Is 8K too much?

[sudopera]

I bumped on this video below and just wanted to hear your opinions on the matter.

Maybe my eyes are not used to this much detail but I don't like it, simply because it's hard to concentrate on content when I'm constantly bombarded with so much small detail that looks almost surreal.

I really think that 4K-5K is the sweet spot and camera manufacturers should turn their attention to DR, high framerates, efficient codecs and color science, and stop the resolution wars.

I know you can throw softening filters in the mix but what is the point then to use 8K in the first place.

I'm not all against it because it will certainly have it's use for some scenarios, but I wouldn't like it to become a norm in the future.

 

[Hanriverprod]

I think content like this to be displayed in the television section of the store is fine. What else am I suppose to get out of this besides the image itself?

[sudopera]

4 minutes ago, Hanriverprod said:

I think content like this to be displayed in the television section of the store is fine. What else am I suppose to get out of this besides the image itself?

I didn't think about content in this video, but more generally how so much detail distracts me from paying attention to content. There is some beautiful scenery in this video but I couldn't watch it more than 30sec because it was simply too much detail for me, it strained my eyes.

[JurijTurnsek]

That was so amazing, I loved all the detail. The more pixels, the merrier for me.

[Andrew Reid]

I think only VR stands to benefit from 8K.

Cinema doesn't need it.

However, in 10 years we might all be strapped into our VR headsets for watching movies... Even at the cinema!

I'm very impressed with how immersive VR is when done right. It is here to stay, unlike 3D.

But watching 8K on a flat screen from a distance is pointless... Human eye just isn't up to it.

[Nrubloc]

Something a bit boring is still so, in 8K. I'm more interested in viewing engaging or well developed content even if it is in "gasp" 1080p, but on the technical side I would appreciate more focus on DR and things leading towards more robust image attributes.

I'm sure this 8K thing will also be a big development for some vloggers though....

[AaronChicago]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

I think only VR stands to benefit from 8K.

Cinema doesn't need it.

However, in 10 years we might all be strapped into our VR headsets for watching movies... Even at the cinema!

I'm very impressed with how immersive VR is when done right. It is here to stay, unlike 3D.

But watching 8K on a flat screen from a distance is pointless... Human eye just isn't up to it.

Yeah 8K is going to benefit in pixel density for VR. It'll take a few years but I'm sure it'll be the norm.

[Dan Wake]

in VR il looks that the goal is 32K. 16K per eye AMD wish that apparently

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/50820/amd-chasing-16k-per-eye-32k-144hz-above-vr/index.html

 

so 8K is only like the "Hd Ready" of the VR. incredible.

[no_connection]

Where is the 8K? Skimming through it I don't see much content that goes above 4K, and the few that does seem to be exclusively timelapse.
The oversaturated greens and overall horrible colors did at lease give me a horrible viewing experience.
And did you notice the resolution of that train shot thrown in the first time? If not then there is probably a point that got proven or lesson learned.

[Jimmy]

Yea... Next gen VR headsets for 2018 are looking at 2000-3000 ppi... It's insane resolution. 

[Juxx989]

Geez they must have Broken the saturation slider for green in grade.... its glowing like my green highlighter pen.... 

[Shirozina]

But for VR you soon ignore the resolution ( or lack of it) as you get immersed in the 'reality' just like in the cinema where the size of the screen becomes immersive and seemingly hopelessly inadequate resolutions are perfectly acceptable........

[enny]

21 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I think only VR stands to benefit from 8K.

Cinema doesn't need it.

However, in 10 years we might all be strapped into our VR headsets for watching movies... Even at the cinema!

I'm very impressed with how immersive VR is when done right. It is here to stay, unlike 3D.

But watching 8K on a flat screen from a distance is pointless... Human eye just isn't up to it.

I don't think we will ever watch films in VR well i don't i will just not the same experience human are social animals we like to watch film together be together and in my experience with VR is solitary experience and lets not forget that 20% of population cant handle VR motion sickness if VR ever takes off it will be in Games, architectural design and real estate. And watching thing in 8k that is few cm from your eyes i see lots of problems mentally and physically. PS turning your head around in 360 watching Jurassic park looking for dinosaurs looking up and down and shit i just don't see it.

 

Unless you like to see Jeff in 8k 360 up close and personal

[odie]

On 6/23/2017 at 0:20 PM, sudopera said:

I bumped on this video below and just wanted to hear your opinions on the matter.

Maybe my eyes are not used to this much detail but I don't like it, simply because it's hard to concentrate on content when I'm constantly bombarded with so much small detail that looks almost surreal.

I really think that 4K-5K is the sweet spot and camera manufacturers should turn their attention to DR, high framerates, efficient codecs and color science, and stop the resolution wars.

I know you can throw softening filters in the mix but what is the point then to use 8K in the first place.

