8K television from NHK

[R***@theatresupport.com]

I can't help but wonder if this res. is going to be the game changer
that pounds the last nail in the coffin of 90% of U.S. exhibition:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9774380.stm

[g***@hotmail.com]

Who would be able to afford it? By the time the average person would have the money to buy one,technology would have improved on this model and it would become redundant.

[R***@theatresupport.com]

Post by g***@hotmail.com
Who would be able to afford it? By the time the average person would have the money to buy one,technology would have improved on this model and it would become redundant.

The point was made in the presentation that 8K is a logical "end game"
for tv, as it is about as much as the eye can resolve with current
common viewing angles. As for price, there are tvs in Walmart now for
under $800 that would put my 1990s $3,000 Hitachi to shame.
Electronics pricing drops so fast it is mind boggling.

All this is ten years or more down the road, but time flies. (Of
course by then watching tv will be so irritating with ads and 3D
popups that most people won't watch anyway.) :-)

[Scott Norwood]

Post by R***@theatresupport.com
The point was made in the presentation that 8K is a logical "end game"
for tv, as it is about as much as the eye can resolve with current
common viewing angles.

Really? I would think that on a "normal" size set (which these
days seems to be in the 42" range) in a "normal" size home, 1080p
should be entirely sufficient. No doubt 4k and 8k would make a
difference on large-screen projection setups, but even 2k DLP looks
OK on a cinema-size screen, when one is seated about two screen
heights away.

I am not normally one to suggest that something is "good enough"
or that we should not continually try to improve the quality of
moving images, but I would suggest that more good would be accomplished
in the short term by showing people how to get HD reception on
their HD sets (rather than watching an SD picture stretched out to
16x9) than by increasing the resolution of the broadcast signal.

It would also be sort of nice if the quality of the programming
improved as well. I have an SD 20" Trinitron which works fine for
watching the occasional news program. For entertainment, I would
rather go to the cinema.

[Joe]

Post by Scott Norwood

Post by R***@theatresupport.com
The point was made in the presentation that 8K is a logical "end game"
for tv, as it is about as much as the eye can resolve with current
common viewing angles.

Really? I would think that on a "normal" size set (which these
days seems to be in the 42" range) in a "normal" size home, 1080p
should be entirely sufficient. No doubt 4k and 8k would make a
difference on large-screen projection setups, but even 2k DLP looks
OK on a cinema-size screen, when one is seated about two screen
heights away.
I am not normally one to suggest that something is "good enough"
or that we should not continually try to improve the quality of
moving images, but I would suggest that more good would be accomplished
in the short term by showing people how to get HD reception on
their HD sets (rather than watching an SD picture stretched out to
16x9) than by increasing the resolution of the broadcast signal.
It would also be sort of nice if the quality of the programming
improved as well. I have an SD 20" Trinitron which works fine for
watching the occasional news program. For entertainment, I would
rather go to the cinema.

I like to sit about 1.5 to 2 screen heights away in a cinema. This
worked fine with 35mm film, but with 2K D-Cinema I've found that the
pixels are noticeable in bright areas of the same color (especially
text). The edges of the pixels also give an artificial sharpness to the
image.

Although I haven't seen 4K projection from a 4K source, I suspect the
image will have less artificial sharpness but provide more detail.

I don't agree with the general belief that 2K is sufficient for smaller
screens. If the screen is smaller, I sit closer, maintaining my 1.5 to
2 screen height distance. Would 16mm have sufficed for smaller screens
back in the heyday of 35mm?


- Joe

[R***@theatresupport.com]

Post by Joe

Post by Scott Norwood

Post by R***@theatresupport.com
The point was made in the presentation that 8K is a logical "end game"
for tv, as it is about as much as the eye can resolve with current
common viewing angles.

Really? I would think that on a "normal" size set (which these
days seems to be in the 42" range) in a "normal" size home, 1080p
should be entirely sufficient. No doubt 4k and 8k would make a
difference on large-screen projection setups, but even 2k DLP looks
OK on a cinema-size screen, when one is seated about two screen
heights away.
I am not normally one to suggest that something is "good enough"
or that we should not continually try to improve the quality of
moving images, but I would suggest that more good would be accomplished
in the short term by showing people how to get HD reception on
their HD sets (rather than watching an SD picture stretched out to
16x9) than by increasing the resolution of the broadcast signal.
It would also be sort of nice if the quality of the programming
improved as well. I have an SD 20" Trinitron which works fine for
watching the occasional news program. For entertainment, I would
rather go to the cinema.

