under $500. I would imagine 8k will get cheap too. It's funny because I can remember when 1080 HD DVD players were going for near $1,000 20 years ago.
So what are the limitations again? If I am sitting 10' from a 55" screen that is outputting my 720, 1080, 2k, 4k, or 8k... what are the limitations to me as a consumer at those various outputs if I happen to have an 8k television? Are you saying I will see no difference? After all, I won't be in a theater and viewing from 100' away or changing my viewing distance at all. My viewing distance is a permanent constant. After that is considered, then what is the benefit to the content producer? I'll see no difference in video between my 1080 vs 8k SOOC? My assumption is that the bigger the screen the higher the resolution needs to be to look good.
My present screen is just 1080, which looks great to me. However, I am comparing to what I was used to watching on a CRT television or projection TV for most of my life. Big 4k televisions can be had now for under $500. I would imagine 8k will get cheap too. It's funny because I can remember when 1080 HD DVD players were going for near $1,000 20 years ago.
Closer to 45-47 according to multiple electronics stats orgs.The average US TV size is 60" = optimum viewing distances as follows, 1080P 7.7ft, 4K 4ft, 8K 2ft
The average US TV size is 60" = optimum viewing distances as follows, 1080P 7.7ft, 4K 4ft, 8K 2ft