Sony A7R IV / A7S III / A9 II to feature 8K video, as new 60MP and 36MP full frame sensor specs leak

[Shirozina]

8k capture just means true 4k output. Many if not most of today's 4k camera can't actually deliver 4k resolution esp ones with 1:1 pixels sampling. Nyquist's theorem requires 2x the sample rate. I'd certainly be interested in a 60mp stills camera as long a DR isn't compromised and no 16bit does not mean 16 stops of DR.....

Just as 4k displays and TV's give is better HD picture quality then it follows that 8k displays and TV will give better 4k picture quality and remember most output even now is still HD/2k and looks very, very good.........

 

[mkabi]

If it will do 8K/60p... and 2K/1080p @ 240fps... then may be also 4K/120fps???

So it would first of many things - affordable

[newfoundmass]

There really is no reason for 8k for 99% of us even if you're editing in 4k or 1080p. Most cameras already are downscaling down to 4k. I've never felt like I've needed more detail when working with 4k. If anything there have been times when I felt like there was too much detail that it looked too sharp. 

[chrisE]

7 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

There really is no reason for 8k for 99% of us even if you're editing in 4k or 1080p. Most cameras already are downscaling down to 4k. I've never felt like I've needed more detail when working with 4k. If anything there have been times when I felt like there was too much detail that it looked too sharp. 

Disagree. I love to crop/re-frame videos in post a lot. I almost always export in 1080p, but having 4k is very handy. Although I don't *need* 8k, it would be a helpful addition.

[scotchtape]

I have a pretty good PC (threadripper, 1080ti, 64gb ram, m2 SSD) and even with 4k it stutters and has slow responsiveness.  Can't imagine 8k footage...

[Danyyyel]

2 hours ago, Shirozina said:

8k capture just means true 4k output. Many if not most of today's 4k camera can't actually deliver 4k resolution esp ones with 1:1 pixels sampling. Nyquist's theorem requires 2x the sample rate. I'd certainly be interested in a 60mp stills camera as long a DR isn't compromised and no 16bit does not mean 16 stops of DR.....

Just as 4k displays and TV's give is better HD picture quality then it follows that 8k displays and TV will give better 4k picture quality and remember most output even now is still HD/2k and looks very, very good.........

 

I will never understand, do you shoot or are you just some kind of geek. Because I will never understand people that says thing like that. I mean, can someone at real viewing distance even see more than 2k. The perfect example is the Alexa 2.8k sensor, I don't see anyone complaining about lack of resolution. It is just the geek that might find it sexy to be able to count every pores in an actress face when stopping the image.

[thebrothersthre3]

13 minutes ago, Danyyyel said:

I will never understand, do you shoot or are you just some kind of geek. Because I will never understand people that says thing like that. I mean, can someone at real viewing distance even see more than 2k. The perfect example is the Alexa 2.8k sensor, I don't see anyone complaining about lack of resolution. It is just the geek that might find it sexy to be able to count every pores in an actress face when stopping the image.

I can't tell the difference on 1080 monitors without zooming in but I've never seen 4k on a 4k monitor or 8k on an 8k monitor. 

To me though 1080p is good enough for everything (unless you need cropping). 

The bigger deal breaker right now is internet viewing. 4k looks way better then 1080p on platforms like youtube due to compression. 

At a movie theater, ehh not really imho. 

[newfoundmass]

57 minutes ago, chrisE said:

Disagree. I love to crop/re-frame videos in post a lot. I almost always export in 1080p, but having 4k is very handy. Although I don't *need* 8k, it would be a helpful addition.

No offense but if you need *8k* to crop and re-frame for 1080p editing you got bigger issues than resolution! ?

[chrisE]

12 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

No offense but if you need *8k* to crop and re-frame for 1080p editing you got bigger issues than resolution! ?

Read my post. I don't need it, but it could be handy. Of course, all the (wannabe?) "pro's" out there who shoot everything perfect, don't need to crop or reframe in post. ?

What I wanted to say if you don't understand it, is that it can be useful to have a higher resolution to crop/re-frame.

[newfoundmass]

26 minutes ago, chrisE said:

Read my post. I don't need it, but it could be handy. Of course, all the (wannabe?) "pro's" out there who shoot everything perfect, don't need to crop or reframe in post. ?