I'm not all against it because it will certainly have it's use for some scenarios, but I wouldn't like it to become a norm in the future.

 

considering most films are shot on 2k and released on 2k ...(with millions spent on the budgets).    8k is not really needed..but it might help sales

[Hans Punk]

Shooting 8k is not too much.

8k and beyond has/will become more and more necessary for movies that involve heavy visual effects. Being able to work with high resolution plates that have the headroom to allow re-positions and the overall detail boost for blue/green screen work is a huge advantage. When 8k live action is inter-cut with CG characters, the 8k footage (often down-scaled considerably) now matches the resolved detail that CG characters and environments can have (because they do not have to be 'captured' photographically). Traditional techniques of lightly degrading/softening the CG image to match the live action plates is becoming less of a thing when shooting higher resolution 'cleaner' live action elements. 8k is also a no-brainier when it comes to being an attractive acquisition format for archive purposes, it will have a longer shelf life in regards to being compatible with ever-evolving displays and projection systems whenever the 'negative' needs to be revisited.

All of the above has a recent real-world example....Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Back in the day, Vista Vision format was often employed for effects shots that required optical compositing and many passes through the printer would cause generation loss. Once the larger format of Vista Vision optical composite was down-scaled and printed to 35mm, the grain was effectively reduced to a regular size (or smaller) and the generation loss of detail was no longer apparent since the reduction to 35mm was effectively returning full resolution to that smaller format. ILM were the most famous users of this technique and that is why they became the best in the business...providing the best quality optical composites for effects shots in films. 

Although we no longer have optical compositing generation loss to deal with, shooting larger format at 8k+ still has many of the advantages that these old optical tricks gave. The effect of reduction/downscale alone to a lower resolution gives a massive improvement to perceived sharpness, as well as huge reduction in noise - since any noise artifacts are literally shrunk.

I remember when people were asking if upgrading to HD cameras was overkill...how quickly we forget. 4K down-scaled for HD/2K delivery works great, since compression and noise artifacts from footage is visually reduced, So 8k down-scaled to 4/2k projection makes particular sense in this regard. Consumer 4k cameras often have so much in-camera compression applied to get to that resolution, that the image suffers until down-scaled to HD anyway, which is why a solid HD camera with good picture and colour, often trumps a 4k camera, in terms of delivering a pleasing image.

So, shooting cat videos in 8k at home might be too much (unless it is really cute) , but there is an increasing need out there for 8 -16k cameras out there for film production that require visual effect integration...last time I checked, that accounts for most Hollywood releases for the past 25-30 years. 

[Hans Punk]

...saying that, the example video does look a bit distracting, mainly because the detail is being combined with very deep depth of field, causing a bit of 'sensory overload' - especially when subjects have vivid colour. I'm also not sure how many actors and actresses will appreciate every pour of their skin being revealed in a closeup at 8k, they complain enough as it is at 4K which is why digital makeup has become a very common thing these days. My guess is that by the time affordable 8k consumer cameras become common place, I suspect the actual resolving resolution will be closer to 4K after broadcast/streaming compression takes its toll, not to mention whatever tricks the camera is doing at source to quickly write to compact media.

For now, Red seem to be getting it working pretty well. Mark Toia seems to describe the advantages of 8k as a capture format quite nicely (even though it's a bit of a sales pitch)..

 

[sudopera]

3 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

Shooting 8k is not too much.

8k and beyond has/will become more and more necessary for movies that involve heavy visual effects. Being able to work with high resolution plates that have the headroom to allow re-positions and the overall detail boost for blue/green screen work is a huge advantage. When 8k live action is inter-cut with CG characters, the 8k footage (often down-scaled considerably) now matches the resolved detail that CG characters and environments can have (because they do not have to be 'captured' photographically). Traditional techniques of lightly degrading/softening the CG image to match the live action plates is becoming less of a thing when shooting higher resolution 'cleaner' live action elements. 8k is also a no-brainier when it comes to being an attractive acquisition format for archive purposes, it will have a longer shelf life in regards to being compatible with ever-evolving displays and projection systems whenever the 'negative' needs to be revisited.

All of the above has a recent real-world example....Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Back in the day, Vista Vision format was often employed for effects shots that required optical compositing and many passes through the printer would cause generation loss. Once the larger format of Vista Vision optical composite was down-scaled and printed to 35mm, the grain was effectively reduced to a regular size (or smaller) and the generation loss of detail was no longer apparent since the reduction to 35mm was effectively returning full resolution to that smaller format. ILM were the most famous users of this technique and that is why they became the best in the business...providing the best quality optical composites for effects shots in films. 

Although we no longer have optical compositing generation loss to deal with, shooting larger format at 8k+ still has many of the advantages that these old optical tricks gave. The effect of reduction/downscale alone to a lower resolution gives a massive improvement to perceived sharpness, as well as huge reduction in noise - since any noise artifacts are literally shrunk.

