John Paines wrote:Wayne Steven,
I know it's pointless, but this is a slow day....
Kindly supply empirical evidence that resolutions higher than HD achieve greater suspension of disbelief or higher financial returns, or lacking proof of either of those claims, create uncommon joy among viewers not available at lower resolutions. Note that personal preferences or arguing from analogy (HD is better than SD!) or tautology (more is by definition better than less!) are not germane here.
Once that proof is in hand, kindly offer evidence that the same advantage applies to the ultra-low budget end of movie production -- you know, the productions looking for $995 or $1995 A-cams -- where (incidentally) the chances of actual theater projection are just about nill.
And finally, when all that's in hand, please do offer your engineering expertise to BMD. They've already said they can't solve the heat issue at present, but since you can, that should settle it.
When you've done all that, feel free to insult the luddite stupidity and intransigence of of all the doubters.
Ok, back, but still very busy till after 8th, but stuck waiting for somebody downtime, so maybe last post today, see how we go.
I can not make up for the deficiency of the see-er. You cam present to them, bit it is up to them to be accepting to see.
Firstly, the resolutions above HD, is an easier one. You should have said above 4k. Clearly fullhd looks better than hd. I can actually see the grid between the pixels on good digital screens, which is in the 8k territory. So, tell me how seeing a flyscreen is a suspension of disbelief. My vision goes up and down, but a portion of society will see this consistently, and wider portion fullhd and 4k pixels. 20/20 is far from best vision, best vision is 2 or 2.5 better than that, I forget which. There is a reason their are two lines below the 20/20 line on eye charts.
Again, as I posted, if you want to make a poster from frames people get up close and personal with you need more resolution. Now, get up and close to a hd or fullhd poster and marvel how horrible it looks. Even at 8k, bit it looks a lot better, and you have to get a lot closer. So passing by, its acceptable. Try it. Now, big wedding or events photographs ate the same. It is why it is harder to find a wedding photographer using fullhd for photos (surely there is somebody that does that). Why they even have greater than 8k cameras.
Now a big reason, as stated before, and as used, but you haven't seen to have read it. Low pass filtering, without a low pass filter on bayer, it looks sharper and more realistic, until you move around and start encountering problems. So, they usually do use a low pass filter that give details more a fuzzy washed look that has to be processed to reduce. Shooting for fullhd or 4k in 8k does some of the job of a low pass filter, requiring a lesser one, while producing a sharper, more immersive, realistic image. The renowned uhd nokia phone did it, Canon did it, and the same reason Reds and even the 4.6k operate at higher resolutions. So useful ebennin A cams, plus producing nice frames fir stills.
Now, another filming trick, the larger frame allows for better post zooming, and also digital zooming, which nokia used to do too. It is all a matter of work quality and workability.
Now, even in doco or sports situation, you can narrow down on the action. Its rather noisy here, so I'm not able to give every reason.
Theater projection, again you are trawling, because as I keep saying which you should have read, it is about producing better fhd and 4k, 100% chance of projection, and stills. But 8k TV and projection is coming, not just the few 8k projectors available today (for years the Sullivan one). They will require content being made today for mass introduction in a few years time.
Again, as already outlined that, trawlling like it wasn't said: There are plenty of low heat sensors and processing solutions out there BM could use, as outlined before. Blaming me is not a answer, and trying to make me, or others, jump through unnecessary hoops, after it has been adequately answered, for your trawling amusement is not it.