749
The TV industry finally concedes that the future may not be in 8K (arstechnica.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
334 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 57 points 9 months ago (8 children)

There’s barely any actual 4K content you can consume.

Honestly a little surprised the IMAX guys didn't start churning out 4k+ content given that they've been in the business forever.

But I guess "IMAX in your living room" isn't as sexy when the screen is 60" rather than 60'

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 44 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    You don’t even need IMAX for 4K; ordinary 35mm film can normal scan to a nice 4K video. Films shot on the 65mm IMAX cameras would probably make good 8K content, but most of that was educational films, not what most people apparently want to watch all the time.

    The digital IMAX projections were actually a step backwards in resolution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Films shot on the 65mm IMAX cameras would probably make good 8K content, but most of that was educational films, not what most people apparently want to watch all the time.

    Sure. But the cameras exist. You can use them for other stuff.

    Hateful Eight was filmed in 70mm, and while it wasn't Tarantino's best work it certainly looked nice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •