Is 8K too much?

[wolf33d]

You guys made me laugh hard. 
You are the same people who said years ago that FHD was completely enough and that 4K was useless, when we were telling you it is not about the people having 4K TV to watch your 4K movie, but about the cropping, stabilisation, noise, resampling, and so on that allows you also to have a lot nicer FHD image. Soon the same will be true for 8K to the 4K content we will deliver. 

You are the same people that said the 12mpx of the D700 were absolutely plenty enough for photography, that more was absolutely useless unless you print on a wall, where I am using 24-42mpx sensors all the time and benefit all day from their cropping capabilities, better noise, better details even seen on my 15" laptop. 

Anyway, just like 90% of the people on earth, you are reluctant to change and with people like you we would still be using nokia keyboard phones. 

Thanks god the 10% do exist. 
Can't wait for 8K 1000FPS 14 bit 400mbps x.268 to arrive in my hands! Stay with your 480p cameras! 

No insult in my message, take it with humor 

[Justin Bacle]

12 hours ago, wolf33d said:

You guys made me laugh hard. 
You are the same people who said years ago that FHD was completely enough and that 4K was useless, when we were telling you it is not about the people having 4K TV to watch your 4K movie, but about the cropping, stabilisation, noise, resampling, and so on that allows you also to have a lot nicer FHD image. Soon the same will be true for 8K to the 4K content we will deliver. 

You are the same people that said the 12mpx of the D700 were absolutely plenty enough for photography, that more was absolutely useless unless you print on a wall, where I am using 24-42mpx sensors all the time and benefit all day from their cropping capabilities, better noise, better details even seen on my 15" laptop. 

Anyway, just like 90% of the people on earth, you are reluctant to change and with people like you we would still be using nokia keyboard phones. 

Thanks god the 10% do exist. 
Can't wait for 8K 1000FPS 14 bit 400mbps x.268 to arrive in my hands! Stay with your 480p cameras! 

No insult in my message, take it with humor 

Haha there is definitely some goods points in your post

I think though, that now that the resolution and DR is "similar" to 35mm film, that is why we're saying it is enough for now.
There will always be people wanting to have the newest best stuff. And that's good for the market and innovation. I just think that the resolution race has not much interest. DR, IQ, Rolling shutter, recording formats are of higher priority IMO.

PS : If we apply our thinking about audio formats. People ditched the 33rpm vinyl records and adopted the CD, then everything went online. But there is still people listening to Vinyl Records, event cassettes are making a comeback ! Maybe, some people still wanna use 480p cameras for the nostalgic effect. Nothing wrong about it :D 

[Anaconda_]

 

6 minutes ago, Justin Bacle said:

PS : If we apply our thinking about audio formats. People ditched the 33rpm vinyl records and adopted the CD, then everything went online. But there is still people listening to Vinyl Records, event cassettes are making a comeback ! Maybe, some people still wanna use 480p cameras for the nostalgic effect. Nothing wrong about it :D 

But by going from vinyl to CD and then online, lots of quality has been lost. People mostly listen to vinyl for the quality of the playback - or so they say. I look at it this way, quality was lost going from film (vinyl) to digital (CD/online) but audio has continued to get worse for the average listener, while the resolution race is constantly making video 'better'.

8K is more than enough, but since when was that ever a problem? When you make a film, do you shoot just enough to edit, or do you shoot more than enough? When you cook a meal for friends, is it not better to have some leftovers? You can't cut a piece of string longer, so best to start off with more than you need.

[tugela]

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 5:11 AM, Justin Bacle said:

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

That is not the point. When watching a movie you are watching the content. But, having better IQ means that the experience overall will be better.

It is like getting married. No doubt you love your wife (or husband, as the case may be) and you have all eyes for her. But, if she looked like a supermodel, it would be better. You are not going to be SAYING that at your wedding, however that doesn't mean that some things might not improve the overall experience.

 

2 hours ago, Justin Bacle said:

Haha there is definitely some goods points in your post

I think though, that now that the resolution and DR is "similar" to 35mm film, that is why we're saying it is enough for now.
There will always be people wanting to have the newest best stuff. And that's good for the market and innovation. I just think that the resolution race has not much interest. DR, IQ, Rolling shutter, recording formats are of higher priority IMO.

PS : If we apply our thinking about audio formats. People ditched the 33rpm vinyl records and adopted the CD, then everything went online. But there is still people listening to Vinyl Records, event cassettes are making a comeback ! Maybe, some people still wanna use 480p cameras for the nostalgic effect. Nothing wrong about it :D 

Yes, but I don't want 35mm film resolution, I want eye resolution. To be truly immersive it has to be as real as possible. That is the ultimate goal.

That means clean edges, no pixels, NO grain, no softness (I don't have cataracts, so why the must my camera have them?) and 20 stops of DR (or whatever the human eye is capable of). We have a very long way to go.

[tugela]

2 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

 

But by going from vinyl to CD and then online, lots of quality has been lost. People mostly listen to vinyl for the quality of the playback - or so they say. I look at it this way, quality was lost going from film (vinyl) to digital (CD/online) but audio has continued to get worse for the average listener, while the resolution race is constantly making video 'better'.

8K is more than enough, but since when was that ever a problem? When you make a film, do you shoot just enough to edit, or do you shoot more than enough? When you cook a meal for friends, is it not better to have some leftovers? You can't cut a piece of string longer, so best to start off with more than you need.

Vinyl is not better. Digital recordings are far more accurate than any analog recording and don't have any of the artifacts associated with less than perfect pressings, scratches and dust. People like to say that vinyl is better basically because it makes them feel more refined than the common people who listen to digital. It is the same as those folk who drool over the rare expensive wines mostly because they are rare, not because of intrinsic quality over less rare wines.

