- Time
- Post link
Im curious if anyone has looked into rescanning the OT in 6.5 or even 8k considering that 8k tvs are becoming more affordable. I would be willing to donate to rescan the prints we currently have in 6.5 or 8k.
Original Trilogy 6.5k or 8k scans
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Perhaps a bit controversial, but we’re at the point of seriously diminishing returns already. Typical modern 35mm negatives are frequently thought to produce usable detail for up to 6K scans, but that’s not because they have 6K of fine detail – a la Nyquist, a 6K scan is needed to accurately capture about 3K of fine detail. So a 6K scan of a pristine, high-quality 35mm negative could produce something that’s visibly better than 1080p, but doesn’t quite push the limits of 4K. But the OT negatives are neither pristine nor particularly high quality – and most importantly, we don’t have access to any of them. Instead, what we have is projection prints, considerably worse quality than negatives, the best of which struggle to have 1080p of fine image detail, and in many ways fail to match a 720p downscale of a higher-quality source, in terms of fine image detail – the grain definitely does resolve better at 4K, but so much has been wiped away by optical duplication that you’re not getting any usable image detail along with it. So IMO 4K scans are more than adequate for what we currently have access to. An upscale from 4K to 8K wouldn’t have any less fine image detail than an 8K scan, of these sources. Should we stumble across actual well-preserved OCNs some day, I’d be happy to revisit this opinion.
- Time
- Post link
I only know of one movie that went back to the original effects and scanned higher than 4k Star Trek the Motion Picture.
I suppose like there they could scan the Vistavision shots at 6k. It just seems like something Lucasfilm wouldn’t do when most of the special edition is locked to 2k or lower res anyway depending on the shot. In theory they could redo the original cuts in 4k or higher but we are talking about matte printers and optical composited visuals its not my level of expertise, the guys you’d have to ask are John Dykstra or Dennis Muren if it would be possible.
- Time
- Post link
Perhaps a bit controversial, but we’re at the point of seriously diminishing returns already. Typical modern 35mm negatives are frequently thought to produce usable detail for up to 6K scans, but that’s not because they have 6K of fine detail – a la Nyquist, a 6K scan is needed to accurately capture about 3K of fine detail. So a 6K scan of a pristine, high-quality 35mm negative could produce something that’s visibly better than 1080p, but doesn’t quite push the limits of 4K. But the OT negatives are neither pristine nor particularly high quality – and most importantly, we don’t have access to any of them. Instead, what we have is projection prints, considerably worse quality than negatives, the best of which struggle to have 1080p of fine image detail, and in many ways fail to match a 720p downscale of a higher-quality source, in terms of fine image detail – the grain definitely does resolve better at 4K, but so much has been wiped away by optical duplication that you’re not getting any usable image detail along with it. So IMO 4K scans are more than adequate for what we currently have access to. An upscale from 4K to 8K wouldn’t have any less fine image detail than an 8K scan, of these sources. Should we stumble across actual well-preserved OCNs some day, I’d be happy to revisit this opinion.
So you think it would only be worth it if we found an extremely high-quality print or even a 70mm blowup.
- Time
- Post link
I only know of one movie that went back to the original effects and scanned higher than 4k Star Trek the Motion Picture.
I suppose like there they could scan the Vistavision shots at 6k. It just seems like something Lucasfilm wouldn’t do when most of the special edition is locked to 2k or lower res anyway depending on the shot. In theory they could redo the original cuts in 4k or higher but we are talking about matte printers and optical composited visuals its not my level of expertise, the guys you’d have to ask are John Dykstra or Dennis Muren if it would be possible.
there have been quite a few movies scanned in 8k I know for sure 2001 and the wizard of oz.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I was referring to the Vistavision process i’m aware Doug’s large format shows have been scanned at much higher resolutions warranted for 65mm neg, i should have been more clear.
For years i advocated they go back and scan the Vistavision in 6k for Star Wars i kept being told the detail wasn’t there. Its a moot point its not getting restored in my lifetime, period. The negative is in a vault somewhere and Disney is perfectly happy with the 4K DI. People don’t even bother petition Disney Lucasfilm, they are either happy with 4K77, 4k80 and 4k83, or Harmy’s projects or just have given up and moved on.
