mobile photography technology, culture and community
www.dpreview.com

Sharp shoots ahead in the screen resolution race with 8K TV prototype

138

If you've been struggling to find appropriate ways to bore friends and family with your vacation pictures since you scrapped your slide projector 10 years ago, this year's Consumer Electronics Show has good news for you. Virtually every TV manufacturer is displaying at least one 4K (3840 × 2160) model. These screens offer four times the resolution of a Full HD (1920 x 1080) TV. Such high resolution content is still scarce, but even if you struggle to find streaming or broadcast content, 4K TVs are great for displaying high-resolution images from DSLRs or other digital cameras.

However, one manufacturer is taking things a step further. Sharp is showing a prototype of an 85-inch 8K LCD screen. At 7680 x 4320 pixels, the screen offers 16 times the resolution of a standard 1080 TV and would allow you to display a 33MP image without any downscaling or cropping. The image detail and vibrance of the screen is quite astonishing. You can only see individual pixels if you press your nose right onto the screen, a very immersive way of watching TV.

While 4K content is rare, 8K content is virtually nonexistent at this point. The clips Sharp showed on the prototype have been recorded by the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation NHK, which has been doing research into 8K technology since 1995. Nevertheless, if you want to display your DSLR or medium format digital images in the best possible way, this resolution giant might just be what you've been waiting for.

Comments

Total comments: 138
12
Preternatural Stuff
By Preternatural Stuff (Jan 17, 2013)

Problem is, this 8K prototyping work is not going to be of any help to Sharp for quite a few years yet. Being too far ahead of the times (no available 8K content) may not necessarily be that good for a company in bad financial shape.

If they can beat all their competitors with excellent but affordable 4K or even 1080P OLED 3D displays, that would certainly bring them out of their financial doldrums pronto.

Problem is not the tech sitting in Sharp's R&D divisions. Its their awful strategic mis-steps and poor implementation and execution to market that got them into their current mess.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
cluening
By cluening (Jan 16, 2013)

Not the resolution is 16 times higher than Full HD, it is the pixel number.
The resolution describes the increments along one axis.
So, resolution is 4 times higher for each axis. ;-)

1 upvote
utphoto
By utphoto (Jan 17, 2013)

I assume you're referring to 8K vs 2K, not 4K vs 2K.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
daveinpublic
By daveinpublic (Jul 18, 2013)

Actually, resolution is '1920x1080'. It refers to the whole phrase. And '1920x1080p' has 2,073,600 pixels, and 8K has 43,177,600 pixels.

0 upvotes
dieter achtelstetter
By dieter achtelstetter (Jan 16, 2013)

How long has HD been around ? The only HD content available today is still only on BlueRay . Non of the cable companies , satellite TV providers have anything that can really delivers on the HD experience. None of them have 1080P and the 1080I and 720P they do provide is compressed so much that if their is any movement its lower then DVD quality. For example watching evening news where only the news guys eyebrows and lips are moving looks great. . ITunes only has 720P, so my 1080P TV potential only gets used with BlueRay.

1 upvote
utphoto
By utphoto (Jan 16, 2013)

Most of the HD today can only be described as HD LIte, certainly when compared to HD viewed in a studio environment or the original analog 1125/60 NHK version of 1080i. However, DISH satellite provides 1080P pay per view, The amount of compression on satellite varies on dynamic basis, depending on the requirement at any given time. I've seen some satellite transmissions that look very good while at other times the quality is simply awful. Live off-the-air programming usually looks the best but it's amazing how many people don't or won't install a small UHF antenna in order to obtain the best HD quality from network programming.

0 upvotes
bikinchris
By bikinchris (Jan 17, 2013)

Not everywhere. DirecTv has many special events on 1080p here in the USA. Their 1080i is far better than any cable signal I have seen too. I have never seen a cable signal that is worth using. Our local city has fiber optic service that also has much better signal.

0 upvotes
MAKfoto
By MAKfoto (Jan 16, 2013)

Can any TV guru here help me out for a 46" good available model for watching DVD and Blue ray movies under $2500 budget ?

0 upvotes
MAKfoto
By MAKfoto (Jan 16, 2013)

First of all SHARP has been producing great picture tube TVs in past, surpassing Sony ,Toshiba and National (was merged in Panasonic) in those days.
I normally change TV after every 4 yrs. on average since 2002 like my DSLRs , so not much of a TV guru.
Since Samsung and LG jumped in LCD ,LED and Plazma race now which ever gives the best contrast in dark is the TV to get.I don't think so a company like Sharp should be predicted as "bankrupt" as it makes hundreds of other things and makes chips n sensors for other prominent companies from camera makers to phone and PC as well. It's not an American bank :) LOL
Yes , at first it will be "untouchable" expensive but everyone knows what happens to electronic items as in just 2 yrs. better and cheaper models start flowing in from every direction :)
Right now I was thinking of getting a Samsung after the older Sony but read a review that Sony has a late 2012 very good model .

0 upvotes
johnmcpherson
By johnmcpherson (Jan 13, 2013)

Can anyone say O-2?
Adam Osbourn did and look what happened to his company...

0 upvotes
3systermuser
By 3systermuser (Jan 13, 2013)

I thought Sharp already went bankrupt

0 upvotes
munro harrap
By munro harrap (Jan 13, 2013)

The last sentence got to me. Rubbish! TVs colour is absolutely terrible. WE have an excellent customizeable Sharp panel here, but the colours are not in a digital camera's colour space or class: the two do not interface. HDTV footage like the excellent new "Africa" series, and a few ads ARE correctly colour balanced for TV, but the rest is nowhere.

One reason we invested in our Sharp was to use it with photos as a monitor- please be assured that this is impossible. PLasma is better, but still not sRGB or ARGB, or Wide Gamut or Pro Photo RGB either, so on a TV, all your colours are false-just like your office Dell monitor, but worse!!

