Are we 8K ready?

[@tenj00]

This video is a must watch for all cine-philes and everybody else too. So underrated.

[@extrashot]

Thank you... and obviously, I agree 😂

[@ADC293]

The biologic approach to this is brilliant. This is one of the best in depth explanation on visual media i have seen. Thank you very much

[@extrashot]

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

[@xtrchessreal]

Excellent analysis, like your channel, and btw, it is really nice to know there are people out there that have filled their brain with knowledge. I haven't experienced that in real life for decades.

[@DanielsYoffe]

Where's the LOVE button? Like is out of date! ExtraShot is great!

[@extrashot]

What can I say? Thank you! 👍

[@Loknath009]

I just found this channel and well... you HAVE TO LOVE the Tada!

[@BirdArvid]

Thank you; this video and the follow-up with the two screens next to one another has convinced me that my wallet was right all along: good quality 4k is the way to go! Oh, and I'm now a subscriber; I really like your know-how, delivery and clarity.

[@extrashot]

Thank you for the lovely comment... really appreciated. 👍

[@jobbygerm2706]

I was directed here from a Quota thread and I'm glad I was!! Absolutely loved your frank and questioning approach.

[@lacboiatl]

You're good. This was very educational. Thanks for all you do

[@extrashot]

Thanks Charles, very kind of you to say so.

[@jusgibs]

Excellant observations! My wife and I like to shoot sports activities, mostly skiing, and are currently doing it in 5.7k - 360 degrees. When we reframe our video for public viewing, we obviously don't have 5.7k anymore. This is why I welcome 8k, 12k, etc. The more resolution I can shoot my sphere at, the better the reframed portion of that sphere will look and also afford me some zoom capabilities without compromising image quality. Hope I'm not too far off point, but you asked how we felt about 8k. Thanks for schooling us!

[@extrashot]

Thank you for the kind words... are you using the Insta360 One X? The 5.7K is great, but I'd love 8K or even 12K for great 4K in any direction without distortion. Amazing tool though... being able to capture anything in any direction could be a game changer with a bit more resolution.

[@mattisulanto]

Very good and sensible explanation. I have never thought about that so much before, but what you said makes a lot of sense. I shoot 4K and deliver FHD.

[@extrashot]

... as I still do for 95% of what I shoot. The thought of shooting 12K and delivering 8K scares me a little... I find focussing at 4K hard enough !!! Thanks for the kind words. 👍

[@stallingfortime2334]

My hat goes totally off to you sir! I was an electronics instructor at the Army Intel Center & Schools, Fort Devens, Massachusetts for many years and was considered to be a subject matter expert for my Military Occupational Specialties of 33S, 33P, and 33R. It takes a lot of teaching know how to take technical information and present it such a way as to make it extremely understandable even for those not so technically inclined and you do it so admirably. I can't thank you enough, but I can subscribe to your channel, and I did (and I subscribe to very few).

[@extrashot]

Thank you Sir, for taking the time to write such a lovely comment and for subscribing. It's genuinely appreciated and words like yours make all the effort worthwhile. Take care!

[@OSW]

Great video! I'm with ya that filmmakers should opt for the highest fidelity cameras that doesn't hamper shooting it practically, but as a consumer, I'm fine with even 1080. I've a 4K monitor for editing but with 4K you need a large screen (65"+) to even see a difference. The fact that the filmmakers use it passes on the benefit to all other resolutions. Like the IMAX scenes of Dark Knight on Blu-ray!

[@extrashot]

True... these things do filter down which is good, but do we really want the very high frame rates just to see the higher resolution? I sort of almost get it for maybe News or Sport... but for Dark Knight !!!

[@garyjarvis2730]

Superior explanation of the whole process of motion photography. Re-learned more in 13.32 minutes than whole science classes on the subject. Two Thumbs Up!!

[@extrashot]

Wow.... thank you, it's really appreciated!

[@davestreicher]

You are right on! And where does it end? I was happy with 1080p and 3D. I don't mind 4k, but its not worth the extra hassle sometimes. I welcome it as the prices have come down, but that's about it. 1080p Blu-ray's are fine for the rest of my life actually. I don't need to upgrade all those movies. In fact, lots of 4k movies are just 1080p blowups. There really isn't a lot of content that is actually 4k.... I will share this with my know-it-all friends who think higher resolution actually means something. Great video!

[@extrashot]

They'll only argue with you! 🤣 Amazing how many people can't get past the numbers... Thank you for the comment and sorry it took me so long to reply!

[@thomaswindfeld728]

Fantastic exclamation! Never thought about it that way

[@extrashot]

Thanks Thomas... and for the comment. 👍

[@jackson3967]

Loved the 'elephant in the room' comment! Nice video.

[@extrashot]

... and thanks for your comment! - Very kind.👍

[@subby280]

I saw the pic, but only after you said something about it.

[@extrashot]

spotted! 👍

[@jaimem1788]

Ditto. Looks like a cartoon elephant at bottom right between 0 and 1 second. Also keep in mind will need to play back video at normal speed. Originally playing video at 1.25x which I do with most video on here to save time and pretty much impossible to spot at that speed LOL!

[@ossiebacchus7110]

Made me think more about what I want and what I actually need..IE no BS! Thankyou!

[@extrashot]

... and thank you for taking the time to comment. It's appreciated. 👍

[@iridium9512]

I'm really glad I came across this channel. Here's something I find interesting. When I go to cinema, many movies have this "camera slowly moving across the field" scene in the first few minutes, and it always looks really bad. Usually as movies have very low framerate, this shot is always dominated either by motion blur or choppy picture. In real life, this is not a problem, as our eyes usually focus on a single point of a moving object (like when traveling by car or train). But if you try to do that on a 24fps movie, it will always look bad. It's as you said with looking at moving fingers, but if they're not moving too fast, your eyes will naturally follow them and still see them clearly in detail. That's why I prefer higher framerates. When I was buying monitor for my computer, I got 144Hz model, and at least in gaming it is significantly better than 60Hz. But what was weird to me was how many people didn't feel the same and complained about soap opera effect. I guess people are too accustomed to the 24fps / 30fps standard. I wish more movies / documentaries would be recorded in 60+ fps as details truly look better.

[@extrashot]

I'm glad you've found this channel! What you're talking about in a cinema... when a camera pans across a scene... is commonly called 'judder' and you're right... it's caused by the usual 24fps film speed. Because it's also effected by lens focal length, sensor size, and shutter speed... to minimise this judder, the old rule of thumb was for camera operators never to pan the camera faster than 7 seconds from one side of the frame to the other! The problem is, it's a bit of a balancing act between film makers, who want a decent amount of motion blur and cinematic 'feel' to the images and many viewers who hate the judder. To be fair, there's also a lot of viewers who hate the ultra sharp "Soap Opera' effect from having too high a frame rate. Many large scale TV's now incorporate adjustable interpolation which inserts additional frames (and black frames) to smooth the motion with an artificially high frame rate. If you can adjust this to a comfortable minimum for your own preference, then it's probably the best compromise. I think your wish for 50 or 60 fps will become the norm as resolution increases because you need this frame rate as a minimum to get the benefits of higher resolution!

[@tigerdyr13]

No one (outside the nerdy camera community maybe) cares about 8k - or much about picture quality at all. Look at how iPhone camera changed the production of news and SoMe content. 95% of all video production is all about authenticity, production speed and timing. Video production is for everyone now. I guess it is a good thing ... but I still have a hard time coming to terms with the fact, that no one cares if I put extra effort into making my pictures look great. :-D ... But 8K - audiences have no use for it - and I think it will be as useless as 360 video has proven to be. Thanks for your great channel and videos! I really enjoy them. :-)

[@extrashot]

Thanks Kristian, very kind, and I suspect you're right about the whole 8K thing... but looking at how many people have watched my video about the 8K TV, there does seem to be a general appreciation of picture quality. I certainly recognise that feeling you get when you think people don't appreciate the extra effort you put in... I've felt it myself, especially when I worked in News. However, although most viewers don't realise or care about how much work goes in to generating quality pictures... I do believe, even the most ignorant of viewers are left with an overall impression of something being 'good' or 'bad'. They might not have a clue what it is you do to contribute to that feeling of quality... but they know when something looks rubbish! Looking at what Netflix and HBO have achieved, I'm convinced that eventually, most producers will realise... quality pictures = viewers !!!

[@thegadgetdude]

The only place I (not that) regularly upload 4K is KZbin. I shoot a lot of 4K at work but deliver in 1080p 99% of the time. Also, only realised half way through watching on my phone this was playing in 480p and then switched to 1080p, mainly because of the higher frame rate and not the resolution. All the 4K demos always look great of a slow sliding time lapse, most of the time even playing an up res'd dvd isn't too noticable even on my 65" 4K TV. Great video as always, good to get some use out of that glidecam! Dealing with 4K is enough of a pain for storage and processing, I'm not too keen on 8k just yet.

[@extrashot]

Me too... It feels like Netflix and KZbin have together been supporting 4K better than anyone else? Storage is going to be a massive problem unless the next H.266 compression takes us all by surprise! Thanks for your comment - (the glidecam is for sale?)

