Sony 8K CineAlta

[Chris Law]

I'm making this thread because im suprised at the new Ultra high definition craze. First large sensors for shallow dof and now camera manufacturers pushing the boundries. 8K is just immense, the image quality must be stunning. Its only now when I look at my NEX-VG20 compressed 8bit footage I realise I need one of these cameras.

What do you guys think about RAW and its workflow.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

8K (UHDTV) is possibly the future, but it will be a long time coming. The 8K camera is actually 4K, isn't it?

[Chris Law]

In fact, it is 8k. Presently though its only 4k, Sony will be releasing a firmware update to give it 8k capability, I don't know when this is though.

[Arnie Schlissel]

You're going to be waiting a very long time.

The only 8k camera on the market right now is the Sony F65, if it's even shipping.

Most DSLRs don't even shoot 8k stills.

The only realistic 4k cameras right now are Red and Phantom.

[Mark Kenfield]

IMO until our motion picture distribution methods (in all their forms) change substantially, it's effectively pointless, circle of confusion renders the added resolution pointless.

Unless people's eyes can actually perceive the additional resolution it really doesn't matter.

[Peter Beeh]

One big issue to remember is that this camera is seriously data intensive. The price you pay for UHD. Here's a link to a frame grab from the F65. It's a full resolution DPX. It's near 50megabytes - and that's just one frame... But it's also magnificently sharp and no artifacting is to be found. Shot with F65 and 65mm Masterprime.

Sony f65 tests begin in Sydney | Cinematographer DOP ~ Freelance Cameraman, Sydney

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Arnie Schlissel

.
The only realistic 4k cameras right now are Red and Phantom.

The F65 is being delivered and is working on productions (if high end). It's currently a 4k camera, the 8k sensor being used as an oversample rather than being directly recorded. They may wish to directly record the 8k, but it's a Bayer type sensor, so you'd need even more pixels for true 8k, perhaps a 10k sensor.

I suspect Sony will be busy manufacturing the 400 plus units ordered, before worrying about the 8k niche market. Which is different to them researching the full 8k from the sensor.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

I suspect Sony will be busy manufacturing the 400 plus units ordered, before worrying about the 8k niche market. Which is different to them researching the full 8k from the sensor.

400? How will Sony even recover the cost of R&D with only that much?

[Brian Drysdale]

That's the F65 pre release orders, I'd assume they'll have more over the production run. They also cost over $100k each.

[Graeme Sutherland]

Originally Posted by Mark Kenfield

Unless people's eyes can actually perceive the additional resolution it really doesn't matter.

The human eye can resolve details down to around 1/60 of a degree of visual arc, assuming 20/20 vision.

For a home cinema set-up, at the recommended distance for the THX standard, 2K is pretty close to the theoretical maximum an eye can resolve. (I did the calculations yesterday, and it came out around 2,200 or 2,400 pixels.) And that involves sitting at a distance of (say) six or seven feet from a 55" screen.

I went to the cinema today, and sitting in the front row of the theatre I reckon the screen filled up 70 or 80 degrees of my vision, so somewhere between 4K and 5K would be sufficient for the likes of me.

The only need I could see for 8K would be on something like an IMAX screen, and if you're sitting in one of the front rows. Given that most people at the IMAX screen in Amsterdam used to sit in the rear half, I'm not sure if that would actually give any benefit. In fact, the maximum viewing angle for IMAX is supposed to be 120 degrees (according to Google), so 7,200 pixels would be sufficient.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Sareesh Sudhakaran

8K (UHDTV) is possibly the future, but it will be a long time coming. The 8K camera is actually 4K, isn't it?

Saw a UHDTV presentation at NAB about 5 years ago. Stunnnnnnning. Can't remember anything about the cameras or projection systems, just the 20' wide field of sunflowers and the puddles of drool on the floor. Yup, we'll be waiting a long time.

Don't suppose anyone else was there who remembers what it was? Might have been 6 or 7 years ago.

[Martin Chab]

Originally Posted by Graeme Sutherland

The human eye can resolve details down to around 1/60 of a degree of visual arc, assuming 20/20 vision.

For a home cinema set-up, at the recommended distance for the THX standard, 2K is pretty close to the theoretical maximum an eye can resolve. (I did the calculations yesterday, and it came out around 2,200 or 2,400 pixels.) And that involves sitting at a distance of (say) six or seven feet from a 55" screen.

I went to the cinema today, and sitting in the front row of the theatre I reckon the screen filled up 70 or 80 degrees of my vision, so somewhere between 4K and 5K would be sufficient for the likes of me.

The only need I could see for 8K would be on something like an IMAX screen, and if you're sitting in one of the front rows. Given that most people at the IMAX screen in Amsterdam used to sit in the rear half, I'm not sure if that would actually give any benefit. In fact, the maximum viewing angle for IMAX is supposed to be 120 degrees (according to Google), so 7,200 pixels would be sufficient.

I heard that argument many, but many times but you are doing a BIG mistake in your logic. Your statement is ONLY true for a static eye and the eye is far from be static. The average human eye has about 6-7 million cones and about 120 million rods. Sum to that the rapid movement of the eye scanning each image and then your math goes through the drain. :-)
This is a math that most of camera manufacturers this days "sold" us so we believe that their products are more than we ever need but this is only part of the story. There is also the time that our retina takes to "release" the information and much more to the subject.

[Lee Mullen]

Originally Posted by Peter Beeh

One big issue to remember is that this camera is seriously data intensive. The price you pay for UHD. Here's a link to a frame grab from the F65. It's a full resolution DPX. It's near 50megabytes - and that's just one frame... But it's also magnificently sharp and no artifacting is to be found. Shot with F65 and 65mm Masterprime.

Sony f65 tests begin in Sydney | Cinematographer DOP ~ Freelance Cameraman, Sydney

Fiile will not open.

[Martin Chab]

here you can see a frame grab in jpeg, i can post some dpx if you are interested: Martin Chab Blog on Video and Image Technology