Opticallimits
Just a question - Printable Version

+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: General Talk (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Just Talk (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: Just a question (/showthread.php?tid=4661)

Pages: 1 2 3


RE: Just a question - MatjazO - 02-13-2020

With 4K, I tried it out when got 4K TV. Home stuff, and for some fun. Looks fine, great even. Yet 1080 is perfectly fine as well, both cut it. 1080 of course is way more time efficient. 4K review, basic edit and rendering is waaay too long. So I reverted and am a happy camper with stuff in 1080.

Fast forward to 8K, of course it is not about who needs 8K. Nobody does. It is a try to get more customers opening their wallets. With slim chance of being relevant innovation.

So wont pay for 8K as a value. And when becomes a comodity soon, it wont matter anymore.


RE: Just a question - Klaus - 02-13-2020

Well, the question is useless because we can't influence where the industry is heading. A chat about politics is just as useless.
It's just a curious discussion about the current trending. If you don't want to participate, don't do it. As easy as that.

I'm wondering whether the manufacturers are currently getting "pushed" by the gang of Youtube influencers. THEY certainly want the latest and greatest in video capabilities.
And with the Samsung S20 moving to 8K, it's probably another driver here.
And, of course, 8K cats and dog videos - who could possibly resist ;-)

Albeit - I think rabbits are much cuter actually.






RE: Just a question - JJ_SO - 02-14-2020

Just out of curiosity: Who is able to play YT 8K videos? What would I need to enjoy that? There are 8k displays around, at and prices, I guess?

Are there already porn movies in 8k, as porn industries is always one step ahead of other movie companies? Besides your reaction on my former post - what you like to find in a discussion on a lens test forum about 8k videos  as we usually don't talk much about cameras, much less about movie cams and close to nothing about cine lenses? are we the audience who could tell anything different than "I shoot pictures and don't care about videos at all"?


RE: Just a question - davidmanze - 02-14-2020

The pressure comes from utube vloggers .... the inspiration, utube revenues ....
 ........ most of this vlogging amounts to guys sitting at table in front of the camera reviewing 4K cameras ....... to other drooling wannabe vloggers who want to do the same ........  thinking that one day they can give up their day job and make a wonderful living off utube revenues,  reviewing 8K cameras. 
    That will inspire the next round of vloggs shot on 8K reviewing 16K cameras ...... and so on! (the gravy train)
   In the meantime nobody actually noticed the difference or even cares a hoot!
  Tony Northrup was producing 4K output until one day he studied how many people actually watched them in 4K ..... it was 3%, he returned to 1080P!
......of course industry responds by producing cameras with just enough missing features to keep people upgrading on a regular basis .... à là Canon and Sony ...... 8K is the current dangling carrot ....

............... and us, the donkey .... Smile


RE: Just a question - JJ_SO - 02-14-2020

Quote:  Tony Northrup was producing 4K output until one day he studied how many people actually watched them in 4K ..... it was 3%, he returned to 1080P!


To most viewers, 4K of Tony might be just a bit too much narcissistic beauty to look at. And as long as he doens't invest a bit of his turnaround into rhetorical skills, it's also 4K of "uuuuhmm".

Let's face it, some YT guys do have to say something but the way they do it makes me want to talk in private with them, they appear to be shy because of the camera. For that I don't even need 1K.

Also, to add to the 8K or not question: In summary there's a lot more computing energy involved, right? Do we want more power stations because of high res cat (or rabbit) videos? It's not only to render the source footage, it's also to stream it. To me, who knows what film was resolving, it's every time a surprise to look at high res still pictures, but at home DVD still is the max I'm watching movies with.

My reason to go for high res sensors is that I like to watch details with time. 4K streams have so much details I will miss most of them and I don't believe higher resolution will add more to a good storybook or make a bad one better.


RE: Just a question - Klaus - 02-14-2020

(02-14-2020, 08:19 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:
Quote:  Tony Northrup was producing 4K output until one day he studied how many people actually watched them in 4K ..... it was 3%, he returned to 1080P!


To most viewers, 4K of Tony might be just a bit too much narcissistic beauty to look at.

LOL

Still better than the clueless baldhead who thinks that the Fuji 16-80mm is the best thing ever since sliced bread.


RE: Just a question - JJ_SO - 02-14-2020

(02-14-2020, 08:20 AM)Klaus Wrote:
(02-14-2020, 08:19 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:
Quote:  Tony Northrup was producing 4K output until one day he studied how many people actually watched them in 4K ..... it was 3%, he returned to 1080P!


To most viewers, 4K of Tony might be just a bit too much narcissistic beauty to look at.

LOL

Still better than the clueless baldhead who thinks that the Fuji 16-80mm is the best thing ever since sliced bread.

The "angry photog"? Or are there more clueless baldheads out there? No way!


RE: Just a question - mst - 02-14-2020

(02-14-2020, 08:33 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: Or are there more clueless baldheads out there? No way!

Quite a few, these days. Most not even baldheaded physically...


RE: Just a question - popo - 02-14-2020

I'm thinking capturing higher resolution video could be useful even if final output is at lower resolution. I love oversampling and flexibility it can give.

On the youtube 4k thing, I only recently started playing with it again having bought a nice 4k OLED HDR TV (replacing my old not nice 4k cheap and nasty TV). Ok for a bit of pixel peeping fun, but not really that useful for normal viewing. I have heard that there are people who watch youtube 4k when offered, on 1080p displays, because it looks better than youtube's native 1080p stream due to the higher bitrate. I've heard some youtubers even offer 4k output from upscaled 1080p in order to get that higher bitrate stream option, but don't know if this is still a current thing now that 4k capture is widely available.


RE: Just a question - davidmanze - 02-14-2020

(02-14-2020, 08:33 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:
(02-14-2020, 08:20 AM)Klaus Wrote:
(02-14-2020, 08:19 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:
Quote:  Tony Northrup was producing 4K output until one day he studied how many people actually watched them in 4K ..... it was 3%, he returned to 1080P!


To most viewers, 4K of Tony might be just a bit too much narcissistic beauty to look at.

LOL

Still better than the clueless baldhead who thinks that the Fuji 16-80mm is the best thing ever since sliced bread.

The "angry photog"? Or are there more clueless baldheads out there? No way!

No, you mean the ........ Angry Fautographer * ......   !!!!!!! Wink Wink Smile

He has probably the biggest collection of cameras / lenses in triplicate .....

... yet he can't take a photo to save his life !! .......

*Faut in French means "false" .... Fautographer is pronounced the same as photographer is in English !!