34 ms·

8K is now being broadcast in Japan

• imaginenore 8y ago
  Youtube has had it for a while now, and at 60fps, no less. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1La4QzGeaaQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1La4QzGeaaQ
  • ipsum2 8y ago
    That's true, but live digital broadcasting/decoding has its own separate challenges than streaming a pre-recorded video. Great video you linked, that was some stunning footage.
  • Koshkin 8y ago
    Looks good on a 9” iPad, too!
    • KayL 8y ago
      Apple's product can only watch 1080p Youtube.
• linkmotif 8y ago
  The environmental impact of all the TV churn... :/
  • notyourwork 8y ago
    Agreed, I'm still not convinced I really need to upgrade to 4k yet let alone 8k.
    • cbg0 8y ago
      If you're happy with your 1080p TV, you'll probably continue to be so, unless you get a 4K OLED TV, which may blow your mind a bit.
      • extesy 8y ago
        It's the OLED part that blows the mind, not 4K part.
        • cbg0 8y ago
          The difference in resolution from 1080p is very noticeable and a definite improvement if you prefer more detail in your movies.
      • paganel 8y ago
        > 4K OLED TV, which may blow your mind a bit. reply Genuine question: does it display movies in a "natural light" the same way as a plasma TV does or does it display it under a "fake light", the same way as the LED screens do? (even the 4K ones). I'm asking because I'm a movie buff who's really attached to his plasma TV but looking at the available LED options up on the market I don't see anything that satisfies me. Yes, the image is "clearer" on the latest LED 4K screens but it also looks "fake-ish" when it comes to watching movies.
        • pault 8y ago
          OLED is not back lit, so it probably looks better than plasma once you account for the higher pixel density. I haven’t done a side by side comparison though.
        • dawnerd 8y ago
          HDR alone will make your plasma look old. I went from a plasma to 4k then to hdr. Huge improvement.
        • alasano 8y ago
          It's as natural and balanced as you want it to be. I recently watched "The Revenant" in 4k HDR on an LG Oled Panel, the movie was apparently filmed only with natural light (not in the way you meant, just that there was no artificial lighting for scenes). It's absolutely stunning to see as everything feels spot on.
        • bscphil 8y ago
    • Waterluvian 8y ago
      You'll probably notice a difference but there's really no promise you'll find any value in it. I need 4k for programming but I've yet to appreciate 4k for video. I see it, but I just don't really care.
      • sjroot 8y ago
        Out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say you need 4K for programming?
        • gknoy 8y ago
          At 4k resolution, a 30-40 inch monitor gives noticeably improved text quality (even when I could only get it at 30hz). Part of the reason for this is that we're looking at the screen from 2.5-3 feet away, rather than the ~6ft viewing distance that is common for TVs. It's hard to describe the difference, except that I have two monitors side by side -- one a 4k, and one a 1440p, and the difference is noticeable. Even when I scale the 4k monitor so that the window size is the same, the text quality is still noticeably easier to read.
        • Waterluvian 8y ago
          For web app development my setup is as follows: 4k monitor for two panes of code 4k monitor for a browser + debugger or maybe two browsers: one mobile one desktop. 1080p monitor for docs or maybe Netflix as I work depending on the kind of work. When I'm doing robotics or server or more general programming work I basically just use my main monitor. Reading code on a 1080p monitor is almost intolerable now that I'm used to 4k. I can size it way down and get two full panes of code side by side.
          • sjroot 8y ago
            Interesting. Thank you for sharing.
    • intopieces 8y ago
      Same. We have a nice 1080p OLED and most things we watch look beautiful in 1080p. Plus these new 4K panels come with tons of weird processing and effects like motion blur, etc. I’m still not convinced that 4K is a viable format. They’re still cranking out 480p DVDs, a technology that was supposed to be supplanted 12 years ago by Blu Ray.