[@pheotonia]

I'm two years away from replacing my LG Plasma 1080P display in my Home Theater. Thank you for pointing out the things that no one else is talking about!!! It gives you a lot to think about.

[@extrashot]

You're welcome... and a lot can happen in two years... especially in the world of TVs! 👍

[@tenj00]

When the German-Tv stations moved to Hdtv on its programs in 2008-2010(!) they decided to go with 720p50 instead of 1080p25 or 1080 interlaced. I used to not understand this decision at all. But now I think they made the right choice. Sports programs look so much better with more frames. I hope the next standard will be 4k60fps in 10 bit and not some stupid 8k.

[@extrashot]

I didn't know they did that!... is it still 720P50? Great for sports and news... and I suppose if you wan the film look, you just TX two identical frames!

[@tenj00]

@@extrashot Yes it still is standard. Also in Austria and most of Europe i guess. There are some outliers who broadcast in 1080i but the German-State-Broadcasting is a 8 Billion a year industry. So they pretty much set the standard. No 4k in sight yet.

[@tenj00]

I'm I the only one who like "The Hobbit" in 48fps? I was mesmerized by the action sequences and I can remember the waterfall was looking amazing too. Now many years later: Nothing changed. :(

[@teaser6089]

I didn't like the hobbit at all. It was only made to milk out fans... How can you make a trilogy of a book which is smaller than one of the three books they used to make the first trilogy :/ And overdone CGI(Which looked so fake I had to laugh) plus it didn't look like a movie

[@tenj00]

@@teaser6089 I did not say it was a great movie. It was a fun action flick, nothing more. I had fun.

[@teaser6089]

@@tenj00 Yeah I agree for some quick put the brain on the off switch action it was a fun one :)

[@extrashot]

Wasn't the 48fps just so it worked better in 3D?.... then they dropped the 3D !!!

[@teaser6089]

@@extrashot No no, he made the movie in 48fps, only if cinema's could run 48fps, most cinema's can only do 24fps, that's why they chose 48, cause you just need to cut it in half to get 24. It was an artistic choice, but for most it created the Uncanny valley effect.

[@IslandFilmMaker]

Great lesson! Even Pro's continue upgrading, spending huge amounts of money, trying to future-proof their work! Agreed, 8K is over kill. When I switched to 4k monitors a year ago I saw a definite increase in quality, from full HD and especially working with 4, 6, & 8K footage. However that can't be said for 8K unless pixel peeping anyway, although, 8K cameras, as you said, with the ability to downsized, compress, and crop within a 4K frame makes perfect sense. As well , future-proofing your work for many years to come keeping footage in 8K would be smart! Selling HD footage is already past it's glory days as 4K became the norm this year. Loved this! Thx

[@extrashot]

Totally agree Richard... in fact, the speed at which 4K is taking over has really surprised me... but then you can really see a difference from 1080! Thanks for the kind comment.

[@flioink]

8k for video games is getting in a stupid expensive territory. We only recently got decent performing 4k video cards below 1000$.

[@dasit6034]

yup. we're still quite a few years away from 4k overtaking 1080p completely in gaming, 1080p is just too efficient not only cost wise (monitor, gpu, cpu) but also framerate wise

[@johnhayes3909]

I like the way that Motion Blur is explained.

[@extrashot]

Thanks John... appreciated!

[@Video-artisan]

Very good - again! I guess the lean-back content producers will always be looking for an edge. Whatever you can sell on. I'm more of a lean-forward content producer type - and still in wonderment about shooting 4K and hammering it down to HD (with the pan and scan advantages). I guess we all get dragged along in the end.

[@extrashot]

Thank you!... I fear we'll all be shooting 6 or 8K soon... just for the pan and scan advantages for 4K. Make it stop!

[@gnkstudios6138]

I'm the guy who would rather spend sub $10k on a classic Alexa vs the next 8k helium. Color is everything. And how those engineers create the color science in arri blow my mind.

[@extrashot]

Totally agree with you....I have similar feelings about the Sony Venice. The amazing quality from a 6K sensor blows the older 8K F65 out of the water. With Arri... I didn't hear too many people complaining that the last Bond movie was too low def ?

[@gnkstudios6138]

@@extrashot right. It was a lesson that I learned a few years ago that I didnt need 4k for my work flow as a independant freelancer. I'm also the guy buying the bmpcc4k because of the BRAW and prores but not because its 4k lol. Blackmagic is on to something so big I dont think people realize how much blackmagic is changing the industry. I loved your old video of the ursa mini pro review. You touched on some really truthful things about how rental houses stay in business because of cost and how the business is ran. We are coming into a day and age for filmmaking where big media business will probably be run by smaller teams of people that own there own gear. You my friend earned a sub for that video. 👍🏾

[@gnkstudios6138]

Now ofcourse I say all this know how important 4k is. Your topic is about 8k but I'm making a point about this burning desire to have higher resolutions because that's what camera companies are selling these days. I know the benefits of 4k and 8k but do 95% of the people NEED it for delivery? Absolutely not. Most people dont even realize DVDs are standard def. Lol

[@extrashot]

@@gnkstudios6138 Don't start me off about the state of peoples tele's at home !!! Personally, I think great quality comes from getting the balance right... it's not just about resolution, frame rates, shutter, colour science, dynamic range.... its the correct combination of all of these working together... which of course, is why Arri have remained so successful for so long.

[@gnkstudios6138]

@@extrashot totally agree! Balance. Is. Key.

[@msd5808]

The shooting higher then downsampling for display reminds me of what has been done in audio for a long time, as the push toward "Hi Res" audio (at least 24-bit/96khz) hasn't taken off very well because the human ear struggles to hear beyond the limits of 16-bit/44kHz, which is why that redbook CD standard was chosen to begin with. However recording beyond the limits of human hearing, especially in the bit depth, gives audio engineers more wiggle room for applying effects and editing tracks before they release it for consumers. So perhaps there needs to be like a standard of what the eye can see and appreciate too which is adhered to, if there isn't already, like with vision tests. Also I think you're right that it is about pushing forward cheap displays that are useful in law enforcement for surveillance (both Britain and China are big on this). It may be more challenging with displays to know what our limits are (like Apple's Retina display rules), because we can choose how close we get to the viewing screen, and there's size considerations, like for movie theaters. But if 4K is good enough for movie theaters one would think it's plenty good for 55" TVs at home.

[@extrashot]

Hi Matthew.... I totally agree with you that acquiring audio (and vision) at a higher resolution and data rate than you need for quality delivery, is really important. The whole 'downsampling' thing doesn't just help in the edit... it makes up for all the clarity you lose in the process. With video, if you shoot at the same resolution as the final screen, then you usually have to add some artificial sharpening just to make it look right. Almost every camera does this internally to some degree... which is why you often see a black edge to objects in a super sharp scene! Now it's becoming normal to shoot 6K for 4K output... there's; no need for that artificial sharpening. Stuff naturally looks sharp because it's downsampled. I'm even shooting on a 6K sensor for 1080HD delivery to my clients. Sounds mad... but looks amazing!

[@normadiadi3798]

You got a point ..and I'm 100% agree

[@extrashot]

Nice to hear I'm not alone!... thank you.

[@PhilHover]

Really enjoyed the video. You forgot to mention smoothness. For example. Take a circle. As you reduce it’s size on screen, the number of pixels that represent that curve are also reduced and you start to see imperfections in the curve. It was pretty bad in SD. HD is better but 4K and up has a lot more resolution to represent the curves well. Our eyes are tuned to see smoothness and curves in nature as pleasing (almost nothing is straight). We notice that difference in smoothness on screen better then with pixels. The curve of a face on screen should look better at a higher resolution.

[@extrashot]

Hi Phil, Thanks for the comment. You're quite right... anything curved is going to look better at higher resolutions, but only until it moves! My worry is we're going down the path of extremely high frame rates just to make the resolution noticeable, and that can bring its own problems too. When viewing material shot in 'soap opera' style, that's super sharp with no motion blur and on large screens, many people can start to feel sick. It's something to do with a mismatch between the motion and a difference between the real v apparent focal distance. Sometimes, blurriness helps!!!

[@PhilHover]

extrashot no argument from me. I only shoot material in 24p or overcranked 24. I think 8K @120p will look great for sports but not Narrative. What’s funny is most broadcast in the states is still 720p60

[@extrashot]

@@PhilHover I didn't realise... we're still transmitting 50i (interlaced) for broadcast in the UK, but most of it is originally shot at 25P, so you just end up with two identical fields. 120P will be good for news and sport, but I have a feeling it won't be long before broadcast only have news and sport left? Online delivery is taking over here, really quickly.

[@user-kc1tf7zm3b]

Mr Ream, have your thoughts on 8K changed at all in the intervening years since you published this video in 2019, nearly 3 years ago now? Has there been any significant and meaningful technological improvements with 8K which may alter your opinions? 2019 is a lot like 2000, as many people would just like to go back to how things were before major world events occurred, when life was simpler... Happy New Year.