0 upvotes
BaroqueMus
By BaroqueMus (Jan 13, 2013)

NHK pioneered HDTV and were the first to broadcast in 1080i. They produced the first nature documentaries in HD so as to have material for broadcast in Tokyo. The comments in the rest of the world were quite similar to what we are hearing now with respect to 4k TV. If NHK are behind it, it will be done, just watch.

0 upvotes
utphoto
By utphoto (Jan 13, 2013)

It was actually called 1125/60 by NHK. When the US Congress decreed it should be a digital system for the US, the consortium of Zenith, RCA, Scientific Atlanta, and HP, that designed and emasculated the ATSC standards called it 1080...essentially a digital version of 1125/60.

0 upvotes
BaroqueMus
By BaroqueMus (Jan 13, 2013)

Thanks!!

0 upvotes
wowlfie
By wowlfie (Jan 12, 2013)

I see no reason to stop with 8K. With improving computer chips why not set the next standard at 16 or 32K? Then even next to the screen a human could not discern an individual pixel nor could even animals with better sight (at least at 32K).

32K would be astounding with national geographic photography!

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 12, 2013)

96k -- or nothing for me!!!

1 upvote
utphoto
By utphoto (Jan 12, 2013)

I would guess that virtually all of the negative comments on this thread have been posted by individuals who have never seen a 4K presentation. I have on a number of different occasions, including this past week at the Consumer Electronics Show. Anyone who believes you can't really see the difference when viewing on consumer sized home screens in the 40-50" range is simply wrong. SONY, LG, Samsung, were all providing side by side comparisons and the differences were amazing. Even more amazing were the demonstrations of upconverted (scan doubled) HD to 4K. Even native 1080 upconverted to 4K looked much improved.
Unless you're blind (and if you are why are you reading a photography thread) you will want a 4K system when you see it. Prices will become affordable much sooner than you think.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 12, 2013)

I saw Sony demo their 4K projector back in the summer of 2002 -- so what was your point?

HD "upconverted" to 4K will look about as convincing as VHS-quality SD footage upconverted to HD.

Besides, why would you want anything with 4K resolution only in the year 2013 -- when obviously, 8K displays are just around the corner, hmmm?

0 upvotes
utphoto
By utphoto (Jan 13, 2013)

FWIW, I was involved in the FIRST HDTV demonstration at CES in the late 80s when it was called 1125/60...with equipment supplied for the demo by Bell South, NHK and HBO, so I've been around HDTV awhile and know a bit about what I'm looking at. I also saw 4K years ago but it wasn't ready for the consumer market. It's now very close and will be the transition technology, no doubt, to 8K or beyond, another decade or two down the road.

As for 1080 upconverted, it looked very convincing. Certainly there is more to work with than upconverting 480i or VHS with 240 lines of res, if you're lucky. It's obvious you haven't seen an upconversion with the latest software.

1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Jan 11, 2013)

Is this prototype meant to be reality any time soon ? Because if it does i must remember to win the lottery asap.

1 upvote
snackwells
By snackwells (Jan 12, 2013)

I saw 4K displays on sale for approx $22,000 USD (for a 65" LG model, on a recent trip to Seoul). Let's say that is 20 times more expensive than a 1080p display...then you REALLY have to win the lottery (or be filthy rich) to afford a $440,000 USD 8K display!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Jan 16, 2013)

You don't have to go to Korea to find a 4K TV Sony has a 84" 4K for sale in USA, Canada and EU $25,000 USD
I had a look at it and it's amazing.
BTW Sharp is the world's largest manufacturer of LCD Display’s and by no means bankrupt.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
lbjack
By lbjack (Jan 11, 2013)

For my money, the next worthwhile screen upgrade will be OLED. Perhaps ultimately 8K OLED, if i live long enough. I think that's what we should be working towards with the present technology.

3 upvotes
blabla0815
By blabla0815 (Jan 11, 2013)

Is this the same Display which Sharp showed on the IFA2011 in Berlin? This display is really so sharp that its unreal real. Like looking through a window.

I wan't one, i wonder if the display itself is really more expensive to produce or if it is just the digital processing part.

3 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Jan 11, 2013)

More than 500 years ago, Gutenberg invented the “Buchdruck” <printed letters> on which the present display technology and emotional viewing patterns are still basing.

The new <xK initiatives> show a revolution looming. We will move away from paper and prints. Seeing more and better, everywhere at ease. Making the “true to believe” getting closer. Paper and common screens will become dead.

This really is an emerging revolution. Virtuality matches reality even closer.

2 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (Jan 11, 2013)

I can't wait until I have to upload 33MP images for 'web use' :) Nikon D800 here I come!

2 upvotes
Michael Ma
By Michael Ma (Jan 11, 2013)

I would love these if they were around $1000. Maybe in 20 years?

1 upvote
bikinchris
By bikinchris (Jan 11, 2013)

Nice design exercise, but it's really not necessary for most. Us photographers like to pixel peep way too much. The television in Cowboy stadium is 60 YARDS wide and uses a 1920x1080 screen. I don't hear of anyone complaining about low resolution. If you are far enough to see the whole picture, the resolution is not a problem.
As for American companies adopting a new standard, forget that anytime soon.

2 upvotes
rondhamalam
By rondhamalam (Jan 11, 2013)

and what

0 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars
By sebastian huvenaars (Jan 11, 2013)

In 10 years time we will refer back to the days in which our screens did not show our photo's in full resolution...

:)

1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Jan 11, 2013)

Hmm in 10 years i'll be shooting 256MP, so that would be quite the TV !

0 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars
By sebastian huvenaars (Jan 11, 2013)

Lol oh sh't that's right :P

Where are those damn 64k prototypes??

