How will 5.7K/6K videos look on a 8K display?

[lsquare]

I always want to shoot at the highest resolution possible. The Fujifilm X-H2 is probably the cheapest 8K capable camera on the market, but the Panasonic GH7 and a bunch of other cameras can shoot high-quality 5.7K/6K videos. 8K displays will continue to get cheaper and better. It is the future whether people like it or not. Reminds me of all the naysayers about how 4K was useless in the era of 1080p displays. I know the quality of the upscaler will be important. AI upscaling software will only get better in time. Even right now, will 5.7K/6K videos look soft when viewed on an 8K screen?

[Emanuel]

Damn it, if I had read it before I would probably have bought a 8K camera instead rather than the BMCC6K (FF) I've just received it today! LOL ; ) Why have you chosen this day to post it! LMAO : )

Sorry my friend and other folks in general but I simply couldn't resist... :- )

I just think every single filmmaker who has made the history of cinema in the last century is crying in 2024... Poor artists! hehe : P

BTW writes who is now transfering 16mm, S8 and even regular 8mm film with the help of an URSA Mini Pro 12K... if this says something in order to provide a good input on your wondering!

If anything else still helps, what about 'soft is sexy'?!

[Emanuel]

5 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

I just think every single filmmaker who has made the history of cinema in the last century is crying in 2024... Poor artists! hehe : P

BTW part II, how will they have audiences from now on? ; )

BTW part III, yesterday, I had the possibility of a screening of footage shot in glamourous 'low' 35mm resolution from 1991 but checked on a 4K screen of nowadays...

y'all learn something? : D

Looked like shot on 8K but not with a flagship smartphone... LOL

I know, this stuff can be a bitch, requires a lot up to arrive somewhere :- )

- EAG

[Emanuel]

Now a tip for fitting your 8K display... Buy some lower resolution camera other than 8K but with open gate and add anamorphic glass.

Don't squeeze it vertically but extend your pixels, making them wider to correct the aspect ratio and... voilà, you'll be there, your device fulfils the standard ;- )

[eatstoomuchjam]

This depends on the size of the 8k screen and how far you're sitting from it.  If you're 3 meters away from a 27" screen, almost no human is going to see the difference in 4k and 8k regardless of the screen resolution.  If you're 10cm from the same screen, you'll probably be able to see some difference between 6k and 8k on an 8k screen, but...  it's not that important.

Many cinemas are still projecting 2K on their enormous screens.  Do people watching from 10+ meters away notice the difference between it and 4K?  Would they even notice the difference side-by-side?  Maybe.

Anyway, there are declining returns in increasing display resolution - going from SD to full HD was huge.  Going from HD to 4K was a lot less huge (and lots of people are still using full HD TV's all over the world).  Going from 4K to 8K is going to be pretty slow due to the fairly small perceptible gains at a standard viewing distance.

[lsquare]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

Damn it, if I had read it before I would probably have bought a 8K camera instead rather than the BMCC6K (FF) I've just received it today! LOL ; ) Why have you chosen this day to post it! LMAO : )

Sorry my friend and other folks in general but I simply couldn't resist... :- )

I just think every single filmmaker who has made the history of cinema in the last century is crying in 2024... Poor artists! hehe : P

BTW writes who is now transfering 16mm, S8 and even regular 8mm film with the help of an URSA Mini Pro 12K... if this says something in order to provide a good input on your wondering!

If anything else still helps, what about 'soft is sexy'?!

Uh, if 8K was available then, I'm sure they would have picked it. I'm talking now. Not sure why you're getting all weird about this subject. 

[lsquare]

20 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

This depends on the size of the 8k screen and how far you're sitting from it.  If you're 3 meters away from a 27" screen, almost no human is going to see the difference in 4k and 8k regardless of the screen resolution.  If you're 10cm from the same screen, you'll probably be able to see some difference between 6k and 8k on an 8k screen, but...  it's not that important.

Many cinemas are still projecting 2K on their enormous screens.  Do people watching from 10+ meters away notice the difference between it and 4K?  Would they even notice the difference side-by-side?  Maybe.

Anyway, there are declining returns in increasing display resolution - going from SD to full HD was huge.  Going from HD to 4K was a lot less huge (and lots of people are still using full HD TV's all over the world).  Going from 4K to 8K is going to be pretty slow due to the fairly small perceptible gains at a standard viewing distance.

I don't know where you're located, but in North America, 4K has taken over. I don't even know if Walmart sells Full HD TVs anymore. Reminds me of the early days of digital when people said RAW and higher resolution wasn't worth it when in hindsight that just turned out to be a dumb idea. Anyways, looking at your post, it sounds like 6K videos will look good on a 8K display when viewed from a standard distance. 

[Emanuel]

18 minutes ago, lsquare said:

Uh, if 8K was available then, I'm sure they would have picked it. I'm talking now. Not sure why you're getting all weird about this subject. 

Because it's not a plain subject. Trust me, this is not as simple as a bloody number. And mainstream technology means too little or people shooting in B&W would have switched to colour when that was introduced by then.

 

14 minutes ago, lsquare said:

I don't know where you're located, but in North America, 4K has taken over. I don't even know if Walmart sells Full HD TVs anymore.

It's worldwide. Geolocalization means too little if any for that. We are in 2024 now.

 

14 minutes ago, lsquare said:

Reminds me of the early days of digital when people said RAW and higher resolution wasn't worth it when in hindsight that just turned out to be a dumb idea.

To not respond you in a weird manner under your request : ) I think you're just missing the whole point of it why you've heard people to tell you so. Far to be a dumb idea. It's just not what your interpretation made from :- )

 

14 minutes ago, lsquare said:

Anyways, looking at your post, it sounds like 6K videos will look good on a 8K display when viewed from a standard distance. 

Of course. Once you're going after a standard, start from there ;- )

[PannySVHS]

I have some Dvds which look fantastic on my HD TV, not too far off from Bluray, even though Blurays offer 5 times as many pixels as Dvds.

8K TVs offer the same pixel number in height / y-axis as the Gh7 in 5.7K open gate mode btw.:) Width is 1.32 of the GH7 pixel count.

 

[eatstoomuchjam]

56 minutes ago, lsquare said:

I don't know where you're located, but in North America, 4K has taken over. I don't even know if Walmart sells Full HD TVs anymore. Reminds me of the early days of digital when people said RAW and higher resolution wasn't worth it when in hindsight that just turned out to be a dumb idea. Anyways, looking at your post, it sounds like 6K videos will look good on a 8K display when viewed from a standard distance. 

I'm in North America.  You can go walk into a Best Buy right now and buy a 42" Full HD TV.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?_dyncharset=UTF-8&browsedCategory=abcat0101001&id=pcat17071&iht=n&ks=960&list=y&qp=verticalresolution_facet%3DResolution~Full+HD+(1080p)&sc=Global&st=categoryid%24abcat0101001&type=page&usc=All+Categories

So no, 4K hasn't fully taken over.  It's also not a question of "what can you go into a store and buy right now" anyway - it's "What do people actually have sitting in their homes?"  And while I have a 4K TV, many people who I know are still using Full HD sets and aren't upset about it.  Abroad, that's even more the case.

[Emanuel]

This North American obsession is kinda funny... WTH matters the stuff people have sitting in their homes?! They will watch it anyway, no matter the resolution you have for them. The key is your master and... product/content. Resolution is only a small portion of the equation.

[Emanuel]

This is original 8mm film transferred to digital nowadays in this decade:

The native acquisition resolution then is not the most crucial premise with the tools we have today.

[kye]

5 hours ago, lsquare said:

I always want to shoot at the highest resolution possible.

Why?

[Emanuel]

This is what you have with slowmotion captured on BMD FF 1080p:

I defy you to compare with some other native original 8K on your 8K display and tell me what looks better!

 

[Mr. Freeze]

Are you familiar with Steve Yedlin´s Demos about Resolution: https://yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html

[newfoundmass]

9 hours ago, lsquare said:

I always want to shoot at the highest resolution possible. The Fujifilm X-H2 is probably the cheapest 8K capable camera on the market, but the Panasonic GH7 and a bunch of other cameras can shoot high-quality 5.7K/6K videos. 8K displays will continue to get cheaper and better. It is the future whether people like it or not. Reminds me of all the naysayers about how 4K was useless in the era of 1080p displays. I know the quality of the upscaler will be important. AI upscaling software will only get better in time. Even right now, will 5.7K/6K videos look soft when viewed on an 8K screen?

No, they won't look soft. You'll never own an 8K screen big enough to truly see much difference between 4K and 8K, just as most folks don't really see that significant of a difference between 1080p and 4K screens, in part because the majority of the content consumed today is still 1080p.