I like to sit about 1.5 to 2 screen heights away in a cinema. This
worked fine with 35mm film, but with 2K D-Cinema I've found that the
pixels are noticeable in bright areas of the same color (especially
text). The edges of the pixels also give an artificial sharpness to the
image.
Although I haven't seen 4K projection from a 4K source, I suspect the
image will have less artificial sharpness but provide more detail.
I don't agree with the general belief that 2K is sufficient for smaller
screens. If the screen is smaller, I sit closer, maintaining my 1.5 to
2 screen height distance. Would 16mm have sufficed for smaller screens
back in the heyday of 35mm?
- Joe

It was tried. Kodak made a sweet projector for 16 in theatres.
Trying to remember the fellows name... lived in Essex NY and was key
in that. That was a time long long ago in a life far away.

We commonly ran 16mm Sharespeare for school showings on smallish
screens. The primary problem was not enough lumens on the screen.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Joe
I don't agree with the general belief that 2K is sufficient for smaller
screens. If the screen is smaller, I sit closer, maintaining my 1.5 to
2 screen height distance. Would 16mm have sufficed for smaller screens
back in the heyday of 35mm?

The Navy thought it did.

AMC also went through a short bit in the beginning of the multiplex era
where they were considering using 16mm in the smaller theatres, though
that never really happened.

2K is basically a matter of "how little resolution can we get away with
before people complain" and honestly 2K resolution is better than some of
the crappy 35mm prints the multiplexes get. If only the grey scale were
better...
--scott

[Steve Kraus]

Post by Scott Dorsey
AMC also went through a short bit in the beginning of the multiplex era
where they were considering using 16mm in the smaller theatres, though
that never really happened.

I don't think it was at the beginning of the multiplex era, but well into
it. I would say in the 80's, maybe late 80's. They were looking at
putting the Eastman 25 back into production and talking to retired guys. I
don't know the details like would they have used Iscovision-style 1.5X for
1.85 nor what they would do about sound.

Sound, which at the time was already optical stereo for 35mm, may have been
the stumbling block. Now it would be easy to just stick a time code track
on there and use DTS. It's been done using ordinary audio playback (no
special 16mm DTS track & reader). At the time, though, trying to eek out
35mm quality from a relatively slow moving 16mm track would have been an
issue. Maybe something could have been done with better recorders, sound
negative film, and improved playback optics. Things would have come full
circle though as some of Dolby's earliest involvement in film sound...at
least optical track sound...involved trying to come up with an acceptable
dual language optical track for airline prints which had been using costly
split mag/optical tracks.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Steve Kraus
Sound, which at the time was already optical stereo for 35mm, may have been
the stumbling block. Now it would be easy to just stick a time code track
on there and use DTS. It's been done using ordinary audio playback (no
special 16mm DTS track & reader). At the time, though, trying to eek out
35mm quality from a relatively slow moving 16mm track would have been an
issue. Maybe something could have been done with better recorders, sound
negative film, and improved playback optics. Things would have come full
circle though as some of Dolby's earliest involvement in film sound...at
least optical track sound...involved trying to come up with an acceptable
dual language optical track for airline prints which had been using costly
split mag/optical tracks.

Sound has long been the limiting factor.... although 16mm magnetic tracks
were entirely feasible they were fairly expensive to make. And 16mm mag
can sound really, really quite good... better than you'd expect for 7.2 ips.

But honestly, the main reason 70mm had such popularity in that era was
not because the image was sharper and brighter but because the 70mm mag
sound was so much better than the 35mm optical stereo. Lots of folks
were blowing up 35mm films to 70mm prints that didn't look any better than
the 35mm original but sure sounded a lot better.
--scott

[Derek Gee]

Post by Scott Dorsey
But honestly, the main reason 70mm had such popularity in that era was
not because the image was sharper and brighter but because the 70mm mag
sound was so much better than the 35mm optical stereo.

Right!

Post by Scott Dorsey
Lots of folks were blowing up 35mm films to 70mm prints that didn't look
any better >than the 35mm original but sure sounded a lot better.
--scott

I disagree. All 35mm prints blown up to 70mm benefitted from a brighter
image as well as the more stable 70mm projection. I can't think of a single
35mm blowup that I saw during that time period that looked the same as its
35mm counterpart.

Derek

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Derek Gee

Post by Scott Dorsey
Lots of folks were blowing up 35mm films to 70mm prints that didn't look
any better >than the 35mm original but sure sounded a lot better.

