6K is the new 1440p, Convince me otherwise

[Snowbro]

From a consumer standpoint, 6K is never going to become mainstream in any real way. It is just useful for getting better 4K footage. Anyone else think in a few years 8K will be like 4K was (marketing wise) in 2015? 

[Emanuel]

Yes and no : ) Just a figure. 4K won't be outdated as much as 1080p even today or 2K DCI or alike since ever.

[Snowbro]

6 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Yes and no : ) Just a figure. 4K won't be outdated as much as 1080p even today or 2K DCI or alike since ever.

I agree. There are great diminishing returns regarding my 4k monitor vs 1440p, but my 65" 4K OLED can use a few more pixels IMO. Then again, that is all relative as well. 

[Emanuel]

Remember 35mm film? ; ) Or Super 16 for acquisition?

Call it old fashioned... but do not include me among those blind people! ; ) LOL

[Snowbro]

I am just wondering if there are people out there that think 6K will ever be an adopted format. I can't see 6K deliverables being requested.

[kaylee]

@Snowbro i mean.... maybe one day lol

we live in a world where producers/directors/content distributors make, what are in practice, nonsensical demands bc OBVIOUSLY besides some ppl on this board, NO ONE knows 4k from a hole in the wall

to these morons, 4k = sharper, which = better

will 6k be a thing for delivery? i say no: the 4k gimmick hasnt worked with consumers, imho. sure, the big manufacturers have sold a lot of tvs, but the ppl who have 4k sets that i know (civilian nonfilmmakers lol) have no idea wtf theyre watching, and dont *feel* the benefit of their higher res tvs, so i highly doubt that those same (rich) ppl are going to get "fooled again" so easily ?at least not in the next few years ?

[Mokara]

That is not really the point. There is some content where it does not make a difference, and other content where it does. Being dogmatic and saying that is always better or never better is just plain stupid. As a general rule however you want your equipment to be capable to handle both scenarios at a minimum.

There are other things as well, higher resolution is good and if you have a decent viewing panel you can tell the difference, BUT, you need a camera that is actually resolving at that resolution (a lot of older lenses just don't, for example) without losing information through insufficient oversampling or insufficient bit rate. Not to mention when the shooter is deliberately killing resolution through artificial means. So you will usually have something that is nominally "4K" but in reality is closer to 2K. So of course it looks the same.

Ideally you want your cameras and your TV panels to be able to match the resolution of eyes in the real world, and at the moment we are no where close to that. Certainly 4K is not, and although some 8K panels are starting to appear, there isn't really appropriate footage for those (which has to be shot at a minimum of 12k to approach true 8k). Improvements will only stop making a difference when we reach that point.

[Django]

Netflix is probably the biggest 4K advocate with their infamous camera/file requirements.

Now that they basically make TVs in partnership with consumer giants it’s only a matter of time before 6K/8K becomes minimum production requirement for their content.

I must admit watching 4K Dolby Vision HDR content on my 65” calibrated OLED 4K TV is pretty damn glorious!

I can see cinema production adopting this quickly (already the case for those shooting RED). 35mm film being roughly 6K equivalent in resolution, even analog purists may have to reconsider digital.

 

[kye]

All traditional discussion will be put aside when people start talking about VR where you're heavily zooming into the delivery image when viewing it.  My phone is 1080p and it looks like YT 360p when I'm using it with the VR adapter goggles (and it becomes a pair of ~1000x1000 eyepieces).  For 360 degree VR video you're going to want more resolution for quite a long time - we are a very long way off from retina resolution VR.

[Jonny]

4 hours ago, kaylee said:

@Snowbro i mean.... maybe one day lol

we live in a world where producers/directors/content distributors make, what are in practice, nonsensical demands bc OBVIOUSLY besides some ppl on this board, NO ONE knows 4k from a hole in the wall

to these morons, 4k = sharper, which = better

will 6k be a thing for delivery? i say no: the 4k gimmick hasnt worked with consumers, imho. sure, the big manufacturers have sold a lot of tvs, but the ppl who have 4k sets that i know (civilian nonfilmmakers lol) have no idea wtf theyre watching, and dont *feel* the benefit of their higher res tvs, so i highly doubt that those same (rich) ppl are going to get "fooled again" so easily ?at least not in the next few years ?

So true. My in-laws watch their favourite network channel in SD on their 65inch 4k tv and they don't even realise until i say something and switch it to HD for them. 

[ntblowz]

1 hour ago, kye said:

All traditional discussion will be put aside when people start talking about VR where you're heavily zooming into the delivery image when viewing it.  My phone is 1080p and it looks like YT 360p when I'm using it with the VR adapter goggles (and it becomes a pair of ~1000x1000 eyepieces).  For 360 degree VR video you're going to want more resolution for quite a long time - we are a very long way off from retina resolution VR.

5.7K is just barely usable for full VR, definite need 8K for that!

[Geoff CB]

Yeah I don't think 6K will ever be a delivery standard. It's ideal for better 4K delivery. 4K or 8K as delivery standards will be the norm.

I'm still mostly delivering in 1080p so 4K acquisition would be plenty for me.

It's interesting that I've seen some arguments against getting the new Sony FX9 is that it's not future proof because it's only 4k internally.