Star Wars 1977 has been suppressed for 40 years its never getting released again, i wish it weren’t so. I wish in May 25th 2027 there would be a perfect print in the cinema for the 50th anniversary, but I’ve been down this road multiple times since 1997, its not happening.
- Time
- Post link
I was referring to the Vistavision process i’m aware Doug’s large format shows have been scanned at much higher resolutions warranted for 65mm neg, i should have been more clear.
For years i advocated they go back and scan the Vistavision in 6k for Star Wars i kept being told the detail wasn’t there. Its a moot point its not getting restored in my lifetime, period. The negative is in a vault somewhere and Disney is perfectly happy with the 4K DI. People don’t even bother petition Disney Lucasfilm, they are either happy with 4K77, 4k80 and 4k83, or Harmy’s projects or just have given up and moved on.
Star Wars 1977 has been suppressed for 40 years its never getting released again, i wish it weren’t so. I wish in May 25th 2027 there would be a perfect print in the cinema for the 50th anniversary, but I’ve been done this road multiple times since 1997, its not happening.
Do you think they even have the original negatives anymore. maybe George destroyed them after he made the special edition.
- Time
- Post link
They were conformed to the 1997 edit they physically took the o-neg apart washed it chemically replaced all the bad cri stock, and also replaced all the old opticals with newly recomposited effects from old film pieces Lucas saved. Even the 2k render of the cgi was printed back to film, this was all hand spliced together by a negative cutter with cement like the old days. In theory using several other sources you could reassemble the original edit. Has the duplicate negative with the misaligned color layer been checked in recent years? They can fix that digitally now but it wasn’t possible in 1997.
- Time
- Post link
Perhaps a bit controversial, but we’re at the point of seriously diminishing returns already. Typical modern 35mm negatives are frequently thought to produce usable detail for up to 6K scans, but that’s not because they have 6K of fine detail – a la Nyquist, a 6K scan is needed to accurately capture about 3K of fine detail. So a 6K scan of a pristine, high-quality 35mm negative could produce something that’s visibly better than 1080p, but doesn’t quite push the limits of 4K. But the OT negatives are neither pristine nor particularly high quality – and most importantly, we don’t have access to any of them. Instead, what we have is projection prints, considerably worse quality than negatives, the best of which struggle to have 1080p of fine image detail, and in many ways fail to match a 720p downscale of a higher-quality source, in terms of fine image detail – the grain definitely does resolve better at 4K, but so much has been wiped away by optical duplication that you’re not getting any usable image detail along with it. So IMO 4K scans are more than adequate for what we currently have access to. An upscale from 4K to 8K wouldn’t have any less fine image detail than an 8K scan, of these sources. Should we stumble across actual well-preserved OCNs some day, I’d be happy to revisit this opinion.
So you think it would only be worth it if we found an extremely high-quality print or even a 70mm blowup.
It’s only worth it if ‘we’ found the original camera negative. 4k is almost overkill for release prints.
Scanning any sort of print at such a high resolution would probably be a massive waste of time and money, for very little to no visual gain.
- Time
- Post link
It’s only worth it if ‘we’ found the original camera negative. 4k is almost overkill for release prints.
What I think a lot of people miss is that prints and negatives are very, very different things. The nicest Star Wars prints in existence weren’t worth scanning at more than 4K the day they were struck. A modern, good-quality 35mm negative could theoretically be worth 6K, but with Star Wars we have neither modern, good-quality nor do we have the negative. We have prints, which are great and I’m thankful we do. But in the hierarchy of film restoration sources, prints are trash.
- Time
- Post link
Exactly. Print duplication (at least from the time of the OT) is analogue, so there is a generation loss each time a copy is made. Plus duplication is destructive to the source element, so a duplication is nearly always done 3+ versions away from the OCN if not more.
OCN > IP > IN > Release Print
Also less care is taken duplicating the release prints so they often have additional ‘weave’ not present in the earlier generations. It’s like photocopying a photocopy, rather than another print from the master file.