I disagree. All 35mm prints blown up to 70mm benefitted from a brighter
image as well as the more stable 70mm projection.

I will buy the stability... but as far as brightness go, you either meet
the 16 fl benchmark or you don't. What 70mm buys you is the ability to
more easily meet that benchmark on a much much larger screen.

Post by Derek Gee
I can't think of a single
35mm blowup that I saw during that time period that looked the same as its
35mm counterpart.

I'll buy that too, but a lot of them didn't look _better_ so much as just
_different_. But they sure sounded great!
--scott

[Scott Norwood]

Post by Joe
I like to sit about 1.5 to 2 screen heights away in a cinema. This
worked fine with 35mm film, but with 2K D-Cinema I've found that the
pixels are noticeable in bright areas of the same color (especially
text). The edges of the pixels also give an artificial sharpness to the
image.

Agreed. I am not arguing that 2K is good enough for cinemas. I
_am_ arguing that 8K is total overkill for television, except maybe
for the very largest projection systems. But Aunt Millie does not
need or want an 8K set, and I suspect that limited frequency spectrum
would be better used to carry other services besides television.

[Derek Gee]

Post by Scott Norwood
Agreed. I am not arguing that 2K is good enough for cinemas. I
_am_ arguing that 8K is total overkill for television, except maybe
for the very largest projection systems. But Aunt Millie does not
need or want an 8K set, and I suspect that limited frequency spectrum
would be better used to carry other services besides television.

Ditto! Not only does Aunt Millie not need 8K, Aunt Millie likely can't tell
the difference between standard def and high def on a smaller set. I know
my wife can't tell the difference even though I do so quite easily. There
are many people who don't have an HD set yet, and aren't eager to even deal
with one unless their SD set dies.

Derek

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by R***@theatresupport.com
I can't help but wonder if this res. is going to be the game changer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9774380.stm

People go to theatres to see films they can't see at home yet, and they
go to see them with a big audience of people who are also enjoying it.
It is a social event.

It has been many years since most people could expect to go to a theatre
and see a film in focus and in frame. We have had technology for some time
that allows people to get a better image at home than they could get in
the local multiplex where the equipment is being operated by a stoned high
schooler with popcorn grease on his hands. This has not caused theatres to
close yet, surprisingly enough.

But 8k resolution is approaching the sort of detail in a good 70mm print.
I'd be pleased to see it.

I am amused at the discussion of how you can't focus through the finder
anymore.... in the film world things have been that way all my life. Didn't
anyone bring a focus tape with them?
--scott

[R***@theatresupport.com]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by R***@theatresupport.com
I can't help but wonder if this res. is going to be the game changer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9774380.stm

People go to theatres to see films they can't see at home yet, and they
go to see them with a big audience of people who are also enjoying it.
It is a social event.
It has been many years since most people could expect to go to a theatre
and see a film in focus and in frame. We have had technology for some time
that allows people to get a better image at home than they could get in
the local multiplex where the equipment is being operated by a stoned high
schooler with popcorn grease on his hands. This has not caused theatres to
close yet, surprisingly enough.
But 8k resolution is approaching the sort of detail in a good 70mm print.
I'd be pleased to see it.
I am amused at the discussion of how you can't focus through the finder
anymore.... in the film world things have been that way all my life. Didn't
anyone bring a focus tape with them?
--scott

Agree with all of the above - especially the "surprisingly" comment.
Maybe it is because much of the audience is stoned high schoolers as
well...

In the presentation, where they were pointing out the 120 fps version,
I had flashbacks to the money I invested and lost when Douglas
Turmbull's first Showscan was attempting much the same thing using
film. Oh well.

[g***@hotmail.com]

Post by R***@theatresupport.com
I can't help but wonder if this res. is going to be the game changer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9774380.stm

GONE WITH THE WIND looked much worse in 70mm than it did in 35mm.It was the same for THE GREAT CARUSO and THE JOLSON STORY.What they did with the 70mm blow-up of GWTW was an abomination.It looked even worse when I saw it a second time in 70mm and shown on a full sized cinerama screen in Christchurch.(N.Z.)It is no wonder that 70mm prints of GWTW have not been seen publicly for over 40 years.DR.ZHIVAGO is perhaps the greatest blow-up to 70mm ever.Truly the most stunningly photographed film of all time.It was no wonder that David Lean considered it to be his masterpiece.