[@ernestojuarez9296]

Another important thing that I have noticed is that commercial 4K movies are not really 4K as you would like to believe. They are not pixel for pixel perfect. The studios add grain into the picture to simulate film and so you see grain on the screen as big chunks of grain. It’s not like a raw footage where each pixel recorded by the sensor is displayed exactly pixel per pixel and looks super sharp. They are not taking advantage of 4K tv’s now, so i don’t get this 8K resolution being sold to consumers if the movies we watch are not pixel per pixel perfect. All the movie pictures I’ve seen show big grain chunks at a foot away from the screen.

[@extrashot]

Also... up until recently, most Hollywood films haven't even been shot with 4K. Arri cameras shooting ArriRAW at 2.8K or 3.6K and then upscaling, have been the most popular for years. It's changing now, with AlexaLF, Sony Venice and RED, often with larger than 4K sensors and then downscaling for better quality. Some of the change has been pushed by the streaming services like Netflix and Amazon who insist on real 4K for their original content!

[@ErikNaso]

Great video! The K's will keep growing but the real winners are productions that don't need to deliver in 8K. I wouldn't mind an 8K camera for 4K delivery. :-D

[@extrashot]

Hi Erik, Thank you for the kind words. I've no idea how long it'll be before many of us have to deliver in 8K... but I'm not sure I even want 8K for 4K delivery. I have trouble nailing 4K focus... 8K is going to be a total nightmare unless we go back to everything at f/8 !!! 🤣

[@ErikNaso]

@@extrashot Haha... well you need a 4K 3" monitor. LOL

[@andrewv8125]

That elephant was cute.

[@extrashot]

spotted!

[@tenj00]

Great Video. You may just have convinced me not to wait for 8k TVs. I think I can live very well with 4k 60fps in the Future.

[@extrashot]

Thank you... might be a long wait anyway!

[@Mr_M_]

These videos are unintentional ASMR please tell me I'm not the only one

[@extrashot]

You're not the only one! 😂

[@TDamsma]

Awesome upload!

[@extrashot]

Thanks for the comment 👍

[@OUTS1DER666]

Great video. Very specific.

[@extrashot]

Thanks Outsider... very kind!

[@1fareast14]

There's been very little cost-benefit analysis about 8k. The sd-hd jump was big, and the hd-4k jump still noticeable, but 4k-8k isn't a huge improvement. Yes, the datarates will be painful, but what worries me more is the opportunity cost in camera design. More rolling shutter, greater overheating, and worse low-light performance. With all of this time and money, we could be solving real usability problems. Making internal ND more common, improving preamps, making 10-bit at 4:22 a standard for consumer cameras, and making multi-exposure hdr more viable (red xdr-x and zcam wdr). Any of these will matter more than the resolution bump from 8k. Maybe by voting with our wallets, we can set better priorities for the industry.

[@extrashot]

You're so right.... resolution is a game of diminishing returns... the bigger it's gets the less the difference. Amazing how many people don't get that! There are many other things that could noticeably improve the quality of what we watch before we can see the effects of resolution... especially dynamic range, 10/12 bit etc. Unfortunately, from a lot of comments you see on here, it looks like people are easily led by sales BS and irrelevant numbers, rather than their wallets !!!

[@1fareast14]

@@extrashot I appreciate videos like yours for that reason. I think thom hogan(sansmirror) once said that consumers aren't the best places for feature requests, because they just ask for numbers to go up instead of thinking of anything new. Reading the comments under a7siii and gh6 rumors really proves him right. Keep fighting the good fight!

[@extrashot]

@@1fareast14 Cheers, and thanks for the comments!

[@rickjbradbury]

Very interesting thoughts. Thank you for explaining things so well. I feel less worried about sticking to my 1080p cameras now.

[@extrashot]

Thank you for the kind comment Richard... and I recon 80% of all my paid work is still 1080p... there's lots of life in that yet!

[@simonaread]

Excellent delivery and explanation +1 subscriber

[@extrashot]

Thanks Simon... appreciate the sub. 👍

[@Rendell4835]

I get a laugh when someone on a video or commercial says " You can see how much better this picture is " It truth you con not see it... This picture or video is only as good as the TV or Monitor you are watching it on. You have to watch it ON the unit it self. Not on your own TV or Monitor. Because if you TV is 1080p, then that is all your going to see is 1080p. LoL p.s. You have a nice Channel....

[@extrashot]

Makes me laugh too... amazing how many people have said they can spot the 8K on my 4K video !!! Thanks for the kind words... it's appreciated.

[@bigfootbatman1471]

If your watching with a computer monitor with high refresh rate (above 60 Hz) and the video was shot in 8k and streamed in HD you would see the difference. Because a typical desktop monitor can handle higher res than 8k. So then yes you could see the 8k with better quality and see the dirtiness of the 4k. TV vs TV should be compared like this: 4k @ 120 Hz Vs 8k @240 Hz... what was shown on this video was like showing 4k on a 1970 black and white 20" vacuum tube Tv. (not Extrashot fault, its Manufacturer stupidity) for example, I have an old Tv monitor that will run at 1080P full hd but at 120Hz screens per second. Even though I'm not viewing at 4k or 8k, the differences can still be seen, just not as drastically as I could viewing at 8k on a monitor that could handle 240+ Hz. But of course if one's eyesight is better than yours then one could laugh at you saying "yes... sure you see the difference". 4k and 8k Tvs probably have high refresh rates, from factory, my suspicion is they are set at minimum. I always have to set my new TVs up and set the draw rate at maximum. Problem is 8k Tv should have a higher minimum rate setting. This way you should always see the difference more pronounced. This is their fault for allowing such rubbish selections in the first place. But they have to appease the power saving bunch. Oh yes, let me spend loads of money on this Rolls Royce, and never drive it, just sits in the garage.... lol Extrashot did an outstanding job with this video. Absolutely love and respect his view and knowledge. I hope he continues his endeavor. Consider, video games are produced at much higher resolution than standard movies, shows and so on. Showing side by side of same gaming system running same game should also show a huge noticeable difference. 4k at 120 Hz = no lag , however 8k at 120 Hz may. But 8k at 240 Hz =no lag and better everything that's where 8k will shine. If you are going to buy 8k for watching movies, sure if you set the refresh rate high enough, otherwise you're shooting yourself in the foot. Just for movies and your sitting 20 ft away, stay with 4k and save your money until the industry shoots everything in 8k res. Just my opinion.

[@tomdchi12]

Great point about how motion blur negates ultra high resolution. I was skeptical about even "shoot 8k, deliver 4k" but something like "The Redwoods | Shot on Epic-W with HELIUM 8K S35 Sensor 8K HDR" by Abandon Visuals here on youtube has some shots that show off that crispiness of 8k when viewed at 4k. Fantastic if you're working with David Attenborough, but I doubt I'll be doing that any time soon. High frame rate, though? Ugh. My brother in law has the latest and greatest tv, and loves the synthetic high frame rate thing. Marvel movies viewed that way don't put me in the fantasy world, it puts me right on set with everyone in chromakey spandex with ping pong balls on their knees and shoulders.

[@extrashot]

I've even noticed quite a few KZbinrs shooting 8K on REDs and then downsampling to 4K. Got to admit, I can definitely see the quality and point of doing that. It's not just sharpness, there's more colour data there.... looks like massive dynamic range, especially in the highlights. I totally get that (if you can afford it)... but trying to deliver 8K is where the major problems start for me. Good word 'synthetic', that's exactly how it looks. I also know people who love it... and that scares me a little! Thanks for the comment Thomas. 👍

[@BlurBusters]

Right tool for the right job! I love my movies 24fps (preferred over 120fps HFR) and being a high-Hz researcher, I'd like my sports stuff in true UltraHFR 1000fps (on true realtime 1000Hz display). Flickerless CRT motion clarity for sports like ski racing, car racing, etc -- with "low persistence sample-and-hold" (because of tiny refresh cycle lengths).

[@classicgalactica5879]

I know the feeling. We recently watched Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom on our 4K HDR OLED set, and it felt like we were on the soundstage with the actors rather than watching a movie. Welcome to our brave new world.

[@quentinbrown6065]

Your ability to tell a technical story in an easy to comprehend container is fascinating. Working in IT, I would kill to have my skills at that level.

