Why do people think 8k will actually be a thing? Don’t they understand the concept of bandwidth and ppi?
>>106505496frquecey goes up, no?welp, that solves for bandwidthsame no of traces scale bandwith proportionally to frequencyand if one hits frequency ceilingthen increase the no of tracesez fixi dont see a reason why we WOULDNT get there, or why that wouldnt be practical
>>106505518In the us, most over the air channels are still 720p or 1080i (just why). I know services like netflix also compress their shit to a degree that annoys a lot of people.
The problem is that no content is being made in 8K.All the good classic movies can go up to 4K max and that depends on how they were filmed.
>>106505496All movies ever made on film were in true color 8k+4k is actually worse than all the shit from the 5s (the sound mixing was better as well).
>>106505551It was all 8k before it went digital.Digital was always regressive technology in the context of picture quality.
>>106505496I'd rather have a losslessly-encoded SD video on a BluRay than any of this retarded multiple K garbage. Never gonna happen, but it would be the ultimate LaserDisc replacement.
>>106505599>>106505615Ok so why was it replaced then hmmm?
Will we ever reach a point where technology is just good enough?I honestly think 1080p is fine. 4K is better but I don't consider it an essential upgrade. It's mainly for enthusiasts.
>>106505830We have in many ways.
>>106505496two separate questions here>is there any advantage to 8K video over 4K?I'll have to reserve judgement until I can actually try it and compare them. I don't think I've seen any 8K displays yet. When 4K was in its infancy I remember people swearing that they couldn't tell the difference, then I tried it and realised those people must be blind as a bat.Maybe 8K is overkill for realistic domestic screen sizes and viewing distances, but maybe people are just talking shite as usual.>will 8K TVs become standardYes, once they become cheap enough to manufacture. A normie about to buy an expensive TV isn't going to think "8K is pointless so I'll get this 4K panel which has better coverage of rec.2020". They're going to see a 4K TV and an 8K TV for the same price and they're going to buy the one with the bigger numbers.
>>106505680Several reasons--not just one:Film cameras were overall more expensive to operate than digital. -Film is more expensive than data storage devices-More restrictive conditions film cameras can be used in because the physical media is much larger-more limits on how many takes can be made because the physical media is a limited resourceIt was also more expensive to maintain and ship film to all the theaters.-need a film specialist to load and test the film while also adding in all the trailers-need to pay for parcel delivery-each theater has to wait for a film distrobutionAlso holywood started implementing CGI into everything so they had to REDUCE the color AND resolution to make CGI easier to outsource to india.There are more reasons like improvements in digital cameras and digital projecters but these are the big ones. Film was always 8k + in full spectrum color.
For Eastern or other languages with complex scripts.
>>106506186You forgot the most important reason, composition. Watch Starship Troopers 1 and notice the different grain in composited frames.
>>106506186And yet movies are more expensive than ever. It's the same lie game companies sold when they stopped selling physical games. I simply don't believe you shlomo.
>>106505496>Why do people think 8k will actually be a thing?Because 8k is in fact a thing and has been for several years now.https://www.samsung.com/us/tvs/neo-qled/75-class-neo-qled-8k-tv-qn990f-sku-qn75qn990ffxza/
>>106505830We already have. There's 0 perceivable difference 4k vs 8k in your living room.>>106506103>I'll have to reserve judgement until I can actually try it and compare them.They're not even like insanely expensive now. Alternatively you could just go to any Walmart and see for yourself.
>>106506186I see. Thanks for responding
>>106505547>1080i (just why)iirc there was no 1080p back when HD was rolled out.The first 'decent' TV I bought during the roll out wasn't even technically HD, it was a Panasonic "ED"(enhanced definition aka 480p) plasma. And it was still like $2-3k. But it actually looked good at the time on HD channels, and getting the native resolution of DVDs.
>>106505496>Why do people think 8k will actually be a thing? Don’t they understand the concept of bandwidth and ppi?people said this about 1080p8k is great and it will be the minimum standard one day, even if nobody in this thread can understand it
>>106506981We could easily see the improvements of 1080p dumbass>one dayWhen? Once we are closer to 2100 than 2000?
>>106506981>people said this about 1080pProve it
>>106507006I am looking at an 8k screen as I type this, the improvements are easy to see.>>106507015>Prove itgoogle it idiot I lived through it. you haven't seen the 'nobody needs more than 720p' threads? you must be a newfag
>>106505496Why do people think 720p will actually be a thing? Don't they understand the concept of the NTSC standard?
>>106507040Shut the fuck up
>>106506981>people said this about 1080pI'm sure there was one contrarian retard.The difference just from the resolution was immediately obvious up to 1080p-ish, 4k is kind of situational but is in general great on large screen, 8k vs 4k there's basically 0 gained 99.9% of the time. You'd be better off spending the money on literally anything else.>I am looking at an 8k screen as I type this, the improvements are easy to see.Improvements you're noticing probably aren't from the resolution.
>>106506556>Movies are more expensive than everSure, I never said anything about overall production costs, but the camera, recording media, and distribution are much cheaper using digital as are the associated secondary costs for things like editing.It also makes it easier, as I said, to implement CGI... because there are less colors and the resolution is lower than on older film stock.No need to be rude, you didn't even undermine any of my points.>>106506514I don't pretend to be an expert on composition. I know/do the technical stuff and understand cost drivers in that realm. If you're implying it's easier to put a digital camera on a boom and move it around in weird ways for filming--I tried to say that but did a bad job apparently. Smaller, lighter cameras are easier to do all sorts of things that are very expensive and difficult to do with film cameras.
>>106507040NTSC and PAL were always a product of the system of distribution--multiplexed analog cable--which no longer exists. Everything is digital.The other major difference is NTSC/PAL were designed for CRTs which could make lower resolution look much better.
>>106505496>Don’t they understand the concept of bandwidth and ppi?No, they do not.Bigger number better is all the average person cares about.