  • epx 8y ago
    I will replace my 1080 TV when it breaks. It has already failed once, the LED backlight replacement cost 1/5 of the a new TV. Next time it goes to waste (the bulk is mostly aluminum anyway).
    • josho 8y ago
      > will replace my 1080 TV when it breaks. And sadly it’s been designed to break sometime around the 7-10 year mark. E.g. using minimal amount of solder on connections that will eventually crack after repeated warm/cold cycles from use.
      • jotm 8y ago
        Hah, solder cracks. LG panels backlight completely shuts off if one LED dies (for, uh, "safety" reasons, they couldn't design a proper fucking power supply). Which they do, a lot. Now, you can barely notice one LED gone. Replacing the strip costs 1/4-1/3 of a new TV. This fucking world...
• paavoova 8y ago
  To be able to watch 8K you not only need an 8K capable television Why is all this high-resolution media walled behind decoder boxes and DRM? 4k blu-rays have some fairly intrusive DRM as far as I understand, and then there's 4k streaming like on Netflix, which requires hardware DRM to playback on PC.
  • notyourwork 8y ago
    Consumers need to speak with their wallets if they want to impact change in this arena.
    • josho 8y ago
      That isn’t quite fair. Consumers aren’t told about DRM. The spec sheets don’t speak about what restrictions are in place. You only discover after the purchase that some capability you had assumed you could do no exists. E.g. for me I’ve had this twice. Trying to view an HD movie over a component cable—nope not allowed. And second my daughter discovering she can’t use music from a streaming music service in a home video. Both occurred well after initial purchases.
      • decasia 8y ago
        "my daughter discovering she can’t use music from a streaming music service in a home video" Can you say more about where the DRM applied in this case? I would expect it to kick in, say, if you upload a home video to YouTube that incorporates copyrighted media, but I would be surprised if something prevented you from making a video (say on your phone) that included whatever music playing over speakers.
        • Wowfunhappy 8y ago
          I imagine the OP was more referring to trying to whip something up quickly in iMovie (or similar). If you own the track, this is trivial. If you're used to Spotify, not so much.
    • TeMPOraL 8y ago
• tjoff 8y ago
  I saw nothing about bitrate? I can't help but thinking that the same bitrate would look better at 4k, or even 1080p.
  • akvadrako 8y ago
    Sometimes higher resolution can even reduce the bitrate, since jagged edges become smooth transitions. Basically, the codec has the freedom to reduce the resolution if that's what will maintain the most quality. I only know about this practically in regards to 10-bit anime being more compressible than 8-bit, but I assume the same logic applies.
    • CarVac 8y ago
      I don't think so. 10-bit improves compression because posterization leads to noisy patterns that must be encoded. By smoothing the posterization out, encoding a gradient, and having the decoder produce the noise, you can save bitrate. But the equivalent in spatial resolution is encoding near-horizontal lines... which isn't a common situation (unlike gentle color gradients) and isn't a problem in the first place.
      • l33tbro 8y ago
        How does posterization differentiate from banding? I know when I encode videos from an 8-bit color space, I sometimes have to generate an additional layer of noise so that I don't end up with those horrible macro-blocking blotches you get with banding.
        • CarVac 8y ago
          Posterization is the technical term for this sort of banding. Banding can refer to all sorts of things that form bands, like fixed pattern noise from a camera sensor.
    • Wowfunhappy 8y ago
      > Sometimes higher resolution can even reduce the bitrate I cannot imagine how this could ever be true. Have you experienced it actually happening for the same content at the same encoding settings? "bitrate" = file size / duration. There is no reason why increasing the resolution should ever make a video more compressible. This is completely different from the 10-bit situation you described, which takes place because you're storing data in a different format. You could choose to encode a higher resolution copy of a video at a lower bitrate, but it's nothing an encoder will do by default, and it should always result in the higher resolution version looking worse.
• anomaloustho 8y ago
  4K TVs at normal distance already exceed the resolution the eye can see. This seems impressive, but also seemingly pointless. https://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid https://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stup...
