Slashdot Mirror
The World's First 8K TV Channel Launches With '2001: A Space Odyssey' (bbc.co.uk)
AmiMoJo writes:
Japanese broadcaster NHK is launching the world's first 8K TV channel with a special edition of 2001: A Space Odyssey. NHK asked Warner Bros. to scan the original negatives at 8K specially for the channel.
8K offers 16 times the resolution of standard HD, 120 frames per second progressive scan, and 24 channels of sound. NHK is hoping to broadcast the 2020 Tokyo Olympics on the channel.
17 other channels also began broadcasting 4K programming today, according to Japan Times, even though, as Engadget points out, "almost no one has an 8K display, and most of the people who do need a special receiver and antenna just to pick up the signal... Also, HDMI 2.1 hasn't been implemented in any of these displays yet, so just getting the signal from box to TV requires plugging in four HDMI cables."
NHK's channel will broadcast for 12 hours a day, reports the BBC, adding that Samsung already sells an 8K TV for $15,000, and that LG has announced one too, while Engadget reports that Sharp sells one for $6,600.
8K offers 16 times the resolution of standard HD, 120 frames per second progressive scan, and 24 channels of sound. NHK is hoping to broadcast the 2020 Tokyo Olympics on the channel.
17 other channels also began broadcasting 4K programming today, according to Japan Times, even though, as Engadget points out, "almost no one has an 8K display, and most of the people who do need a special receiver and antenna just to pick up the signal... Also, HDMI 2.1 hasn't been implemented in any of these displays yet, so just getting the signal from box to TV requires plugging in four HDMI cables."
NHK's channel will broadcast for 12 hours a day, reports the BBC, adding that Samsung already sells an 8K TV for $15,000, and that LG has announced one too, while Engadget reports that Sharp sells one for $6,600.
Uh, you're saying the content was of poor quality and that upping the displayed resolution revealed that. That's not a problem with the resolution.
But it is a valid gripe that content for 8k doesn't really exist yet.
... with current ISP bandwidth and monthly data limitations. Not to mention the lack of 8k TVs and Blue-ray devices -- or affordable ones anyway. And... there's no real benefit to 8k for a typical home setting. So, who's this for? People with money to burn?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Look. I like this movie, but why didn't they pick something with more action, like March of the Penguins?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Well, I assume the content would theoretically match the resolution just fine once they are in mainstream release in 2020, but if you want the resolution to match the TV now, you'll have to buy something else. I saw a whole bunch of movie clips on 8K a while ago. Lots of horror movies. They all gave me the creeps in high resolution (as horror movies should, lol) but maybe I will get used to it when it is available down the road.
This is silly. Please someone instead work on increasing the color resolution (bit depth) instead, and turn down the digital compression.
I'd much rather see 2k uncompressed with 16-bits per channel of color. That's what a videophile standard should be about.
The manufacturers have to keep coming up with some differentiator in order to entice people to buy their new products... I get that. But it does seem kind of pointless from the point of view of the typical consumer.
Of course, I realize what they’re really doing is pandering to those people who think “typical consumer” is a derogatory phrase - those folks who are convinced other people care about what television they own.
#DeleteChrome
At what point does this simply start to make the film grains bigger? I suppose that may still be a benefit, making a digital transfer look even more like projected film and less like pixels. A Cinerama-sized, highly curved screen (as I saw it originally) is far too big for my house, though; probably needs to be VR to get a theater experience in a home.
Standard resolutions. NASA produces sattelite videos at that resolution so the technology is well-known. Be interesting to read the reviews from various sources, it's not like nobody will be reasonable.
It's a problem even for modern shows filmed in 8k. It also requires the camera operator to change the way they work a little, and directors to account for it. For example the cameras use auto-focus because with the small screen mounted on the camera itself there is zero chance of ever getting it focused enough for 8k.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Even the 1080p and 2160p re-mastered BluRay and UHD-BluRay editions already show the limitations of the analog film from back then. The movie is fine, and certainly one of the best produced of its time, but it definitely does not reach anywhere near true 8k resolution.
Not even the 8k-sample-video from the ISS recently released by NASA demonstrates proper 8k resolution - most parts cannot even use a 4k TV to its fullest.
It's like trying to use stone age arrow heads with a carbon fiber compound bow.
