Which, for all intents and purposes, means there is no point. Because no news network is going to respond to “Hey boss, I want us to buy a bunch of really expensive cameras that our audience will never notice because it will make our tape library more valuable. Oh, not to sell, but to donate to museums.” with anything other than laughter and MAYBE firing your ass.
Comment on Big Surprise—Nobody Wants 8K TVs
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 week agoit’s not exactly “there is no point”. It’s more like “the cost to film and broadcast in 8k is not economically feasible”.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 week ago
the point is, the cost/benefit calculation will change over time as the price of everything goes down. It’s not a forever “no point”.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
… Almost like it would be more viable to film in higher resolution if more consumers had higher resolution displays?
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Filming in 8k does have advantages. You can crop without losing quality.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I’m sorry, but if we are talking about 8k viability in TVs, we are not talking about shooting in 8k for 4k delivery.
You should be pointing out shooting in higher than 8k, so you have the freedom to crop in post, is part of the reason 8k is burdensome and expensive.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 week ago
So correct the person above me, they wrote about shooting in 8k.
The RED V-Raptor is expensive for consumer grade but nothing compared to some film equipment. There are lenses more expensive than an 8k camera.