Sharp's new 8K M43 camera

[Emanuel]

23 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Do Sharp have a processor capable of encoding a 8K30p stream in H.264 or H.265? Likely not, so if they do make such a camera it would probably use some relatively uncompressed encoding scheme. The picture of their camera shows a small body, it is dubious that thing will be capable of dealing with the heat from a high efficiency codec at 8K.

For sure for limited takes... ; -)

[kye]

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

Why? Cell phones have higher pixel densities than sensors used in micro 4/3 cameras. The only thing that would affect practicality is the power of the processor being used. If the most advanced processors currently available have a hard time doing 4K60p, then they probably can't do 8K30p. That is most likely what the Panasonic manager was saying, but it got lost in translation and comprehension.

Do Sharp have a processor capable of encoding a 8K30p stream in H.264 or H.265? Likely not, so if they do make such a camera it would probably use some relatively uncompressed encoding scheme. The picture of their camera shows a small body, it is dubious that thing will be capable of dealing with the heat from a high efficiency codec at 8K.

8K has four times the pixels of 4K, so 8K30 is equivalent to 4K120 in terms of pixels-per-second.

You might be right about less processor intensive processing but they'd have to be choosing from the options available in the marketplace which may not have a less-compression / higher bit rate option at the right price. Of course, if you were a microchip manufacturer then investing in the market for a 8K video compression chip isn't a risky proposition, and phones have been doing 4K60 with efficient power consumption and thermal loading for a few years now, so it's not like the tech is that far away.

 

[newfoundmass]

This feels out of left field. Surprising to see, I honestly didn't even know Sharp was still around! 

[webrunner5]

4 hours ago, kye said:

8K has four times the pixels of 4K, so 8K30 is equivalent to 4K120 in terms of pixels-per-second.

You might be right about less processor intensive processing but they'd have to be choosing from the options available in the marketplace which may not have a less-compression / higher bit rate option at the right price. Of course, if you were a microchip manufacturer then investing in the market for a 8K video compression chip isn't a risky proposition, and phones have been doing 4K60 with efficient power consumption and thermal loading for a few years now, so it's not like the tech is that far away.

 

Yeah but doesn't the Z Cam E2 do like 4K 120p? So it seems like maybe it can be done?

[kye]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but doesn't the Z Cam E2 do like 4K 120p? So it seems like maybe it can be done?

Based on the Z Cam E2 already having done it, I'm also pretty certain it can be done.. ?

That's not the limit in terms of what is state of the art either... both the RED MONSTRO 8K VV and the RED HELIUM 8K S35 do 8K60, and in theory they should be able to pump enough pixels for 4K240, so either they didn't think anyone wanted it, or there's some other limitation.

[androidlad]

8 minutes ago, kye said:

Based on the Z Cam E2 already having done it, I'm also pretty certain it can be done.. ?

 

That's not the limit in terms of what is state of the art either... both the RED MONSTRO 8K VV and the RED HELIUM 8K S35 do 8K60, and in theory they should be able to pump enough pixels for 4K240, so either they didn't think anyone wanted it, or there's some other limitation.

For high speed readout one has to sacrifice quality. The 4K 120p is 10bit ADC readout, which is very very low precision and high noise floor.

[kye]

14 minutes ago, androidlad said:

For high speed readout one has to sacrifice quality. The 4K 120p is 10bit ADC readout, which is very very low precision and high noise floor.

Is this to do with the mechanisms that combine the pixels together to down-res the output to 4K from the 8K sensor?  

[Mokara]

18 hours ago, kye said:

8K has four times the pixels of 4K, so 8K30 is equivalent to 4K120 in terms of pixels-per-second.

You might be right about less processor intensive processing but they'd have to be choosing from the options available in the marketplace which may not have a less-compression / higher bit rate option at the right price. Of course, if you were a microchip manufacturer then investing in the market for a 8K video compression chip isn't a risky proposition, and phones have been doing 4K60 with efficient power consumption and thermal loading for a few years now, so it's not like the tech is that far away.

 

Right, but they are doing compression with a lot of compromises (such as variable frame rates) that people who use dedicated cameras are likely not to accept, so whatever is going on in the cell phone world is not a good indicator.

There are no free lunches.

[tomsemiterrific]

How many times will companies have to split the atom before people are satisfied?

[ntblowz]

Now even cheap $150 Smartphone will have 48MP 1/2" Sensor camera.. aka Redmi Note 7

I guess it good that you can choose between extreme resolution mode (good for day time/studio) or binning for better low light, gives you much flexibility depend on situation.

[Emanuel]

Indeed. Dreamy days we live today:

https://www.gsmarena.com/xiaomi_redmi_note_7-9513.php

For 200 bucks!

Add both 4K pocket BMD & Osmo versions (+ M2P as you wish going your stuff aerial as well), you have your really mobile and handy large format ready for still/motion wherever you go!