- Time
- Post link
No laserdisc quality in there, DVD-BOY? 😉 (I need to find a better sarcasm emoticon)
New Lucas interview - the originals “look terrible”
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Perhaps a bit controversial, but we’re at the point of seriously diminishing returns already. Typical modern 35mm negatives are frequently thought to produce usable detail for up to 6K scans, but that’s not because they have 6K of fine detail – a la Nyquist, a 6K scan is needed to accurately capture about 3K of fine detail. So a 6K scan of a pristine, high-quality 35mm negative could produce something that’s visibly better than 1080p, but doesn’t quite push the limits of 4K. But the OT negatives are neither pristine nor particularly high quality – and most importantly, we don’t have access to any of them. Instead, what we have is projection prints, considerably worse quality than negatives, the best of which struggle to have 1080p of fine image detail, and in many ways fail to match a 720p downscale of a higher-quality source, in terms of fine image detail – the grain definitely does resolve better at 4K, but so much has been wiped away by optical duplication that you’re not getting any usable image detail along with it. So IMO 4K scans are more than adequate for what we currently have access to. An upscale from 4K to 8K wouldn’t have any less fine image detail than an 8K scan, of these sources. Should we stumble across actual well-preserved OCNs some day, I’d be happy to revisit this opinion.
So you think it would only be worth it if we found an extremely high-quality print or even a 70mm blowup.
It’s only worth it if ‘we’ found the original camera negative. 4k is almost overkill for release prints.
Scanning any sort of print at such a high resolution would probably be a massive waste of time and money, for very little to no visual gain.
What if we got our hands on a 70mm blow up wouldn’t that have preserved far more detail ? Thus warranting a 6.5k or 8k scan.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
What if we got our hands on a 70mm blow up wouldn’t that have preserved far more detail ? Thus warranting a 6.5k or 8k scan.
A 70mm blow up print does typically have slightly more detail than a 35mm print, even though they’re both based on a 35mm negative, due to the quirks of optical duplication. But it would still not have enough fine detail to justify anything above a 4K scan, because optical duplication, even for blow-ups, loses a shocking amount of fine detail with every step. The three Star Wars 70mm blow ups I’ve seen confirm this.
The root problem remains the same: a pristine, 35mm negative of modern high-quality filmstock could be worth a 6k scan, but we don’t have anything near that. We already have access to extremely high-quality prints, we already have access to 70mm blow-ups. They just aren’t worth it, because even the best prints aren’t anywhere near the quality of a negative. Re-scanning prints with a better scanner, or with a multi-pass HDR scan at 4K would yield far more usable results than a >4K scan.
- Time
- Post link
What if we got our hands on a 70mm blow up wouldn’t that have preserved far more detail ? Thus warranting a 6.5k or 8k scan.
A 70mm blow up print does typically have slightly more detail than a 35mm print, even though they’re both based on a 35mm negative, due to the quirks of optical duplication. But it would still not have enough fine detail to justify anything above a 4K scan, because optical duplication, even for blow-ups, loses a shocking amount of fine detail with every step. The three Star Wars 70mm blow ups I’ve seen confirm this.
The root problem remains the same: a pristine, 35mm negative of modern high-quality filmstock could be worth a 6k scan, but we don’t have anything near that. We already have access to extremely high-quality prints, we already have access to 70mm blow-ups. They just aren’t worth it, because even the best prints aren’t anywhere near the quality of a negative. Re-scanning prints with a better scanner, or with a multi-pass HDR scan at 4K would yield far more usable results than a >4K scan.
Thats surprising I would assume a 70mm blow up would be much closer to the negatives in detail. Wouldn’t it technically still be best to scan at 6 or 8k because when viewing on an 8k tv you would see more of the natural grain rather then the 4k pixel structure. even though there may be little to no more perceptible detail.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Thats surprising I would assume a 70mm blow up would be much closer to the negatives in detail. Wouldn’t it technically still be best to scan at 6 or 8k because when viewing on an 8k tv you would see more of the natural grain rather then the 4k pixel structure. even though there may be little to no more perceptible detail.
“Closer” is a relative term. Optical duplication reduces fine detail and adds another layer of grain. The more times you do this, the worse it gets. 70mm gets very slightly less loss of fine detail, and the added 70mm grain is finer and less noticeable than the chunky grain of a 35mm print, and it’s usually duplicated from a source closer to the OCN – so yes, a 70mm print is a nice resource, when you’re stuck with prints.
But you’ve still got baseline quality issues to contend with. I say that a pristine high-quality negative could be worth scanning at up to 6K. But Star Wars negatives are not that (it’s possible that the negatives may not be worth scanning at >4K), and even a single pass through optical duplication puts a serious limit on quality.