  • colordrops 8y ago
    Doesn't it depend on the size of the TV? Also, doesn't it open up a path to getting rid of the screen door effect for 3D/VR?
    • oe 8y ago
      Looking at the RTINGS.com "Angular Resolution" chart, at 6 feet viewing distance you'd need to have a 100" TV to be able to see the difference: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-r...
      • jjeaff 8y ago
        Is that based on "average" vision of 20/20? Because apparently 20/20 is not average. It's just a baseline considered good enough. The majority of humans see better than 20/20.
      • stordoff 8y ago
        This appears to be based on 20/20 (6/6) vision. People can have a visual acuity significantly better than that: > Healthy young observers may have a binocular acuity superior to 6/6; the limit of acuity in the unaided human eye is around 6/3–6/2.4 (20/10–20/8) > The significance of the 6/6 standard can best be thought of as the lower limit of normal or as a screening cutoff. When used as a screening test, subjects that reach this level need no further investigation, even though the average visual acuity with a healthy visual system is typically better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity I myself have been tested (twice) at around 20/8 (and was still better than 20/20 when I was complaining of blurry vision after an eye injury).
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  The article says they're not just broadcasting in 8K, but 8K at 120 fps! How many displays are actually capable of not just displaying 120hz, but actually accepting a 120 fps input (as opposed to just interpolating)?
  • mrob 8y ago
    120fps is the real news here. Most people will see no difference between 4K and 8K, but 120fps is an immediately obvious improvement. People will probably attribute the sharper image to the higher spatial resolution, but it will really be the result of reduced sample-and-hold blur. I'd take 1080p120 over 8Kp60 any day.
    • lbotos 8y ago
      > is an immediately obvious improvement. Technically, yes. I'm one of those weirdos who thinks movies aesthetically look better at 24 frames for the "dreamlike" quality. Racing/Action Sports, yes, please more frames.
      • alex_duf 8y ago
        I'm with you, I remember watching the Hobbit at the theater, and being creeped out by how surreal all the movement were. I'm okay with playing video games at 60fps, but my brain keeps rejecting photorealistic content above 30fps
        • Figs 8y ago
          As someone who has watched a lot of Let's Plays, recordings of games done above 30 FPS kind of weird me out. I don't usually have an issue playing them myself, but if I watch a recording of someone else's session (which is interesting to me from a game design perspective -- where did they get stuck, what did they breeze through with no challenge, etc.), I get that same surreal "something's not quite right here" feeling as higher frame rate television.
          • 8y ago
• grecy 8y ago
  It seems more likely every day the 2019 Mac Pro will be an 8k editing monster.
  • JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    And cost north of $10K.
    • grecy 8y ago
      quite possibly. I think it's clear it will blow the iMac Pro out of the water, which is already not cheap.
• unixhero 8y ago
  So a 4k H265 HVEC stream is 12mbit./sec. I assume 8k is the double, 24mbit/sec. That doesn't sound too outrageous from the point of view of media consumption. Syndication, multiplexing, production, post production and handling of 8k .. sounds harder
  • trendia 8y ago
    8k has four times as many pixels as 4k, so at the same bitrate/pixel it would be around 48mbit/sec
    • Wowfunhappy 8y ago
      Furthermore, the 12mbit/stat is for content that has been encoded in advance, ie nowhere close to real time. If they want to broadcast live sports in 8k, they're not going to get such good compression.
    • jrobn 8y ago
      You don’t need 4 times the bitrate because compression technology scales better than linear the higher the resolution.
  • the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
    From 4k to 8k it’s 4 times the pixels.
  • xienze 8y ago
    12mbps is a crappy 4K stream. UHD movies are generally 50mbps+.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • bscphil 8y ago
    The latest Mission Impossible film, which was just released to 4k Bluray, is 70 Mb/s. So you're off by several orders of magnitude even before you get to 8k.
