Consumers cannot tell difference 8k vs. 4k (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Interesting story from TechHive:

https://www.techhive.com/article/35...rs-cannot-tell-the-difference.html#tk.rss_all

 

[Worth]

No kidding.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

No kidding.

I had seen 8k for the first time during a recent visit with Robert Zohn at Value Electronics in NY.

I wasn't overly impressed. I mean, the demo he had playing looked very, very good. However, I can play YouTube 60fps videos on my 4k LG "C" class display and they look just as impressive.

I really do think it gets to the point where your eyes just can't see all those extra pixels.

In hindsight, if I went into the store without Robert telling me that was 8k playing on his display I probably would not have known it.

Saying that, however, I really did not have the opportunity to see the content side-by-side to make that assumption.

 

[John Dirk]

I really do think it gets to the point where your eyes just can't see all those extra pixels.

I know for sure my eyes can't!

 

[David_B_K]

I know I would not be able to tell the difference. I have not even made the jump to 4K yet. I can tell the difference between 4K and HD, but my eyesight is somewhat compromised due to glaucoma in one eye. When my current HD set craps out, I will make the switch to 4K, but I am not salivating over the prospect as I would be if I was 20/20 in both eyes. I can't see myself ever bothering with 8K.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

There’s no advantage to watching 8K on a consumer display in a home environment.

8K is really for professional environments - think billboards and digital displays, large monitors where it’s essential for the pixel grid to be imperceivable, theme park attractions with lifelike video components, that sort of thing.

When the IMAX corporation and the studios that utilize those screens are perfectly comfortable with 2K masters being shown on hundred foot screens, I think that tells you how important 8K isn’t for regular viewing.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

There’s no advantage to watching 8K on a consumer display in a home environment.

8K is really for professional environments - think billboards and digital displays, large monitors where it’s essential for the pixel grid to be imperceivable, theme park attractions with lifelike video components, that sort of thing.

When the IMAX corporation and the studios that utilize those screens are perfectly comfortable with 2K masters being shown on hundred foot screens, I think that tells you how important 8K isn’t for regular viewing.

Agreed! Agreed!

However, here we are, 8k displays in stores.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Yes, what Josh said.

Before digital projection overtook commercial theaters, I believe I read that the apparent resolution of 35mm film was at something like 6K to 8K. (Correct me if I am wrong.)

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It’s not going to hurt anything to have the extra pixels; it’s just not going to do anything extra special either.

The consumer electronics business doesn’t want us to think of TVs as long term purchases anymore; they want us to rebuy a TV as often as we buy new phones and computers. The problem for them is that none of the content producers can keep up or even have interest in trying. It’s wholly different from, say, smartphones where each year software developers run up against hardware limitations in their program designs and can take advantage of new tech. The way we interact with the TV hasn’t fundamentally changed since it was invented. The resolution has gone up, there’s more variety in what kind of inputs are available, but at the end of the day, we sit in front of it and watch content passively.

Ironically, this rush to push new TV standards every few years is probably a contributing factor to the decline in consumers purchasing media (whether physically or digitally) and turning to subscription streaming, when the original intent might have been to keep people locked in a cycle of purchasing the same content again and again in slightly different versions. The consumer seems to have figured out that if the studios and manufacturers want to sell you the same movie every five years and convince you that the last version you bought is now unacceptable, the best solution is not to buy at all.

 

[JohnRice]

Yes, what Josh said.

Before digital projection overtook commercial theaters, I believe I read that the apparent resolution of 35mm film was at something like 6K to 8K. (Correct me if I am wrong.)

I'd say it's less than that. My experience is in still photography, father than feature film, but the result should be the same. I've found that 3,000 PPI is overkill for even the finest resolving films. Since a 35mm motion picture frame is roughly 1" wide, that would be 3K.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Damn, Josh. I am impressed.

That is exactly part of the problem. The studios and manufacturers did have us in a forever cycle of buying into new formats and the same titles over and over again.

That is probably a huge reason people just gave up and went to streaming.

 

[JohnRice]

I'll add, because I'm curious what others think, that the biggest benefit of 4K isn't the resolution, but HDR. Take away HDR, and even 4K isn't all the big a deal in the home environment.

 

[JohnRice]

the best solution is not to buy at all.

Yeah. In my case I'll also upgrade to something in 4K HDR, if it's $5, when in the old days I'd be paying $15-20 for a disc.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Yes, what Josh said.

Before digital projection overtook commercial theaters, I believe I read that the apparent resolution of 35mm film was at something like 6K to 8K. (Correct me if I am wrong.)

I think it’s actually much less than that when it comes to practical use as opposed to theoretical capabilities.

It’s been estimated that via the analog workflow of camera negative to interpositive to internegative to release print, that while the negative could have anywhere from 2K-4K worth of information on it depending on film stock and lenses, the actual release prints that audiences watch are much closer to 720p.

So when we get lucky enough to get a nice new Blu-ray or UHD of a classic film, we’re seeing far more detail at home than theatergoers ever saw back in the day.

New productions shoot with high resolution digital cameras all the time that exceed 2K or even 4K for resolution. But when it comes time to edit the film and do postproduction, it’s still completed at 2K or 4K resolution. Filmmakers are using the extra resolution cameras offer not to create a higher resolution final product, but to give them more wiggle room in edit. If you shoot 8K, you can reframe to your heart’s content in edit without ever getting the dupey blown up look that would be the inevitable outcome if you tried the same thing on film.

 

[sleroi]

Blu rays look fantastic on my 4K tv. And most UHD blu rays look even better. But there is a considerable downgrade for DVDs on my 4K. I rarely watch my old DVDs anymore.

my fear with 8K is that regular Blu Rays would be rendered moot like DVDs are now for me.

 

[John Dirk]

It’s not going to hurt anything to have the extra pixels; it’s just not going to do anything extra special either.

As long as it doesn't get to a point where the current HDMI bandwidth can no longer keep up and we're forced to buy new supporting hardware for pixels we never really wanted in the first place.

 

[Worth]

I'll add, because I'm curious what others think, that the biggest benefit of 4K isn't the resolution, but HDR. Take away HDR, and even 4K isn't all the big a deal in the home environment.

It's not even much of a difference on a cinema screen - most films are still 2K.

 

[JohnRice]

It's not even much of a difference on a cinema screen - most films are still 2K.

Yeah, even if they're shot 4K or higher, they tend to be finished in 2K. That does seem to be changing, though.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

So, with Dolby this and that being added to the picture we see on the movie screen, are we still seeing a better overall image in our homes with 4k?

 

[JohnRice]

So, with Dolby this and that being added to the picture we see on the movie screen, are we still seeing a better overall image in our homes with 4k?

Better is a matter of opinion. I know there are those here who prefer a projected image to the more dynamic (more saturation, gamut and dynamic range) image possible with OLED and QLED home displays.

Personally, yes, I think the image capability at home is better than any theater. Just smaller.