For example, that six-way Han image up in my first post – that 4K83-based image (bottom center and bottom right) was taken from an extremely high-quality 35mm print source that is duplicated from the same high-level sources as a 70mm blow-up. It’s also using better 1980’s filmstock that adds a less obvious layer of grain to the duplicated image. As far as 35mm prints go, this thing is a unicorn. The best possible source – it’s a wonder that we have it, and I’m delighted with it.
But if you look closely, you’ll see two things about it – one, that in terms of fine image detail, the only image it’s clearly better than is the DVD downscale. The other is that it does resolve the grain better. But there are some caveats about that grain observation – that the grain on the UHD-sourced images is fake anyway, so it’s impossible to do an apples-to-apples comparison on grain alone, and that while it’s a common refrain among film enthusiasts that “the grain IS the image”, that statement is less true the more you move away from the negative. By the time you’re dealing with a projection print, most of the grain is simply grain that’s been added to the image, and was never on the negative to begin with – this type of grain doesn’t create the image, it erases it – the grain added via optical duplication is just an analog form of fake grain – it’s arbitrary destructive noise layered on top of the real image (the real image has its own grain). Honestly one last thing you should notice is the toll taken by degraining the UHD source. This process did clearly wipe away a ton of fine detail on the UHD, but not enough to be equivalent to what’s lost with optical duplication.
What the six-way Han image tells me is:
- DNR is terrible
- DVD is terrible
- A 1440p-ish scan of the print would capture all of the fine image detail on this best-possible 35mm print, aside from maybe the grain, and the extra resolution of the 4K scan definitely takes care of that
You’re not going to see the 4K pixel structure upscaled to 8K. Even on a screen large enough to see the 4K pixel structure, no display’s upscaling process uses pixel-doubling, so it wouldn’t be visible at 8K (and even if it did, you could just upscale it better yourself and then display it at native 8K). At greater than 4K, any grain detail you’re theoretically capturing is purely grain detail, without any associated fine image detail. Yes, technically you could scan a print with an electron micrograph and see the molecular structure of the film. You would get more detail – there’s always more to see at higher resolutions. But none of that detail comprises the image captured on the film. That, I’d say, for prints of these films, tops out somewhere in the neighborhood of 1440p. 4K already provides a generous buffer on top of that.
- Time
- Post link
Thats surprising I would assume a 70mm blow up would be much closer to the negatives in detail. Wouldn’t it technically still be best to scan at 6 or 8k because when viewing on an 8k tv you would see more of the natural grain rather then the 4k pixel structure. even though there may be little to no more perceptible detail.
“Closer” is a relative term. Optical duplication reduces fine detail and adds another layer of grain. The more times you do this, the worse it gets. 70mm gets very slightly less loss of fine detail, and the added 70mm grain is finer and less noticeable than the chunky grain of a 35mm print, and it’s usually duplicated from a source closer to the OCN – so yes, a 70mm print is a nice resource, when you’re stuck with prints.
But you’ve still got baseline quality issues to contend with. I say that a pristine high-quality negative could be worth scanning at up to 6K. But Star Wars negatives are not that (it’s possible that the negatives may not be worth scanning at >4K), and even a single pass through optical duplication puts a serious limit on quality.
For example, that six-way Han image up in my first post – that 4K83-based image (bottom center and bottom right) was taken from an extremely high-quality 35mm print source that is duplicated from the same high-level sources as a 70mm blow-up. It’s also using better 1980’s filmstock that adds a less obvious layer of grain to the duplicated image. As far as 35mm prints go, this thing is a unicorn. The best possible source – it’s a wonder that we have it, and I’m delighted with it.
But if you look closely, you’ll see two things about it – one, that in terms of fine image detail, the only image it’s clearly better than is the DVD downscale. The other is that it does resolve the grain better. But there are some caveats about that grain observation – that the grain on the UHD-sourced images is fake anyway, so it’s impossible to do an apples-to-apples comparison on grain alone, and that while it’s a common refrain among film enthusiasts that “the grain IS the image”, that statement is less true the more you move away from the negative. By the time you’re dealing with a projection print, most of the grain is simply grain that’s been added to the image, and was never on the negative to begin with – this type of grain doesn’t create the image, it erases it – the grain added via optical duplication is just an analog form of fake grain – it’s arbitrary destructive noise layered on top of the real image (the real image has its own grain). Honestly one last thing you should notice is the toll taken by degraining the UHD source. This process did clearly wipe away a ton of fine detail on the UHD, but not enough to be equivalent to what’s lost with optical duplication.