• hamilyon2 8y ago
  I remember original starcraft, 256 colors and 640×480 it was a feast for my eyes. It will always be about content, not the medium.
  • manmal 8y ago
    HDTV was when content stopped being an eyesore to me. Those DVDs were just blurry on a good screen. But I still don't think I really need 4k.
    • jlawson 8y ago
      Honestly my completionist instincts make me like 4K/8K. It's the point where I think we can pretty much say, okay, we are now finished with resolution increases. There's nowhere else to go. We've 100%'d that part of the tech tree. Weirdly satisfying.
      • akvadrako 8y ago
        That's also why I want HD audio. I'm not saying I can hear the difference above 16-bit 48khz, but I feel more comfortable with a 200-400% buffer. And maybe someday I'll get bionic ears.
        • aidenn0 8y ago
          Considering that with proper dithering, 12-14bits is the threshold, you already have at least a 400% noise-floor buffer.
        • InitialLastName 8y ago
          The good news for you is that this is also going to be running with 22.2, so you can live in a room full of speakers and watch the Olympics as if you're in the pool yourself.
      • manmal 8y ago
        I'm not sure 8k will suffice completely for 2030's VR experience.
• reaperducer 8y ago
  I saw 8K demos at Yodobashi Camera a few years ago, and I couldn't tell the difference between 4K and 8K. I can tell the difference between HD and 4K, so my eyes aren't completely shot. But I think we're getting to the point of resolution for resolution's sake. Like having a speedometer that goes to 200 MPH, when the legal limit in your state is 85, and the car simply isn't capable of 200. I remember back when the Amiga came out. My friend who had one said it showed 4,096 colors because that was the limit of human perception. Now I know he was wrong, but it made sense at the time.
  • spiritcat 8y ago
    "car simply isn't capable of 200" what if it's going down a steep hill?
    • reaperducer 8y ago
      If it's my car, the wheels will fall off before it reaches the bottom. Mine starts to shake around 90, then smooths out until about 120, then starts to shake again. My mother-in-law in the back seat was not happy.
      • think-about-it 8y ago
        And you think it's because of the bumpiness of the ride? You're going to kill someone driving like that on public roads. I was in the backseat of a car driving like that in high school. Driver lost control while changing lanes, we swerved across multiple lanes of traffic, exited the interstate and flipped five times. The two people in the car not wearing seatbelts were thrown from the vehicle as we rolled. Nobody died, but by rights any or all of us should have. Seriously, stop.
        • davrosthedalek 8y ago
          It is absolutely common to drive that fast on German roads. With less accidents/mile than America. It needs good driver education, good roads and good cars, and then it's fine.
• rini17 8y ago
  Extrapolating from current consumer situation, we can expect 8K huge ass TVs which display cringingly poor picture and users won't care. As usual contemporary digital TV setup is: 1. set top box is by default sending only 720p to the TV 2. HDMI input on the TV is by default in "video mode", where it rescales the picture even when fed native 1080p It took me months to eventually figure this out, and now I have sharp pixel-perfect FullHD picture...that makes compression artifacts pop up :(
  • _cerv 8y ago
    It won’t be that bad. STBs from Comcast over the past few years support 1080p and the ones released over the past year support 4K. Also most newer Android TV based STBs support 4k. You’re probably saying “yeah, but the content doesn’t”, oh, but it does. Companies like Comcast and OTT providers like DirectTV Now support 4K linear broadcast as most transcoders in the past five years support 4K streams and most broadcasters are supplying these providers with 4K streams. Even the recent move to HVEC is making these providers rencode their VOD libraries and titles are being rencoded at 4K. The transition to 8k won’t be as bad when people had 1080p TVs with 480 content.
    • lawnchair_larry 8y ago
      Comcast sends everything to the home as 720p, regardless of what the box can do.
      • _cerv 8y ago
        This is false. Some channels in some markets may be at 720p and some older STBs top out at 1080i, but recent boxes like the XG1, any boxes that are IP, like the Xi series, and all of their apps take top bitrate profiles, so channels like your local affiliates or ESPN are received at least 1080p.
