NASA has published the first 8K footage from space on its YouTube channel.
The three minute video, filmed aboard the International Space Station, details "the in-space experience and see how the international partnership-powered human spaceflight is improving lives on Earth, while enabling humanity to explore the universe."
Throughout the video, more than a dozen experiments and devices are shown, each of which are listed and timestamped in the video's description on YouTube. There's even a glimpse or two of Nikon D5 cameras and Manfrotto mounting equipment.
In order to view the video in full resolution, you'll need to either stream it on Google's Chrome browser or download the 3GB MP4 video directly from NASA's Image and Video Library website.
Of course, in order to watch it in all its glory, you're going to need a display capable of showing off 8K footage — something you might not have sitting around the house or office — so keep that in mind.
I think 8k (or more) could be very useful with the diffusion of 360 degrees footage, which I think has a future, especially in reports/news/documentary. Such footage could be cropped and allow to obtain normal HD frames that can be later chosen in postproduction.
This video is fake created by Canon fanboys! The earth is shown round and the dynamic range is day and night different!!! And the 8K is also cropped 3x..Arrrhhh!
The value of 8K won't be appreciated for many years, however, that's the point! It will be like watching the first HDTV images from the early 90's today - weird that the quality was available then and revealing what the world was like in HD all that time ago.
Shot in glorious 8K and then automatically compressed by YouTube so the full quality can't be seen. Why would you shoot in this high quality and then upload it to YouTube in the first place?
It's like shooting on Super 35mm for a direct to VHS movie.
Nice! However, we will need another 5 years or more, until mortals will be able to fully enjoy this video quality. Оn a cosmic scale - a mere moment, though :-)
I have a 10" screen and PJ theater setup in my basement and even on that (from a comfortable viewing distance) the resolution difference between 4K and 1080p is only barely noticeable if I'm really trying to look for it on test patterns.
8K is silly in the consumer space for motion video. It is only useful in the store showroom floor, where people walk right up to the screens to inspect them from a hand's width away to decide if "teh pixels" will be good enough.
8K is useful for professional video editors as the high resolution allows a lot of freeway when editing; one can crop or heavily reframe the video and not make any real loss in quality as a result.
Also, when exporting the final work, if you downsample to 4k, it creates a cleaner video file.
Surtan - 8K is the what you need to achieve perfect alias free 4K video when watching at home. It can also be used in its full resolution for fantastic theater projections. It is needed for a more convincing 3D VR experience. It will take sports photography to a new level when global shutter will be available. It's also the ultimate format for wildlife documentaries, observation and surveillance, video files archiving and the best starting point for all the editing workflow. The same principle applies to the music record industry where the best studios work at 32Bit 384KHz sampling rate allowing maximum DR and precision to work with though you usually end up with limited 16Bit 44.1KHz CD quality or even worse. Still, if you want a real audiophile experience, you'll go for higher resolution files and better gear. When quality is involved, too much is better than not enough.
Max, I'm not disagreeing that 8K might have some advantages when editing. But in this context (watching YouTube streams) aka consumer viewing, it is pointless.
Just think with 15 years we will have 8k@60p in Smartphones, well I might as well wait till the Samsung Galaxy S25 comes out ... LOL, but I reckon when 8K appears on camera's, Camcorders and Smartphones, it will be initially at 30fps and then a model or 2 down the line they will opt for 60fps, can't wait as 8K@60fps is breathtakingly beautiful.
Nah, in 15 years we'll have 8K 1,000fps slowmo on our phones. Just think, 15 years ago we were stuck with 0.3 megapixels in our smartphones and no video recording. Sensors and processor speed will continue to go wild as long as people clamor for new cameras in their phones.
This megapixel race in photography and video will stop, as the audio sampling rate and resolution race has stopped. The vast majority of people listen to compressed, stereo, 44.1 or 48Khz, 16-bit per channel audio, and are happy with that, although one can use uncompressed audio formats with faster sampling rates and greater bit depth for some time now.
Even better on a 32", 4K monitor from a lazy chair X feet away, with audio connected to the stereo system, with 15", 3-way speakers, subwoofer, ... etc. But of course nothing can beat watching an 8K video on an iphone. :)
40" 8k monitor, sitting within 3ft with perfect eyes, sure.
8k is not useful for viewing movies or TV though.
What would be infinitely more useful is quality displays. Black is actually black, not grey, 0.01 pixel and input lag response, 10,000:1 true contrast. No dynamic anything. etc....
You don't need 8K monitor to view 8K content, it will look better than native 4K source. Another way to enjoy the resoltuion is to have larger display to fill your view, it doesn't have to sit far like it's with TVs. Tunnel vision with TV several meters away never appealed to me.
jnd, It is not good for the vision to watch a screen for hours, just a couple of feet away. I am waiting for an affordable 8K TV screen as large as my living room wall, like in Total Recall...