[@extrashot]

Working as a box pointer.... I'd kill to have some IT skills !!! 😂 (Thank you for the lovely comment though - appreciated)

[@ZoranErceg]

A lot of people in ordinary life talk too much. And essentially and far more they utter irrelevant content. Wise people say very little. A lot of people do not know how to distinguish the need of the listener in their communication in the family when they want to know more about a topic and when it is enough for them to hear only the most important things. That's why we lose concentration with annoying speakers who talk a lot and say very little. This is why some people fall for the word because they do not appreciate the content spoken to them by another speaker. They consider its content irrelevant and their content they intend to express very important. Problems in communication (verbal and non-verbal) is that we know very little and are aware of what is said but also what is seemingly unspoken but very, very clearly said through non-verbal communication which is far more extensive and significant than verbal communication although many in they don't believe it. The problem with any expert, even experts in the IT industry, do not know how to separate the important from the irrelevant in their head. They think that every detail is important and then the essential part is lost among the details. Here’s what I did when I was preparing for my photo workshops. I made a PP presentation and put in it everything important that I wanted to convey to my students. I then measured how long such a lecture should last. I noticed that the time was too long and that no one would be able to maintain the concentration needed for so long. With such insights in concentration and time, I began to throw out of the lecture everything that was not extremely important. I took care to keep the lecture quiet for a few seconds. to give listeners time to process in their brains the content I have presented to them. I consider this very important. If you do this or a similar exercise I am sure you will be a great lecturer very soon. Then I would love to watch and listen to you because I am interested in IT experts who know how to easily present any problem. And finally, one should know that wisdom and thus the skill of teaching come with age. Young people will dismiss my above text with disgust. On many KZbin channels we can listen to young lecturers who compete in the speed of utterance, cut in the montage of their sentences so that they stick one thought to another and I understand that it is cool for them because they think they are more interesting and smarter. to understand them fully. No one with any technology will ever be able to insert into our brain more than the ability of our brain to: first sort the essential from the irrelevant and then to arrange in it special places all the information it has processed. And now I really mean to end with this text: Connoisseurs of brain work know that the brain always selects information. At the same time, the brain receives millions of information but adopts and processes only a few dozen information and one second and relentlessly rejects everything else and does not even try to process it to store and prepare it for memory and subsequent recollection and reflection. How many times have you gone through a crossroads driving a car without later remembering whether you drove through a red or green light. How many times have you come from work to houses by car without being aware of the road, all the streets, and the people you drove past? Thanks for your patience in reading. I hope I was understandable because I don’t speak English as well as I would like. My English is pretty skinny :-) so I use Google translate.

[@extrashot]

@@ZoranErceg Your English reads very well... !

[@DaveDugdaleColorado]

My computer is just now fast enough to edit 4k compressed footage, as of right now 8k scares me what I’ll need for editing.

[@extrashot]

More compression or a bigger computer? It is starting to get silly... although some of the new versions of compressed RAW (like BRAW) are getting amazing quality from relatively efficient file sizes. Scares me a bit too, especially having to explain the extra cost to the wife! (FPO)

[@DaveDugdaleColorado]

@@extrashot When I tested Braw from BM I was really impressed how well that worked.

[@extrashot]

@@DaveDugdaleColorado Me too... I'm starting to think the future for most cameras is compressed RAW. Until then, I do hope they work on licensing so other NLE's can easily support BRAW soon.

[@nepomukism]

@@extrashot On this demand what do you think about this weird ProResRAW debate unlocked now for some Atomos recorders in conjunction with some cams. For me it feels like: a part 2 of this episode will be required soon explaining the most common misunderstandings what is RAW ;-) :-)

[@extrashot]

@@nepomukism Good idea... there's a lot of misconceptions about exactly what RAW is... especially the compression. I recently saw the Nikon Z6 linked to the Atomos with ProResRAW and was very impressed. It puts Nikon right back into the video market. Convinced RAW is the future for all quality production. We just need to make the workflow manageable.... Actually, Canon, with the C200, have also helped many realise the RAW benefits without too much of a hit on computing power!

[@danielshepherd7306]

13:00 Yes, because given the options, the public will eventually chose what they prefer. However, the number of options with higher frame rates is currently low, and the options for delivering slow motion in high frame rates is so low, that it may be a decade or more before the shift to higher frame rates really takes off.

[@extrashot]

Totally agree... and I'm really hoping the public don't actually prefer the aesthetics that go with higher frame rates!

[@BonLabora]

I love 4K, my kids too. We love watching movies in cinematic resolution. 4K is enough for now unless it will be used for other platform like gaming and interactive contents, then we can use 8K.

[@extrashot]

There are definitely good uses for 8K... just not for watching movies... yet!

[@BonLabora]

If it will be an outdoor screening for the whole town, that will be fine.

[@extrashot]

@@BonLabora 😂

[@nordfresse]

11:57 Grant Petty @ BMD Headquaters: "Lets do that!"

[@extrashot]

Ha!... do you think he watch it? 😂

[@danielshepherd7306]

Even at 4k, 24 fps starts to really hold the experience back. 48/50/60/120 fps all the way!

[@extrashot]

True... if anything moves... but then I hate the soap opera effect too ???

[@nepomukism]

Georgous! As always! As I sad already somewhere else: I am very happy that there is such influence on KZbin like you. Rare but very important. Like good story tellers. :) The most common thought-terminating cliché I hear when I complain about how resolution wars scare me regarding the dominance of "tech-wow-ness" against story telling and cinematic atmosphere is, that "the cinematic look some folks prefer only refers to a picture we are used to from the old cinema theaters and that this is not realistic but established and linked to cinema." Well, while this maid be true in some degree (but not much since we know what eyes can really see), they a) totally forget to realize that this is exactly the same issue with their high resolution screens in front of their face in their small living rooms with motion repair function turned on in their smart TVs and b) they obviously try to overwrite the original idea of cinema with high resolution revue shows. The thing is, complex and inspiring story telling was already challinging for many recipients in the audience over the decades, as we know from the numbers which features had success and which not. So it is not surprising that technical wow wins over content wow these days much more with the possibilites. I only hope that there will be still this small group of people (story tellers) fighting for content. Like it was before. Sadly, this group was always small. But they were always there, inspiring and impressive. And important to have in the game to keep up the bottom line of intellectual stimulus in the society as long as possible! :)

[@nepomukism]

Ok, let me add that this comment was a lil' bit pathetic. :) And originally on the very first beginning, I have to admit, cinema was just exactly *that* technical revue I complain about, but(!) it evolved from it to a more important part of art and culture, a visionary story telling side by side to books. And this is what it actually made it keep up over the decades. It was the story added to the sensation which made cinema finally so successful and not the technical sensation alone, which fastly washes out after the first attraction and needs more sensation to keep it up later.

[@extrashot]

I do agree... luckily, in the history of cinema, there have been many technical experiments which have fallen by the wayside when people realise they don't help with the art of story telling. Look at the way people keep pushing 3D every 60 years or so.... ! Hopefully the pointless race towards resolution we can't see will go the same way. Obviously, there are some uses in display, medical and computing... but that's not the point for great cinema.

[@extrashot]

@@nepomukism Totally agree... and not pathetic at all ??? 👍

[@stefanjohansson2298]

Loved this .

[@extrashot]

Thanks Stefan

[@stevehutchesson1321]

I have just watched both of your 8k videos and there is some interesting stuff there. It has been my experience that the difference between 180@60 and 4k@30 when both are post processed properly is the fine detail texture. High quality 1080 is hard to improve on in terms of edge clarity and this can be seen on video of parked cars that are clean enough. The difference between 1080 and 4k (properly 2160) is when the video shows fine detail like a forest in the background or the weave of a fabric at close range. The video test of the 2 monitors in the previous video was a dead give away, the right hand monitor was the obvious 4k one as it was clearer and had a harder contrast. It is my guess that the 8k monitor is still not really fast enough to give the same level of clarity.

[@extrashot]

All good points Steve... thank you. I know that TV's with higher refresh rates can make everything appear sharper and more stable (less flicker), and obviously, shooting with a higher frame rate or using the screens image interpolation can reduce motion blur..... but does the refresh rate improve the real resolution on a still image... is there really more detail in the picture? I genuinely don't know.

[@mattwaters6987]

Thanks for this video. I’m staying with my Samsung 4K 55 inch. TV. Subscribed!

[@extrashot]

Thank you... and for the sub too! 👍

[@erikroelinkcitizen2302]

I tough off this kind of thinking years ago off HD but 4k and 8k what you say make sense. I just bought me first 4k TV and I am amazed. Butt say toy wife this must be the last big step for now our eyes can't go any better then 8k 12k or what they gone name the piece of pixel. Thanks ik ik like the channel now already

[@extrashot]

Totally agree... and thank you!

[@aquissuk]

I think one of the areas that will slow adoption of 8k is from the buying public and how they view content today, it's often by mobile phones, where 8k is overkill.

[@extrashot]

True... and most of the 8K TV tech being sold now, is all about the quality of the upscaling from a 4K source. You hear the sales people raving about pictures that aren't even real... they are generated internally.

[@blackbeast9268]

5:20 visual snow moment

[@RobertK1993]

No point in 8K till VVC codec is released and finalised.

[@extrashot]

VVC does look interesting... and it's currently showing about 35% smaller file sizes in UHD than HEVC... but that comes with significant processor load which will need addressing. It's a big thing for being able to broadcast 8K TV... but I'd be interested to see how the Tokyo Olympics look in 8K HEVC?