That stone age obsidian arrowhead is still highly effective, razor sharp, nicely weighted for penetration (inertia), etc. :-)
Beyond 4k we've hit the point of diminishing returns. The jump from SD to 720p has several advantages. First, the switch from either composite to component (huge analog quality difference, significantly better color representation), or analog to digital in general (no signal degradation). Next was the jump from interlaced to progressive scan. But the jump from 4k to 8k is only higher pixel density, when we've already got extremely crisp and clear visuals. This jump wont matter anywhere near as much.
Is this really going to be better? Or is it just a solution in search of a problem, and driven by an industrys' need to continue to increase profits?
Unless you have a theatre-sized 8k screen, does this really make any difference over 1080?
What about OTA signals? How much bandwidth does an 8k full-resolution signal need? How much will compression affect picture quality during motion?
Then there's cable and satellite companies. I can't speak for satellite, but I know that the dirty little secret of cable TV is the content is re-compressed to within an inch of it's life, so they can fit those hundreds of channels into the available bandwidth. The result is poor picture quality during motion. How bad will it be for 8k?
Even over the Internet, bandwidth will be large, won't it? Again: compression. Also: data caps.
I think the TV industry knows that once someone buys a TV, that's that for up to, say, 10 years? If nothing changes, and the set still works like it's supposed to, no one goes out and buys a replacement. If you build shitty TVs that break every couple years, people complain and won't buy from you, so you can't just build poorly and get repeat sales that way. So, hey, let's keep 'upgrading' the standards every so often, just so we can make people feel like their current set is 'obsolete', regardless of whether it's still in perfect working order, so we can sell them a brand-new one! Brilliant idea! Except I think it's already at the point of diminishing returns. Does the average person even care about this? Or is 1080 more than enough? Does the average person have a ten foot TV in their house? What really makes this worth having? Just not convinced it's worthwhile. Going from a CRT TV that could only handle standard definition NTSC signals to an HDTV that can handle 1080p was great, don't regret it, but this? Not convinced.
Let's take a hypothetical. For all scenes not involving people, they build every single model in a computer and use photon tracing plus photon mapping for each and every frame, so you've as good a render as we've the science to produce.
From there, they've a few options.
They can transfer shading onto the digitized frames, to bring the dynamic range up to whatever they like. That won't alter the content but will restore colours and intensities to something nearer the original.
They can repair film defects without eliminating real detail because they'll know what's supposed to be there.
They can replace defective backdrop with a photorealistic simulation of what the backdrop shows.
This won't work if you have people who can alter the scene, because you can't (yet) render models of people and the only way to make this work is if you duplicate every scene precisely, so have a photorealistic virtual movie with all the physical objects present. That way, reflections, refractions, edge effects and shadows are all correct. CGI fails because these are ignored most of the time.
This won't work if you don't use both raytracing and radiosity, because the former can't handle diffuse reflections and the latter can't handle direct. Basic forms of these won't work, you get artefacts that'll look gnarly. That's why studio CGI uses Renderman-style shading. It's crude, primitive and ugly, but doesn't hit uncanny valley.
You're now talking serious compute power. If you thought Titanic took a lot, this proposal would require 480 times as many compute nodes, even allowing for the faster computers these days.
But it could be done. The software exists, the number of machines is finite if large, the models would be incredibly difficult to create but certainly not impossible.
The catch is that you're computer generating the model shots, simulating identical materials and identical colour schemes, under identical conditions. The results should be identical. Which is the entire point, but also the catch. It's a lot of money, time and effort to fix the subtlest of production errors.
And, on a more realistic note, you can do scaled down versions for a lot less money, time and effort.
A star backdrop isn't affected by the foreground, so you can render that from multiple camera angles and paste over. As long as the stars were in the correct positions, the start and end should differ only in the fact that backdrops will be reflecting light, rendered stars won't.
The moon scenes may be doable, because everyone is suited up. But you absolutely can't be even one subpixel out. Again, starts adding expense.
No, I think CGI, good, really good CGI could be used to fix star backdrops but I think it's going to have to be limited to that unless someone has a lot of money for vanity projects.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
OK, this is just silly. Apart from the fact that we switched from vertical to horizontal resolution to get bigger numbers, 4k was already beyond the limit of the resolution I can discern without sitting unusually close to a monitor. I don't know if the rest of humanity has some sort of super-vision, but from my own experience I find that I certainly can't see better than the 1 arcsec resolution often quoted - probably a little worse. And this resolution, for a 50 inch 8k TV would mean I'd have to be sitting at 0.5m away! Sure, if you are one of those who claim they can "see" 0.5 arcsec detail, you could marvel the same 50 inch TV from as far away as... 1m!