What the six-way Han image tells me is:
- DNR is terrible
- DVD is terrible
- A 1440p-ish scan of the print would capture all of the fine image detail on this best-possible 35mm print, aside from maybe the grain, and the extra resolution of the 4K scan definitely takes care of that
You’re not going to see the 4K pixel structure upscaled to 8K. Even on a screen large enough to see the 4K pixel structure, no display’s upscaling process uses pixel-doubling, so it wouldn’t be visible at 8K (and even if it did, you could just upscale it better yourself and then display it at native 8K). At greater than 4K, any grain detail you’re theoretically capturing is purely grain detail, without any associated fine image detail. Yes, technically you could scan a print with an electron micrograph and see the molecular structure of the film. You would get more detail – there’s always more to see at higher resolutions. But none of that detail comprises the image captured on the film. That, I’d say, for prints of these films, tops out somewhere in the neighborhood of 1440p. 4K already provides a generous buffer on top of that.
Im getting an 8k Tv tomorrow, so you recommend I just upscale it myself to 8k.
- Time
- Post link
Im getting an 8k Tv tomorrow, so you recommend I just upscale it myself to 8k.
IMO it’s very unlikely that your TV’s automatic 8K upscaler will produce an image that’s noticeably worse than a manual upscale. I’d recommend just watching it in 4K, letting your set take care of it. Should something be off about the scaler, manually scaling it could be in your back pocket as a Plan B.
- Time
- Post link
I think CatBus has covered all of the details on this, so I’m not going to repeat what he has said.
Yes, a 70mm blow-up will probably be of better quality than a 35mm release print, but given that 4K is already probably overkill in most cases for the quality of materials available outside the OCN, any difference will probably be very hard to see, even with an 8K TV. Don’t forget it is an optical enlargement, so while it may improve grain and detail, it is still a generation away from the source.
CatBus’ example showing 4K83 against Harmy’s Despecialised which uses the official 4K which was scanned from the OCN, shows the quality different that even the best prints (In this case a very high quality ‘Show Print’) is up against. I am by no means an expert on these things, but the difference between a 35mm Show Print and a 70mm Blow Up will still br minimal at best.
Most Hollywood films today are still only scanned at either 4K or perhaps 6.5K for super-sampling down to a 4K Master.
2001 was shot on 70mm, as was ‘My Fair Lady’ which also got an 8K restoration. It makes sense to scan native 70mm OCN at 8+K because the frame is larger (Scanning gives you a dpi resolution, so like 3D printing, to maintain a high dpi, if your input frame is larger, so must your scanning resolution). It also gives you the option to Super-sample the image down after acquisition.
The quality difference between a 4K scan of a 35mm print or 70mm blow-up vs an 8K scan of the same print will be marginal at best, and probably ‘invisible’ to the human eye by the time it’s compressed for home viewing.
An 8K DPX 16-bit File clocks in at 4.756GB/s or 16.69TB/hr so you’re looking at in the region of 33.37TB for Star Wars alone. Once you’ve done your restoration work, which will entail at least a second copy of this data (source and destination) you could generate an Apple ProRes 4444 XQ 12 bit which is only 810MB/s or 2.78TB/hr.
In comparison to 4K DPX 16bit where your data rate is only 1.19GB/s or 4.17TB/hr and the resulting ProRes is 202.50MB/s or 711.91GB/hr, I honestly don’t think the quality difference would justify the 4x increase in data required.
And what bitrate are you going to play back this footage on your 8K TV at? Encoding is inherently a lossy process if you are looking to reduce file size by a meaningful amount, and the only way to compress something like that would be to lose the ‘extra’ detail you’ve potentially captured in the first place.
Most films in the last 30-odd years have been finished as a 2K DI, and are therefore upscaled to 4K for UHD Blu-ray etc. Most studios only started seriously doing 4K DIs in the last decade, and less for Visual Effects heavy films. Marvel films in particular are 2K DIs until fairly recently, in fact ‘The Marvels’ was still a 2K DI according to IMDB.