      • mrpippy 8y ago
        Either that or 1080i, depending on the channel. Disney/ABC/ESPN networks all use 720p, as do Fox networks. CBS/NBC and all their networks produce in 1080i. There may be some 4K or 1080p on-demand or special event content (i.e. Olympics), but it is very rare.
• leguminous 8y ago
  There are a lot of comments debating whether 8K is worthwhile vs 4K, and whether we can see a difference. I decided to do some math. Let's assume someone has a 65in (165cm) TV and sits 6.5ft (~2m) away. This is a larger TV than most people have, and a closer viewing distance than most people sit. Let's also assume that the viewer has 20/12.5 (6/3.75) vision. 20/20 (6/6) is the low end of normal, and it isn't uncommon to have slightly better vision. My optometrist (my fiancée) can correct me to about 20/15, but 20/12.5 is unusually good. The screen width is 56.65in. At this distance, that subtends an angle of about 40 degrees: >>> math.degrees(2 * math.atan(56.65475464133182 / (2 * 6.5 * 12))) 39.9191582380095 20/12.5 vision corresponds to 48 cycles per degrees, or 96 pixels per degree, distinguishable (20/20 is generally accepted to be 30 cycles per degree). Therefore, the viewer can distinguish 96 * 40 = 3840 pixels horizontally. Which is UHD 4K resolution. I chose the inputs to get to that result, but my point is that viewers would need to have unusually good vision, and unusually large TV, and be sitting unusually close to hit the limits of 4k. And that's only for very high contrast images, like black text on a white background. Our eyes are less sensitive to low contrast transitions, as found in most videos. Try reading an eye chart with the letters printed in gray on a lighter gray background. It's more difficult! I think there are much better things we can use our limited bandwidth for than increasing resolution: we could use better compression codecs at higher bitrates, reduce or eliminate chroma subsampling, increase color depth and/or gamut for HDR content, or use higher framerates for content where that is appropriate. EDIT: Here's a source for 20/20 = 30 cycles per degree, and 20/12.5 vision being unusually good: https://www.opt.uh.edu/onlinecoursematerials/stevenson-5320/L08Acuity.pdf https://www.opt.uh.edu/onlinecoursematerials/stevenson-5320/...
  • the8472 8y ago
    Is there a difference between visual acuity for static and moving images? What about the square pixel grid, I've read that a hexagonal one would be better in principle for our visual system. Basically, could higher resolution help in some edge cases? > we could use better compression codecs at higher bitrates, reduce or eliminate chroma subsampling, increase color depth and/or gamut for HDR content Those are likely to be rolled out in tandem with new resolution standards[0] [0] https://i.imgur.com/phONmPZ.jpg https://i.imgur.com/phONmPZ.jpg
• kachurovskiy 8y ago
  8K sounds scary but if you think of it as a sequence of 33MP photos it starts to sound quite OK. Plenty of cameras shoot photos with higher resolution than that already.
• gryz 8y ago
  8k broadcasting could be the path to realistic 360/3D videos -- where at each moment your eye gets only some fraction of full resolution video.
  • Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    You're likely going to want more than 8K for that.
• monting 8y ago
  Been waiting and looking forward to 8k. It would make a significant difference for me. I use a UHD/4k 40" TV as a monitor, running at native resolution. It's essentially four 1080p 20" screens in one. The pixel density is pretty good, but not "retina"/high DPI level. Things can be a bit too small as I sit further from the screen than a regular monitor. With 8k, it'll be four 4k 20" screens in one. I'd be able to go to a larger screen without sacrificing much on pixel density. I would no longer have to zoom in on certain websites and can just get a larger screen.
  • KitDuncan 8y ago
    When will we finally have 4 8k 20" screens in one?
