8K Filming and Files - Why It's Amazing Even with 4K TVs

[Pboxer88]

For reference I own a high end large 4K OLED TV and high end large 8K QLED mini LED. 99% of people who talk about 8K are not owners and have experienced limited to watching some crappy in store demos, and they all say the same stupid crap about there not being a difference. I'm not saying this to brag, who cares that I waste money on tech that hasn't come down in price, I'm just saying 8K is the truth on large format displays and it will blast out your dopamine receptors, if that's what you're going for. I've tested everything you can imagine including upscaling 4k content to 8k using AI software.

First, If you want to see what a 4K porn file looks like when it's condensed down from 8K filming, see:

https://pornbox.com/application/watch-page/799445

Serina Gomez lick ass deep troat Facial and Squirting 8K

That video isn't my cup of tea content wise, but the 4k file shows an amazing level of skin surface detail and material detail (for example, the velvet on the couch). It even does so in spite of having an inferior bitrate of 15mbps instead of 30mbps. That's what filming at 8k does. Obviously, I wish analvids would post the actual 8K file and it's annoying that they haven't.

What I'm about to suggest would massively increase the level of detail on avids, for both 4k and future 8k viewing, and this ultimately adds to immersion (and warning, addictive nature of) this content.

(1) Film in 8K. It's not that expensive. A studio could literally finance an 8K setup for the cost of a single scene, less than 10k.
(2) Condense the footage using AV1or H265 instead of the outdated H264 that avids mostly uses. This allows you to post a greatly improved image with the same file size. Or, you can achieve an identical image quality at half the file size (Obviously, I'm suggesting they go with the former).

If you want to see an interesting video on why 8K is great, check this out (I'm not the guy in the video but agree with his take 100%):

Why 8K is NOT Pointless

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=23vYTXcotSs&pp=ygUXV2h5IDhrIGlzIG5vdCBwb2ludGxlc3M%3D

Finally, I want to do an honorable mention in this thread for the Vira Gold studio. I'm not sure if they have a better camera, or if they are using better compression technology (h265 or av1), or something else, but for some reason their recent videos are some of the most detailed I've ever seen. The skin surfaces at GG are decent but muted and airbrushed looking. At Vira the past few months (after they resolved an old blur issue), you can see stretch marks, more pores, caked makeup, zits, moles, microwrinkles etc. Other studios like NRX come close but to my eye Vira is the best so far. I wish GG would model whatever they're doing, in addition to my above 8k suggestion.

[YuriyProneBone]

I feel frame rate and refresh rate is always more important than resolution.

Absolutely, high resolution is nice, but frame rate is kind when it comes to realism and feel like you are there in the scene.

There is a reason why dogs can only watch porn if it is recorded at 120 FPS and 120 Hz, and cats are even more demanding at 240 FPS and 240 Hz.

The reason is because they can't see shit making sense at lower numbers, so it is just boring, and it is for this very reason that even though humans can watch porn comfortably at just 30 FPS, even 24 FPS, doesn't mean the experience isn't enhanced at higher frame rates. The result is simply having a more realistic video that pops in a more realistic viewing experience.

So I take 240FPS 1080p 240Hz video over 8K 30FPS 30 Hz any day. It is just a more realistic experience.

In terms of displays you need a monitor o TV that can handle 240Hz to enjoy 240FPS video. If your display only does 120Hz or even worst 60Hz, you simply won't be able to appreciate the realism that high frame rate and high refresh rate provides.

On a side note, it is true OLED TVs are nice because of those deep blacks that give you very realistic contrast, but many of those TVs could use higher luminosity, specially for darker scenes. We actually didn't have the technology to make it happen. The ideal luminosity for video is 10,000 nits, and most LED TVs simply cannot do that, I don't any OLED TV can.

The good thing is that nowadays there is this new technology called Micro LED, that solves the problem, you can have the high contrast of OLED TVs, while having realistic luminosity as well.

I'm pretty sure soon we will all be able to have the perfect display:

110 inches diagonal size (perfect 16:9 half ratio)
10,000 nits luminosity
240 Hz refresh rate
8K of resolution
Dolby Vision high dynamic range
Dolby Atmos surround sound

However I don't think I have seen a single TV that meets all that criteria, so the closer we get to it, the better.