[@wino99999]

Nicely shot video with plenty of detail (even in KZbin) was it shot at 6k? Plus lots of thought provoking material! My thoughts - So for now (in the home) with the current sizes of TV's probably 4k is sufficient. Cinema or very large (expensive TV's above 84 inches, if you have the room) then maybe 6k or 8k although I believe most cinema's are still 4K DCI in any case. Plus going to 8K in home or in cinema would only benefit those at the very front despite the cinema charging more for seats closer to the back.... what's that all about?! However, since our perception is what is being talked about here and has already been said by M Neztsosie earlier: 'The real world doesn't exist at any frame rate', except 1 sec every second... (time) It's only our perception of it that has a frame rate applied either within a TV, Cinema or by our eyes. The same is true of resolution, ultimately this is defined by the fabric we look at, or the magnification applied to ultimately break down matter into molecules or sub atomic particles and the like. So Resolution is really about the individual's ability to see detail. Should we have 8K or 16K TV's or cinema projectors - well yes if any of us are able to perceive a difference. But ultimately this will be led by consumer demand and ultimately Advertising to create such a demand. If when you look at an 8K TV in your best mates house and crave for one yourself even whilst saying to yourself 'I can't see the difference' then the advertising will have worked and a demand will have been created. If however the Advertisers Fail in their quest to convince individuals that it is better at 8K, then they will turn round and say 'The force is strong with this one' and about turn and try to convince you of the next best thing since sliced bread!

[@extrashot]

Your comment has also prompted a lot of thoughts, so thank you. It was all shot 4K and before I got the 6K FX9! I totally get your points about the size of the screens and home vs cinema, but we should also be careful to take into account viewing distances. There’s been some really good research done by RED who were probably the first with pro level 8K cinema cameras. www.red.com/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing. Even with optimal eyesight, that would suggest a maximum of about 11K for the cinema sized screens? I’ve heard some people on here arguing that very high resolution can be appreciated even when it’s impossible to resolve the actual pixels. As if there’s some sort of ‘magic’ 3D effect? Obviously, this effect has to be seen to be believed, so I wonder how much of it is justification for being taken in by the sales pitch! The big surprise for me was the video we made after this where it was almost impossible to spot an 8K screen at any distance! Obviously, this was mainly because it was a particularly poor attempt at an 8K TV, but even so, it demonstrated that there’s a lot more to consider here than just the resolution. Frame rate is a massive thing that can trick the brain into believing things are sharper than they are… but is it something film makers want to use? I recognise that there are some practical uses for 8K (or higher), especially as computer displays or for gaming when people are sitting closer, but for watching movies… I’m still not sure? Thank you for your comments... and making me think about this again!

[@aquissuk]

I'm only just starting to make the move my first tvs to 4k and that looks great to me.

[@extrashot]

Wow - you watched that quickly. It must of been still at 360P !!! Totally agree with 4K... definitely a visible difference even at normal frame rates. Plus, so many people are watching content on handheld devices or 5K computer screens now.

[@aquissuk]

@@extrashot Yep, good old 360p. There's nothing like watching a video about 8k at 360p 🤣

[@aquissuk]

@@extrashot I record everything on my gh5 at 4k, but as you highlighted about bigger sensors and downsampling, but also using the ability to punch in to video to create multiple camera shots from same recording.

[@extrashot]

@@aquissuk So that'll be punching in from 16K when we're delivering in 8K ??? (we're going to need a lot of fast cards!)

[@bigfootbatman1471]

I've always said that its more about refresh rate. Old or young, if the screen is being drawn at a lower rate than what your eyes can view per second, then the flashing will be more prominent and will give you a headache from looking at the screen for a long length of time. Picture quality, sharpness, the whites the blacks, the color and contrast can never overcome a low refresh rate. If you raise the refresh rate, then you are putting more info for your eyes to absorb and because the flashing between draws is faster it is less noticeable because its faster than your eyes can perceive. A good test is stare at an object close to your screen where the screen is still in view but your eyes are focused on the object... if you see the screen flickering, you need a screen capable of drawing at a faster refresh rate. If you see no flickering, then your screen is fine. So for 4k vs 8k or any other resolutions, the differences would be more prominent at higher refresh rates. TVs at 60 fps will showcase 4k res with sharper crisper blacks and whites. 8k will suffer at 60 fps. If viewed at much higher refresh rates like that of monitors, like in a 120 refresh rate the 8k will be sharper and the 4k will suffer due to being shot with 4k cameras. In other words the 120 rate would expose the dirtiness of the lower resolution. Just my opinion, to sweep the TV market, they should produce screens capable of 120 refresh rates or higher. This would cause more comfort during long watching periods. Then the recommendations to friends would soar. 8k built on low refresh rate screens is ridiculous and I would never purchase. Its like putting a V-12 super car racing engine in a semi truck. The truck body isn't built to showcase the power and speed of the engine. Or putting steel toe work boots on an Olympic swimmer. Or asking Divinci to paint a masterpiece on ice. 8k at 60 refresh rate... they should reconsider. Again, just my opinion... would love to see 8k res on a screen that could handle it. And I believe at a normal distance for normal 20/20 vision a difference would then be noticeable.

[@bigfootbatman1471]

The 4k and 8k tvs may have higher refresh rates but I think they should have their rates adjusted respectively, they are not the same res, so the native rates should be respectively higher. Like if 4k is being shown at 120 Hz then to compare 8k it needs to be shown at 240 Hz. Twice the res should be twice the rate. Its that non-high resolution areas of our eyesight that makes viewing comfortable in regards to refresh rates. Motion blur can be done with CG... in shooting movies or filming... that's the downside, you have to drop frame rate to gain blur, so cameras will need to be all digital and ran through CG to obtain motion blur with high frame rate. Which I think is being done now? In speculation, I believe motion pictures are going to move toward panoramic or more flexible 3D viewing. Things like shutter speed, angle, lighting, blur, glow or bloom, contrast and the sorts will have their own digital channels or tracks if you please, that can be further adjusted and tweaked during editing before release. This way dynamically adjusting after filming during editing can produce and provide the emotion or feeling or tone of the scene. Even subtle hints can have dramatic effects. I agree a whole film shot in "soap opera" filters for the entire movie is redundant. It softens dramatic scenes and stifles the importance of opposition. This also can provide new avenues to enhancing old movies.

[@extrashot]

You make some great points Bruce... and high refresh rates certainly help when looking at higher resolution... but do the refresh rates of TVs have to be related to the source material? If you shoot a movie at 24 frames per second and it's displayed on a 120Hz screen... does the extra refresh rate do anything or is the movie still going to flicker too much for some? Motion blur is the enemy of high resolution, but I think I hate motion interpolation more !!!

[@guesswho6511]

You are just amazing!!

[@extrashot]

Too kind!

[@CavalieriTom]

Great point!

[@extrashot]

Cheers!

[@PanDownTiltLeft]

We have yet to have a client ask for a 4K deliverable...

[@extrashot]

In two years, I've only had a handful of shoots that were delivered in 4K. It's normally shot UHD simply for re-framing or the extra quality you can get from a downsample. One shoot was two cameras and 4K RAW... we were capturing 6TB a day - poor DIT couldn't keep up!

[@PanDownTiltLeft]

LOL! Customers seem pretty happy with HD. When they see the additional cost for doing everything in 4K, they never choose 4K. We bought a BMPC when it came out anticipating at least some demand. We were wrong. Love your channel. You should have a shit load more subscribers!

[@extrashot]

@@PanDownTiltLeft HD is still 95% of my paid work... and yes you're right, I should have more subscribers! 👍

[@PanDownTiltLeft]

@@extrashot I will say that we have gotten a little lazy and use single cam for interviews in 4K for punch-in. Not all, but all that I can get away with :)

[@AchievedMedia]

@@extrashot 😂 Yes you should have. It's 00:16 here in Norway. Just found your channel and can't stop. Everything you said in this video was sooo interesting!

[@klausmller1219]

Better late than never. I got a new AVR which now one month is replaced by a newer model still only featuring HDMI 2.0. So quite some complaints. Before investing I looked at terrastic broadcasts. Guess what, quite some SD channels and nothing above HD (not sure if 1080p or i). Sat tv a few UHD ones. So I wonder how long it will be before we see any broadcasts in 8K (studios needs to make huge investments). And do recall it's been about 6y since UHD was launched. The issue is that there is not room enough in the air so either a lot of channels should be cut and/or bit rates reduced etc.(meaning it is unlikely to see increased frame rates anytime soon). Where does this leaves us - at the internet. Here you are paying for the data transport so it starts becoming feasible and there re a few channels out there broadcasting in 4k. Still the sound is way behind although Netflix has recently begun DD5.1 emissions. The next issue is that when you render a frame in 8k it takes days and with 120 frames a second it will take years just to render a move in 8k. Maybe new computer types will materialize and do it quicker (but those will be expensive). The next issue I see is most films seem mastered I 2k being upscaled to 4k so there is not an enormous difference in sharpness. 8k UHD players? well already many brands has given up on 4k players so the chance that 8k will get out is slim i'd say. This was my line of thinking and therefore, I was not concerned with the HDMI 2.0 standard. Ok there might come some sort of new standards that surely will go to 2.1 and not a 2.0c standard. So are we 8k ready? I don't think in my lifetime.

[@extrashot]

Great comment Klaus... and I can't disagree with anything you say. 8K just seems like so much pain for such little visual gain! The infrastructure isn't there yet... although we may be surprised in our lifetime. Trouble is... my eyes may have got too old to see it! 😳

[@BlackWarriorLures]

Yeah, let NASA have the 8k for shooting the stars. Modern TV already looks weird because nearly everyone pumps up the contrast, saturation to maximum. People are getting used to plastic-looking images, sharp enough to cut your eyes out.