I remember when people were asking if upgrading to HD cameras was overkill...how quickly we forget. 4K down-scaled for HD/2K delivery works great, since compression and noise artifacts from footage is visually reduced, So 8k down-scaled to 4/2k projection makes particular sense in this regard. Consumer 4k cameras often have so much in-camera compression applied to get to that resolution, that the image suffers until down-scaled to HD anyway, which is why a solid HD camera with good picture and colour, often trumps a 4k camera, in terms of delivering a pleasing image.

So, shooting cat videos in 8k at home might be too much (unless it is really cute) , but there is an increasing need out there for 8 -16k cameras out there for film production that require visual effect integration...last time I checked, that accounts for most Hollywood releases for the past 25-30 years. 

I agree that it has value as an acquisition format for big productions, especially because there are some hints that high end camera manufacturers are going "big sensors route" in the future (some are already there). My point was would it be good to finish / deliver in 8K to viewers because it seems like an overkill to my eyes.

My concern regarding this matter is that manufacturers will very soon push 8K into smaller and cheaper cameras because of marketing and TV sales, and before you know it you will have to deliver a wedding video in 8K because it is such a catchy phraze that number with a "K".

Now that we have great detail with 4K, I think there are more important ingredients to throw into new cameras.

BTW, for the video above you couldn't put it better, I felt a "sensory overload" while watching it in 8K 

 

 

[Hans Punk]

1 hour ago, sudopera said:

I agree that it has value as an acquisition format for big productions, especially because there are some hints that high end camera manufacturers are going "big sensors route" in the future (some are already there). My point was would it be good to finish / deliver in 8K to viewers because it seems like an overkill to my eyes.

My concern regarding this matter is that manufacturers will very soon push 8K into smaller and cheaper cameras because of marketing and TV sales, and before you know it you will have to deliver a wedding video in 8K because it is such a catchy phraze that number with a "K".

Now that we have great detail with 4K, I think there are more important ingredients to throw into new cameras.

BTW, for the video above you couldn't put it better, I felt a "sensory overload" while watching it in 8K 

 

 

The trickle down effect from 8k cinema to consumer model cameras will inevitably happen, where horrible colours and in-camera sharpening and compression will no doubt be employed. Codec support and media will be slow to catch up and be supported as a standard...much like happened with 4K. Marketing will indeed by hyped, clients will assume more resolution is better etc...it's the same story each time.

I wouldn't be too concerned though, it's a long way off until existing HD and 4K is properly implimented yet. Many broadcasters and web platforms are still yet to catch up. The distribution and processing of high bandwidth data is always going to be the bottleneck...it takes time for the price point of many factors to converge for these things to become economically viable enough to implement for mass consumption.

8k camera acquisition gives amazing options for filmmakers to implement for 4K/2k delivery but 8k as a resolution for consumer presentation and delivery...is a long way off (and mostly pointless in many cases for traditional projection viewing). If a wedding client specifically asks for an 8k delivery anytime soon, then they either have a suitable budget to give you for the job, or are completely clueless.

Good colour science and dynamic range is what most camera manufacturers know is what makes good pictures, resolution boost is a bonus if it does not complicate workflow too much. But as happened with HD/4K buzz when it was new...you will initially have a load of crap coming out so it can wear that 8k badge on its side.

I suspect that s35 will be less of a standard with these bigger sensors becoming more common. The Red helium 8k VV looks like the way things are heading...camera-wise at least. That camera in particular is the first thing produced by Red that I think delivers on their braggy-jock rockstar attitude that they used to throw around.

[tugela]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 2:20 AM, sudopera said:

I bumped on this video below and just wanted to hear your opinions on the matter.

Maybe my eyes are not used to this much detail but I don't like it, simply because it's hard to concentrate on content when I'm constantly bombarded with so much small detail that looks almost surreal.

I really think that 4K-5K is the sweet spot and camera manufacturers should turn their attention to DR, high framerates, efficient codecs and color science, and stop the resolution wars.

I know you can throw softening filters in the mix but what is the point then to use 8K in the first place.

I'm not all against it because it will certainly have it's use for some scenarios, but I wouldn't like it to become a norm in the future.

 

You do realize that the footage is 1080p right? It might have been shot on a 8K camera, but that is 8K before debeyering. The YouTube clip however is not 8K. It is not even 4K, it is 2K. And it shows on a 4K screen.

Existing consumer cameras that oversample already shoot at around 6K, so this "terrible future" you are so afraid of is already here.

[Justin Bacle]

Here is the real question. Did you ever sat in a theater projecting movies in 4k and thinking "I wished the resolution was better". I know I didn't. 

I think 8K is way too much as a viewing format. But as always, higher resolutions can see some good uses for VFX and scientific applications.
As for myself, I shoot 1.5k 4:3 (yep, read it correctly) , so I really don't care about the resolution race :D