Thread 106126262

Are you interested in 8K media?

>>106126262 (OP)
It doesn't exist and there are no current plans on any 8k distributed physical standard (like UHD bluray for 4k)

>>106126262 (OP)
Maybe for a vr headset or something that it would actually benefit. I don't have any 85 inch screens I'm sitting 1 foot away from though.

>>106126262 (OP)
what's the usecase for 8k?

>>106126262 (OP)
Hard pass. Can't discern detail beyond 576p.

>>106126262 (OP)
How can it be real if our eyes aren't even real?

>>106126262 (OP)
>Are you interested in 8K media?
yes

I have an 8k screen 75" screen but I mostly use it at 4k because I can't find much 8k content

>>106126262 (OP)
I have no screens that big so no

>>106126262 (OP)
ahh
maybe? i think it would be fun a few times
but honestly id be fine with 720p for most stuff, 1080p seems fine for movies

>>106126412
I was in yobadashi camera in Tokyo in 2012 and they had free 8k Sony players and films came on hard disks.

>>106126262 (OP)
Not really, but I made sure to get an AVR that can handle it, just in case 10+ years down the line I'll need to care about it.

>>106126262 (OP)
Is there even anything being released in 8k?

>>106126262 (OP)
anything higher than 1080p is autism

>>106127105
>8k Sony players
Sony has never had an 8k media player.

not even a JP only product.


Sony did work on an 8k BDXL standard for use by the NHK to broadcast and recording purposes, it was never released to the public and no physical players exist outside of a handful built specifically for the NHK broadcaster.

>>106126262 (OP)
cant wait for 8k encoded with x266 so we get smearfest everytime the camera moves

>>106126262 (OP)
anything higher than 720p is autism.

>>106127168
They were giving away free players and hard disks with films on when I was in yobadashi camera 10 years ago. If you bought a new 8k tv

>>106126262 (OP)
> 8k
> posts picture of 4k player
what did anon mean by this? these bullshit engagement threads created by fucktards and bots needs to end.

>>106127282
Give me a model number, because from everything I've seen what you're describing has never existed as a released commercial product from sony.

There are a handful of 8k media players like the Dune HD 8k players, but that's not a Sony product and at the moment not a single major movie studio releases movies in 8k, warner brothers is the only one who has even publicly discussed it and they've apparently scanned 20-30 films in 8k, but have no current plans to release them for consumption.

>>106127300
Just buy 2, dumbass.

>>106126262 (OP)
4k at high bitrates would be more than good enough.

>>106126412
https://nyaa.si/view/1917854

>>106127372
Yes, I am aware NHK has 8k content on occasion, it doesn't get released physically and you're basically doing a stream capture to redistribute, it's not the same as a physical 8k bluray.

>>106127105
>2012
>8K
Nigga they barely had 4k TV's back then. What are you smoking?

>>106127406
I have to imagine he's just a retard and is conflating 4k (the first consumer 4k TVs launched in fall 2012) with 8k.

>>106127154
4k looks much better!

>>106126262 (OP)
Wouldn't you have to be REALLLY close to the screen to notice a difference?

There's barely any UHD 4K content, but you want 8K?

>>106127656
At this point, there are literally hundreds of UHD titles released.

In 2015-17 you kinda had a point, in 2025 you just don't.

Even if a good number of them are 2k masters upscaled to 4k the increased bitrate and HDR color grading still makes it better than the 2k bluray. But even if you are a snobbish prick, there are still tons of true 4k res titles released, but since you likely are a snobbish prick, you'll insist only the KINO you personally like is "worth" 4k and since THOSE movies aren't in 4k it might as well not exist.

>>106126443
Watching well used and greasy buttholes late at night.

>>106126262 (OP)
YES !!

>>106127702
> only the KINO you personally like is "worth" 4k and since THOSE movies aren't in 4k it might as well not exist.
But this is objectively 100% fact. I don’t understand the implication.

>>106127881
Turns out the world doesn't revolve around you and your personal preferences.

>>106126262 (OP)
Doesn't 8K require you to be ridiculously close to a TV/monitor to be of any advantage?

>>106126262 (OP)
No. The TV in my living room is 1080p, the monitors on my main computer are 2k, my phone is 720p, and the screens in my van, which is where I tend to watch movies, are composite. That's 480i for you youngins.

>>106126262 (OP)
Yes. But we won't have it any time soon because high-end GPU are now considered weapon by the US administration... Courtesy of the Machine Learning mania.

Today I will remind them.

>>106126412
Fpbp.