It all seems to me like the ol' "fuck it, we'll do 5 blades" gimmick. I could see some value in 8k media, which is reportedly about the full effective resolution of 65mm negative film stock (only IMAX 70mm is higher res at around 12k, as it runs the same 65mm film horizontally instead of vertically), for example for Cinema projection, or for allowing zooming in on details for smaller monitors. But 8k TVs are just silly. And you just know somebody will eventually manage to put 8k on a phone screen and boast about it..
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
You understand your website has more errors than an Enron accounts book?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There are literally thousands of films with amazing visuals that could be used for a first 8K transmission. Personally, March of the Penguins would be pretty far down on the list.
Thinking of great visuals, I would suggest:
- Empire Strikes Back
- The Fifth Element
- Independence Day
- drnb suggested Lawrence of Arabia
- Thunderball
- Life of Pi
- 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
- Saving Private Ryan
- The Sound of Music
- Close Encounters of the Third Kind
- Apocalypse Now
- Raiders of the Lost Ark
and so on...
I think what 2001 offers is an universally recognized iconic film which has remarkable, literally off world imagery with very little baggage in terms of story, actors and directors. Along with this, wasn't every effects shot done multiple times so there are multiple negatives which maximizes the chance for very clean sources for the transfer?
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
My estimates based on a nice, large 70" TV at a normal 10 foot viewing distance for a random set of people (with all content being a mix of typical movie material, with high-quality recording/encoding, and high bitrate, identical in every way except resolution):
20% of people can NOT tell any res difference between 480P native and 720P native. This was HUGE.
50% of people can NOT tell any res difference between 720P native and 1080P native. This was good.
94% of people can NOT tell any res difference between native 1080P and native 4K.
98% of people can NOT tell any res difference between 1080P upscaled to 4K and native 4K.
99.9% of people can NOT tell any res difference between native 4K and native 8K.
Now, in special cases, with huge, huge screens and sitting close, 8K might have some tiny value. But as it is, quality 1080P content, upscaled to a modern 4K TV is "good enough" for nearly everyone. 4K native content will please only a very few.. 8K for any normal purpose is just a total waste of bandwidth/storage/money. It is just a meaningless spec war that confuses and robs consumers or gives techno-ego-snobs something to brag about, even though none of them can tell any difference, either.
What *has* been helpful is HDR and increased color info... but even that is minor compared to what came before; and only helpful to a limited point. So what's next on the marketing train? 20 trillion colors more than the human eye can distinguish? Refresh rates 1,000 times higher than the human brain can ever distinguish?
Japan has gigabit and ten gigabit links to the home.
8K at 24bpp at 60 fps would be 47,775,744,000 gigabits per second.
Ok, not doing to be able to do that on a 10 gig link.
But you only need to compress it to a fifth that.
No problem, even with lossless compression, you can reduce the frames substantially, and an old movie can be shown at a far lower frame rate.
And not a compression artefact in sight.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
When you're a few meters away from a 60" 4K screen you already cannot see individual pixels, so any sharpness increase beyond that doesn't really make a lot of sense unless you're looking at the screen with a spyglass.
So, what's the point of 8K resolution for the average consumer again? I can imagine it being useful for medical professionals but beyond that? No really sure.
"Radiosity"? "Renderman-style shading"?
You're about 10 years behind modern thinking when it comes to production VFX rendering. Almost everything is path tracing with postprocessed denoising now.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
The first post that's not about how technology is dumb and how 1080p ought to be enough for everyone.
I wish I had mod points.
We bought a 65" Name Brand 4K HDTV online during holiday season 2016 for $900 with "partial" (90%) HDR color/brightness/contrast. Even two years later it's still in the top third of 65"4K TVs you can buy.
This year we bought a 1080p Nintendo Switch.
There is a dramatic difference in the quality/sharpness in the UI. It is about 15' from TV wall to back of couch, probably 14' from screen to eyeball. Even though it's wall mounted, we had to buy a larger, 67" wide cabinet below it to fit properly, and all-in, it is about as large as we want/need to go in our tiny San Francisco apartment.
That said, there are people out in Texas making Mega Bucks and live in houses with not only bedrooms that are 25' x 25' with 12' ceilings, but their living rooms clock in at 30' x 40' with 15-20' artrium ceilings, and that's not even talking about dedicated media rooms where a 100" (eight feet) screen is considered on the small side.