[Mako Sports]

20 minutes ago, Geoff CB said:

Yeah I don't think 6K will ever be a delivery standard. It's ideal for better 4K delivery. 4K or 8K as delivery standards will be the norm.

I'm still mostly delivering in 1080p so 4K acquisition would be plenty for me.

It's interesting that I've seen some arguments against getting the new Sony FX9 is that it's not future proof because it's only 4k internally.

Last part makes me laugh. The people spouting off about the FX9's 6K are clearly the non shooting forum warriors.

Its always been downscale to 4k or upscale to 8K when shooting in 6K/delivery. 

[kye]

We can compare 6k to 1440p, but we should also compare it to 720p, as both were the lower of two standards that got announced together (or at similar times, not sure).

And 720p is still being used as a broadcast resolution in the US, so we might be having the "is 12k ever going to be used when there's 20k" conversation and someone will be saying "there's a VR app in the US that's only 6k" ???

[Video Hummus]

6K is the middle ground as a capture resolution. It makes 4K edits flexible in post while also being able to upscale to 8K without much problems at all.

I think 8K is still entirely to heavy for almost anybody except huge production houses like BBC or National Geographic that archive high resolution footage for tv shows and documentaries.

8K will be marketed heavily to the CONSUMER in the next 5 years. Especially following the 2020 Olympics.

Im not sure it’s very practical for 95% of other video professionals.

If you shoot weddings with hours of footage, would you want to shoot in 8K? The data requirements would be enormous. Probably talking tens of terabytes.

Youtubers? No way.

[newfoundmass]

8 hours ago, Snowbro said:

From a consumer standpoint, 6K is never going to become mainstream in any real way. It is just useful for getting better 4K footage. Anyone else think in a few years 8K will be like 4K was (marketing wise) in 2015? 

I think we're already seeing that, re: 8K. But I also think 8K is more of a gimmick than anything; it's a way to sell more TVs. Heck, I think 4K was largely the same thing, given those of us with 4K televisions still mostly watch Full HD video probably 95+% of the time. 

The push for higher and higher resolution has diminishing returns with each increase. The difference between SD and Full HD was massive, the difference between Full HD and 4K wasn't nearly as great given the size of screens most people have, and 4K to 8K is even smaller. 

7 hours ago, Snowbro said:

I am just wondering if there are people out there that think 6K will ever be an adopted format. I can't see 6K deliverables being requested.

If it was going to be adopted we'd have started seeing an influx of 6K televisions and monitors. It's a bridge, at best, between 4K and 8K.

2 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

Yeah I don't think 6K will ever be a delivery standard. It's ideal for better 4K delivery. 4K or 8K as delivery standards will be the norm.

I'm still mostly delivering in 1080p so 4K acquisition would be plenty for me.

It's interesting that I've seen some arguments against getting the new Sony FX9 is that it's not future proof because it's only 4k internally.

Yeah, those people are silly. Worse case you upscale and hardly anyone notices. 

35 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

8K will be marketed heavily to the CONSUMER in the next 5 years. Especially following the 2020 Olympics.

Im not sure it’s very practical for 95% of other video professionals.

If you shoot weddings with hours of footage, would you want to shoot in 8K? The data requirements would be enormous. Probably talking tens of terabytes.

Youtubers? No way.

Honestly even at 4K the data requirements are huge for wedding/event shooting. I wish my GH5 shot 2K! ?

[thebrothersthre3]

Maybe when Arri releases an 8k camera I'll believe that.

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

Throw your Blackmist 1/4, when 8K cameras will be common, we will need a Blackmist 2

[kye]

7 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

If you shoot weddings with hours of footage, would you want to shoot in 8K? The data requirements would be enormous. Probably talking tens of terabytes.

Youtubers? No way.

My first hard drive was 20Mb.  I got a second one that had been physically opened and was now unreliable, so I had to run Spinrite every week (it would read the drive and re-write the same data over the top to refresh it) otherwise it would just stop working and you'd have to format it again.  That process took about an hour because it was so much data.

At full-IQ my GH5 would fill one of those hard drives every 0.4 seconds.

8K will be mainstream, just wait long enough.  and after that it will be vintage, then it will be positively pre-historic.

[Danyyyel]

15 hours ago, kaylee said:

@Snowbro i mean.... maybe one day lol

we live in a world where producers/directors/content distributors make, what are in practice, nonsensical demands bc OBVIOUSLY besides some ppl on this board, NO ONE knows 4k from a hole in the wall

to these morons, 4k = sharper, which = better

will 6k be a thing for delivery? i say no: the 4k gimmick hasnt worked with consumers, imho. sure, the big manufacturers have sold a lot of tvs, but the ppl who have 4k sets that i know (civilian nonfilmmakers lol) have no idea wtf theyre watching, and dont *feel* the benefit of their higher res tvs, so i highly doubt that those same (rich) ppl are going to get "fooled again" so easily ?at least not in the next few years ?

You are on a gear head/ Nerd forum, what did you expect. The only things working here is the latest 6k, raw or whatever camera. Talk art, cinematography etc and you get  3 response at best. I never ever saw one person complain about 2k on the big screen, they will complain about the story, acting, special effect eventually, but never ever if the movie was in 2k.