Is it time to say "NO" to 8k 16k etc camera on phones ...?

Andy001z Moderator, Website User, Ambassador, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 3,084 Ambassador
edited April 2020 in General

So my point here is that we are now firmly in the world of 4k phones and some are pushing 16k . Do we need this on a phone, the impact of all this data is a) the storage requirements both on the phone and then on the computer or cloud. I work in 1080p that is because that is my world. But also because my computer works best processing those videos in Hitfilm. 



  • triforcefx
    triforcefx United StatesModerator, Website User Posts: 1,183 Moderator

    I’m personally all for cameras and phones and displays continuing to push boundaries and make progress.

    These extreme resolutions are paving the way for the next generation of video. For instance, even in 4K, 360 VR still doesn’t look that great (to my eyes at least) if you could cram 8K displays in a vr headset and run 16K video, VR would be insane.

    Pushing the boundaries on one end of the hardware spectrum also forces the other elements to catch up. Right now, most computers can’t even PLAYBACK an 8k video stream, let alone edit it. In 10 years, even a $300 computer should be able to do 8k editing at a decent speed. Even if nobody really uses 8K though, imagine how well that $300 computer would handle 4k or especially 1080p (though sadly, 1080p will likely be considered obsolete by 2030, the same way 720p is now). Now imagine what you could do on a powerful system in 2030... but those hardware advances wouldn’t come if cameras and their footage didn’t require it.

  • Triem23
    Triem23 Moderator Moderator, Website User, Ambassador, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 19,571 Ambassador
    edited April 2020

    The problem is by cramming another 4x the pixels in the same sensor results in 1/4 the photosites per pixel, which hurts image quality. And they are cramming that footage so hard... I'd rather have a great 4k or 6k image than a meh 8k.

    4k will hold you for a decade. By then 8k will be a snap.

    As long as Marvel movies are mastered in 2k, 2.7k(!) is a good enough final output. Just throwing that out there. The Mavic Mini crowd just grinned.

    I care enough to do a "Grammar Pass" on the thread's title. ?

  • Andy001z
    Andy001z Moderator, Website User, Ambassador, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 3,084 Ambassador

    All well said but take the average person using their phone for snaps, the phone auto backups to could by default (I had to turn mine off or my free storage would be gone in weeks.) Yes have the option the hardware but do we need an 8k video of someone's first steps. Cloud storage is not healthy for the world we should consider what we are doing with the tech. Google and the rest want you to fill up your free space then hook you into monthly fees that will only increase as your thirst for space with continue. 


    Ok just saying.

  • MegaMovieMashups
    MegaMovieMashups Website User Posts: 6

    Personally, I have always thought that pushing the whole 4K thing was totally unnecessary, something forced upon the general public just so the world's tech companies could sell us TVs all over again after everyone had bought their 1080 gear. Even now, years after 4K was introduced, gaming monitors for example, still struggle to perform high refresh rates at that resolution and all the advances in graphic hardware have been absorbed by having to generate more pixels instead of more details. Considering the average Joe Bloggs can’t tell the difference between 1080 and 4K, or perhaps more specifically, they don’t sit at the right distance from their screen to be able to discern the difference, I think the whole 4K thing has been a step backyards.

  • alaska_vfx_filmer
    alaska_vfx_filmer Website User Posts: 515 Enthusiast

    Cheers to the T3i and mavic mini :-)

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!