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.
... 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. . . .
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
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.
I was curious about that and did a quick check and there is no simple answer.
Film grain size on a frame is dependent on a number of factors including when the film was shot, the size of the negative (16mm, 35mm or 70mm), sensitivity (ISO rating) of the film; the higher the sensitivity the larger the grains. Also affecting who visible they are is how the speed of the filming (faster means fewer grains visible), how the image is placed on the film and how the scanning was carried out.
I think the short answer is that any relatively modern film shot on safety film (Kodak's was first available in 1948) in 35mm and above can be scanned into 4K and beyond using modern tools with noise reduction without the viewer seeing grains of film.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
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
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?
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.