Ghost Towns Is the First 8K Video Posted To YouTube -- But Can You Watch It?

Iddo Genuth writes: 4K videos and movies are still far from common and now 8K seems to start making its appearance online. A few days ago, what might be the first 8K video entitled "Ghost Towns" was published on Youtube and you can now watch it for yourself in its full 7680 × 4320 pixel glory — that is if you happen to have access to a 8K display (or projector).

The video was created by cinematographer Luke Neumann who used a 6K EPIC DRAGON camera using some advanced and complex techniques such as shooting in portrait orientation and then stitched the video together in Adobe After Effects. Some shots simply scaled up by 125% from 6.1K to meet the 7.6K standard and handheld stuff was 6K scaled up by 125% and sharpened up.

Youtube is now offering an 8K option and according to Google: "8K video has been supported since 2010, but that labeling for 8K video (the 4320p/8K quality setting like pictured above) was added "earlier this year — but presumably there was noting to view — until now...

Comments

Slashdotters

[ckatko]

I love that Slashdotters are all about VR, but "nobody can see 4K" and "there's no point in going above that."

Meanwhile, their 1080p 5" phone has a dot pitch 10 times their 1080p TV and they don't go "man, I wish the screen was lower resolution."

They sure have a fickle love of new technology.

Re:Slashdotters

[AmiMoJo]

It's worth noting that this video is only 8k resolution, but it's not what the eventual 8k broadcast standard will be. That requires a higher frame rate and higher colour depth as well. Same with 4k, it's more than just a resolution bump and most cheap 4k equipment is only HD with more resolution.

Re:Slashdotters

[Anonymous Coward]

If it increased the battery life, hell yes I'd take a lower resolution phone.

Plus, yeah, the phone has 10x the dot pitch. But on the other hand, it's rarely more than 1.5-3 feet away from my face. My 50' TV is generally at least 12 feet away.

Re:Slashdotters

[zerosomething]

Ugh that makes my network hurt.

Re:Slashdotters

[dotancohen]

It's worth noting that this video is only 8k resolution, but it's not what the eventual 8k broadcast standard will be.

And if you want to see the actual video, then here's the URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You can watch it while the linked article _about it_ times out after 30 seconds or so of trying to load.

Re:Slashdotters

[Anonymous Coward]

a 50' TV located 12' away from you would be exceedingly difficult to watch.

Re:Slashdotters

[David_Hart]

It's worth noting that this video is only 8k resolution, but it's not what the eventual 8k broadcast standard will be. That requires a higher frame rate and higher colour depth as well. Same with 4k, it's more than just a resolution bump and most cheap 4k equipment is only HD with more resolution.

Not only that, but the majority of the content is upscaled from 6K (whether using upscaling or stitching). It's cool and all that he spent the time and effort to do this, but, in my opinion, it's not true 8K until it's native video. Red has a 6K camera that can be upgraded with an 8K sensor.

Re:Slashdotters

[oldmac31310]

If he has a 50 foot TV then, well he should build a model of Stonehenge to house the behemoth - just make sure to write down the instructions correctly on the paper napkin.

Support since 2010

[Anonymous Coward]

8K video has been supported since 2010

2010 was when I clicked on the play button. It's still buffering.

Re:Support since 2010

[Stele]

I clicked on it and it's working for me (300Mps fiber helps).

But the video quality looks like crap on my 2010 MacBook Pro. Clearly 8K technology is not quite ready for prime time.

Re:Support since 2010

[Just Some Guy]

But the video quality looks like crap on my 2010 MacBook Pro.

That's because your MBP has a hard disk drive that adds a lot of harsh harmonics to the signal. People who actually care about their video viewing use SSDs, which have straighter 1's and rounder, more organic 0's that improve depth of field and staging.

I predict ...

[gstoddart]

I predict zero consumer demand for this.

HD was a moving target for years, and early adopters eventually got screwed as their gear no longer worked.

The movie studios dickered over the HD replacement for DVD.

If they think we're going to buy new TVs and the like every time someone makes it bigger, they're sorely mistaken.