  • porphyrogene 8y ago
    I've seen setups like this but have never really understood the point. You're either left sitting far away and scaling everything up (reducing the resolution) which defeats the purpose of having a larger display or you're exposing your eyes to the constant light of more screen space than you can actually see and putting up with the eye strain of looking at a 1:1 virtual-to-physical pixel ratio. It seems to embody the stereotype of American consumer logic, i.e. bigger and more is always better.
    • monting 8y ago
      The setup is fantastic for me, and would be even better with 8K screens. I'm running at native resolution, so not doing the "sitting far away" option. "More screen space than you can actually see" - This is somewhat true. There's an upper limit to the size where it becomes impractical for most use cases. I'd say that limit is 40"~55", and mitigated somewhat by curved screens. It's not too different from having a large quantity of screens you'd see at say, a trading desk, but all conveniently in one screen.
• workingpatrick 8y ago
  Does that camera have an SFP+ port out the back of it?
  • ken 8y ago
    Yup: http://www.sharp.co.jp/business/8k-camera/download/catalog/pdf/catalog201711.pdf http://www.sharp.co.jp/business/8k-camera/download/catalog/p... Makes sense. You probably won't want to pop out the 2TB SSD every time you need to get data off, and 8K footage takes a ton of bandwidth. It looks like the newest versions of USB and Thunderbolt support comparable speeds, but SFP+ has been around for a while and is probably much more widely supported.
• the_clarence 8y ago
  What really matters now is directors moving to HFR or 60fps to shoot movies. Resolution is already good enough that fps is lagging behind.
  • blck 8y ago
    I don't think audiences want HFR movies. It's fine in sports and gaming but you pretty much have to upend the entire movie industry to get HFR not looking like crap. The more frames you're shooting per second the more light you need to use on set to capture the movement.The more light you use the more you see make-up and how bad some costumes actually look IRL. Look at Peter Jackson's The Hobbit movies or Ang Lee's Billy Lynn.
    • criddell 8y ago
      > The more frames you're shooting per second the more light you need to use on set to capture the movement. You don't think cameras will improve enough that 8k can be shot with same or even less lighting than is used today? Is it a physical limitation?
      • jobigoud 8y ago
        Yes it's physical. The max exposure time is inversely correlated with the framerate. If you shoot at 100fps for example you cannot keep the shutter open (and capture photons) for longer than 10ms, as you need to close and start the next frame, and it will look dark. And the standard for movies is to use 180° exposure meaning half the inverse of the framerate.
    • the_clarence 8y ago
      Audiences didn’t seem to want colors, or sound. Now we have it. Brace yourself for 60fps movies :) I personally can’t wait.
• mensetmanusman 8y ago
  Resolution like this helps experiment with breaking the 60/120 Hz paradigm by refreshing multiple overlaid 4k displays at varying frequencies to to improve realism. Also has application in AR/VR which can use more pixels up close to the eye to improve clarity.
• Koshkin 8y ago
  I was perfectly fine with my 24in CRT TV set (and a DVD player that produced the amazing picture on it) until they came out with the 32in flat screens... I think it’s all in the head.
• mark_l_watson 8y ago
  I used to be skeptical of very hires video but two weeks ago I got a System76 laptop with a 4K display - I love it. I think that people are missing the value of 8K which in my opinion is home (or business) video walls as seen in the 1990 sf movie Total Recall. When walking up to part of the wall, you still get hires anywhere you look. And oh, I want that to be touch screen.
• sdfjkl 8y ago
  I found 720p quite sufficient for almost everything. I think I once selected 4k on a YouTube video that was showing how to do something technical and didn't zoom in close enough to really see what was going on. The extra pixels were helpful there, but a better detail shot would've been better.
