But it's likely just a marketing tool. They are probably hoping that having 8K videos when many competitors only film in 4K makes them have an edge, whatever it is good for...
Ahh, marketing!
I don't know much about current TV broadcasting standards, but I think 4K is already the standard for what a typical TV channel ideally expects to get from third parties even when they just broadcast at Full HD.
8K certainly seems ahead of its time but it may become again what TV channels expect to get in a few years from now... to broadcast in 4K.
And yes I'm just guessing here, maybe this wishful thinking is part of some Youtubers' megalomania!
But it's likely just a marketing tool. They are probably hoping that having 8K videos when many competitors only film in 4K makes them have an edge, whatever it is good for...
Ahh, marketing!
I don't know much about current TV broadcasting standards, but I think 4K is already the standard for what a typical TV channel ideally expects to get from third parties even when they just broadcast at Full HD.
You would think so. Even big Hollywood movies are made in Full HD and upscaled later. Like the new Avengers movie. Billions of dollars spent on it. CGI is rendered in Full HD. And they made a breakdown of it, 96% of the movie is CGI.
Totally pointless, so i can whatch on a 43" screen with 8 pixels per mm, total waste of resources, it's just a race to have "the biggest dick".
You would think so. Even big Hollywood movies are made in Full HD and upscaled later. Like the new Avengers movie. Billions of dollars spent on it. CGI is rendered in Full HD. And they made a breakdown of it, 96% of the movie is CGI.
Small steps may not be impressive, but when it accumulates it makes a difference.
For display technologies I certainly have something to say here. For a long time my monitor was a 22-inch 1680x1050 Lenovo OEM unit. Moving from that to a 21.5-inch 1920x1080 one (iMac at my previous job) does not feel like much. But if the pixel density keeps growing, 24-inch 3840x2160 (Dell P2415Q I am currently using) certainly makes a difference to my eyes. Here the increase of angular pixel density crossed a threshold.
No you have totally missed the point. The bigger the screen gets the further away you sit so your angle oy view is constant. You will reach a point where there are enough pixels. Unless you plan to have lats of data on your screen and sit very close 4K is all you need and already in excess of what standard vision can appreciate. If you are watching a film you won't be panning your head around will you? so why do you want more angular resolution than you can see? I bought a big screen so that i could sit further away from it for the same angle of view. If I use my 27" 4K screen i will sit closer to it so same angle of view and same pexels per degree.
No you have totally missed the point. The bigger the screen gets the further away you sit so your angle oy view is constant. You will reach a point where there are enough pixels. Unless you plan to have lats of data on your screen and sit very close 4K is all you need and already in excess of what standard vision can appreciate. If you are watching a film you won't be panning your head around will you? so why do you want more angular resolution than you can see? I bought a big screen so that i could sit further away from it for the same angle of view. If I use my 27" 4K screen i will sit closer to it so same angle of view and same pexels per degree.There are films (and other media) out there that you are supposed to pan your head around. There are dome-screen IMAX cinemas out there that requires some head panning to see the whole thing. Some people play games with three monitors (or an ultra-wide one) that is curved and reach way out of their field of view, as those games are supposed to be played that way. This kind of hyper-field-of-view media requires some paradigm shift in directing and screenwriting to work, and very few directors and screenwriters can currently do that without making viewers dizzy, so it is not common yet.
As of 8K transmission, even without 8K displays it can still make sense to transmit 8K media in the public feed. One example would be sending multiple camera angles at the same time and allow the viewer to select it on their own and/or enable full-resolution 3D - use one 8K stream to carry 4x 4K feeds, or 2x 3D 4K feeds for example. This can be popular in, for example, sport events.
We were talking about filming resolutions not gaming output where if you listen to linus lower resolution and higher framerate is preferd.
No it does not make sense to send 8K transmissions even with multiple images in the frame because the screen is still the same size! I repeat, it's not about the content it's about how it is viewed. You cannot appreciate a resolution higher than 4K, you would struggle with 1080p and 1440p would be the most I'd worry about if it was there at no extra cost.