[@extrashot]

Don't get me started on how people set-up their TV's !!!.... The number you see still left in showroom mode with 'True Motion' or whatever it's called smearing everything into a 1980's sit-com look... it's depressing.

[@tonyc1956]

"Torch" mode they used to call it. Go into showroom and they all try to grab your attention by having everything cranked because theyre competing with a wall of other sets and are trying to stand out and then come out of the box that way. Usually much too cool ` 9000K or so and everyone thinks thats the way it supposed to look. I used to calibrate sets down closer to 6500K and told people to watch it for a couple weeks at least to get used to 'normal' color (not to mention grey scale, shadows, etc.) and most didnt switch back. What makes a big difference to me here in Canada where we watch alot of hockey is the brightness off the ice during games. HD brought with it an increase in need for lighting and with a cool picture is crushes dark colors, e.g. navy blues look like blacks, blacks are much too dark and have no detail, etc. Resolution is not everything and what extrashot refers to is the acuity of the human eye which is dependent upon distance/FOV and other factors. Theres also some traction for color depth (10 bit, 12 bit), banding etc. as other considerations for picture quality as well. These also require more bandwidth so it'll be interesting to see what priorities are chosen going forward

[@MakeArtHurt]

The in-laws have a 4k tv. Watching it makes me want to throw up. The world can have their 8k, I'll stick with my 1080p :-)

[@extrashot]

I know people with vision so bad they can barely see their fingers... and yet they still go out and buy a 4K TV ? I give up!

[@vintechtalk1094]

Thank you so much for this video. Learnt a lot. Subbed :)

[@extrashot]

Thanks for the sub VinTechTalk, it's appreciated.

[@csauce22]

This. Is. Information.

[@extrashot]

Thanks!

[@mccloud256]

Hi From Italy. I'm a director for a small local television here in Italy, a gamer, movie addicted. I'm new to this channel, and i'm afraid that i totally agree with you! I constantly think that even the 4k formats are not quite impressive as I may think before their launch in the market. When I saw the differences from the standard SD quality (720-576) to the HD (1920-1080)...(even 1376-720!!!!!!)) I said: "Wow!!! this worth the wait!" But sadly, when I first came into a 4k display I don't see much difference, I've never do tests or whatever...I speak for the NAKED eye. For me the big step was FROM SD TO HD, 4k and obviously 8k ARE useless. I really appreciate a comment of what you think about! Thank you! n.b. (sorry for my bad English)

[@romik1231]

Yes, you are correct. It's all down to having 4K content and the size of screen must be big enough to see individual pixels. To sit 3 meters away it need to be close to 100 inches to see the difference.

[@claudgomez579]

5:50 Motion Blur effect goes away If you move your face at the same time your moving your hands ....

[@extrashot]

Presumably because there's no motion between the two? 👍

[@n3gi_]

My parents got the latest high tech full hd flat plasma TV back in 2008 and it's still working now. I was 6 at that time and now I am 17. I said my dad to buy a new 4k TV but he says that this TV is working fine. Tbh I also think that cuz my dad only watch Cable TV and not Netflix and other online streaming. I mostly use my 4k laptop for content consumption but even though my laptop display is 4k, I can't watch 4k content cuz of my average Internet speed.

[@extrashot]

There's a lot of love on here for Plasma screens... they still produce some of the nicest pictures!

[@uzefulvideos3440]

Eyes don't have a framerate... How many frames per second you can see depends on the content, including motion blur, and how your eyes move across the screen.

[@extrashot]

True... and what we notice is also largely dictated by our brains. In fact I shouldn't really separate the two! Some people are much better at spotting image flashes way beyond what's probably subliminal to most? The point I was trying to make is that we're all different when it come to what frame rate is acceptable! It's interesting to see the current debate over 'cinematic 24P' vs 'the Soap Opera look'... amazing how angry people can get regarding what they think is right !!!

[@DeanHarringtonimages]

Good little piece... I still prefer 24p at 180 camera shutter... call me content NOT old fashion. Motion blur is apart of the dreamy quality that film as a medium offers as an escape from reality.

[@extrashot]

So true Dean... film is about magic, fantasy and entertainment... and there's just as much skill in choosing what you don't want the audience to see !!!

[@10msplits]

Have you talked about 21:9/ultra-wide screen stuff yet? High refresh rates with this would be dreamy..

[@extrashot]

I haven't... the format sounds good for Blu-ray movies but how much is streamed 21:9?

[@10msplits]

@@extrashot well.... probably nothing, due to costs of things like anamorphic lenses (21:9 is 2.33:1) as the whole format is the thing of movie theatres whose content is now understood as just having black bars for the home audience. the world of when that format was introduced to compete with the initial growth of home TV is not the one now, so like you say if consumers want 8k it's going to be difficult saying otherwise.

[@extrashot]

@@10msplits Sadly, I think you're probably right!

[@panccio]

thanks so much for taking your time for making this videos!! you sure you are not Philip Bloom's dad?? hehehe

[@extrashot]

...and thank you for the comment...I think I'm offended !!! 🤣

[@panccio]

@@extrashot hope you are not offended for making awesome content! hehehhe. cheers!

[@TavoIsVibin]

IS THAT WHY YOU LOOKED WIRED IN THE START OF THE VIDEO??? Are my eyes advanced?

[@extrashot]

very advanced... do I ??? 😂

[@wetcat833]

I have not had a chance to see an 8k TV but you've convinced me of what I've suspected all along. I was a commercial photographer in pre-digital times and the final question I always asked, does it look good. There was little difference in resolving power in either negative or slide film but the prints produced were a world apart. Just like OLED, a print from a slide just popped. The real good thing about 8k TV is that it has made a 77inch OLED with HDMI 2.1 and G-sync go for under A$8,500. And I'm talking LG GX77". I have a Denon 11.2ch receiver that only pushes 4k and is fed by an Oppo UDP205 4k player. They are all HDMI 2.0 and too good to replace cheaply. The only reason I care about 2.1 is that I build gaming computers and this will finally make gaming on the TV doable. Unfortunately not until a graphics card come with 2.1 connections. As soon as the LG is released here, it will be replacing my old Sony that has served well for years.

[@extrashot]

The 2020 OLEDs with G-Sync, Freesync, Low latency and Variable refresh rate should be a win with gamers... I've yet to test one but the specs look amazing on the 77" HDMI 2.1?

[@wetcat833]

@@extrashot I live in a very remote area and have to buy on line so I cannot see for my self. I have to rely on specs and on the good eyes of people like you. From what I hear so far, I will not be disappointed although it will be my first non Sony TV. (Oh the shame). Sony lost at least one sale due to not including 2.1

[@extrashot]

@@wetcat833 I'm hoping to test the CX77" very soon.... which I think is a similar panel picture quality wise... exciting!

[@wetcat833]

@@extrashot From what I hear, they are the same tv. The GX is for wall mounting and the CX comes with a stand and has a different back. They're still not available in Australia or out of stock so I might get to see your review before I part with the pennies. Looking forward to it.

[@pikachu5647]

i recently bought a good 1080p tv instead of an average 4k one, the reason behind that was also that both my internet and my tv connection doesnt allow anything beyond 1080p.

[@extrashot]

I suppose there's no point going for more than you can receive... so probably a wise choice!

[@Mandy-vd7yu]

For filthy riches

[@gledatelj1979]

There are several reasons that need 8k 1. Zooming in and panning out with a single camera without a loss of detail 2. Anything that has letters and reading involved 3. Photographers can video record and actually print the full frame . I am not that technical with this but there are real issues to be solved with more resolution.

[@extrashot]

Hi Vlado, thanks for the comment... I get what you mean... but apart from the photographers wanting to print from video, isn't it frame rate, rather than resolution, that allows us to get the benefits of 8K?

[@gledatelj1979]

@@extrashot yes, the latest HDMI 2.1 is up to 8k 120fps though it's compressed but I can see that as the ultimate standard. Frame rate and resolution go together but yes frame rate is more important after a certain point (4k) and I prefer 120 fps for fluidity although there is hardly any cameras with it and no youtube. Also the latest broadcast TV standard has 4k 120fps as standard (ATSC 3) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_3.0

[@claudinchenchen]

Shot mostly only in 30fps, and I really want an affortable camera that makes 50 / 60fps in 4K and 8K, if only 30fps for the beginning. When I bought my first 4K screen a few years ago, my former teacher said to me, "You do not need a 4K screen, because that would be like sitting in the front row in the cinema." ;-)

[@extrashot]

I'm hoping that when there's something affordable that can shoot 8K @ 60P... we don't all feel the need to use it all the time !!! I get what your teacher meant. I'm told that people with perfect vision, sitting in the front row of a cinema with a 70 foot screen... can actually resolve 11K ? I fear my eyes are now too old for that... 🤪. Thanks for your comment.

[@NARFALICIOUS]

You need 1m subs asap.

[@extrashot]

I think you maybe right! 👍

[@Vesnic8]

Interesting video. Thanks for sharing. But I was wondering - what if such resolutions could be intented for natural 3d ? Let me put it this way - I remember seeing a 4K oled back in the day, and to me it seemed to crisp and clean that for a second the tv screen almost became like a window to a different reality - for a moment my brain was making the image in 3D. It was weird. Do you think such thing is possible?