 

Here's a thread of nowadays ; -)

 

[Snowbro]

The Sharp presenter said it will be great for vloggers. How many girls do you know that will want their face filmed in 8k? haha

 

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

3 hours ago, ntblowz said:

Now even cheap $150 Smartphone will have 48MP 1/2" Sensor camera.. aka Redmi Note 7

I guess it good that you can choose between extreme resolution mode (good for day time/studio) or binning for better low light, gives you much flexibility depend on situation.

In fact, a m4/3 camera that could be switchable between low light 10mp /4k mode and high-res 40mp / 8k mode would be perfect for me. Even more if some 20mp mode could be implemented with good interpolation.

[Nikkor]

8k on a tiny sensor is pretty pointless. Even on fullframe it's on the limit and is more a way of getting true 4K because of the Bayer array. 

[kye]

4 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said:

How many times will companies have to split the atom before people are satisfied?

I know..  think about how all the forums are full of angry people demanding 8K cameras!

Once you understand that this progression is mainly driven by the tech companies constantly trying to find ways to make you keep buying things, then the rationale becomes clearer

[Davide]

Seriously.....who needs 8K? 

[DBounce]

1 hour ago, Davide said:

Seriously.....who needs 8K? 

A good compressed raw interest me more than 8k. Mainly because of the resources needed to work with 8k in post. 

[majoraxis]

If, bit depth and color space, low light and compressed file size were all at the right height or low enough for exceptable quality, processing and shortage then an 8k video file would allow an event videographer to also add valiue with screen capture photo’s of the event.  Also, there may be a perfect photo of your kids first steps that was captured while you where shooting 8k video of them.

For adapted lenses like c-mount lens , many would be usable more at a 1/2 sensor crop giving a it 4K at a 2/3” cropped sensor size.  I have 6-26mm c-mount that would love this configuration.

Having that ability to scan, pan and stabilize in post and deliver a 4K image would be useful for some.

If 8k is done right - I think there will be a cross section of people who would benefit.

Maybe the poll should be.

1.  I want better quality 4K!

vs

2.  I want 8k any way you can give it to me!

I don’t think it’s a case of either or, but we shall see.

 

[kye]

7 hours ago, majoraxis said:

1.  I want better quality 4K!
vs
2.  I want 8k any way you can give it to me!

In a sense I think this is a mostly useless conversation.

The value in the conversation is people learning about how other people shoot and the technical aspects of the situation, but I doubt that anything we say here will influence what we're actually given.  In a sense, there are only two markets.  

There is the cinema market who want things like high bitrate codecs / prores capture / RAW, and consumers who want resolution and manageable file sizes.  As more and more people are making video professionally and the tech advances there are a few manufacturers who concentrate on providing higher quality capture to non-cinema market segments.  Mostly this is Panasonic with the GH line, BlackMagic with the Pocket 4k, and now Atomos as a bolt-on solution.

Even if you want higher quality 4K, and for some reason you're not willing to get it via the Pocket 4K or external recording, 8K consumer codecs are actually a good way to get it.

8K is good because:

• Compressed 4K is lower quality than compressed 8K given the same bitrate (I have done tests and encoding the same material at the same bitrate and 1080 > 720 > SD)
• 4K displays are true 4K but 4K cameras are only true 1080 after debayering..  to get true 4K after debayering requires an 8K sensor
• Even if the bitrate for your 8K camera is low, for scenes where things don't move much (eg, people sitting and talking) the IQ will be quite good
• Even if we're talking 8K on a small sensor, if you use enough light then at base ISO your 8K image will be very nice.  This might mean spending more on lighting, but it's not that great an investment and having more lighting is probably a useful thing to have anyway.  If you're shooting in natural light then it'll be free.  We use ND filters all the time because we have too much light!
• Downscaling 8K to 4K is a great noise-reduction technique and will be completely free, and won't have any of the strange effects of "smart" NR algorithms

8K will mean you need a more powerful computer, but if you're shooting 4K at higher bitrates and/or doing much grading in post you already need to use proxies to edit and grade anyway, so it might take a bit longer to render proxies and export but that's perhaps the only price you'll pay.

[Video Hummus]

I'd take better quality 4K, i.e better dynamic range, 10bit, HDR, compressed RAW codec over 8K any day. 5 years from now I'll take 8K standard. I think people are under estimating the burden of handling 8K video. With media costs where they are at today, 8K is just stupid in a consumer camera. There are a lot of factors that make a particular scene in a video compelling. Resolution is at the bottom. Yes, I'm aware a 480p video is worst than a 1080p, but there is the law of diminishing returns.

From most important to least.

1. Audio
1.5 Composition ?
2. Lighting
3. Dynamic Range
4. Bit rate
5. Bit depth
6. Resolution (1080p and up)