It wasn't a bad lens. Super wides will always have some barrel distortion. This is a photography forum filled with people who know a thing or two about cameras and lenses. What we do know is that no matter how much barrel distortion a lens has, the line across the middle of the frame horizontally or vertically is not distorted. If any part of that horizon is on the centerline and it's still curved well... guess that that means. Flat earth is for people who are brash enough to use physics to imply that science is wrong.
I got the following information from google and curious about what camera settings are for this amazing video especially the scenes of viewing the earth through ISS windows.
"The International Space Station travels in orbit around Earth at a speed of roughly 17,150 miles per hour (that's about 5 miles per second!). This means that the Space Station orbits Earth (and sees a sunrise) once every 92 minutes!"
I'm sure that by next Christmas I'll be hauling away all those ancient, depricated 4K display teevees as everyone embraces the new 8K standard.. :-0
The jump from NTSC to 1080p was pretty huge. The jump to 4K is still notable, but nowhere near as long a leap in regards to visible resolution. Short of an 80" display, I kinda doubt my eyes will be able to discern the resolution difference between 4K and 8K if I'm more than a few feet away from the monitor.
Plus it will be awhile before a gigabyte per minute streaming becomes available in any real sense for most people. Maybe if they went back to OTA as their primary distribution method, making antennae great again.
It's going to require the elimination of DSL (phone line) connections and the adoption of house to street fiber. N. America once lead the internet in connectivity, now we drag 5-10 YEARS behind many other places.
@Mr Bolton – I didn't think I would notice the difference until I saw 8K displays in person. With the right content they can be visually stunning, particularly for doing things like displaying photos. A couple years ago at NAB, Canon had an 8K reference display in its booth and hung a magnifying glass next to it so that you could try to see the pixels. It basically looked like a backlight photographic print.
8K is a tool. It may not make much difference for watching movies in the living room, but it will be amazing when used where the resolution matters. As a filmmaker, I also appreciate the ability to crop in post when creating 4K content.
I've got a 4K oled and I can see it has more detail that what I see at the movies. The other side of it is I don't watch a movie and think it needs more detail. The jump to 1080 was a huge improve the jump to 4K is an occasional improvement. If things are perfect it looks better, if things are a bit wonky the extra detail can make it look wonky...ier.
I would assume DiffractionLtd knows that LED is a type of LCD.
Plasma still produces a far better image than most LCDs. In fact, only an OLED matches it in most facets.
Dynamic this and that garbage is very visible to me. I cant stand seeing it.
"In nearly every case where someone brings up viewing distance as a way to dismiss advances in resolution they are wrong in what they say. This is one of those cases."
This is not one of those cases. Most people will not have 120"(minimum) TVs for many, many years if ever.
8k may be good for the production end, and high end large monitors or VR, but not TVs or for watching movies.
People will never sit 2ft from a 60" screen, 8k is not needed for TVs at all.
It is a marketing gimmick. Like Dynamic CR.
Effort should be put into more real quality factors. TVs are not so bad in the last few years, but still gimmicky. Make them properly good and then consider resolution as a 5th place qualifier of IQ.
A 4k TN panel is still garbage no matter what resolution.
@diffraction..what remote place do you live in N. America?
Phone lines for internet went away with the Doto Bird, lol.
I was late to fiber Optics...but did finally get it. That was 9 years ago, lol.
USA varies greatly , depending on where in the 50 states one lives. It's like different countries, almost, when you see how different folk live, act, talk, even the foods they eat, etc. Quite diverse.
4k in the living room is even excessive - unless you have a 60" screen. I have 27 and 28" screens that are 4k. My MacBook Pro can drive them just fine at 4k but it's too small at that size. So I decreased the resolution a little to make it useable. Of course I could have increased the text size but why? Looking at it under a magnifying glass is the way to see 8k, but how can I enjoy a movie by looking at it it's teenieweenie pixels with a microscope? I really don't care to pixel peep each frame of a movie and 1080p on a 42" looks great from 10 ft away, which is where I sit. Indiana Jones looks great on Blueray, much better than DVD, and he still defeated the Nazis single handed while saving the Ark of the Covenant. Will going from 1080p to 4k look better at 10 ft away? Either way Ford hasn't aged quite as well as Jones.
To see all the detail a 4K can provide, you need to be no more than 4-5 feet away for about a 55" TV. Most (silly) people sit 6-10ft from TVS. 8K will be even more ridiculous. Also, it depends on the illumination level since when the eye iris is open wide (5-7mm) resolution may be less because of residual optical aberrations caused by the eye lens. This is why things tend to look sharper in daylight, your eye iris is "stopped-down." There may be benefits beyond the resolution, I've got HD and 4K and the 4K even fed an HD signal appears somewhat sharper, but that could be down to a lot of things since the sets are not from the same mfg.