• cthalupa 8y ago
  I want 8k, especially for when OLED on plastic comes out and it becomes less expensive for massive screens. But as a current owner of a 65" 4K LG OLED, while I can see a difference between 1080p and 4K, HDR is a significantly bigger deal to me for picture quality than 4K is. HDR and going to an 11.2 (from 7.2) Atmos setup have had the biggest impact on my movie viewing at home. The 4K upgrade was nice, but if I had to choose between HDR and 4K, it wouldn't even be something I had to think about. Another big upgrade for very specific types of movies has been getting a Dreamscreen, which is similar to the Philips Ambilight TV setups. I like it a lot for sci-fi movies with lots of action and scenes with a variety of colors in high contrast situations. I keep it turned off for most other types of movies, so it's pretty niche.
• NewEntryHN 8y ago
  To the question of how much resolution is enough, my answer is: can you see the pixels when you approach your eyeball to the screen? If yes, then resolution can be improved. If no, then there is no need for more pixels. On modern big television (e.g. > 45in) then the resolution required to pass this limit is well, well beyond 8K. You can argue that because you look at the screen from a distance this criteria is irrelevant, but there are all sorts of discussions and argument about perception of clarity and whatnots which makes calculations based on distance hard to defend properly. The only way to be sure is to be unable to perceive pixels even if it's right in front of your eyeball. Like actual things in life. I'm convinced resolution will improve until this limit is reached, as it should.
  • cryptonector 8y ago
    No, it should not. No one puts their eyeball to the screen under any normal circumstance. And each additional pixel has implications for bandwidth. Bandwidth is a limited commodity. I don't want my internet bandwidth reduced by your desire to watch TV from less than an inch away.
    • koala_man 8y ago
      Do you think your internet would be faster right now if no one had ever managed to make video streaming work? I think it's quite the opposite.
    • ezconnect 8y ago
      We need smaller pixels because the next gen tv will be a millimeter away from your eyeballs
      • cryptonector 8y ago
        Yes, we need smaller pixels for that, but that doesn't mean we need more than 4k.
    • jobigoud 8y ago
      Eyeballs close to the screen everyday: VR.
• TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
  Wow, and I haven't even jumped up to 4K yet. It seems like technology might be advancing faster than many producers can keep up. As I understand it, in the anime world most airing shows are still being animated at 720p or at slightly higher resolution, with a handful of them occasionally being animated at 1080p. Although the best studios typically clean things up and make a huge number of improvements for their 1080p BD release. Movies are generally animated at 1080p. Older cell-drawn anime are being scanned at 4K / 5K to produce new 4K releases, and I'm told the level of detail in those is incredible, which makes sense given that they're hand-drawn with extreme care. Currently the best known release is probably Ghost in the Shell (1995). Even the incredibly popular movie Your Name was animated at 1080p. The special edition is upscaled 4K with HDR. The high cost of 4K releases also creates a barrier. A standard 4K Blu-ray movie seems to go for around ~$80. If you want both the English and Japanese versions of Your Name at 4K you're looking to pay around ~$195, admittedly that's for the 5-disk collector's edition. Compare that with a typical ~$20 1080p Blu-ray release. Being unable to prepare a personal backup is also a problem. Ideally I'd dump the movie right away so the physical medium can be stored in as pristine conditions as possible. It would feel very frustrating to spend that much money, only to have it casually damaged.
  • deadalus 8y ago
    Storing 8k media is going to be very expensive for a common man.
    • msh 8y ago
      The common man will stream 8k. Discs are slowly on their way out and local media servers are for people on hn doing their own and rich people buying things like the Stratos s.
  • derekdahmer 8y ago
    Can't speak for anime but for the normal cinema world, iTunes has daily 4k sales for $5. Picked up a buhch on BF. You can also get disc + digital UHD deals on amazon for less than $10. I used to pirate a ton of movies but with the deals these days on 4k + dolby vision + atmos titles its worth it just to buy.
• javchz 8y ago
  I thinks this cameras could become really useful in an indirect way, just something that come to my mind is the ability to have zoom crops in post production still keeping the 4K final render.
• maa5444 8y ago
  now you can wank in super hd #motherfuckers
• darkhorn 8y ago
  Unnecessary traffic for satellites.