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

Pity the poor laggards who are only now getting into 4K displays. In one decisive strike, their 4K display is going to look pretty ridiculously old school compared to the 8K Sharp display. Out with the old (SD, HD, 4K), and in with the new (8K), folks!

Seriously, AMD-ATI cards can now handle native 4096 x 2160 resolution output, Nvidia cards cannot. Playing 8K content out of a HTPC is still a way off.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Joesiv
By Joesiv (Jan 11, 2013)

I doubt 8k will make any headway into the market for many years, the biggest reason is content.

The only content out there will be time lapse videos from high MP still cameras, or upconverted content from lower resolutions.

4K is rearing it's head now in 2013, but it can happen because of how long 4+k cameras have been out in the professional market (such as RED which has been shipping 4k cameras since 2007). Right now there is pretty much zero 8k cameras out there no matter how high up the food chain you go.
Red's new dragon sensor is only 6K... and it's not even out in customers cameras yet.

So this 8k business is really just a design challenge, and something for sharp to get media attention, while it tries to sell you their 4k televisions.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 11, 2013)

NHK is already using its second or third-generation 8K cameras - currently using a single sensor capable of 120fps capture. It, with the BBC set up screens in several major UK cities during the Olympics to show 8K footage.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/23/NHK-120fps-8k4k-sensor

http://www.3dfocus.co.uk/3d-news-2/compact-hitachi-super-hi-vision-camcorder-unveiled-by-nhk/9634

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 12, 2013)

4K video is prettty old by now, started in the late 1990s, I saw my first demo of a 5000 ANSI lumen Sony SXRD 4K PJ projecting natively shot 4K footage in the summer of 2002.

All the motion picture films ever shot, from say the early 1930s, can be scanned in reliably today at 4K resolution. 65mm film is routinely scanned in at 8K, so you can already watch "Lawrence of Arabia" from the early 1960s in glorious 8K resolution digital format.

In other words, joesiv -- you do not need a digital 4K camera to watch stuff in 4K, nor do you need an 8K camera to show at 8K resolution, unless of course you need to do this live.

0 upvotes
Joesiv
By Joesiv (Jan 14, 2013)

Good point on the film scans Francis.

But I don't think people are going to buy a new TV to just watch a few film transfers. New movies are being shot on Digital (save for some film makers that still prefer film). I doubt any new stuff is shot at 65mm film, 35mm maybe, but that won't scan well at 8k.

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Jan 11, 2013)

Good news is, in two or three years these things will be common. I for one can afford to wait. Time flies, anyway... :)

1 upvote
ReCat
By ReCat (Jan 11, 2013)

Would make a fantastic computer monitor.

But do even the highest high-end video cards support that resolution?

0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Jan 11, 2013)

Our screens need much better resolution and color/dynamic range. The directions of Sharp are welcome. They sharpen awareness and pull the consumer markets ahead. We all will profit.

2 upvotes
utomo99
By utomo99 (Jan 11, 2013)

I wish many display manufacturer look at other opportunity:
Low energy display but color.
such as color eInk, but:
Better color
Faster

it has huge market. from ebook reader, tablet, mobile phone and others.

Current products is not good enough. so it did not success

0 upvotes
SRT201
By SRT201 (Jan 11, 2013)

What a joke!

Look at the bandwidth and storage requirements of 4K and 8K...

Consider the visible difference between 1080p and 4K at proper viewing distance...

it should be evident that this is DESPERATION on the part of the industry. 3D TV was an absolute failure and with the HDTV market saturating they HAVE to find the next river of gold.

Another flop on the way.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Amnon G
By Amnon G (Jan 11, 2013)

I would like to have a square screen that's at least 4000x4000. Regardless of resolution one of the more jarring aspects of watching photos on the TV is to see one photo in 55" (my TV size) and the next at about 20" because it is in portrait mode.
Slide projectors didn't suffer from this regardless of resolution. There are also other aspects to photo viewing such as color gamut, emitting Vs reflecting light, etc. but for me the fact that vertical photos are about 1/3 of the size of horizontal photos makes the experience annoying more than the existing 1080p resolution.

1 upvote
Petka
By Petka (Jan 11, 2013)

Either construct an autorotating mount for the display, or start seeing the world in landscape mode only. I have done the later for "slideshows" I make for my friends to see.

Basically I do agree with your post, but there will never be square displays for photographers. Even the professional graphics displays are getting more and more widescreen compared to 4:3 displays just a few years back.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

Do not agree w. Petka. For starters, Dell and others will still happily sell your today brand new Professional Class monitors in the 1.25:1 aspect ratio, which is pretty much close to 1:1 AR. In fact, just this week I had ordered a pair of these 19=inch Dell "square" monitors.

Furthermore, if you use a projector, you can project material out to the screen in any aspect ratio your computer's graphics card will let you -- including totally 1:1 square or pretty much close to it.

Now, 16:9 and 21:9 aspect ratio displays are great for HDTV and widescreen and CinemaScope movies, respectively, but for precious little besides that.

1 upvote
itsastickup
By itsastickup (Jan 11, 2013)

Oh great. Now we'll all be able to to see their dreadful makeup.
<br/>This HD business is not good for movies.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

Right now, you need a very good make-up artists when you shoot people CU in HD/2K, and an exceptionally good one when you shoot in 4K. Can't imagine the difficulty this will present for human face reproduction when the resolution is 8K.

The DP needs to employ all the tried old trickeries these days -- nylon stocking over the lens, soft filters (this can be added in post, of course), de-sharpening (in post), and certainly using longer focal length zooms for the talent close-ups.

2 upvotes
lbjack
By lbjack (Jan 11, 2013)

Maybe there needs to be a shift in the makeup paradigm. Or in the studio lighting that necessitates makeup. Or both. Good complexions will also become more important.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 11, 2013)

Firstly: sharper screen is not useful unless watched close enough to see the resolution difference. And that is surprisingly close, around 7-8 feet even for a normal 42" HDTV compared to SD. Even movie theaters look good with "poor quality" 2K projection, which, by the way, is somewhat sharper than 35mm movie projection from a distribution print.

