• Super Hi-Vision 8K TV approved
    62 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Trogdon;37396998]sure there's such thing as natural progression of technology, but this is 8k video we are speaking of, this is not the same jump as 480i to 1080p. this is a jump from 2 megapixels (1080p) to 36 megapixels (8k). This is unfeasibly useless for a video format. Why you ask? Well it comes down to three important areas of the camera, the video codec, the sensor, and the lenses. If we look at the lenses, we will immediately notice an issue. Cine lenses are designed for a 35mm strip of film, or the usual cine format known as "super35". This is around 24 and probably 18 megapixels in terms of digital resolution. Now we are looking at something with far more detail than that. We are using 36 megapixels, and we don't even know the size of the sensors for these cameras. This alone is a huge deal. If the sensors for the camera do not cover at least a diagonal of 35mm then feasibly this is an absolutely useless jump (hint, it probably doesn't). The pixel pitch of a 35mm diagonal with 36 megapixels means that lenses cannot physically make the image sharper, and that there is absolutely no more detail provided by having more of them. This is certainly a problem red cameras run into, as there certainly aren't videos of them using native resolution. We do not have lenses that can physically make use of the sensor area, so why even bother? This is a problem among STILL cameras currently. If you compare a 36 megapixel image with a 24 megapixel one, and resize the 24 to 36 megapixels, you will have approximately the same level of detail between the two due to the lens not physically being able to resolve the difference. This means bigger lenses, bigger cameras, bigger heating systems, etc. And all for what? A difference in video quality that is just in terms of "resolution". The gain won't be much different because of the reality that they won't increase lens mount (the PL mount has been around for over 100 years, and the standard "broadcast" mount only covers a 16mm strip of film), they will just increase the pixel pitch and cram more pixels onto the same sensor. Big pixels = better picture. We aren't doing that, we are cramming more and in reality gaining no real resolving difference. And that's even assuming there would be a difference in 8k versus 4k. Certainly it is double the resolution, so double the detail. But how large would the TV need to be to discern the difference? How far would the optimal viewing distance need to be? At what point would natural vision deficiencies set in and make the difference immeasurable? There's a reason why for still photography 6mp is more than most people will EVER need. Because they are not making gigantic prints. But if you do make big prints, when are you going to have people looking at them at a close enough difference to make a discernible difference? the jump between 4k and 8k is not that much of a deal. In still frames at 100% crops you might be able to tell the difference and see more detail. But that is not how you view the format. You view it at the size of the screen, and it's moving. We should be focusing our efforts on making better video codecs so that way the resolution we are currently getting isn't shit (why flip HD's will not look as good as a high end camcorder despite having the same "resolution"), and focus on having better framerates instead of stupid 120Hz interpolation. [/QUOTE] That's all fine. But you're basing all this on the idea that this format is based entirely on what the camera can produce. We had common HDTV's before we had common HD cameras. It's more than likely this is a video standard without much of a purpose for a long time. No reason to stop defining standards because we simply don't think it will be useful. A lot of this simply could be related to generated content, not necessarily captured content And I would disagree with the jump information. 2k to 8k is a jump of 16x resolution. From really nice looking video to possibly life like pixel density. Yes, glass is a major lacking factor for video and film. Which is why it may not get there. But NHK has been at this stuff for like 15 years now, just being the forefront of incredibly high density imaging. I agree with framerates. I'd like to see higher refresh rate monitors and the move away from motion interpolation and more towards hardware that can natively run high framerate conten from anything, be it games, video, animations, etc. Your mention of codecs is rather void though. Flips look like shit because of cheap small sensors, not H.264's fault. We may seen H.265 making a big push, but the hardware driving it will be a limiting factor with the rate of cycles needed for encoding and decoding rising sky high the more they clamp down on those newer codecs. So if we really are developing higher level codecs to squeeze more out of less, we may need to start having dedicated video decoding chips in all sorts of devices. I don't see CPU's handling 4K with something over H.264, and with your idea of higher framerates, that's getting pretty powerful. I think maybe the sticking point is that 8k seems worthless, but it's merely a video format standard. Nothing more at this point. NHK simply are developing those prototype cameras for demonstrations. Even so, even if PL was abandoned for maybe even 8k medium format sensors, I'm sure companies like Panavision, RED, Sony, and Zeiss would be some of the first to stick their name in the hat for developing new larger light-shadow lens mounts. [QUOTE=Trogdon;37396998] I do not support 8k because 1080p isn't great at the moment. We have a LOT of work left to do here before we even think about moving up to such a high resolution. Higher pixel count does not mean better quality. /rant[/QUOTE] You don't support 8k because 1080p isn't great. not great how? 1080p is merely a resolution. Do you mean the kind of image quality and resolvable lines in most 1080p content? Just trying to understand that point. You're saying that 1080p has a long life before we need to move ahead? I agree with you. I think we do have a long way before 1080p is really becoming a limit for most media. But 20 years ago nearly everyone had tubes. They are predicting like another 25years. That's a huge space. We may actually see a use for this. If anything, I think, personally, that 8k will stay in the high end and never probably come down to the common level for like someone to buy at amazon or walmart. But I think most video might go to 4k and stop, especially since mobile video is such a huge thing now, and that's roughly where it hits a limit of use. You'd need big screen to see 8k in it's entirety.
yeah basically i think we need to work on getting more out of what we have instead of moving onto something else. and what the article made it sound like was they wanted 8k to be a standard in the next 10 years which would be ridiculous. i want the jump to happen eventually, but yes we can both agree on gradual. and i also agree with never being at the common level sorry if my rant was in any way mean :(
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37390804]Soon we'll have native RED EPIC devices.. [thumb]http://www.evanagee.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/28k_RED_CAMERA.png[/thumb][/QUOTE] i hate inflated aspect ratio 4:3 is best 16:9 is pushing it that epic red shit is just pointless
[QUOTE=Trogdon;37397836]yeah basically i think we need to work on getting more out of what we have instead of moving onto something else. and what the article made it sound like was they wanted 8k to be a standard in the next 10 years which would be ridiculous. i want the jump to happen eventually, but yes we can both agree on gradual. and i also agree with never being at the common level sorry if my rant was in any way mean :([/QUOTE] I think you'd find that the most limiting factor isn't technology, it's cost. Our local TV stations are still filming most of their stuff at [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/576i"]576i[/URL], and the small amount of HD content they do broadcast is [URL="http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1091/gem20120708motion.jpg"]compressed to hell and back[/URL]. This isn't a technology limitation, it's a cost issue. They don't want to upgrade their technology to better use what's available, because what they're currently putting out is "good enough".
150gb film downloads, anyone?
[QUOTE=Ylsid;37400399]150gb film downloads, anyone?[/QUOTE] When you double the resolution, you quadruple the amount of information. 320x240: 76,800; 640x480: 307,200. So you'd be looking at much more than that, assuming h.264
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd hate to see a standard definition 720x576 picture upscaled to 8k. I think we need to look at bringing back CRT if we are going to get anywhere with this, maybe look at SED technology again.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;37399606]I think you'd find that the most limiting factor isn't technology, it's cost. Our local TV stations are still filming most of their stuff at [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/576i"]576i[/URL], and the small amount of HD content they do broadcast is [URL="http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1091/gem20120708motion.jpg"]compressed to hell and back[/URL].[/QUOTE] Holy crap, that looks worse than 360p videos on Youtube. Just how cheap do you have to be to do that, they're probably using less bandwidth than it takes for a normal SD broadcast.
When that capture was taken (I found it on another forum), they were using 4Mbps for their SD content and 7Mbps for their HD content (apparently)
Best aspect is 16:10, I can't stand 16:9 monitors.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;37401086]When that capture was taken (I found it on another forum), they were using 4Mbps for their SD content and 7Mbps for their HD content (apparently)[/QUOTE] wow are they using MPEG1 or what ahahaha
[QUOTE=Ylsid;37400399]150gb film downloads, anyone?[/QUOTE] At the same quality as blu-ray it will probably be around 500gb.
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;37401255]Best aspect is 16:10, I can't stand 16:9 monitors.[/QUOTE] This
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;37401255]Best aspect is 16:10, I can't stand 16:9 monitors.[/QUOTE] Using a 16:10 monitor myself, I agree. It's a shame it fell out of popular use.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;37403543]Using a 16:10 monitor myself, I agree. It's a shame it fell out of popular use.[/QUOTE] Exactly, It's virtually impossible to find a 16:10 monitor anymore so im stuck with my 1440x900 one.
I've always preferred multiple 5:4 monitors to less 16:9/10 monitors :v
[QUOTE=alien_guy;37403946]Exactly, It's virtually impossible to find a 16:10 monitor anymore so im stuck with my 1440x900 one.[/QUOTE] Same here man, I really like my 1440x900 monitor myself.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;37400648]When you double the resolution, you quadruple the amount of information. 320x240: 76,800; 640x480: 307,200. So you'd be looking at much more than that, assuming h.264[/QUOTE] I think a better way to put it is that when you double the dimensions you quadruple the resolution. Since resolution is the information itself depending on the definition. Like resolving lines for film or charts. [editline]25th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ylsid;37400399]150gb film downloads, anyone?[/QUOTE] By the time 8k is available for download, we'll probably all be on gigabit or faster lines. Which means that 200GB film download might take 30 minutes. And if we compare Bluray quality rates, of say... 50GB per movie, un-recompressed, about 2 hours for that movie at 8k if my math is right. [editline]25th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=alien_guy;37403946]Exactly, It's virtually impossible to find a 16:10 monitor anymore so im stuck with my 1440x900 one.[/QUOTE] It's impossible to find cheap 1.6 aspect monitors. Look at IPS monitors. like Dell's or HP's.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;37406722]I think a better way to put it is that when you double the dimensions you quadruple the resolution. Since resolution is the information itself depending on the definition. Like resolving lines for film or charts. [editline]25th August 2012[/editline] By the time 8k is available for download, we'll probably all be on gigabit or faster lines. Which means that 200GB film download might take 30 minutes. And if we compare Bluray quality rates, of say... 50GB per movie, un-recompressed, about 2 hours for that movie at 8k if my math is right. [editline]25th August 2012[/editline] It's impossible to find cheap 1.6 aspect monitors. Look at IPS monitors. like Dell's or HP's.[/QUOTE] Not to mention by then we'll have much better compression methods.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;37403543]Using a 16:10 monitor myself, I agree. It's a shame it fell out of popular use.[/QUOTE] 16:9 is generally better for entertainment. It's what movie experts chose, and it's closer to the human's visual aspect ratio. 16:10 however is mathematically convenient, and great for displaying windows side by side. 16:9 is a disease on work-oriented laptops.
[QUOTE=Silikone;37406843]16:9 is generally better for entertainment. It's what movie experts chose, and it's closer to the human's visual aspect ratio. 16:10 however is mathematically convenient, and great for displaying windows side by side. 16:9 is a disease on work-oriented laptops.[/QUOTE] Human visual aspect ratio definitely is wider than 16:10, but all that extra width is out of focus anyway, so having wider aspect ratios isn't much of an advantage. I don't mind 16:9 for movies and TV, but for computer monitors 16:10 definitely wins. I've just upgraded from a 5:4 1280x1024 monitor to a 1920x1200 and it's amazing.
From what I've heard 4:3 is the perfect ratio for the active area your eyes actually watch. Widescreen is more of a gimmick and just because we like twisting our heads left and right to look at more.
[QUOTE=dgg;37416911]From what I've heard 4:3 is the perfect ratio for the active area your eyes actually watch. Widescreen is more of a gimmick and just because we like twisting our heads left and right to look at more.[/QUOTE] A gimmick? I would like to have 2 windows side by side, thank you. 16:9 is perfect, however, i hate 16:9 and 4:3.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;37390145]Can we not have 8k? Broadcasts are having enough problems with 1080i, it's expensive for all that bandwidth and not even every channel is in HD. Then we have to upgrade the cables to transmit more data in houses, which means more storage at the cable dealer, which means bigger bills than what we already have. 2mp is perfectly fine for home viewing of a live format. Megapixels mean more in a still format as it has more time to be analyzed. But expecting this by 2020 is ridiculous considering how HD is finally just settling in, and most blu rays and games are 720p, not even 1080p[/QUOTE] Then...uh...don't get 8k.
[QUOTE=dgg;37416911]From what I've heard 4:3 is the perfect ratio for the active area your eyes actually watch. Widescreen is more of a gimmick and just because we like twisting our heads left and right to look at more.[/QUOTE] It's not really a gimmick, it provides more usable area and especially for gaming it provides a much wider FOV I'll be honest, playing FPSs on any non-widescreen aspect ration just seems wrong to me, I feel like I'm missing so much visual information on the sides
[QUOTE=AGMadsAG;37417311]A gimmick? I would like to have 2 windows side by side, thank you. 16:9 is perfect, however, i hate 16:9 and 4:3.[/QUOTE] I don't see what having a multiple monitor setup has anything to do with 16:9 being a gimmick. I have two 16:9 monitors myself. [QUOTE=CakeMaster7;37417533]It's not really a gimmick, it provides more usable area and especially for gaming it provides a much wider FOV[/QUOTE] How wide your FOV is is relevant to how wide your monitor is, the aspect ratio doesn't really matter. You can have a 4:3 monitor that is wider than a 16:9 monitor and as such give you a broader field of view despite having a more square aspect. But I understand your point. But it is quite gimmicky. The movie industry is probably the ones we have to thank for 16:9 because of the cinematic black bars they loved and still love so very much. It gives a more narrow focus which creates a more dramatic and filmatic effect.
Not to mention 16:9 is cheaper to make.
[QUOTE=dgg;37417633]How wide your FOV is is relevant to how wide your monitor is, the aspect ratio doesn't really matter. You can have a 4:3 monitor that is wider than a 16:9 monitor and as such give you a broader field of view despite having a more square aspect. [/QUOTE] You're right of course, when I said that I made a mistake and was sort of thinking along the lines of how when it comes to computer monitors, widescreen aspect ratios like 16:9 and 16:10 tend to be physically wider than their more square counterparts, espeically since the average consumer generally gets about the same size monitor.
It's 8k but that screen is huge. It's more impressive when they put 4k in a 42inch TV.
[QUOTE=dgg;37417633] How wide your FOV is is relevant to how wide your monitor is, the aspect ratio doesn't really matter. You can have a 4:3 monitor that is wider than a 16:9 monitor and as such give you a broader field of view despite having a more square aspect. [/QUOTE] What kind of games have you been playing? Most 3D games don't get any extra FOV by increasing the amount of drawn pixels. There's even gimmick like Eyefinity and Surround that gives you a ludicrous aspect ratio, thus a very large horizontal FOV. I think it's stupid because the vertical FOV still remains low. I'd rather have a spherical monitor.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.