That said, you need content for that, and content that is future proof will always need high Frame Rate and High Refreh Rate, on top of having higher resolution as well, and with higher bitrates of picture quality. Ideally hitting 128mbps consistently, and not going under 80mbps depending of the scene.

But again, those are only technicalities for people that care about video quality.

If the video is 4K 240FPS it is already good enough to make most people happy. Considering many people use computer monitors, and those normally have higher refresh rates than TVs, 240FPS would be an ideal minimum to shoot for.

[Pboxer88]

To each his own, of course. I'm halfway to you, as I like at least 60hz/60fps but resolution is still more important to me because my TVs have great motion interpolation that results in a very smooth image. I've shown people 30fps content with antijudder and motion smoothing set to 10/10 and they could see no difference from 60 fps content. Every TV and monitor I own is 120hz. I've used 240 hz monitors too. Most people find the difference between 30 hz/fps and 60 hz/fps massive, then it jumps off a cliff. 120hz is nice for gaming. After that, 0.1% of people are going to notice or care about the difference between 120hz and 240hz.

8k adds a 3D like quality to images, especially with skin, clothing texture, sand, rock texture and all kinds of other elements that show microdetail. It feels different, as rhe video above describes.

When it comes to gaming 60 fps is a must. When it comes to porn, I like 60 fps too, but of given the choice between that and high res or more bitrate going to image quality, I'm choosing the latter all day and cranking my TVs SOE.

[YuriyProneBone]

To each his own, of course. I'm halfway to you, as I like at least 60hz/60fps but resolution is still more important to me because my TVs have great motion interpolation that results in a very smooth image. I've shown people 30fps content with antijudder and motion smoothing set to 10/10 and they could see no difference from 60 fps content. Every TV and monitor I own is 120hz. I've used 240 hz monitors too. Most people find the difference between 30 hz/fps and 60 hz/fps massive, then it jumps off a cliff. 120hz is nice for gaming. After that, 0.1% of people are going to notice or care about the difference between 120hz and 240hz.

People can't tell the difference for 1 or 2 reasons because the content isn't native to those frame rates. Which means the processor cannot accurate simulate a higher frame rate, just like upscaling from 1080p to 4K doesn't give you 8K video.

When the video has been natively recorded on higher frame rate which most cameras can't do, and is viewed on a monitor that has lower refresh rate, the results on the visual effect is like watching 8K video in a 4K display. You actually can get better quality video from that, but that's not the case going, just going down.

The second thing is that they don't know what to look for. You need to know what you are seeing to see it. Once they know, they can always tell.

Funny enough it is tricky because you can't appreciate it without movement. For example you can tell the difference between 4K and 8K with a still, but you cannot tell the difference of FPS with a still because FPS is frames per second, so a still is just 1 FPS and you can't change that.

That said, I can actually show the difference with a still, at least in terms of perception with this 50 First Date still:

If you look at Adam Sandler, he blends more with the background because it is all blurred, however Rob Schneider stands out not because he is closer, but because his silhouette doesn't blend with the rest of the background considering he is not as blurred. Adam Sandler is closer than his background too, but he still blends more because there is no much separation since he is not as in focus as Rob Schneider is.

In motion scenes that's the effect higher FPS creates, so even if you have a clear background that isn't blurred at all, you still get that natural separation of moving objects you are seeing here with Rob Schneider, where just like the human eye, it can separate one object from another, and make a differentiation of proximity and depth.

That level of realism cannot be achieved with just more resolution, and that's why motion capture is primordial for quality video. Most people would hate 8K video at 15FPS, they will get a headache, while with higher refresh rates and native high FPS content, they automatically get a higher much more immersive experience.

[Jocke]

What I struggle with is motion blur. The camera man swings in the camera and stops at a gape. Not until one second after he has stopped is the picture good to look at but then he starts moving again. I go crazy, some of the best gape shots are missed to humanity because an idiot cannot hold the camera still.

Would better camera help or do we need educated camera men?


BTW N&F almost never got the action in focus, horrible!


Yes, I have noticed the higher quality of Vira Gold but I thought it was about better lighting?