I can see the point of 4K shooting in that you get more detail to play with in production and hey if it's available in 4K I don't have a prblem with that but 8K is pointless and anyone claiming to see the difference at the same angle of view is lying, 1080p to 2160p, yea some can tell the difference if the look so I personally am happy viewing in 1080p but at 4320p you should just go and buy penis enlargement pills!
Ok this is pointless. We were talking about YouTube production and conventional TV, not art instalations and 360 degree video but by all means carry on talking to yourself. I stopped reading your response at the first paragraph as you are going off topic and just want to be right.
Ok this is pointless. We were talking about YouTube production and conventional TV, not art instalations and 360 degree video but by all means carry on talking to yourself. I stopped reading your response at the first paragraph as you are going off topic and just want to be right.
With respect, you seem to just keep repeating "it's pointless" (which is only your opinion), and continually ignore the cases presented to you.
i was refering to someone that to push an argument for 8K live transmissions has now gone off topic and is talking about totally different things.
"with respect" get yourself a 43" 4K screen fill it with alternate white and black dots sit 1m from it and tell me what you see, can you clearly focus on a single point - no you cannot. I am sorry but I cannot help it if people want to push things that defy human appreciation and therefore have no technical validity. But if it makes you feel better go for it. Linus clearly has the money to buy the kit and pay people to do the slower processing just so that he can annonce to his audience that it was filmed in 8K as though they can tell the difference but sure once you tell everyone i am sure that even the 1080p viewers will swear that they can see the diference between 2160p shooting and 4320p shooting.
Consider the following test pattern (click to open in your browser; view in 100%/excat pixels):
https://www.nominal-animal.net/answers/test-pattern.png
Left half has 50% B/W checkerboard pattern, right side is 50% gray. (They probably won't have the same brightness on your display because of gamma correction; it might have helped if I'd added an sRGB chunk to the PNG.)
Each half has four "Test" words. First two are antialised, the second two not. Second and fourth have a thin black outline for enhancing the separation from the background.
The question is, can you tell the left side background is patterned and not an uniform shade of gray?
Is there a visual difference between the two pairs of "Test" words, on either side?
If the answer to both is no, then your display at that particular viewing distance has higher resolution than you can visually perceive, and increasing the resolution (while keeping the viewing distance the same) won't make a difference even in computer use.
Consider the following test pattern (click to open in your browser; view in 100%/excat pixels):
https://www.nominal-animal.net/answers/test-pattern.png
Left half has 50% B/W checkerboard pattern, right side is 50% gray. (They probably won't have the same brightness on your display because of gamma correction; it might have helped if I'd added an sRGB chunk to the PNG.)
Each half has four "Test" words. First two are antialised, the second two not. Second and fourth have a thin black outline for enhancing the separation from the background.
The question is, can you tell the left side background is patterned and not an uniform shade of gray?
Is there a visual difference between the two pairs of "Test" words, on either side?
If the answer to both is no, then your display at that particular viewing distance has higher resolution than you can visually perceive, and increasing the resolution (while keeping the viewing distance the same) won't make a difference even in computer use.
Offtopic: I've watched the video in the first post. I think someone should donate an anti-static wrist band to Linus. Maybe he is wearing an ankle strap but the work area doesn't look like a typical ESD safe environment. It just made me cringe a little.
Consider the following test pattern (click to open in your browser; view in 100%/excat pixels):
https://www.nominal-animal.net/answers/test-pattern.png
Left half has 50% B/W checkerboard pattern, right side is 50% gray. (They probably won't have the same brightness on your display because of gamma correction; it might have helped if I'd added an sRGB chunk to the PNG.)
Each half has four "Test" words. First two are antialised, the second two not. Second and fourth have a thin black outline for enhancing the separation from the background.
The question is, can you tell the left side background is patterned and not an uniform shade of gray?
Is there a visual difference between the two pairs of "Test" words, on either side?
If the answer to both is no, then your display at that particular viewing distance has higher resolution than you can visually perceive, and increasing the resolution (while keeping the viewing distance the same) won't make a difference even in computer use.
As someone mentioned above, compressing 8k source vs 4k source to a same size output likely will produce less block artefacts and better visual on dynamic scenes, which make sence to me.