>>106126262 (OP)
As someone thats been on 4k since 2020 I will literally insta-buy an 8k monitor even if its not oled

I feel bad for everyone with non-working vision

>>106127300
its some weird meme thats either pushed by glowies or CRT fags because honestly it makes no sense

nobody has ever heard an applefag say they have too many pixels, or anyone for that matter.

high res being bad is the flat earth of tech memes

>>106126443
IMAX-sized theaters. That's it.

>>106127905
VR headset close.

>>106128470
theres no 8K content though

>>106128750
The screen in your image is too smol

>>106128470
>8k monitor
Sounds like you have super-human vision. Congrats anon.

>>106128760
Ok that's a valid use case.

>>106126468
>Can discern it
>Don't like it
Like genuinely, 480i makes shit look cinematographic, anything above it feels like a YouTube video

>>106129735
Not really. More like 20/20 average

>>106126262 (OP)
No, with my small screen even 360p looks acceptable, except YT that shits on the palette for low res encodings.

>>106127236
720p doesnt get enough love

>>106126262 (OP)
I'm not interested in movies at all.

>>106126262 (OP)
Not really. I still own a lot of 720p media and am absolutely fine with it. My 4K blu-rays won't even read half the time, I had to flash a hacked firmware and rip them to my NAS.

>>106126412
They should bring back tape for 8K.

>>106126262 (OP)
For VR absolutely. Outside of that no. Even if it looks perceptibly better it wouldn't be worth the hard drive space as I like to hoard media.

>>106131828
Unironically might be necessary, UHD Blurays are already 100 GB, if they can't figure out a new disc format, it's gonna have to be some sort of digital tape technology (Hard drives and flash storage get fucked if left unpowered for a long time, non-ideal for physical media)

>>106126262 (OP)
im not even interested in 4k

>>106132355
Several films are even larger, LOTR Extended UHD blurays are between ~110-135GB.

>>106128383
I still can't believe the fucking audacity of manufacturers to release laptops for thousands of dollars that have a lower screen resolution than cheap phones do.

>>106132355
>if they can't figure out a new disc format, it's gonna have to be some sort of digital tape technology
it'll be disc based since they cost only cents to stamp out. bluray is aging and hitting the wall. the idea of moving everyone to streaming has failed the movie industry pretty hard since they can't guarantee quality or reliability of such trash services. bluray will be in production for many years to come unless a new format arrives.

>>106126443
VR video

>>106134711
> audacity
they know their consumers are retards and they can save a fortune on production costs while the price of machines just keeps increasing. win/win for the manufacturer. we lose btw. no refunds.

You poor retards all need to shut the fuck up.

No, SD is not good enough.
No, 720p is not good enough.
No, 1080i is not good enough.
No, neither is 1080p.
No, 2160p/4K is not good enough.
No, 4320p/8K is not good enough but it's getting close to it.

>>106126262 (OP)
Considering 8K will allow for integer scaling for 360p, 480p, 540p, 720p, 1080p, 1440p, and 2160p media, it's clearly a great output resolution to have. Everyone should own a good 8K display with the ability to correctly (nearest neighbor pixel multiplying) display various forms of content.

8K media on the other hand is kind of a meme. I'm not convinced, and believe 4:4:4 4K at high bitrates would be a better goal for the forseeable future. The reason for this is because most devices don't even capture RGB (thanks to bayer sensors) so cameras "capturing" 8K are not true 8K.

Bust out some three-sensor prism split cameras for bayer-less color capture at proper 16K and I'll be interested in that. I want 8K media but know enough to recognize that if it's 4:2:0 and shot on bayer it's probably not going to be any better than 4K media if it were upgraded to 4:4:4 chroma and higher bitrate.

You might think I'm a pessimist but no, I just know. Tons of "4K" movies aren't even shot on cameras with enough photosites to deliver STILL images at 4K and they just upscale. It's fucking fraud.

What the world really needs is a governing body that creates an actual new standard that enforces strict quality guidelines.
4K movie? Shoot it on a 3840x2160 B&W sensor camera. No upscaling or downsampling. Minimum 80Mbps bitrate to be called "real 4K" or whatever.
4K movie in COLOR? Must use a 3-sensor 3840x2160 camera. No upscaling or downsampling. Minimum 240Mbps bitrate, software encoded (no ASIC/GPU low quality shit) and be in 4:4:4 RGB to be called "real 4K color" or whatever.

If we don't establish some level of decency in media then increasing pixel counts or output size is going to be pointless.

>>106126443
Clearer pictures on screens larger than 4K, like my 5K screen and 6K screens

>>106134966
I'm still gonna watch 480p anime on a 1080p screen and enjoy it.

>>106132355
Tape cassettes have expensive and/or complicated moving parts.
They should make Laserdisc size discs.

