Is 32k larger than 4k

Unfortunately, this is all going in the wrong direction

  1. Forums
  2. > Comments
  3. > Miscellaneous
  4. ›All comments on the article
  5. ›Super 35 sensor: 12K videos with ...
  1. theme

New topic Change view


  1. Unfortunately, this is all going in the wrong direction

    Author: twiro 18.07.20 - 22:07

    We're now at 12K / 16K or whatever. And if I were to write the thread 2-3 years later, it might already be 32K.
    I understand that you should add a little more pixels for cropping / image stabilization, etc. You are also on the safe side if you only want a section.

    So far so good. And yet all of this is completely superfluous for home use / the blockbuster films etc. I now have really good eyes with full prescription. An 8K TV at 65 inches does not make any visible difference to a 4K TV. Or you can get an 80 inch television. But then you can't sit 3m in front of it without getting neck problems because you are constantly looking from one corner to the other.
    Then there is the extreme power consumption of the 8K TVs! Please google yourself.
    Mega screens like those found at concerts or maybe in cinemas also do not need a 12K source. Because spectators then sit much further away.

    I like 10bit / 60 FPS / odor television ... but not this 8 ... 16 ... 32 ... 64K bullshit!

  2. Re: Unfortunately, this is all going in the wrong direction

    Author: Act 18.07.20 - 22:32

    You say that you understand that 12K can be useful in the professional field - which this camera is obviously aimed at - but then you choose an inappropriate title for your post and complain about anything higher than 4k in the home sector. Just rail against something, or what?

  3. Re: Unfortunately, this is all going in the wrong direction

    Author: Mnyut 18.07.20 - 22:53

    twiro wrote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Or you can get an 80 inch
    > TV. But then you can't sit 3m in front of it without
    > Having neck problems because you keep moving from one corner to the other
    > sees.
    Huh? We have had a ~ 90 inch screen (2 m wide) here for almost 15 years and are sitting a good 3.5 m away from it. That fits 1A in the field of vision. Of course the eyes move, but the neck doesn't care.

  4. Re: Unfortunately, this is all going in the wrong direction

    Author: crustaceans 18.07.20 - 23:17

    IMAX runs on about 17k and you can see the difference to 6k very well.

    But you are not wrong. The real IMAX cinemas are dying out because the screen is too big. The smaller canvases do not need such a resolution either. Film production with the small 6k resolution is sufficient and saves a lot of money. Take a look at the cute camera. A 17k or 70mm IMAX camera is the size of a car. Since this camera was too heavy, even in IMAX productions, 6k was sometimes used. E.g. on a gimbal.

    12k is a pretty good compromise.

  5. Re: Unfortunately, this is all going in the wrong direction

    Author: ClausWARE 19.07.20 - 00:14

    And my 30 "monitor is just 40-50 cm from my eyes and I don't have any neck problems, not even when I look at the monitors next to it or above. And compared to your 80" it would be a distance of just once 1.5 meters.
    I keep wondering where people get their wisdom from.



    Edited 1 times, last on 07/19/20 00:14 by ClausWARE.

  6. Re: Unfortunately, this is all going in the wrong direction

    Author: Melee sheep 19.07.20 - 01:17

    I think there is a mistake in reasoning here. The camera is aimed at professional recordings where post-processing normally takes place. As a rule, this hardly ever takes place in 12k, not even in 8k, and rarely in 4k. Most of the last 4k blockbuster films still have a master in 2k, even if it is sold as a 4k version, as the computational effort is low enough not to drive up the costs.
    The 12k are there to have leeway. Scope for downscaling, cropping and subsequent stabilization.

  7. Re: Unfortunately, this is all going in the wrong direction

    Author: Pucky 19.07.20 - 01:59

    Anyone who thinks the 12k are used 1: 1 for the final product is wrong.
    One films e.g. a big scene and then zooms in and then out again, but all of this digitally and without a lens.
    The zoom still has a 4k resolution and is razor sharp, while the large scene is then simply scaled down.
    Or you can focus on a point while it is moving by only taking the center of the picture of a large scene. Since there is enough space at the edge of the picture due to the high resolution, the camera does not have to move for this digital focus.

    Exactly these techniques can be seen e.g. in the movie Sherlock: A Game of Shadows
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJjZxFhNCso
    The scene can be seen here.
    Everything was shot with a rigid camera that only moves from left to right on a rail. Everything else such as the focus is a digital zoom.

    A camera with a higher resolution gives more leeway or simply better resolution in the end product.

  8. Re: Unfortunately, this is all going in the wrong direction

    Author: 1e3th4 19.07.20 - 13:06

    You just didn't understand anything.

  9. Re: Unfortunately, this is all going in the wrong direction

    Author: FreiGeistler 19.07.20 - 17:39

    ClausWARE wrote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > And my 30 "monitor is just 40-50 cm away from my eyes
    > And I don't get any neck problems either, not even when I'm on the
    > Look at monitors next to or above. And compared to your 80 "er
    > That would be a distance of just 1.5 meters.
    > I keep wondering where people get their wisdom from.

    Calculated from the angular resolution of the human eye. You can still not see more resolution at the same distance if it is beyond the physical capabilities of the eye. It is just over 200ppi for screens and around 300ppi for smartphones. And since you only have so and so many cm in the field of vision at an ergonomic distance, this is limited to 3k - 4k for screens and approx. 1k - 2k for devices under 20 "(smartphones, notebooks / ultrabooks).
    Unless you use 4k as a selling point, as is often the case with newer notebooks.

    And 40-50cm is too close, damages the eyes. You don't hold a lamp in front of your face for hours.

  10. Re: Unfortunately, this is all going in the wrong direction

    Author: Mnyut 19.07.20 - 19:25

    So actually it was about neck problems with a TV that is too big, but:
    This ergonomic distance seems to me to come from too little / too low resolution. In the case of televisions, the so-called ergonomic distance used to be much greater than it is today.
    With my 14 "laptop I am very grateful for the 2560x1440 and compared to the 300ppi Tablet 7" you can still see that there is still room for improvement.
    When it comes to films, too little resolution isn't that tragic either, in my experience, as a lot of things get lost in motion blur anyway. You can see that in comparison to good pictures with a short exposure time. It is very extreme with data (see laptop-> tablet comparison). Not that I still perceive individual pixels on the laptop as annoying or even very annoying, but the writing is by far not as razor-sharp, which is due to the lower pixel density, because of the suddenly visible gradations in curves, roundings, etc., or not ?

  11. Re: Unfortunately, this is all going in the wrong direction

    Author: Dwalinn 20.07.20 - 11:21

    So neck problems are now certainly exaggerated, but your 40-50 cm doesn't sound common either. So of course you can do it, but then you have to keep moving your head or you don't have anything of the size.

  1. theme

New topic Change view


To comment, please log in or register. You must also go to your account profile under Forum have assigned a username. To the login

  1. via duerenhoff GmbH, Frankfurt am Main
  2. DRÄXLMAIER Group, Vilsbiburg near Landshut
  3. University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main
  4. DUAL Deutschland GmbH, Cologne

Pure golem
  • Use Golem.de without advertising

  1. 4,99€
  2. (including Resident Evil 7 for € 7.99, Project Cars for € 3.30, Hitman 2 for € 14.99, The Sinking ...
  3. 11,99€


Did we miss something?

Email to [email protected]


© 1997-2021 Golem.de. All rights reserved.