Secondly: a good 35mm slide projector actually struggles to throw 40 line pairs/mm at best from the center of the image. Any 4K digital projection would be vastly better than anybody has ever seen from a Carousel or Pradovit loaded with KodaChrome. No need for 8K there either.

But of course 4K and 8K will be here, needed or not. I suppose I will get one also in year -21 or so...

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
1 upvote
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (Jan 11, 2013)

Hello Petka

Your statement: “sharper screen is not useful unless ... see the resolution difference.”

Is not correct, as the increased pixel count will improve gradient functions. As a result, yield an image with greater depth perception. For an analogy, a well corrected refractor, and void of a central obstruction, compared to a catadioptric system, both instruments having identical aperture diameter, will appear sharper with better contrast and more colorful as a result of improvement in the MTF.

Your statement

“good 35mm slide projector actually struggles to throw 40 line pairs/mm”

The symptom you are sharing is a product of lens quality and most likely not a function of the slide film. A slide of Ektachrome being able to record 7um images, and perhaps better, the limitation of the optical device I was using. Performing the test myself with a 7” Apo refractor (7um), and 7” Questar Maksutov (9um). The slide film in theory, able to render 142,857 lines/mm or 3,628,571 lines/inch.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

Do not agree w. Petka on the following:

1. For a 42-inch TV, you probably had meant to say 7-8 inches, not 7-8 feet, right? Why would you even sit as far as 8 feet = 2.4 meters from a 42-inch diagonal size screen, for cripe's sake?

2. 35mm film negative today has approximately 8000 horizontal lines of resolution, and even with distribution positive (projection) prints, you will retain some 5000 lines. On the other hand, 2K video has only 2048 lines. So, I have zero clue as to where and how you came up with that statement that 2K video is sharper than 35mm motion picture film? But would very much like to know.

3. Good 35mm film today, particularly in 36 x 24mm size and horizontal orientation, will have at least an 8000-line resolution. Why 4K digital (with 4096 lines) would be superior to that for resolution -- only you must know the answer to that quandary.

0 upvotes
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (Jan 11, 2013)

Typo correction with decimal instead of period, a serious error.

The slide film in theory, able to render 142.857 lines/mm or 3,628.571 lines/inch

0 upvotes
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (Jan 11, 2013)

Out of habit, did the calculation in meters and forgot to convert to mm.

Hi Francis

Ektachrome (slide), which I ran the test on, is grainless unlike Kodachrome (film), hence why I could get tight spot diameter images. That makes 8,000 lines (I'm guessing per inch?) and approx height of a 35mm frame seam double what is possible, as most camera lens have spot diameters in excess of 50um. Do you know of a standard camera lens that produces a 10 um spot? In short, 8K is twice as tight as stock film.

It would be interesting to see what a Daguerreotype can do, for per the Eastman House, still the absolute sharpest photographic process available. I have never used a Daguerreotype.

Camera, A History of Photography from Daguerreotype to Digital, 2009, pgs. 6, George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, Sterling Signature, Todd Gustavson et. al., (Curator of Technology, George Eastman House), ISBN 978-1-4549-0002-3.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 12, 2013)

to F Carver: do you actually watch TV 8 inches away from the screen? I would think most families with normal modern HDTV 42" in size watch it 5-10 feet away. From 10 feet it is not possible to see the difference between HD and SD, our eyes are not good enough.

Slide projection resolution: That 40 line pairs per mm was from a projector test long ago, the best projectors with Leitz lenses could achieve only that, and in the corners it was only 15-20 line pairs/mm. Perfectly understandable with non-flat slides. So a great slide projection is only max 2880 pixels horizontal, less than 4K, and we used projection, not microscopes to view slides.

Here is the definitive article about 35mm movie projection resolution in major theaters: http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

Sad fact is that vertical resolution was between 650 and 800 lines only, less than HDTV or 2K. That study is the largest and most professional study done ever, I have nothing to add to that. Read it.

1 upvote
utphoto
By utphoto (Jan 12, 2013)

The statement that watching a 42" 10 feet away, one cannot tell the difference between HD and SD is simply laughable. Unless you're blind, you certainly can tell the difference between a well mastered 1080P Bluray and a DVD version.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 12, 2013)

@ parkmcgraw: The 8000-lines refers to the actual 35mm (4 sprocketed) film FRAME (which runs vertically in the camera). It is not per inch or millimeter, in other words. Total number of distinguishable (scannable) lines. But in the theaters, you will be lucky to see 5000 lines.

@ petka: I do not watch a 42-inch TV set from 8 inches afar, nor would I watch a 42-inch TV set or monitor from 7 or 8 feet away, either. I would watch something 84-inches to 120-inches diagonal from 10-ft away, like you had suggested -- but definitely would not watch a 42-inch screen from 10 feet away.

No clue what that egghead-edition white paper of indeterminable age, origin, and reliability is talking about, either, but if you seriously think that 35mm motion picture film stock maxes out at 600 or 800 lines of resolution, I do have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, New York.

Why are they scanning in 35mm film at 4K, 5K, 6K, and even 8K every day in the world, if the resolution of it is only 0.8K, huh?

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 12, 2013)

Regarding your old projection lenses on your old 35mm slide projectors -- have you perhaps considered the fact that nobody out there paid any never mind to developing new slide projector lenses in the past 20 years or so? So, whatecer you are using is probably late 1980s or 1990s optical technology.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 12, 2013)

@ Francis Carver: That paper I gave a link to is the definitive research to actual 35mm projection resolution, just read it. Test prints shot in at Panavision factory with Panavision and Arri cameras with Panavision lenses, distribution prints were made and half dozen major theaters were tested in 2001. If you do not care to read the paper there is nothing to discuss.