It would not surprise me if we keep our 65" 4K TV for ten years living in san francisco, but I'm sure there are ten of thousands of people living in much larger houses out in Texas or Oklahoma where earnings dwarf cost of living, where people are patiently waiting with cash in hand for a giant TV with the same PPI as my "medium size" TV. Not everyone is a poor 21 year old college kid in a tiny ass apartment.
moox. for a new generation.
I think anyone with the money to use an 8K camera will have a stonking great external monitor for the Director and DoP to use.
Professional cameras still have focus controls, and facilities for things like follow-focus.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
If I had "Taxan mega bucks" worth of income, I'd go digital cinema.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
This is silly. Please someone instead work on increasing the color resolution (bit depth) instead
More than bit depth it's important to consider the dynamic range, and color gamut as well.
HDMI has slowly addressed both those things - with HDMI 1.3 8-16 -bit color was supported, UltraHD covers the P3 color gamut.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Been to make mega large homes in Texas, and lived in one too, and have never seen anyone with a TV screen larger than 60-70ish inches. That's because not everyone in the real wold an actual TV-specs worshiping nerd. Saw someone with a dedicated media room just once.
Two minutes.....
Caution: Contents under pressure
I'm looking forward to affordable 8k monitors. 4k isn't enough for a decent size, say 28", as normal viewing distances. It's better than 1080p but you can still see the pixels and aliasing. 8k monitors are more like the kind of quality you get from a decent phone display.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Agreed, However it might cure porn addiction when you get to see what the actors/actresses really look like in detail, or maybe the Japanese need the higher resolution to get rid of the pixelation problem on their porn
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
On TV on 4k, let alone 8k
Please everyone, don't buy 4k monitors. Buy a 4k 40" tv with 4:4:4 and 60p support. There's no reason to spend a ton of money on a special 4k monitor, that's 27" and the pixels are too small to see and you have to use a large font so you can read it.
Contrary to what I originally believed, higher resolution makes a massive difference.
I bought my first retina display iMac last year, and man does the screen look crisp. You notice it mostly in text or small details, that is why most test pictures don't show a difference.
I'd like to see 8K in action. Maybe no difference to 5K, but maybe I'd be surprised.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'm currently living in Japan and on a good day I get 80/80 Mbps, but usually the download bandwidth is smaller. Not everybody in Japan lives in Tokyo.
There was an interesting article in SMPTE Journal recently about 8K (dead tree magazine or paywalled, so no link), pointing out two problems with 8K TV beyond the obvious ones of lack of bandwidth to the home and content.
The first is motion blur. Still images on an 8K monitor look stunning, particularly if WCG (wide color gamut) and HDR (high dynamic range) are also part of the display. However, once the image starts moving (which is the point of TV after all) motion blur becomes a real problem. If you keep the same frame rate (say 60Hz) and the same angular field of view of the camera, a motion that jumps 1 pixel in HD jumps four pixels in 8K, causing the motion blur effect. The only way to fix it is to speed up the shutter, which reduces low-light sensitivity and creates a stuttering motion artifact, or speed up the frame rate. The author of the article estimated that about 300Hz would be needed to mostly eliminate motion blur at 8K. Given that 8K at 60Hz already requires 16X the bandwidth of HD, 300 Hz is 80 times HD bandwidth. Ouch. This is a real problem when one of the primary uses for that high resolution is to watch sporting events where people and objects move around a lot.
The second issue has to do with human perception and psychology. Humans have intimate space (touching, noses rubbing, all that) reserved mostly for spouses and young children, intermediate space (handshakes, greetings), and far space (strangers passing by). Filmmakers have similar compositional views: far shots to establish place, middle shots for most of the action, and close-ups for expressing emotion. With 8K the resolution is so high that close-ups reveal too much detail, and that is disturbing to many viewers as it appears too similar to 'intimate space'. A related issue is the imperfections of the actors, actresses and other on-air talent. Apparently quite a few of the Hollywood folks now have clauses in their contracts mandating 'smearing' or touch-up of high-definition close-ups.
Not that any of this will stop the inexorable march of 8K to a Best Buy near you, of course.
Path tracing is different from any other form of raytacing how? Sill has the same limitation because light doesn't reflect in lines. There is no path.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Path tracing subsumes both Whitted-style ray tracing and radiosity. It solves the rendering equation by constructing a random variable, the mean of which is the integral.
Having said that, the main reason why the industry (including Renderman) have moved over to path tracing isn't primarily to get reflection and refraction right, it's to get GI and subsurface scattering right.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});