I'm sure it will be beautiful and wonderful, and people with lots of money will rush to run out and drop thousands of dollars on new gear so they can brag to their friends.

And the overwhelming majority of household consumers will yawn, scratch their asses, and wonder what the hell is in it for them.

I find myself with zero motivation to replace any of my TV/stereo stuff just because someone has said "fuck it, we're going to 8K".

But suddenly it seems like every 2-3 years people believe we'll all swap out our existing stuff just because some filmmaker decided to use it.

This will be mostly a non-existent technology for most people.

Re:I predict ...

[zlives]

"passive 4K 3D" if that is true then shouldn't passive 1080p 3d be available on 4K screens?

Re:Diminishing returns

[ArsonSmith]

I'm much more excited about 4k 21-24" computer monitors than I am TV, but then I don't watch TV as much as I once did.

Can I even stream?

[_xeno_]

No, of course I can't watch it, I don't own an 8K TV or let alone a 4K TV.

But what I'm more curious is: can I even stream it? Because I'm stuck with Comcast, so I'm limited to something like 20Mbps download speed. ("Something like" because that's the maximum, not the guaranteed, which is 0Mbps. Yay monopolies!) 4K video on YouTube apparently requires more than that!

So forget watching it, I can't even stream it in real time.

And I live in an area where there "is" competition. I could also get the same 20Mbps speed from RCN, plus Verizon offers FiOS in the area! But not to me, despite it literally running down the street I live on.

Re:Can I even stream?

[GTRacer]

Of course Xeno needs us to call the ambulance - Comcast's phone service being what it is!

Re:Can I even stream?

[Coren22]

Yay monopolies!

And I live in an area where there "is" competition.

Do you have some kind of split personality? You just typed two entirely conflicting statements. Either there is a monopoly, or there is competition. It is impossible to have both.

I have FiOS. There are cable providers in my area as well, plus DSL, so I have 75/75Mbit. Yay competition.

4k downsampled to 1080p is AWESOME

[BrookHarty]

I was always wondering why a 4k video playing on a 1080p looks so awesome compared to same 1080P video. Well, the 4K and 1080P uses 4 pixels in a square with the same chroma. When you downsample the 4k on a 1080p, it goes to a 1/1 pixel matching, so no more 4 square pixels. You get a more detailed video with more vibrant colors and detail. Its crazy how better it looks. So the true visual quality is lost in the encoding on 1080p!

We are being robbed of visual quality, so more pixels is a selling point. (mostly)

Re:4k downsampled to 1080p is AWESOME

[amaurea]

It's possible to turn off chroma subsampling in h264, avoiding the need to encode the video at twice the target resolution. But for a while that wasn't as well-supported.

For youtube in particular, there is another issue that makes video encoded at high resolution look better when downsampled than something encoded for the target resolution. Youtube assumes that low-resolution videos are low quality, and hence can be compressed more aggressively. This is why things like TASVideos encode their console gameplay videos, which are inherently 256x224 or similar in resolution, at at least 1080p. Simply doubling the resolution to avoid chroma subsampling still leads to youtube compressing the video too much.

It would not surprise me if other encoders than youtube's behave the same way. That could also be part of the explanation for why the downsampled video looks better.

Re:Diminishing returns

[gstoddart]

Do you think a 4K 21-24" monitor will add much for you?

Unless you set it for jumbo fonts, or have super vision, for many tasks it seems like that would be too small to add much benefit -- at least to me.

I've currently got two 1080p displays on my desk (well, 3 if you count my laptop) ... and I'd not want my fonts or windows any smaller.

Now, give me a 40" 4K monitor, and that would be cool. But it seems like a 21-24" 4K monitor is just going to have pixels way too damned small for many of the things I can imagine using them for.

I'm not interested in 4K for TV at all, but for monitors I'd want significantly larger screens before I could see it adding utility. I'd just be squinting at it, which would defeat the purpose.

Re:Why the switch in nomenclature?

[vux984]

But I'm curious as to why they'd change naming conventions. Is there any particular reason?

Short answer:

Because people in marketing are catastrophic idiots.

Longer answer:

This is the graphic to look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

4K UHD has nothing to do with horizontal resoution. 4K is because its exactly 4 x 1080p tiled 2 by 2. (see how the FHD fits exactly 4x into UHD).

So 4K UHD is 4x1080p =~> 4K

By sheer coincidence 4K UHD at 3840x2160 which is sort of close to 4k horizontally 3840 ~= 4000 so lots of people thought it meant horizontal resolution rather than 4 x 1080p. To further confuse the issue there actually is a DCI 4K resolution 4096x2160 which *IS* named 4K for the horizontal resolution, which is actually 4K (4096 is 4k in binary of course).

Then when it came time to make the next standard, they did the samething as the did to make 4K. They just tiled a 4K screen 2x2. (Again see how 8K UHD is exaclty one quadrant of 8K... )... so 8K is 4 x 4K tiled 2x2 or 16 x 1080p tiled 4x4... but by then most people including the dipshits in marketing thought the 4K was the approximate horizontal resolution, so they called it 8K UHD. because 7860 is ~= 8000.

There are some other resolution standards in the 8K family that are derived from the DCI 4K... so they actually have 8192 pixels horizontally... well most of them anyway. 8K "21:9" keeps the vertical fixed and expands the horizontal out to 10,240... because why not. (I mean, I get it... but then 16:10 should have just varied the vertical and kept the horitontal... but that's 8192x5120... which isn't really consistent with anything.

Only 8k?

[jimmydigital]

Wake me up when it goes to 11k and the black levels can be none more black.

Re:Why the switch in nomenclature?

[diamondmagic]

In my experience, it's because digital cinema projectors are measured in horizontal resolution; and a 2k projector is 2048x1080 pixels.

In digital cinema, resolutions are represented by the horizontal pixel count, usually 2K (2048×1080 or 2.2 megapixels) or 4K (4096×2160 or 8.8 megapixels).

Movies are shipped inside this frame; 1.85:1 is 1998x1080; 2.40:1 is 1920x800.

4k is double the above heights and widths, 8k is quadruple.

For general consumer TVs, they're always 16:9 so you get 1920x1080.

Re:Diminishing returns

[EvilSS]

I have two 4K monitors on my desk right now, both 28", as well as a 15" 4K laptop. On thing it adds (besides amazingly smooth looking fonts and GUI elements) is screen real estate. Even with the DPI turned up so text and icons look "normal" size there is a ton more screen space than you have on a 1080p screen. After using these for about 6 months now I have no plans to ever go back to 1080p if I can help it.

Re:Diminishing returns

[DanielRavenNest]

The human eye has a resolution of 1 arc-minute (1/60th of a degree), and so on a display that fills 90 degrees horizontally you can resolve 5400 pixels. The retina and brain do some fancy processing so that you can detect narrow linear features smaller than that. It's a kind of image sharpening, but it goes beyond the light sensing cells in the eye. For non-linear features like a checkerboard, 1 arc-minute is the limit.

So unless we are talking surround-screen, there isn't much reason to go past 4K, and no reason to go past 8K. In fact, you only see a small part of your field of view at full resolution. Stare at some icon or symbol on this page, and try to read anything else without moving your eyes. You can't. Your eyes have variable resolution away from the fovea, and make up for it by moving around.

Re: Diminishing returns

[bill_mcgonigle]

yeah, I've been wanting a "view-screen" sized 8K display since the 1980's. I did the math back then and it's never changed.

When an 8K comes out in the 40-50" range I'm dropping an ass-ton of money on one. I've been behind the buying curve since the early 90's because I always knew it was just a step. Finally at 8K I'll be done upgrading, so the time will be "right away". Apparently I lived long enough to see it and my eyes are still good. Now as long as I keep eating leafy greens until a low-powered 2D GPU can handle it, I might just be happy as a clam.

Re:144p ought to be enough for anybody

[mrchaotica]

With 4K, I can watch 225 144p cat videos at the same time!!!!

I can haz a beowulf cluster of cheezburger!