[@extrashot]

That's a very interesting point... I've heard other people say that that a TV's picture can look so good you think it's 3D. Maybe the brain is doing something strange? I don't think it's necessarily resolution that's causing the effect... because some 4K screens can look more '3D' than 8K. I have a feeling (but no proof) that it may be involved with contrast modulation and the sharp edges on in-focus objects. Some expensive OLEDs can really give the impression of 3D with the right high contrast images. Have you heard of the 3D software that wobbles alternate frames on the camera and then tricks the eye into seeing more depth on a TV screen. It does work and is impressive, even on a normal TV. It's not true 3D though... just another trick that fools the brain!

[@hitmusicworldwide]

@@extrashot Haven't you ever been fooled by the sound of a mobile ringing on a TV and thought it was yoru mobile ringing in reality? That is because of the ability we have developed to achieve a high resolution in terms of sonic fidelity. The sound became "3d" and seemed to be part of reality outside the screen. Stereoscopic vision is a brain hack. EVERY sense is the brain hacking reality. We are not equipped intellectually to answer these questions I believe. We see it as "video guys" with varying degrees of electronics and physiological understanding . Reality is made up of even more dense pixels than we have the capacity to record at the moment and reproduce with at least 50% fidelity to the original. As our ability to reach and exceed these limits improves, we will approach realistic windows into scene/ reality reproduction.

[@extrashot]

@@hitmusicworldwide We already have the ability to record a pixel density greater than our ability to perceive it... maybe, in an effort to achieve ultimate reality we should try improving other aspects of the display tech, like dynamic range or colour resolution? I think your mobile ringing tone analogy is the other way around... it's because it's such a poor low res sound that it's impossible for our brains to differentiate between the TV speakers or the mobile speakers... it's so bad we can't even tell what direction it's coming from !!!

[@TheTishh]

I,m still 1080 day to day, geez even my Iphone shoots 4K .... still have yet to do that! All this talk of 8K and most are watching youtube videos at 720 makes me wonder enough to not loose sleep over!

[@extrashot]

1080 is also still fine for 95% of what I need too. I do get 4K, and like the look of shooting 6K sensors for great UHD output... but this whole race for ever increasing resolution is a game of diminishing returns. Thanks for the comment Craig - appreciated.

[@CharlesBurnsPrime]

These same arguments were made when 4K was new. I do not disagree, but in 10 years will we say, "8K is enough. Are we 16K ready?" I have found that most people cannot tell a difference watching movies past 720p, and extremely few can tell the difference between 1080p and anything greater. This is, of course, real people watching real movies, not trained videophiles holding a caliper near the screen.

[@extrashot]

I know what you mean Charles... thing is, resolution is a game of diminishing returns. The visible difference between HD and 4K appears much larger than 4K to 8K, even though they're both multiples of 4. Apart from the pixel peepers, we now have to accommodate gamers who want to sit 2 inches away from a 100 inch TV running 800Hz !!!

[@CharlesBurnsPrime]

@@extrashot As I can see pixels down to 1 Planck length, I am waiting for TVs with 5E+31k resolution. :)

[@extrashot]

@@CharlesBurnsPrime Arn't we all !!! 😂

[@jamesavery6671]

I don't think anybody can really notice past 1440P in normal circumstances but the industry flew right past that to 4 K. I'm fine with 1080p but 4k does look sharper in gaming if you sit closer to a large screen. In my opinion 4k is over the practical limit but the low prices now for 4k sets have made it the affordable so why not. 8K is FAR from being practical especially for gaming. 4K takes an immense amount of processing power while displaying decent frame rate as it is

[@extrashot]

Totally agree James!👍

[@nonfecittaliter4361]

You mean the funny elephant?

[@extrashot]

spotted!

[@jessehardy8464]

The human eye can see 2 gb of ram

[@extrashot]

I'm not sure what you mean?

[@ergindemir7366]

For my 17" laptop screen even 1080p is too much. The most comfortable size for 1080p 27". For 4k you need minimum 50" TV. In order to notice the difference you need 100" 8k tv.

[@extrashot]

Are you sitting the same distance away from all those different sizes? Resolution, size and viewing angle all work together because it's pixel density per arc-minute that's important.

[@DeanHarringtonimages]

The only thing that 8k production as a visual process will do is drive ordinary people back into theaters!

[@extrashot]

Good point... I hadn't thought of that! 👍

[@CO8848_2]

Subscribed

[@extrashot]

Thank you... it's appreciated!

[@gledatelj1979]

8k resolution solves most of the problems of the internet and computers in general such as aliasing and moire effect. The fact that people are not clamoring for more resolution just tells me that people are not reading anything online because reading on 1080 monitor is impossible anything more that few sentences and 2160 is barely better.

[@extrashot]

Good point... we do sit a lot closer to computer monitors than TVs or film screens, and I did try to list the things where I saw 8K as a positive thing... medical procedures, surveillance etc. I have a 5K monitor for a computer, and often sit way too close for comfort and for long periods. I suppose my fears are more regarding the bad influences for film makers, rather than used as an electronic display. Thanks for your comment... and for bringing up another side. Appreciated. 👍

[@gledatelj1979]

@@extrashot You forgot to mention any reading material as I find reading anything on the current 4k monitor and anything online as really hard and tiring because of low resolution and when I zoom in on any letters there is a big aliasing pattern . I am not a film maker but I see 8k as much better than 4k whatever little I see as the picture is more lifelike and enjoyable for lack of a better word. Somehow it's soothing to see a fluid video and image of 8k where aliasing and forced sharpening is down to irrelevant. Can you actually criticize this 8k video ? kzbin.info/www/bejne/eX3EmXqKpauiaqM kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5mviKOhdtV2gbc kzbin.info/www/bejne/boWyYaOmqplln8U

[@extrashot]

@@gledatelj1979 You're right, I didn't really consider the effect of resolution on screens used for reading material. I can see that 8K would definitely be an advantage with small or expanded text. Used in this way, what is the effect of high frame rates? I know refresh rate has a big influence on fatigue when you're doing a lot of reading, but is it better to use something very fast or go the other way and have a very slow frame rate? I've no idea what things like the Kindle Paperwhite use, but maybe there are better solutions than using TV's for reading? I did watch those 8K video's, and I wouldn't criticise, but they do demonstrate really well my point about the resolution being pointless if the camera moves too much. The vast majority of those shots are static wide shots of detailed landscape, and even though they are hand held, nothing moves that much. Yosemite would be a great location for anyone wanting to make an advert for 8K TV's! However, when things start to move, like the faster boats in San Fransisco, the resolution quickly disappears into motion bur. Things quickly break down on the Canaries when any quicker movement over trees, particularly the shots from the bus, render 8K pointless. There's also an issue with the fact that these pictures look like they were shot with an 8K sensor, which means you've lost almost a third of the colour data in the Bayer filter in order to produce RGB colour from a single chip. When you look at the waterfalls, or anything where the exposure is too hot, it doesn't look like there's enough dynamic range to rescue much in post. This is why so many people are now shooting 6K or 8K in order to downsample... resulting in much better 4K pictures. For me, it's a bit like when companies were trying to sell us 3D TVs... you can always shoot a perfect shot from the perfect angle and the effect will be amazing. I've literally been blown away by how great 3D can be when shot under ideal circumstances and high frame rates. The problem is, film and TV isn't made that way. We want to produce pictures that help tell stories and convey emotions... close-ups, depth and movement to focus the audience attention... not a scientific demonstration of what a clever engineer can achieve. There's definitely a market and use for 8K TV's... I'm just worried that they don't help film makers... and possibly, quite the reverse! However, it's good to hear another angle and your take on it... thank you. Paul

[@gledatelj1979]

@@extrashot I aggree with you on that , I do see a lot of stuttering now on the sides when it moves , I am not a videographer . It's probably because of a low frame rate (only 30fps) . There is surprisingly little videos that are 120fps and those that I have seen have seemed much more enjoyable and more life like. Can I ask, why isn't 120 fps the standard by now? Well actually it may be since the latest HDMI 2.1 is rated at 8k 120fps maximum eventually. I do come into this because I have to read online a lot and the resolution is just not there and it's a painful in a bad way.

[@extrashot]

Hi @@gledatelj1979 , I think the main reason 120fps hasn't been very common so far is simply down to data rates and the limits of technology. When you think about it, just running 4K @ 60P is a massive amount of data, especially if you want decent colour with say 4:2:2 12bit. Being able to move and copy more than 12Gb/s has, until very recently, been beyond us technically, certainly at a reasonable cost. It's not just the display tech... it's also the speed of memory and the heat generated by pushing that much data.through dedicated processors inside cameras. Some manufacturers have got away with selling a little DSLRs that overheat every 15 minutes, but you can't do that if you want to sell professional kit. 8K @ 120fps is going to be a whole lot more data! Cheers, Paul

[@Ayrton866]

I think 8K would be usefull in movie theaters that would make more of a difference. They should push 8K in movie theaters not in our houses.

[@extrashot]

But you sit further away in movie theatres? Why would it make a difference?