Outside a few edge cases and Live Sport, 8K will remain something that content owners upscale to, or leave to the device to handle like CatBus suggests. Far easier and cheaper to improve the upscale quality in the final device than bloat the entire workflow for a minute portion of the market (“According to Omdia, shipments of 8K TVs only accounted for 0.15% of all TV shipments in 2021. This translated to a little more than 350,000 units globally.”)
Out of interest what ‘native’ 8K content will you be testing on your new screen?
- Time
- Post link
I think CatBus has covered all of the details on this, so I’m not going to repeat what he has said.
Yes, a 70mm blow-up will probably be of better quality than a 35mm release print, but given that 4K is already probably overkill in most cases for the quality of materials available outside the OCN, any difference will probably be very hard to see, even with an 8K TV. Don’t forget it is an optical enlargement, so while it may improve grain and detail, it is still a generation away from the source.
CatBus’ example showing 4K83 against Harmy’s Despecialised which uses the official 4K which was scanned from the OCN, shows the quality different that even the best prints (In this case a very high quality ‘Show Print’) is up against. I am by no means an expert on these things, but the difference between a 35mm Show Print and a 70mm Blow Up will still br minimal at best.
Most Hollywood films today are still only scanned at either 4K or perhaps 6.5K for super-sampling down to a 4K Master.
2001 was shot on 70mm, as was ‘My Fair Lady’ which also got an 8K restoration. It makes sense to scan native 70mm OCN at 8+K because the frame is larger (Scanning gives you a dpi resolution, so like 3D printing, to maintain a high dpi, if your input frame is larger, so must your scanning resolution). It also gives you the option to Super-sample the image down after acquisition.
The quality difference between a 4K scan of a 35mm print or 70mm blow-up vs an 8K scan of the same print will be marginal at best, and probably ‘invisible’ to the human eye by the time it’s compressed for home viewing.
An 8K DPX 16-bit File clocks in at 4.756GB/s or 16.69TB/hr so you’re looking at in the region of 33.37TB for Star Wars alone. Once you’ve done your restoration work, which will entail at least a second copy of this data (source and destination) you could generate an Apple ProRes 4444 XQ 12 bit which is only 810MB/s or 2.78TB/hr.
In comparison to 4K DPX 16bit where your data rate is only 1.19GB/s or 4.17TB/hr and the resulting ProRes is 202.50MB/s or 711.91GB/hr, I honestly don’t think the quality difference would justify the 4x increase in data required.
And what bitrate are you going to play back this footage on your 8K TV at? Encoding is inherently a lossy process if you are looking to reduce file size by a meaningful amount, and the only way to compress something like that would be to lose the ‘extra’ detail you’ve potentially captured in the first place.
Most films in the last 30-odd years have been finished as a 2K DI, and are therefore upscaled to 4K for UHD Blu-ray etc. Most studios only started seriously doing 4K DIs in the last decade, and less for Visual Effects heavy films. Marvel films in particular are 2K DIs until fairly recently, in fact ‘The Marvels’ was still a 2K DI according to IMDB.
Outside a few edge cases and Live Sport, 8K will remain something that content owners upscale to, or leave to the device to handle like CatBus suggests. Far easier and cheaper to improve the upscale quality in the final device than bloat the entire workflow for a minute portion of the market (“According to Omdia, shipments of 8K TVs only accounted for 0.15% of all TV shipments in 2021. This translated to a little more than 350,000 units globally.”)
Out of interest what ‘native’ 8K content will you be testing on your new screen?
I cant find anything in 8k that’s worth it that’s why I’m here ! I am trying to find a way to download that 6.5k scan of Jurassic park to try. Also 2001 was broadcast in 8k in Japan but I cant find it for the life of me online. So i guess I’m going to display the 12k Oppenheimer stills to see what an 8k version of the film could look like.
- Time
- Post link
8K is great for stills. In fact, one of the main reasons for 8K displays is that panels are made for televisions, computers, and digital signage in more or less the same process. Computers and digital signage will clearly benefit from 8K, televisions are sort of along for the ride.
A long time ago, televisions were driving resolution, and the new (at the time) 1080p standard caused much nerd rage for effectively rolling back/stalling PC display resolutions for a decade (obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/732/). I’m glad we’re past those days. But for movies, at even large display sizes, the benefit of 8K is dubious. That said, 8KTVs often have a lot of the newest tech that makes them very nice displays regardless, so you’re not going to be disappointed.