Carousel and Pradovit projectors with Leitz lenses are/were the best there are/were. Nobody is going to make better slide projectors, or actually any slide projectors anymore. So that was the resolution of 35 slides as we know them.

You are talking about fancy amateur theories, I am talking about actual scientific test done by professionals for professionals.

If you rather stay ignorant than learn, your loss.

1 upvote
Caramel23
By Caramel23 (Jan 26, 2013)

@Petka, if u wish to stay in SD world no one will stop u. FYI, Digital Imax displaying 2K already get ppl go mad and called it LieMax since non Imax theater already projecting films at 4K resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX_HD#Digital_IMAX
and u don't need a scientist to tell u that film resolution is higher thn any digital format out there. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Jan 11, 2013)

Ok, I will wait for 8k, and pass 4k.

1 upvote
utomo99
By utomo99 (Jan 11, 2013)

16K coming soon. and then followed by 32K

0 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Jan 11, 2013)

Hah, I had 64k in my home computer back in 1985.

3 upvotes
plamens
By plamens (Jan 11, 2013)

What nonsense?
The highest HD tv broadcast is 1080i (1920×1080p), HD 1080i movie, even compressed is at least 10 gb...
So compressed HD 1080i movie will be 160gb, uncompressed at least 640gb !!!!!!!

0 upvotes
utomo99
By utomo99 (Jan 11, 2013)

Soon will be changed.
in next year I believe many will use higher resolution.
Not today

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jan 11, 2013)

To me, this type of technology changes everything, and I am NOT a latest technology geek--far from it. I am sort of a cult film camera, old school type.

The thing is, that with current technology, you can't see your pictures on the screen at anything like full resolution! A 4x6 print in hand looks better than the same image displayed digitally on the on the fanciest 50" HD consumer TV out there! And people are satisfied with that?

This would be great for slide shows of images on monitors, which currently are a joke in terms of resolution. Who wants to see a slide show of somebody's trip to the rainforest, when you only get 1080 in a single direction? Let's get monitors like this manufactured first, and made affordable second.

4 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

You are on the right track with this line of thinking, bobbarber. However, consider that 35mm film now running vertically in a movie camera, in other words not even in 36 x 24mm VistaVision orientation, already has around 8K of distinguishable line resolution. In other words, you will get a sharper digital scan to data if you scan in your 35mm camera negatives at 8K rez than if you scan them in to DPX files at 6K rez or below.

That means, just to do justice to ordinary pedestrian 35mm film, you would need to have a display of 8000 x 8000 pixel = 64,000 pixel = 64MP. A 1920 x 1080 display is about 2.2MP, so you would have a looooong way to go to get to the 64MP screen resolution level.

And let us not forget the line resolution attainable of film-based medium format cameras, they must be over 10,000 lines, for sure. Displays and projectors will not come to be able to reproduce today's celluloid film resolutions for decades, I would predict.

1 upvote
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (Jan 12, 2013)

Hello Francis

The number of pixels required to match the theoretical resolution of a 35mm Ektachrome slide is closer to 274 MP.

The calculation premised on one of the finest optical instruments in the world, yielding a 7um spot diameter with a strehl ratio of 98 percent.

Given that there are at most 142.8 lines/mm optically producible representing a full wave (monotone) 2pi image, retaining radial symmetry, means that there are 3,427 vertical lines and 4,998 horizontal lines of resolution, equaling 17,129,145 intersection points.

Since all spot images required 2pi symmetry, if using a Beyer CCD pattern (I Beyer cell = pi/2) infers a 4 pixel multiple to represent pi/2. To produce a symmetric 2pi spot requires a 16x multiple in pixel count. If using something like the Fuji EXR pattern a 36x multiple.

Therefore, a full frame 35mm color CCD premised on a Beyer pattern, to accommodate a 7 um 2pi spot diameter (full radial symmetry) requires 274,066,320 pixels to equal color slide flim.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 12, 2013)

Best MPix figures for 35mm slides and negatives are 12-16 MPix , not more. 16MPix digital file beats even a 645 slide in resolution. These comparisons must be made by actually shooting film and measuring the resolution, not by paper and pencil, or Excel.

I compared the early 4.7 MPix Canon EOS-1d to a 64 MPix scan of 100 ASA Provia slide shot with the same lens and same subject: resolutions were equal. People come up with amazing resolution figures for film just by multiplying lens/film resolution test results, real life is not that easy. Digital is now so far ahead that these discussions are not really worth having.

It is easy to find nikon and canon film bodies: shoot Velvia and the same with D800 or 5D3 with same lens and compare. No (faulty) theory can replace a real life test.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (Jan 12, 2013)

Hello Petka

The series of tests I conducted was performed in 1990 at the USAF, AMOS MOTIF observatory, for Textron Defense Systems, Space Division, and SDIO.

Park McGraw

Experimental Physicist

World Record Holder Brightest Single Stage Quasi CW Weapons Grade Solid State Laser (Northrop Grumman)
First Person in the World to produce a reflecting Multilayer Volume Holographic Phase Conjugate Mirror (Raytheon)
First to image Hurricane on Mars (concurrent with Hubble ST) from Earth, UH Planetary Patrol Telescope, Mauna Kea (University of Hawai`i)
Engineering Process Manager, Laser and Sensor Products Center (Northrop Grumman)
Opto Mechanical Testbed Design Lead, New Worlds Observer (NWO), Twin Spacecraft Planet Finder Mission (Northrop Grumman)
Opto Mechanical Design Lead, Engineering Optical Integration and Characterization Facility – Global Hawk UAV (LRIP) Electro Optical Sensor (Raytheon)
NASA Space Grant Fellow (University of Hawai`i)
Published IEEE, SPIE, AAS, CLEO, Astronomy

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 12, 2013)

Make a new test: shoot a slide with same lens with Nikon F5 and digital file with D4 and compare detail with microscope (slide) and 1:1 screen resolution (digital). Cheap and fast and revelatory.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 12, 2013)

@ Petka: You obviously hate film and are probably jolly glad that "film is dead," but when you state nonsense about film's superb resolving power, not only 35mm films but even medium format's, you are really losing yourself and the validity of your "arguments" in the deep end.

It is also nothing short of mind-bogging how you come up with the simple conclusion that 4,.7 MP is actually the same thing visually as 64MP scan. If that was true, why did they just not do the scan from film at 4.7MP, huh?

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 12, 2013)

Because I wanted to get maximum result form film to compare it to digital. I have been shooting professionaly for 35 years and do not miss film at all. I do not hate it, I earned my living with it for over 20 years, after all. When we switched from the wonderful 35mm film to lowly 4.7 MPix Canons even full spread prints in a glossy magazine actually improved. I was amazed, as I thought that film would have huge resolution advantage (amateur calculations...). It did not, and it does not. The end result is all that matters, and even sub-10 MPix digital files print better than any 35mm scan.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
mzynfo
By mzynfo (Jan 11, 2013)

I see this monitor very usefull for Photo editing, where you can see the whole picture in 100%. It's "just" 390px per inch. A little bit more than Apple's retina. I would like to have it!!!

0 upvotes
mzynfo
By mzynfo (Jan 11, 2013)

Sorry I miscalculated! It’s just 105 px/inch, which is practically standard for LCD monitor.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 11, 2013)

Similar to driving a car by fixing your eyes on the license plate of a car in the opposite lane, or playing ball by looking at one player's shoelace.

1 upvote
mzynfo
By mzynfo (Jan 11, 2013)

A.H.

0 upvotes
utomo99
By utomo99 (Jan 11, 2013)

Try to use it and you will get the icon of your photo editor become tiny. and difficult to see

0 upvotes
mzynfo
By mzynfo (Jan 12, 2013)

In Windows 7 You could have 1 icon thru whole screen, even 85 inch screen. That would be very big icon. You just have to know how to do this.
To Cy Cheze. Exactly. On such screen you could see the whole picture with precision of license plate.
Guys you have to learn a lot, lot, lot…!!!
And yes, you have to have money for that.

0 upvotes
migus
By migus (Jan 11, 2013)

Many of us have been waiting for consumer-level 4K displays and projectors (especially!) since over a decade! While still not under 2-3K$, they're finally coming... What's not to like - having options, or seeing our 12-50Mpix photos better..?

I, and my colleagues, are very happy to see meaningful progress in an otherwise long overdue and stagnating area (till retina, we were stuck into 100dpi technologies).

Graphic cards for 4K displays (IBM's T220/1) we've used since 10+ yrs, though only recently their FPS increased into the video range.

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Jan 11, 2013)

Pitt&Jolie Co. would need one to entertain the family and friends in their 250m2 living room. Bless their socks...

0 upvotes
Francesco
By Francesco (Jan 11, 2013)

What's with all this negative vibe I read in comments on this site recently? 8k has been "around" for several years now. Two years ago Sharp presented their first prototypes and NHK has been testing this already for a few years. Take this technology and OLED and you will soon (10-15 years from now?) see video wallpapers, and all sorts of amazing applications. We should be excited about this stuff and leave the sarcasm at home...

9 upvotes
szaszattila
By szaszattila (Jan 11, 2013)

Strange that even on DPreview people don't seem to grasp the idea of resolution vs. pixel count.
4k has four times the pixel count of Full HD but two times the resolution (twice as many pixels in each direction).

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jan 11, 2013)

They think that 20 Mp is twice the resolution of 10 Mp too. You just have to go with it. Don't poke anybody. They get angry!

0 upvotes
Chris2210
By Chris2210 (Jan 11, 2013)

Except that resolution is not always measured by lines or pixels per inch. Many people prefer to express absolute resolution as the amount of visual information available - and that's more logical as an expression of area. Four times the number of pixels means you could reproduce an identical image with the same amount of detail in each four times. That's a potential of four times the amount of detail, which is ultimately the most MEANINGFUL expression of what you're getting.

2 upvotes
pixel_peeper
By pixel_peeper (Jan 11, 2013)

A waste of bandwidth, money. and power. There's no point in having pixels any smaller than the angular resolution of the human eye. There's no point in a huge screen either. Positioned 50 cm in front of a 150 cm-wide screen, I'd have to get out of my seat to examine the corners in the detail provided. It's more convenient to position the appropriate part of the picture in front of me with a mouse, in which case a screen 50 cm wide or a little larger will do.

1 upvote
RPJG
By RPJG (Jan 11, 2013)

Yep. because your use-case is the only valid one.

All those manufacturers of large screens and projectors really should just give up now.

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jan 11, 2013)

A curious reaction.

I would think that most people, positioned 50 cm from the screen, would realize that they're sitting too close and move back. That was my approach, even when I was 6 years old and first starting to watch TV.

1 upvote
sebastian huvenaars
By sebastian huvenaars (Jan 11, 2013)

Don't underestimate the experience of walking up to a 4k screen.

I believe this resolutionrace will change the way we look at captured material. The concept of viewing distance will get more vague because screens grow bigger and more detailed. You'll be able to step back further to see the bigger picture or move in for a look at all the fine details.

We behave like this in "real life" situations, 4/8K could bring this experience to digital displays.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Amnon G
By Amnon G (Jan 11, 2013)

The resolution and size mean we'll be getting closer to display walls when on a part of the wall one feed will be shown and on another you'll see your computer "screen" to browse the web. Or show several paintings or photos "hanging" on your display wall. Full-screen viewing like we do today will only be one option and not the only option.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

Walking up closer to the display and back further for the overall view is certainly one approach with fixed physical size displays -- LCD panels, OLEDs, plasmas, etc.

Another, and for me better approach would be to use a projector with a zoom lens and digital zooming in addition to the optical. That way, you can zoom in and out of the image optically, and change the physical size of the image on screen, and then you can further zoom in digitally if needed. And you can always feed different resolutions to your PJ from the graphics card.

All the while remaining in a stationary position, instead of walking forward and backward to/from the monitor relentlessly.

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Jan 11, 2013)

iPhone 7 with 8k display.
Retina-display is followed by quantum-display.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

Here come the Apple geeksters!!!

0 upvotes
spitfire31
By spitfire31 (Jan 11, 2013)

Yawn. Most consumers can't tell 1080 from 16:9 SD anyway.

Just imagine if a fraction of this R&D money was devoted to paying script writers, educating producers and training actors.

Then people might sit up and notice.

Pat Cullinan Jr: "I believe it [8K] is about equivalent to a Kodachrome 25 slide shot with a Summicron 50mm on a Leica mounted on a tripod."

Possibly. But displayed how?

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 11, 2013)

That KodaChrome 25 would be about 16 Mpix max, so 8K would be equivalent to 2 or 3 KodaChrome 25s. Not bad. What does it cost? My twin tandem Pradovit slide projection system cost $2500 in -82, over $6000 in today's dollars, now worthless. This would be a replacement, with 10x the real IQ.

3 upvotes
rdspear
By rdspear (Jan 11, 2013)

4K has a limited market of 70"+ screens and relatively close viewing distances where the eye will actually be able to tell a difference from 1080p. I haven't seen the math yet, but I suspect you'll need to projecting on the side of your house, or sitting two feet away, to see the benefits of 8K.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

The movie industry in counting on people like you, spending $12,50 for a movie ticket to see something in 2K resolution in the theater. They will soon have to convince couch potatoes springing for 4K resolution displays and projectors why they should get up from their sofas and waltz down to the local multiplex, to see the same thing in 2K.

1 upvote
Debankur Mukherjee
By Debankur Mukherjee (Jan 11, 2013)

The big question is - Do we really need 4k and 8k resolution at home ??

4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 11, 2013)

Who said anything about "need?"

4 upvotes
Deeso
By Deeso (Jan 11, 2013)

It depends on the size of your screen. Of course for wall sized displays (hence this 85'' set) it might be useful. Hardly for 40'' or smaller displays which can settle with 2K or 1080p..

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (Jan 11, 2013)

I love my 15.4" retina display on my macbook pro @2880x1800, I cannot even go back to my 13.3" ips 1920x1080 Asus display. I can see a benefit from a 8K 40" display already. I would love to see my own 40 Mp images from my Pentax on it!!!!

3 upvotes
technic
By technic (Jan 11, 2013)

people fail to make a difference between viewing movies and still images - the eye scans and that makes a big difference for what can be seen in still images compared to video. Maybe for movies 4K is overkill for most viewers (not for me, but I agree that the content is more important), but for still images it definitely is not. And most photographers have plenty of 4K images to justify such a high quality screen when the price comes down to realistic levels (it need not be much more expensive than current displays, just wait a few years).

We don't make 4x6 inch prints with 72 dpi resolution, do we? But maybe some of the people who are negative about 4K don't need more than 72 dpi for their prints either...

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

"I love my 15.4" retina display on my macbook pro @2880x1800." Wow, really? No problem seeing the small text for you, is there?

Agree w. technic, you need mega-MP displays and projection particularly for enjoying STILL IMAGES, not much so for moving images. Watching still images on display devices and projectors designed and engineered primarily for MOVING IMAGES is already a serious compromise to the visual viewing quality attainable for stationary stills.

1 upvote
Hinder
By Hinder (Jan 11, 2013)

Is the human eye even capable of discerning between 1080 and 4X?

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Deeso
By Deeso (Jan 11, 2013)

In a 85'' for sure. And by the way. Can you discern between what's on your HDTV and what's around it?

2 upvotes
technic
By technic (Jan 11, 2013)

definitely, and also at much smaller sizes like 20" (for still images).

0 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (Jan 11, 2013)

When sitting 3 meters away from a TV screen (my home setting), a "normal" human eye can barely see a 1 square millimeter dot. ( You can easily test it by printing a black and white checkerboard made of 1 mm x 1mm squares. Stick it on the wall and step back until you see a uniform grey). It means an optimal size for a full HD TV screen 3 meters away is 1920mm X 1080 mm ! It is about an 87" diagonal size !
So, using bigger screens or smaller pitches (4K or above) is beyond "average" TV use at home, IMHO.
I would be happy if I could buy an affordable 85" 1920x1080 pixel TV screen...
I do not mean that 4K and above screens are nonsense. Just not required for "average" home TV.
Moreover, full HD movies do not have an actual 1920x1080 pixel resolution due to compression losses. So there is room for enhancements here...

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

1920 x 1080 resolution in anything is pretty bad. it has only became a "standard" of some sort due to the greed of the CEA members and the lackadaisical approach by the electronics industry.

You really would want at least a 9 or 10MP display in your home to enjoy both moving images and STILL images, you need a lot more resolution for the latter). Unfortunately, even the 3840 x 2160 UDTV standard (which is, unfortunately, not the same as DCI cinema's 4096 x 2160 standard) is only 8.3MP.

1 upvote
wowlfie
By wowlfie (Jan 11, 2013)

Why settle for 4K or 8K? Let's do this right and jump to 32K !! We might as well since only rich actors, ball players, lawyers, CEO's and the like will ever be able to afford 4K so for the general public who cares?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
thx1138
By thx1138 (Jan 11, 2013)

It offers 4x the resolution, and 16x the number of pixels. Big difference!

1 upvote
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Jan 11, 2013)

I think 8k will represent the maturity of resolution. I believe it is about equivalent to a Kodachrome 25 slide shot with a Summicron 50mm on a Leica mounted on a tripod.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 11, 2013)

That Leica Kodacrome 25 never went beyond 12-16 MPix resolution, sorry. You can make theoretical calculations, but they are overly optimistic and need to be divided with SQR2 to approach reality.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Jan 11, 2013)

Dear Petka,

What you say is intriguing.

I was making an "educated guess" based on the fact that the Summicron 50mm f/2.0 could resolve 110 lines/mm. I had seen this figure years ago in one of the photography magazines, probably Modern Photography.

Can you point me to a source which can back your claim? I would be grateful.

It's funny how little is said comparing slide projection vs. large, high-res flat panels.

Kindest regards,

Pat

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 12, 2013)

When 16 MPix cameras became available there were comparisons between them and 645 roll film. That Canon EOS-1Ds beat 645 size Provia slide. There have been other tests where the results were between 8 and 16 MPix for 35mm slide depending on the lens and film. I can not remember sources; at least 8 years ago.

I also thought then that calculating just film lp/mm and lens resolving power I would come up with reliable MPix number for film, but it is not that easy. In reality the true figure is about 1/SQR2 for both, which cuts the theoretical 30+ MPix to around 16 PMix, which I can believe in best circumstances. Maybe not Kodachrome, but Technical pan-X.

I have explained the real slide projection resolution above about 50 posts up. In short: best measured resolutions with best slide projectors with best lenses have been 40 lp/mm in the middle of the slide, only 15-20 lp/mm in the corners. This gives a real life slide projection image resolution of only 2K, maybe slightly more.

1 upvote
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (Jan 12, 2013)

Hello Petka

The number of pixels required to match the theoretical resolution of a 35mm Ektachrome slide is closer to 274 MP.

The calculation premised on one of the finest optical instruments in the world, yielding a 7um spot diameter with a strehl ratio of 98 percent.

Given that there are at most 142.8 lines/mm optically producible representing a full wave (monotone) 2pi image, retaining radial symmetry, means that there are 3,427 vertical lines and 4,998 horizontal lines of resolution, equaling 17,129,145 intersection points.

Since all spot images required 2pi symmetry, if using a Beyer CCD pattern (I Beyer cell = pi/2) infers a 4 pixel multiple to represent pi/2. To produce a symmetric 2pi spot requires a 16x multiple in pixel count. If using something like the Fuji EXR pattern a 36x multiple.

Therefore, a full frame 35mm color CCD premised on a Beyer pattern, to accommodate a 7 um 2pi spot diameter (full radial symmetry) requires 274,066,320 pixels to equal color slide flim.

1 upvote
Petka
By Petka (Jan 12, 2013)

Make a new test: shoot a slide with same lens with Nikon F5 and digital file with D4 and compare detail with microscope (slide) and 1:1 screen resolution (digital). Cheap and fast and revelatory.

One question: why, in real life, are 24 MPix digital files sharper than even 6x7 films? Why do 645 size 80 MPix digital backs outresolve 4x5" plates? Why do 35mm movie projection only have 650-800 lines of vertical resolution? No amount of pencil twirling is going to change that.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 12, 2013)

@ Petka: Why are you bundling Leicas with Eastman Kodak Kodakchrome reversal film that came out in 1935?

Why don't you do your comparisons with fresh 35mm Eastman Kodak Vision3 film stock or with fresh Fujicolor film stock? You data and numbers and conclusions seem to be decades old!

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 12, 2013)

No need for any testing, digital has more dynamic range, wider gamut, better resolution. Film is dead, new or old. Who cares...

0 upvotes
Alphaloki
By Alphaloki (Jan 11, 2013)

Crap, my dream of one day moving up to 4K is now obsolete. Technology is moving so fast now that my dreams can't even keep up. One minute I feel like I'm trying to drink from a fire hose and then I think, where's my damn flying car man!?!

5 upvotes
TheEye
By TheEye (Jan 11, 2013)

People still watch tv?

11 upvotes
Deeso
By Deeso (Jan 11, 2013)

I don't know. Do you watch movies, or concerts? It doesn't has to be broadcast, you know...

3 upvotes
XeroJay
By XeroJay (Jan 11, 2013)

I guess I like the idea of skipping 4k if 8k is inevitable...I suppose there's also little point to 8k on anything smaller than this...so...I...approve...I think...
I just think this thing will be a diamond in the rough for a looooong time, with virtually zero ecosystem to support it

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 11, 2013)

Given that 4K cameras and displays are only now starting to become available, there's time for 4k to arrive and outstay its welcome if NHK is correct with its projection of 8K broadcasts in 2020.

Given this is the same NHK that did the groundwork for 1920 x 1080 and has already tested remote capture and replay of 8K footage, I'd be inclined to believe them.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

"Given this is the same NHK that did the groundwork for 1920 x 1080..."

No, it did not, The Japanese system for HDTV was always 1035 lines, never 1080. Then the American ATSC system specified 1080p lines, after which NHK reluctantly scrubbed their own lower rez 1035-line standard.

Unfortunately, it is also "thanks" to NHK that 4K television is now only 3840 x 2160, instead of 4096 x 2180, where it really should be.

Very strange CES Show this one is, the same companies are just bringing out 4K displays -- and at the same time giving sneak-peaks at 8K displays. Screw more with the brains of the poor consumers, and why wouldn't you, CEA?

1 upvote
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Jan 11, 2013)

My D800e is right in the ballpark. No doubt they've included a good ability to read off a USB stick for a slideshow from heck!

0 upvotes
Total comments: 138
12
About us
Sitemap
Connect