Originally Posted by lsorensen
8K on the other hand, yeah not sure what could do that yet. I guess the Red 8k cameras can do it given they apparently do shoot 35Mpixel effective so I would guess their sensor really does have something like 70Mpixels. Sure has a price tag to match. Delivery? Who knows.
Surprised about the Sony, thanks for the info. My understanding is that 8.3M in that case is a crop (discussion elsewhere
), though. From Red's own materials
, they seem to be using the full Bayer resolution, with every subpixel as a pixel.
Given the heavy compression involved in the final encoding, it's hardly a crime. And considering they decided even Helium isn't good enough and went after full format... we'll get more details than a consumer medium can store.
It's specifically more resolution on the display that I don't feel is currently needed. I.e. we're already overspeccing the displays. 8K filmed content will look sharper on a 4K display than 4K content. Not that I'm against 8K, but it's a very low priority in my book.
I'd rather first see:
- 60 fps as standard on all content. What good is more pixels if it's all lost in motion?
- Improvements in HDR to the point where it just works. Common standards and proper SDR-to-HDR mapping instead of mode switching.
- Better 2.4:1 support.
All in all, in the observable future, cinemascope 5K (5120x2160) would be a lot more useful than 16:9 8K. We can make it, can fit it on BD, it still has lots of headroom. And, unlike ever-larger 16:9 you have to sit ever further away from, CIH would add scope for movies without oversizing the TV image.