Preservation for 8K Televisions?

Jordan Newell White · March 16, 2014

Dear Cinematography.com,

NHK, a broadcaster in Japan, is working with 8K Television production. Problem is, almost all the video content ever produced is in a lower resolution, the maximum usually being 4K. Try watch Arri Alexa video on an 8K TV. It probably would not work. The situation is worse for DVD quality video. I hear sometimes that film is the only certified medium for long term preservation, especially on digital projects. If some people can't do that, then how do you preserve digital video not only for long term but also for higher resolutions, especially since 4K is starting to become popular among TV makers?

Regards,

Jordan Newell White

Brian Drysdale · March 16, 2014

Standard definition works on HD screens, it really depends on how close you're sitting to the screen. Given the average domestic viewing distances in the domestic environment, often 8 to 10 feet, the screens will need need to be extremely large to make 8k worthwhile. The nearest to filling the viewer's vision is possibly a computer screen, where they may be 1.5 to 2 feet away. The manufacturers want to sell more new TV sets, but in the domestic environment the case for 4k is probably marginal for typical broadcast television.

The audience tends to select on the basis of content rather than resolution figures, so classic standard def and HD productions will be safe in a 4k world.

Robert Houllahan · March 16, 2014

8K TV is even stupider than 4K TV, however uprezzing will work fine from Alexa or Film or HD sources.

Will Montgomery · April 4, 2014

4K has advantages as a capture medium so you have more flexibility in post but consumer 4K adoption will be slow and boring. Partly because of the lack of content and partly because the average consumer doesn't notice the difference as much as from SD to HD unless you have a giant TV.

A film out is a great long term storage option but it doesn't take 2K or 4K digital files and make them 8K. Origination on 35mm film that's shot with good lenses by a good DP has the potential for 8K but no one would edit and finish in 8K so you're stuck. Shows shot on 35mm that can go back to the original negatives and rescan might have a shot at 8K. Something like LOST might come close. Especially the outside shots.

I remember hearing about Japan having HD for many years before the States. I thought it was some mystical technical wonder at the time. I remember NHK sending cameras to record and shoot some music festivals and thinking that maybe someday I could see it in HD. I did many years later and thought, "eh, looks like video." Even though it was "HD."

I guess the bottom line is you should save the best quality version of what you shoot when you can. Shoot 35mm (or 65mm) even now and you'll be as "future safe" as possible. It's the only format that you can "re-scan" at higher resolutions. In 30 years when we have the "direct to brain" interface I'm not sure how any video or film will hold up but I'd put money on film looking the best. Glad that all those features shot over the last 100 years will look decent to people 500 years from now as long as they are taken care of and preserved properly.

Will Montgomery · April 4, 2014

8K TV is even stupider than 4K TV, however uprezzing will work fine from Alexa or Film or HD sources.

What's even more stupid is when they try to broadcast it they crush it with compression so much it'll be unwatchable but still "4K!"

I had a conversation with a guy at Best Buy trying to sell me a 4K TV and I explained there was no decent source. I told him that my kids can see a big difference between DirectTV and Blu-Ray and he tried to tell me that there must be something wrong with my TV or DirectTV box because "HD is HD" and both signals are the same resolution. I told him to go read up on compression and come back to work when he can see the difference between Blu-Ray and DirectTV.

My kids were complaining about not seeing detail in the blacks (I swear I didn't coach them) in Pirates of the Caribbean on DirectTV. We put on the Blu-Ray and it was great.

Bill DiPietra · April 4, 2014

4K, 8K, 16K, 32K...how much more detail are people trying to bring out? There is only so much that registers on the average human eye.

This is really getting ridiculous.

Will Montgomery · April 5, 2014

There is only so much that registers on the average human eye.

This is really getting ridiculous.

Exactly...watch out for the direct to brain interface. Coming to a Best Buy near you. Bypass those weak eyes.

Gino Battiston · April 5, 2014

Hi all. I think some business people are misunderstanding quality options for future audiovisual. Of course, those “quick moves” can´t see to some pretty important things, as HFR, HDR and pixel count, among much more things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fueYodX8Vkc&list=UUA2R1Ru-1mvh-VKQfrgXb_g

I hope some place in time, human will need to start developing more technology “behind” actual images, as aesthetics. We still need to liberate from those old genres, start reading/applying more Deleuze. The most important of all questions: Why?. What kind of new emotional content/structures will arise from all this tools we have at hand?.

I´m thinking of this by now: I don´t want to run like stupid behind any number K rabbit, just because film is not here any more to help us stay sober. That will be a race without reason. I love 5k 60fps, and filters, and content, aesthetics, etc... not just the K´s alone.

Freya Black · April 5, 2014

I told him that my kids can see a big difference between DirectTV and Blu-Ray and he tried to tell me that there must be something wrong with my TV or DirectTV box because "HD is HD" and both signals are the same resolution. I told him to go read up on compression and come back to work when he can see the difference between Blu-Ray and DirectTV.

My kids were complaining about not seeing detail in the blacks (I swear I didn't coach them) in Pirates of the Caribbean on DirectTV. We put on the Blu-Ray and it was great.

They aren't the same resolution anyway. Broadcast TV is generally 720p or 1080i. Here in the UK the 1080i is actually only 1440x1080 and that's before it gets de-interlaced of course. Blu-Ray on the other hand is actual 1080p. It's a common mistake to think we already have 1080p TV already but I've not come across any anywhere so far.

As you say, they also compress the hell out of it all.

One advantage that UHD might bring however is better quality compression and the fact that larger amounts of data compress better. Of course the broadcasters are likely to push it so far it looks terrible I'm sure! Would be great to get away from interlaced TV finally tho.

Freya

Dirk DeJonghe · April 6, 2014

A few years ago I attended a seminar on archiving etc at the Cinematek Brussels. A German professor of the Fraunhofer Institute spoke about resolution from a biometric point of view. He said: If you are seated in the best seats in a theatre where you can see the entire screen comfortably without panning your head, and if you have perfect vision (only a few percent of the population), then anything above 3K is no longer detectable by the perfect human eyesight.

Imax is great for documentaries and some selected scenes in fiction. I saw one fiction in Imax by Jean-Jacques Annaud about Aeropostale (I think) and the visual information was too much to follow the plot. In a restaurant scene for example the viewer starts reading the menu on the table instead of watching the actors.