There is an irony here, most of those vinyl recordings people drool over were mastered in digital in the first place, lol. The best quality playback is live. Go support actual artists. 

[Anaconda_]

31 minutes ago, tugela said:

Vinyl is not better. Digital recordings are far more accurate than any analog recording and don't have any of the artifacts associated with less than perfect pressings, scratches and dust. People like to say that vinyl is better basically because it makes them feel more refined than the common people who listen to digital. It is the same as those folk who drool over the rare expensive wines mostly because they are rare, not because of intrinsic quality over less rare wines.

There is an irony here, most of those vinyl recordings people drool over were mastered in digital in the first place, lol. The best quality playback is live. Go support actual artists. 

I get ya, I meant how the 'Normal' setting for a Spotify stream is 96kbit/s. I guess that only adds to the point though. The digital recordings may be better, but the delivery format doesn't necessarily represent that. Much the same as an 8k recording is better, but the delivery format may not be 8k.

[sam]

5 hours ago, tugela said:

People like to say that vinyl is better basically because it makes them feel more refined than the common people who listen to digital.  

 

 

I'm curious to hear what experience/knowledge lead you to form that conclusion?  I have played the same track(s) in blind a/b tests in multiple formats (33.3rpm vinyl, DSD 2.8MHz,Tidals 16 bit 44.1, and Pandora streaming to guests both young and old, rich, poor, educated and not. So far, everyone has picked vinyl as sounding best.  And that is with a lowly entry level $12k system.  Digital may be more accurate, but..........

 

[tugela]

1 hour ago, sam said:

I'm curious to hear what experience/knowledge lead you to form that conclusion?  I have played the same track(s) in blind a/b tests in multiple formats (33.3rpm vinyl, DSD 2.8MHz,Tidals 16 bit 44.1, and Pandora streaming to guests both young and old, rich, poor, educated and not. So far, everyone has picked vinyl as sounding best.  And that is with a lowly entry level $12k system.  Digital may be more accurate, but..........

 

Because your receiver is digital, and it doesn't matter what comes in, what goes out is all digital anyway?

I grew up before there were such things as CDs, and there is no way vinyl sounds better than modern digital sound. Unless of course you like all the media imperfections that were never intended to be in the sound track to start with.

[tomekk]

.
 

[sam]

1 hour ago, tugela said:

Because your receiver is digital, and it doesn't matter what comes in, what goes out is all digital anyway?

I grew up before there were such things as CDs, and there is no way vinyl sounds better than modern digital sound. Unless of course you like all the media imperfections that were never intended to be in the sound track to start with.

I also grew up before cd's.  To be clear, in no way am I dismissing your opinion.  I am only interested in how it was formed if  you care to share?  Film is shown/ projected digitally but it's characteristics are clearly perceptible. Likewise with vinyl no? I recently helped my 68 year old father in law select a new turntable for his  Sansui amp and Wharfdale speakers that he purchased 50 years ago. Needless to say, there is yet another vinyl convert. Anyways, like you said,  nothing like a live performance!

3 minutes ago, tomekk said:

"Better" is subjective and "accurate" doesn't equal better. There is no point in arguing over it. 
 

Agreed. But who's arguing? Our perception of 1's and 0's vs Analog is a topic I'm genuinely intrigued with. 

[Marco Tecno]

I will never ever say that some technological achievement is "enough". I've been into technology for long enough to know (and understand) that "the more is always the better"...if done right.

Hence, 8k at 8bit won't probably be better than having 4k at, say, 10bit, but for sure 8k@ 10bit will be better than 4k@10bit. There will be a limit beyond which the human eye simply won't be able to tell the difference in resolution and detail, but if the footage is not oversharpened "ad hoc" (like that in the first post) having more resolution is almost always welcome.

[sudopera]

Excellent two videos from cinematographer Steve Yedlin via the link below, where he tries to make a point that quality of pixels in a camera is far more important for the perceived cinematic experience than the race in quantity, now that most high end cameras in his opinion already surpassed the resolution threshold required for image with good clarity and perceived sharpness.
In the first video he shows the same scenes shot with 6 different cameras (2 analogue) and all of the footage is graded and matched in post. He doesn't reveal what camera was used for particular shot just to prove his point. Second video shows post production.

This is quite relevant for this topic so just wanted to share.

http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/

[ntblowz]

On 6/26/2017 at 2:19 PM, wolf33d said:

You guys made me laugh hard. 
You are the same people who said years ago that FHD was completely enough and that 4K was useless, when we were telling you it is not about the people having 4K TV to watch your 4K movie, but about the cropping, stabilisation, noise, resampling, and so on that allows you also to have a lot nicer FHD image. Soon the same will be true for 8K to the 4K content we will deliver. 

You are the same people that said the 12mpx of the D700 were absolutely plenty enough for photography, that more was absolutely useless unless you print on a wall, where I am using 24-42mpx sensors all the time and benefit all day from their cropping capabilities, better noise, better details even seen on my 15" laptop. 

Anyway, just like 90% of the people on earth, you are reluctant to change and with people like you we would still be using nokia keyboard phones. 

Thanks god the 10% do exist. 
Can't wait for 8K 1000FPS 14 bit 400mbps x.268 to arrive in my hands! Stay with your 480p cameras! 

No insult in my message, take it with humor 

The prophet say it all! 

[wolf33d]

On 8/10/2017 at 5:37 PM, ntblowz said:

The prophet say it all! 

Thanks for pointing out the difference between analysis of facts in the first quote, and rumor prediction based on my ass-hair in the second quote 
You just won a medal for that