Originally Posted by durack
You get it. People saw no need for VCRs Beta or VHS, CDs, DVDs, cell phones, PCs -- I was too young, but I bet folks argued against color TV, cruise control, seat belts -- further back indoor toilets, electric lights -- they all had one thing in common -- THEY WERE WRONG.
You are correct. All throughout history there have been Luddites and technophobes who have invented bizarre excuses to reject progress. Today in the US we have an entire political party that's devoted to tearing down the very fabric of society, claiming that would be some sort of victory!
The fact of the matter is that progress in good will always
improves the human condition, and that there's nothing at all romantic or desirable about lower standards.
I was a new driver when the seat belt issue came to head. I remember the shrill cries against change, and even phony claims that not
wearing seat belts was safer, citing unverified, one-in-a-billion circumstances, usually whan someone was "thrown clear" of a crash. Today we know that the one best way to die in a car crash is to be ejected from the vehicle! Today I wouldn't dream of going onto a public road or race track without adequate safety systems.
I'm a little young for the introduction of color TV, but remember when UHF TV frequencies were relatively new, and TV sets had a separate UHF tuner. Back then, if you wanted to tune in UHF frequencies, you had to go to the back of the TV, switch the antenna from the VHF antenna terminals (which were just machine screws back then) to the UHF terminals, click the lower rotary dial to the UHF position, and then use a continuously variable tuning knob to sweep through the frequencies (like with an old shortwave radio), trying to find your channel, which was not clearly marked. When I remember that childhood ritual, I have to snicker when I remember that now the UHF frequencies are the highly sought after ones; that VHF is for losers in TV broadcasting!
What would be the point of 8K? Technology for the sake of technology?
At one time, audio frequency response of 300Hz to 3kHz was considered to be all that we needed, despite the fact that human hearing extended far beyond those limits. But one day someone figured out that systems designed only to convey the human voice could also carry music, and that because music had a much broader frequency range, that it would be beneficial to extend audio frequency response. Today we take full range frequency response for granted, but it wasn't always that way; someone found a purpose.
8K is more resolution than lesser resolutions. If you can have 8K resolution for the same cost as lesser resolutions (which is inevitable), why would anyone choose less?
The day may come when television systems map out every last rod and cone in each and every retina, and for viewing, addresses every last one individually. If and when that day comes, then we can say that we have no need for more pixels...at least for viewing
. But what about capture? The amount of source material there still remains unlimited. And while many in TV and movie production are more than happy to live and die by the old-fashioned glass lenses that have been around since the dawn of photography, there are people currently working on sensor and image processing technologies that will one day make traditional glass lenses unnecessary. There's a HUGE potential for advancement! And most of it will leverage "more pixels" to make it happen.
As a videographer, I eschew "digital zoom" because I know that it trades resolution for an illusion of more optical zoom than the camera has. But as a still photographer I'm quite comfortable with "blowing up" a still photo to edit out the parts that don't matter to me and make the parts that I do want the new picture. As such, I want more resolution on my still camera sensor--there will never
be "enough" resolution in that respect! As a football fan, I've very much liked the kind of "digital zoom" that takes 4K video, and electronically crops and zooms with no
loss of quality on the 720p TV channel I'm watching the game on. Having "more K" in the video source will only enhance this cool production technique!
If people can't find a use for greater functionality, they either aren't trying or aren't capable. I'm confident that, as technology progresses, that people with the skills and the will to exploit these technological advances to do completely new things that nobody ever dreamed of today, or that some dreamed of, but had to wait for the technology to come to make the dream come true.
Just because there are people who have no ambition or talent doesn't mean that the world should revolve around those people. I'm all for freedom of choice, but it's the very same freedom
that allows people to be stuck in their ways that also enables greater thinkers to create greater realities and improve the world. I think there's plenty of room for improvement.