A higher quality lower rez display beats a lesser quality display with higher rez.
TVs do not need to be 8k. High quality 40-50" monitor from 3ft if your eyes are really good, yeah sure.
Even if you could see the details from 8ft on a 65" TV (you probably cant) between 4k to 8k, Movies and TV are not meant to be watched for pixel level details anyways.
Its not really a tool as much as we are for falling for the marketing gimmicks.
That's a lot of what I was trying to say above, but I kinda got trashed on for it. I'm sorry, but I really don't think most people need 8k, and I don't think they ever really will. And I know that here in the USA, we are wholly lacking in the fiber optic bandwidth needed to transmit 8k in full, actual 8k. I can sorta see the argument for it if you're a content creator in the high end space, but otherwise, not so much. It is largely marketing hype. Hence my tongue in cheek remarks above about how I'll be hauling away all those deprecated 4K teevees by next Christmas.. (I have a side job hauling stuff that people throw away.)
nasa /iss been using nikon for photography for awhile. They have tons of nikkor lenses up there, you can see their flickr photostream (nasa johnson). I would image the z7 or z6 will be on the next payload.
But the curvature of the Earth is present even when it passes by the center of the frame! Surely this is proof that the Earth is in fact shaped like a circular pepperoni pizza from Dominos like the one I'll be ordering for dinner tonight!
How do they explain the fact that nothing else looks distorted? There are plenty of pictures showing the earth in the background (out a window), and parts of the ISS and crew in the foreground.
Try explaining that the stories in the Bible are most likely not real.
Similarly difficult.
But with Flat earthers they have created this fake science using real math and such to support it which makes a mockery of real science and impossible to disprove them.
Where as the Bible is specially crafted over the ages to be impossible to disprove.
The additional confusion comes when you consider that traditional debate wasn't in regards to the earth being flat or globular, but rather the geocentric vs heliocentric models of the solar system (earth-centric or sun-centric) and that even biblical scholars will dispute the notion that the Earth is flat. So the whole modern flat earth thing seems to be ridiculous even by biblical standards, and overall seems to represent a crowd of people that are lost, don't know how to read a map, and refuse to listen when you show them how to read a map. To their theories I say: What if we're actually living in a computer simulation?
No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.
As a stills camera the Fujifilm X-T3 is a pleasant update to one of our favorite APS-C cameras, significantly improving the autofocus. If you're interested in stills and video, though, it's knockout.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
The Canon EOS R is the first full frame mirrorless camera to use the new RF mount. We're well underway putting it through our range of standard tests – take a look at how it compares to the competition and our thoughts on using it so far.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.
DxO announces the latest update to Nik Collection (version 1.1) that brings better compatibility, fewer bugs to the plugin suite it acquired from Google a year ago
Nikon USA has announced that its Z6 full-frame mirrorless camera will be shipping Friday, November 16th at a price of $1999 body-only and $2599 with the Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 S lens.
The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.
ON1 Photo RAW 2019 brings an updated interface, more powerful Lightroom migration, better camera/lens support, and more to ON1's flagship editing program.
Experiencing life through the lens of a camera might mean you miss out on special moments, warns Casey Cavanaugh as he shoots a short film through the viewfinder of his Hasselblad 500CM
The New York Times has teamed up with Google to start the process of digitizing more than five million photos stored in a vault nicknamed "the morgue."
Ambitious goals, new challenges and looking ahead to 100 years of the Z mount – we spoke with senior executives and engineers at Nikon about what lies ahead.
After years focused primarily on landscapes, Erez Marom leapt on an opportunity to return to his roots in wildlife photography. A trip to the mountains of Uganda photographing endangered mountain gorillas yielded some stunning photos – and an experience of a lifetime.
Digital cameras have made it incredibly easy to do time-lapse photography, thanks to the ability to take hundreds—or even thousands—of photos without interruption. This week, Chris and Jordan walk us through the process of planning and shooting compelling time-lapse videos.
The Nikon Z6 is the lower-resolution, faster sibling to the Z7, and has already shown impressive results in our preliminary testing. Take a look at how it performs outside of the studio.
Photopea is a free Photoshop alternative that works directly in the browser and offers advanced features including spot removal, clone tool, layers, filters, and masks.
Since publishing our full review, we've continued shooting with the Fujifilm X-T3 here and there – sometimes on assignment, and sometimes because we just like it so darn much. Our sample gallery has been updated with fresh images.
Comments