[@Ayrton866]

@@extrashot you said screen size does not matter as long I get the 50 degree angle, if it's small I'll put it closer if it's bigger I'll be far away. But I know that is impossible know because of CGI it would take way too long to make 8K CGI that is way they make movies in 2K then upscale it to 4K for Blu-ray.

[@adhiaabdulqadir7930]

Does bigger size tv matter @ normal viewing distances?

[@extrashot]

It shouldn't make any difference because normal viewing distances move further away as the screen size increases. The size of screen is only a factor if you’re going to pixel peep much closer than normal viewing distances. For instance... what’s the visible difference between sitting 4 meters away from a 100 inch screen or 2 meters away from a 50 inch? There is none… the most important figure is pixel density per arc-minute. (ie. how far away you sit related to the width of screen in degrees). There are recommended charts for home cinema - we used the THX ones.

[@nsks8474]

i use a 22 inch screen 1080p some videos watch in 2k . i find enough quality . but 4k i think u need 40 inches 8k u need 65 inches . only opinion u can tell if yes or no

[@extrashot]

The trouble is... it all depends on how far away you want to view from? Screen size, resolution and viewing distance all work together... the only thing that matters is pixel density per degree (or arc-minute) of viewing angle. However, if you are watching all those different sized screens from the same distance as your 22 inch... then you may be right !!!

[@nsks8474]

4 feet for last five years .... 2000 lines for 22 , 4000 for 40 , 8000 for 65@@extrashot

[@extrashot]

@@nsks8474 These guys explain it well... www.octaneseating.com/science-measuring-seating-screen-distance ...and this guy even has a spreadsheet to use for your own designs! ... carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator/

[@trapromo]

8K is for transporting you into the\a world from your living room, watching Animal Planet or nice sunsets. No .. wait, i think thats called VR =DD . With 8K ,hollywood actors will go from "perfect", to "just OK , with alot of makeup", it is going to be hilarious. It will be a great niche tool for a long time still.

[@extrashot]

I'm working on another video now that might surprise many.... hopefully I can show it next month. 😉

[@trapromo]

@@extrashot already excited. Btw, as for fps for eyes, latest tech in gaming world is 240hz screens, and it is visible over 144hz. But as you said most people are not fighter pilots.

[@genxtechguy]

I don’t think 8k will make enough of a difference over 4K on televisions that are less than 75 inches (unless you are sitting very close). I’d rather see improvements to 4K HDR. Most regular people aren’t even consuming 4K content (I am, but most people I know aren’t), but hey .. the next big marketing move designed to separate us from our money .. 8K .. ready, or not.

[@extrashot]

You nailed it... it's about selling TV's, not improving image quality. Thanks for your comment - appreciated.

[@hitmusicworldwide]

Motiopn blur is created by the brain, so why compound and possibly interfere with the brain's compensation by inducing man-made motion blur and decreased resolution because of our limited ability to recreate reality and display it with current tech. In the real world, there is no motion blur or pixels in the sense that we have described them in our display tech. We don't need to stare at our fingerprints to know that reality far exceeds the number of pixels in an 8K display. Display every frame and element of the capture as life itself does and let the brain do it's thing. What 8k TVs and high frame rates are starting to give us are brief moments of almost 3d realism. As resolution increases, this 3D effect will increase as more pixels will mean greator depth perception . I also have to add that most of the people that always criticize higher and higher resolution technologies and say "we can't see all of that detail ( as if reality is just another NTSC SD standard ) tend to be older than 40 and I am guessing starting to lose their ability to see reality as well as they did intheir past.

[@extrashot]

Genuinely, a big thank you for the comment… I love discussions like this because it makes me stop and think. But I should warn you, I’m liable to rant on a bit !!! It’s strange… you agree that motion blur is created by the brain but then say that there is no motion blur in the real world? I believe, for each one of us… reality is whatever our brain perceives. For years now, TV producers, movie makers and content creators have been trying to achieve an image that our brains perceive as real, even though it’s displayed within a tiny screen a fixed distance away in the middle of our normal wide vision. This is not just a case of simply interfering with our brains ability to compensate! It’s perfectly possible, with todays tech, to produce a display that will give us higher than 8K resolution and at a frame rate that would enable almost zero motion blur. But what’s the point? It won’t look real, because, as you’ve already said, in the real world our brains create the motion blur! Maybe you’re thinking our brains will re-insert the motion blur over the perfectly clean displayed pictures, but it doesn’t work that way. The problem, is that motion blur also depends on subject distance. Imagine two cars going past you at 60mph. If one is 10 feet away and the other is 100 feet away… the motion blur on each car will be different from your brains point of view. In effect, the closer car is moving faster across your vision. However, your TV at home is a fixed distance away… say 10 feet, and your angle of view to the left and right sides of the screen is also fixed. The camera shots you watch during most movies, don’t usually use a fixed angle of view… they zoom in and out from wide to telephoto… and that changes the perceived motion blur. For your brain to re-insert the correct motion blur, you’d have to keep moving forwards and backwards, so your physical angle of view matched the cameras. As your normal vision is almost 180 degrees wide, you’re going to be sitting quite close to the TV! You mention 3D realism… which is interesting, because that’s a fad that keeps coming back every 30 years or so. At the moment, this tech also doesn’t work for similar reasons. Your brain is perceiving objects to be different distances from your eyes and is trying to focus on them. In reality, the screen is not moving and your eyes have to focus on one fixed distance for it to work. It’s this disconnect that causes many people headaches when watching 3D material. Although I’m well over 40… I’ve always embraced the latest TV tech and lusted over ever increasing resolutions. There’s a massive difference between SD and HD and a pretty big change going from HD to 4K… but these steps are getting smaller as we get closer to what our eyes can physically perceive. It’s a game of diminishing returns. Maybe there are other aspects of display tech that would be more beneficial for us to concentrate on than simply resolution? This isn’t about the poor eyesight of older people unable to see detail (most are also able to obtain spectacles anyway)… it’s about youngsters learning to use their brains and really trying to understand how human perception works, so in years to come, they can take the technology forwards into something much more useful and entertaining. Alternatively, we could just believe the salespeople and rush out to buy a 16K TV for Call of Duty 2050?

[@ZoranErceg]

@@extrashot - Such an extensive commentary with thoughtful views tells me how much the author cares about his followers. In that, I see the author's respect for the follower, and few people offer their private time within one answer to one comment, and that is very important to me. Probably because I belong to the older generation (61 years old) and I know how important time is to me and with it the energy of the author who invests to convey the message to me. This is part of the reason why this author and his KZbin channel are important to me. This is a winning combination for anyone who wants a precisely explained opinion that only an experienced professional can give. But there are very few experienced professionals who WANT to give so much of their time to some unknown companion. And that is why I need to thank the author with a deep bow as a sign of respect and recognition.

[@extrashot]

@@ZoranErceg Wow... thank you for such a kind comment. Replies like yours make the time and effort all worthwhile. Much appreciated.

[@hitmusicworldwide]

@@extrashot Thanks for the detailed reply. I am still not convinced as I DO see glimpses of depth in 8K displays ( no need for glasses, the old HD 3d methods were insufficient and quirky. Precisely because of the low refresh rates and low HD resolution. and flashes of "looking thru a window" at reality on great 4K displays. My friend who is in his 30's and even my brother in his 80's has noticed the same thing. ( His cat as well which all of a sudden gets fascinated by the 4K 60 p HDR content where he previously ignored HD) . 16k will arrive sooner than 2050 ( about 2025 ). Rather than just dismissing it, let's see what 10 bit then 12 bit onto 444 extreme HDR 8+ K brings to the table. Image reproduction like sound reproduction should never be "good enough" I don't believe salespeople. I believe what I can see and hear. What I have seen so far is a huge difference, and I look forward to the coming improvements. Ever since I saw the 1st HD display at Tsukuba science fair in Japan in the mid 80's, I have always known that, the future is coming, it looks awesome, get used to it. ( and with lower end 4K 50+ inch TV's selling under $300, these innovations are not expensive. Take a look at "The Volume" stage used to film the Mandolorian and realize that reality on a display is not only amazing but becoming an integral part of the creative, immersive future of story telling and imagination transportation.

[@extrashot]

@@hitmusicworldwide I do understand what you mean by the added depth in very high resolution displays... and I agree. Could it also be caused by the improved contrast modulation and the sharpness of edges? I watched a 3D display recently that had amazing depth and didn't require glasses etc. It worked by synchronising an imperceptible high speed wobble between an adapted camera and the screen. It was a very clever understanding of how our brains work out distances. I also totally agree about improvements in compression techniques like 12 bit or even 16 bit linear having a massive effect on realism and picture quality... in fact, my argument is that there are so many elements that are potentially more important in generating great images than simply resolution. I do hope you don't think I'm saying 4K is "good enough"... that's not the point. What I'm questioning is the point of increasing the performance of specifications that prove to be impossible for our eyes/brains to perceive. It might not be 8K or 16K or even 32K, but at some point we won't be able to see the resolution change? Not sure about 16K TVs in four years... although I can buy a relatively inexpensive 12K video camera right now... however, my cat will have to make do with 4K for a while longer!!! Thank you for the thought provoking conversation and take care.