Sony skips 8k and jumps to 12k in FX8

[ND64]

8k30p with oversampling and 8k30p in Super35. 16 stops of DR with triple base ISO.

 

[ND64]

I guess the third base ISO is just the second base but with heavy noise reduction, as its called Enhanced Sensitivity.

[zerocool22]

Sell so did blackmagic. And the image from that camera is pretty amazing. Allthough I will never have an need anything above 4k.

[Andrew Reid]

For those web content creators who consider 8K a bit mushy for Youtube work🙂

 

[ND64]

I wonder why they didn't use this sensor for Burano. FX6/9 target market is mostly ENG and documentary and events and weddings and things like that. None of them doing this stuff say I want 8k30 from 12k sensor. Why not give them A9iii global shutter sensor in a lighter body than fX6 and modern menu with a bigger screen? 

[Andrew Reid]

Probably because it wasn't ready for the Burano, time and technology marches on. A future Fuji GFX camera with a 12K sensor is an appealing prospect though. Full frame sweet spot I think is 8K.

[eatstoomuchjam]

8K sampled from 12K should be really good 8K and it's basically how you'd get 4:4:4 quality from a bayer sensor.

If the FX8 specs are as-rumored, it could be a real hit.  Though if Sony try to sell it for $6K+, it'll be a really hard sell.  If they don't, it'll be cool to see the prices drop on their existing camera line-up.

[fuzzynormal]

Here's my dumb-ass-getting-older-by-the-second-opinion:  In an era where some people are starting to look back at 80's and 90's films while saying, "Why don't movies look as good as that anymore"?  I'm not eager to jump into the high-resolution-hyper-DR-fray.

The best looking film I ever made was in 1080p on consumer cameras before I really was trying to do a hell of a lot with color grading.

There's GOT to be a push back at intense IQ realism in cinema sooner or later, right? Right? Ah, wtf do I know?

[ND64]

1 hour ago, fuzzynormal said:

Here's my dumb-ass-getting-older-by-the-second-opinion:  In an era where some people are starting to look back at 80's and 90's films while saying, "Why don't movies look as good as that anymore"?  I'm not eager to jump into the high-resolution-hyper-DR-fray.

People fight over who has closer DR and latitude to Alexa 35, then apply a LUT that drops the DR to 6 stops to look like Heat 1995.

[Danyyyel]

7 hours ago, ND64 said:

People fight over who has closer DR and latitude to Alexa 35, then apply a LUT that drops the DR to 6 stops to look like Heat 1995.

The thing is, not many people use the Alexa 35, those who know will get fantastic result. DR is the one thing that was missing from digital in the filmlook as film already had great DR. Resolution for sure is just too much. I don't want to shoot more than 4k, or at worst 6k to reframe a little bit. But it is already stretching it.

[Ilkka Nissila]

6 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Here's my dumb-ass-getting-older-by-the-second-opinion:  In an era where some people are starting to look back at 80's and 90's films while saying, "Why don't movies look as good as that anymore"?  I'm not eager to jump into the high-resolution-hyper-DR-fray.

The best looking film I ever made was in 1080p on consumer cameras before I really was trying to do a hell of a lot with color grading.

There's GOT to be a push back at intense IQ realism in cinema sooner or later, right? Right? Ah, wtf do I know?

I think in any given time window, a truly good movie is a rare thing. It's not that there are no good films being currently made, rather we remember those old films which left a lasting impression on us, and tend to forget those films which were not good. For films made in the 1980s and 1990s we remember the very best ones. For films made in the 2020s we are more likely to remember the latest ones we saw. High image quality (be it high dynamic range or resolution) cameras  don't make things worse in terms of the quality of the outcome but it may be that they motivate the production to aim for greater perfection in some sense and then not realize that technical perfection is not necessarily a worthy goal on its own if it leads to losses in other areas, such as the story and dramatic intent. 

 

I think visual aesthetics have been changing with the ubiquity of the mobile phone camera and the kind of processing that phone manufacturers apply to the images by default and also the kind of post-processing that people apply to their images in instagram etc. People who have grown up on these devices are used to the auto-HDR AI look and they may think that kind of a look is normal and looks good. Cinema cameras that capture high dynamic range allow that kind of post-processing to be applied, but they also allow other options; it is how they are used that is important. As camera and TV (particularly streaming) resolution has been increasing, it is possible that to get technical perfection, the producers think all the actors need to be really beautiful with perfect skin etc. as they are shown in such great fine detail in the movie. Post-processing edits to how skinny models look in magazine covers or online, and fixing of imperfections in plastic surgery por post-processing also have lead to new aesthetics which is like a race that got out of hand, leading to ever less realistic photographs and movies. If they process everything to look a tone-mapped fake HDR image with local tonal variations everywhere and no contrast between the different elements in the scene, and all the characters are super perfect then there is a huge disconnect with reality. Classical films often had rough characters along with the beautiful, which made things look realistic even if the lighting was hard and stylized (by necessity, as the film material required a lot of light, so hard lights were used and there had to be intent). Actual HDR technology can help avoid the tone-mapped HDR look and have shadows dark all the while showing details (preserving the global contrast between parts of the image). However, how this technology is used is up to the people making the movie, of course. I have to admit that most of my favorite movies were shot on film, although I do like several which were shot on digital. I don't think shooting on film per se makes those movies look good but it may be that the filmmakers were able to choose an aesthetic (by film and lighting and costume choices etc.) and hold creative control over it with a more firm hand when using traditional techniques. This could also be why camera manufacturers have been adding "looks" and "grain" baked into the footage as options recently. They can help to lock in a certain look and the added grain prevents excessive mucking up with the image in post-processing. However, to me this seems like less than an ideal solution which would be for the team members to communicate and understand the intent and work together to achieve it. 

 

I notice there is no agreement as to what look is good online, people will have wildly differing opinions on such topics. Thus it is up to us as viewers to select our favorites and enjoy them rather than hope that every new movie follows the same aesthetics. This will never happen, of course, as there are so many opinions. 

[John Matthews]

9 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

The best looking film I ever made was in 1080p on consumer cameras before I really was trying to do a hell of a lot with color grading.

I love 1080p footage. To make 4K look good, you have to throw all kinds of filters at it. I can’t even imagine 8K, let alone 12K — that’s just crazy territory. Even 4K already shows every skin pore, sucking all the magic out of the image. 1080p still hits that sweet spot where the detail supports the story. Hyper-sharp 4K, 8K, and 12K just end up turning the story into “look how ugly that person is.” The narrative goes in one ear and out the other.

I can’t help wondering if there’s some level of collusion between computer manufacturers and camera companies. What if 1080p was always “good enough”? That would be a huge let-down. Why buy a new computer if a 10-year-old one can do just as well — aside from saving ten minutes on an export?

Granted, with a 12K sensor, I imagine moiré would disappear for good, giving you an incredibly clean 1080p file if the downsampling is done properly.

[John Matthews]

On 11/22/2025 at 8:49 PM, Andrew Reid said:

For those web content creators who consider 8K a bit mushy for Youtube work🙂

 

Dude, my infomercial will be future-proof! In 10 years, humans will evolve and they'll be able to see that 12k detail on their phones. Adapt or die, man!

[mercer]

Even mushy 1080p from the t2i looks better than 8K/12k except for DR. The best tech from the past 5-10 years is IBIS.

Any new full frame cameras have good 1080p raw without a crop?