• apozem 8y ago
  As a movie nerd I was interested by the bit about the broadcast being in 120hz. This is... unusual for most visual content. Where video games strictly benefit from a higher framerate, adding more frames does weird things to movies and television. As you may know, most movies are shot at 24 frames per second, which is low considering humans can see far more fps than that. This lower FPS means movies are actually impressionist paintings of reality. The framerate blurs what is being filmed so it looks less like a set and more like what we've been trained to think of as a movie. Movies that experiment with high framerate like Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (120 fps) find it makes selling the fiction harder. Viewers can see the cracks in everything a lot easier. This is one reason people disliked Peter Jackson's 48 FPS version of The Hobbit. Instead of seeing a group of dwarves, high frame rates made them look like a bunch of guys in funny costumes. All this is to say it's interesting they are making high frame rate a part of their video future when its future within movies and TV is undecided.
  • jackvalentine 8y ago
    Luckily, 120/5 = 24 so movie content can be broadcast at 120hz without any weird effects.
  • stormbrew 8y ago
    To be fair TV has always had a bit more of a 'real' look anyways, ever since it moved to largely being filmed on video instead of film. It's also always been a higher frame rate (30 frames/60 fields in that weird way where the fields still had motion from each other) and both crts and lcds have some more persistence of image than film projectors. So I'm not sure that when we're talking about broadcast television it's that surprising to have them pushing for higher frame rates. And it's entirely possible that like other things pushing modern broadcast TV advancements, the enhanced 'reality' and better motion fidelity is advantageous to television because of the one thing people still care a lot about watching live: Sports.
  • solatic 8y ago
    Not all broadcast television is fictional. Allowing the spec to support 120Hz allows 120Hz programming for news and sports, which do benefit from the additional framerate. Fictional works can still be broadcast at their original framerate.
• mmaunder 8y ago
  Dithering in lossy compression algorithms destroys picture quality for me. No matter if it's 1080 or 8k. Particularly with dark scenes. Anyone else feel this way?
• oh-kumudo 8y ago
  How many people have the TV/Monitors to actually watch 8K? This is impressive yet feels like redundant innovation.
  • koala_man 8y ago
    Would your adoption plan have been to not provide any 8K channels until a sufficient number of people had bought 8K capable sets without anything to watch?
• readbeard 8y ago
  Steve Yedlin (cinematographer of The Last Jedi) posted an excellent analysis of image resolution in cinema on his website. It utterly convinced me that resolution beyond 2K/1080p is superfluous on most normal-sized cinema screens at normal viewing distances. IMAX will, however, benefit noticeably from higher resolutions. http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html
  • derekdahmer 8y ago
    I just can't believe this. Watching Mad Max in 4k on a 65" from 12 feet away there's still an obvious difference in detail and texture. You can see the bumps on skin, and grains in the sand. So many ppl ITT throwing around equations but I have both 4k and 1080p content and all I can say is the difference is very real. Planet Earth II vs Planet Earth I is another example. Netflix 4k vs 1080p shows. Things like forest scapes, schools of fish, snowy mountain ranges all have just awesome differences in detail.
• newaccoutnas 8y ago
  I worked with NHK on the London 2012 Olympics. It was unreal. Generally more static shots as that much screen real estate / clarity gives you so much to look at. Probably not that important at home though, as there's a golden ration of distance/pixel density+size and 4k is probably at that edge, even HD is fine for small front rooms (unless you've got a very large front room and TV). Better pixels, not more pixels
  • ksec 8y ago
    >Probably not that important "at home" though Exactly. So what is the point in terms of 8K Broadcast, where I presume it is targeting precisely, at home? Not trolling, but a genuine question.
• rb666 8y ago
  8K is completely pointless, you need to be sitting about 50cm from your already-giant TV for it to make a difference over 4K.
• firexcy 8y ago
  “640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.” However, I would like the redundant bandwidth and computing power to be used to implement HDR first. It’s a more perceptible and immediate improvement than 8k.