8K just means that screens will continue to be ridiculously stretched beyond any logic (because 8K only says how many pixels horizontally, not vertically, so vertical can be anything you wish). They should probably switch to megapixels. At 16:9 the 8K screen would have 33 megapixels, while 4K has only 8 megapixels. So if they express the screen size in megapixels, the difference sounds bigger (good for marketing).
But those cinema aspect ratios are ridiculous. 16:9 is already too wide compared to the human visual system. Are they making those screens for aliens? Or maybe spiders (they have 8 eyes)?
Because if they are making them for humans, our visual field works best with the 3:2 aspect ratio. Anything wider than that means loss of vertical data. Basically, the wider the screen the more under-utilized our visual subsystem is. I vote for 3:2 (1.5) aspect ratio. Let's make the screens great again!
But those cinema aspect ratios are ridiculous. 16:9 is already too wide compared to the human visual system. Are they making those screens for aliens? Or maybe spiders (they have 8 eyes)?
Because if they are making them for humans, our visual field works best with the 3:2 aspect ratio. Anything wider than that means loss of vertical data. Basically, the wider the screen the more under-utilized our visual subsystem is. I vote for 3:2 (1.5) aspect ratio. Let's make the screens great again!