All my TVs are 55 inch 4K. To see the difference between 4K and FHD I need to be uncomfortably close. 10 feet away I can't really tell much of a difference, and neither can most people. 

They'll push 8K on us to get people to unnecessarily "upgrade" but it'll be even less necessary than the switch from FHD to 4K.

[lsquare]

6 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

No, they won't look soft. You'll never own an 8K screen big enough to truly see much difference between 4K and 8K, just as most folks don't really see that significant of a difference between 1080p and 4K screens, in part because the majority of the content consumed today is still 1080p.

All my TVs are 55 inch 4K. To see the difference between 4K and FHD I need to be uncomfortably close. 10 feet away I can't really tell much of a difference, and neither can most people. 

They'll push 8K on us to get people to unnecessarily "upgrade" but it'll be even less necessary than the switch from FHD to 4K.

Right now I'm sitting about 5 feet away from a 65" 4K TV. I'll probably be using this TV until the end of the decade. The Samsung QN90B is a very good TV and 4K UHD discs look spectacular. Towards the end of this decade, if 8K is cheap enough, why not? Anyway, I'm not really interested in debating whether 8K is necessary or not. Even if the difference between full HD and 4K is minimal, I'm not going to shoot in full HD. 

I guess what I want to ask now is will 5.7K/6K videos look sharp from about 5 feet away with a future 85" 8K TV? Will it look softer from the same distance with a natively shot 8K video?

Thank you. 

[Emanuel]

9 hours ago, Mr. Freeze said:

Are you familiar with Steve Yedlin´s Demos about Resolution: https://yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html

Right. And in-between minute 23 and 24 (res demo Pt2), it is rather possible to see when resolution counts and does not. Compare IMAX footage from 11K film scan versus Alexa 65 to realize where limits are reached anyway.

[newfoundmass]

 

6 hours ago, lsquare said:

The Samsung QN90B is a very good TV and 4K UHD discs look spectacular.

That has just as much to do with bitrate than resolution.

 

6 hours ago, lsquare said:

Anyway, I'm not really interested in debating whether 8K is necessary or not. Even if the difference between full HD and 4K is minimal, I'm not going to shoot in full HD. 

No one said that there isn't a difference between shooting 4K and FHD, merely that there is not much difference when watching them on the televisions most of us have, at the distance most of us watch them at.

I've been filming in 4K instead of FHD for nearly 10 years at this point for a reason. But 4K displays were mostly a gimmick. While most people now have them almost all content watched on them is FHD because most people have thus far decided that 4K isn't worth the premium they want you to pay (example: Netflix's most popular tier by far is the Standard tier which is only FHD.)

That's why I bring it up: you're already worried about 8K and whether or not 6K will look good on it, when 4K hasn't even become the primary resolution in which people consume content and still, most of us don't even have big enough 4K displays to appreciate 4K content all that much more than we do FHD.

 

6 hours ago, lsquare said:

I guess what I want to ask now is will 5.7K/6K videos look sharp from about 5 feet away with a future 85" 8K TV? Will it look softer from the same distance with a natively shot 8K video?

Thank you. 

LOL. Man, 5' is way too close to be watching an 85" TV whether it's 8K or 4K.  Seriously, don't ever do that. But to answer your bigger question: 6K will look fine on an 8K... and so will FHD and 4K, assuming you buy a reasonable TV size for your room and seating.

[kye]

15 hours ago, lsquare said:

Right now I'm sitting about 5 feet away from a 65" 4K TV. I'll probably be using this TV until the end of the decade. The Samsung QN90B is a very good TV and 4K UHD discs look spectacular. Towards the end of this decade, if 8K is cheap enough, why not? Anyway, I'm not really interested in debating whether 8K is necessary or not. Even if the difference between full HD and 4K is minimal, I'm not going to shoot in full HD. 

I guess what I want to ask now is will 5.7K/6K videos look sharp from about 5 feet away with a future 85" 8K TV? Will it look softer from the same distance with a natively shot 8K video?

Thank you. 

If you want your images to be sharp, in your editing program there is a control called Sharpness.  This is used to increase the sharpness of the image.  To get sharper images you would increase this control until the images are as sharp as you like.

If you're shooting 1080p or above, sharpness has nothing to do with resolution.