>>106126262 (OP)
I'm not even interested in 4K media. 1080p60 looks fine if it's not bit starved

>>106134966
blablabla
I enjoyed the movie @ 720p as much you did

>>106128750
a proper 70mm analog IMAX format is closer to 12k, 8k digital IMAX is trash.

>>106139119
That's not really true for presentation quality.

> Many experts and even IMAX themselves suggest a theoretical digital equivalent of 12K to 18K. Some calculations based on film stock characteristics and the sheer size of the IMAX frame (15 perforations on 70mm film, which is significantly larger than standard 35mm) can even push the theoretical limit to higher numbers like 22K

> In practical terms, considering the entire process from shooting the negative to making release prints and projecting them, the effective projected resolution seen by an audience in an IMAX theater is often estimated to be closer to 6K to 8K. Factors like film grain, lens quality, projection alignment, and the human eye's limitations play a role.

>>106139319
so then why is digital imax such dogshit in comparison to the 70mm film

>>106139339
Because you're getting into the inherent difference between digital and analog projection at that point.

You're not limited by resolution, even if you DID have a 20K digital projection, you still wouldn't have the organic film grain, natural highlight roll-off, the natural texture/depth you get from analog film vs digital, etc.

No amount of increased digital resolution is going to overcome that gap.

Digital projection is cleaner and more clinical feeling, which can sometimes be a good thing depending on what you're trying to show.

Digital production on the other hand is so much easier/cheaper for the workflow process that even with the drawbacks, it's still largely taking over. Digital production allows for much more granularity in color grading and tweaking various parameters in the digital recording that would require potentially doing re-shoots if it were an analog production.

Also, digital IMAX has like 3 or 4 different hardware levels, so without knowing SPECIFICALLY which digital IMAX projection technology you're referring to I can't really comment too much more.


I will say the highest tier digital IMAX with dual 4k xenon laser projection systems tends to have a similar perceived resolution to 70mm, while increasing contrast ratio significantly which for some films can be fantastic. Dark scenes that are ACTUALLY dark/near black instead of a shade of grey that you get from analog 70mm projection can be a big deal, depending on the film.

tldr; it's not just a resolution problem.

>>106126468
>Can't discern detail beyond 576p.

>>106139487
>>106139339
Oh and to clarify, i'm not saying digital projection and production can NEVER overcome these issues, just that it isn't a resolution problem.

There very well could be new digital production technologies introduced to address many if not all of the problems I brought up, but the way to address isn't through pure digital resolution increases.

>>106139541
That looks horrible, but yeah, it's good enough for me.

>>106126262 (OP)
Mildly

>>106139487
>I will say the highest tier digital IMAX with dual 4k xenon laser projection systems tends to have a similar perceived resolution to 70mm
Yeah, the dual 4k laser systems basically just do two 4k projections simultaneously, offset by half a pixel from each other which gives increased perceived resolution (even though it's not technically increased digital resolution) and increased contrast/brightness.
There are also single 4k laser projection IMAX which still looks good, but doesn't get as bright or contrasty.
Then you've got older dual-2k digital IMAX projection which uses two 2k projectors and just looks kinda shitty these days, but they're still fairly common, especially in older digital IMAX theaters that haven't been updated in the last 5-10 years.

>>106126412
>>106131828
>>106132355
>physical media
You will stream 8k slop at 20Mbps, TRANSmitted through your HDMI featuring display compression, and you will get impressed by it :^)

>>106139750
No, I don't think I will

>>106132355
They can figure it out. There just needs to be a market for it.

>>106126262 (OP)
no, I'm perfectly happy with 1080

>>106140348
90% of every disc will be baked in ads and anti-piracy measures. You won't even be able to watch the fucking movie without an internet connection and sitting through an hour of ads before and during the movie.

>>106127372
>4 and a half hours
>150gb
Jesus, 8k won't be a thing for a good while

>>106140348
I don’t know if the PS6 is going to get a new format, but this would be a good opportunity to put those in caddies. They could just sell empty ones to put your old backwards compatible games in. It’s way less likely to get damaged, I can’t believe that they sold discs without this in the first place.

>>106140409
60000 triangles guy somehow looks less detailed compared to the 6000 guy

>>106140426
that's barely more than 4k bitrate.

the LOTR extended UHD ROTK is 131GB for 4 hours 23 minutes

So 153GB for roughly the same runtime is not good bitrate.

>>106140480
Wow, I had no idea UHD was that hard on storage. I'll need to get more hard drives before getting a 4k tv it seems

>>106140499
The VAST majority of 4k films are ~40-80GB.

Return of the king extended just happens to be over 4 hours long