What I wanted to say if you don't understand it, is that it can be useful to have a higher resolution to crop/re-frame.

Sheesh, I was just kidding around. I'm not criticizing anyone for re-framing or cropping in, most of us do it. But if someone ever finds themselves in a situation where *8k* is necessary (or even "useful") to do it on a *1080p* time line then something probably went terribly wrong during shooting or the person was very lazy. That's way more resolution than you should ever need for that purpose. 

[chrisE]

13 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

Sheesh, I was just kidding around. I'm not criticizing anyone for re-framing or cropping in, most of us do it. But if someone ever finds themselves in a situation where *8k* is necessary (or even "useful") to do it on a *1080p* time line then something probably went terribly wrong during shooting or the person was very lazy. That's way more resolution than you should ever need for that purpose. 

Simple example, out in nature. You want to travel light and don't have your 400mm with you. How handy could be 8k to get closer in post? That's what I'm talking about. Not the guy filming everything with his 18mm and trying to fix that later.

[scotchtape]

Well for narrative probably not, but I guess newfoundmass has never had the pleasure of clients asking you for CSI ENHANCE because they want to focus on something else in the shot.

[jgharding]

They should really focus on colour, it's the main thing that stops people using their equipment, at least for me and others i know. Whenever I've had a little Sony on a shoot with a Canon, or an Arri or a Red it's been torture to match it afterwards or just comparing its BTS shots with main shots it doesn't look good. They have poor skin-tone in general and a sort of cool, soul-less look, and it takes a lot of work to make them look nice compared to other cameras.

That's not to say that there is NOTHING nice made with them, but that it's hard work and the colour doesn't allow much varsatility from my experience, regardless of stats.

Sony have amazing stats on paper but most of the time you can spot the footage cos it has that "look". Even the F65 has a "look" that's not nice compared to an Alexa. It's sharp and cold and clinical.

And if they can't get their colour up to scratch at least give people more chance of making it palatable by offering 444 or 422 12-bit or something. 

But I'm guessing this is all part of a "we are selling 8K TVs let's have 8K capture in phones and cameras" thing.

We will more likely get 16k than 444 1080p ??

[DBounce]

11 hours ago, Nikkor said:

16bit stills, interesting!

Yeah, but do you have a 16 bit display to view it on? Most TVs and monitors are only 8 bit or 10 bit... so there’s that.

[RWR]

10 minutes ago, jgharding said:

They should really focus on colour, it's the main thing that stops people using their equipment, at least for me and others i know. Whenever I've had a little Sony on a shoot with a Canon, or an Arri or a Red it's been torture to match it afterwards or just comparing its BTS shots with main shots it doesn't look good. They have poor skin-tone in general and a sort of cool, soul-less look, and it takes a lot of work to make them look nice compared to other cameras.

Yep.

"better"(color) is a tougher sell than "more" (pixels).

[Joninva1]

So whilst 8k would be nifty,  it's not a requirement.  What I think the large sensors are likely going to be utilized for as far as video goes,  is some new kind if video sensor stabilization tech that uses that large area real estate to give you a nice stabilized 4k image without cropping the 4k real estate.  That I think makes more sense than a7r4 and a92 having 8k video on board.  Sony may also have actual purpose built video cameras in plan as well. It's kind of silly to consider this information in the space of only the a7r, a7s and a9. 

[Shirozina]

2 hours ago, Danyyyel said:

I will never understand, do you shoot or are you just some kind of geek. Because I will never understand people that says thing like that. I mean, can someone at real viewing distance even see more than 2k. The perfect example is the Alexa 2.8k sensor, I don't see anyone complaining about lack of resolution. It is just the geek that might find it sexy to be able to count every pores in an actress face when stopping the image.

Read my last sentence......

[RWR]

Although...Aren't they marketing the FS7mkii as having better color science? Anyone here liking that?

[Shirozina]

BTW I use an A7r2 for stills so technically I'm already working in '8k' and I can say for certain that it's better than 8mp or '4k'.

[Nikkor]

45 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Yeah, but do you have a 16 bit display to view it on? Most TVs and monitors are only 8 bit or 10 bit... so there’s that.

I don't have a 14bit screen either. 16bit raw is very nice, my Medium Format digital back 16bit files have lots of Info that come in handy to make Natural HDR 8bit Images