4k Sources and interconnects - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 26 Old 09-24-2008, 11:13 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ICLKennyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 151
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So obviously 4k is still in the if-you-have-to-ask-how-much-you-can't-afford-it range, but I don't see it being too much longer before it drops to the $30k range (while still expensive is still in the achievable range for many more than $150k). There are only so many 30k 1080p proj's to be sold before they start trying to get people to upgrade to 4k... But I don't see the limiting factor as the display but the infrastructure to deliver these technologies.

So the real question is going to be will we see Blu-Ray 4k or a new media for distribution of these sources. Obviously our current players would need to be replaced/upgraded. But would it be a BD-Player or something new entirely. I wouldn't expect that it would be beyond the capacity of a 200gb blue ray nor the bitrate of the reading laser's ability to pull the data off the disc (less confident on that fact). However does HDCP support dual link? Is this the reason that hdcp has been missing from these displays?

How do they get the data to the display now?

Will we see a HDMI 2.0 Standard? Isn't this exactly what they tried to avoid with HDMI/HDCP in the first place - making a cable standard that would be widely accepted and robust for more than 3 - 5 years.

Is this what the UK Director of Samsung was talking about when he gave Blu-ray 5 years before dying out?
ICLKennyG is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 26 Old 09-24-2008, 11:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICLKennyG View Post

Is this what the UK Director of Samsung was talking about when he gave Blu-ray 5 years before dying out?

Almost certainly not. What will be dying out are media using mechanical components, only electronic/networked media will remain. Example is good old hard disc,its death is on the wall with the SSD (Solid State Disk) replacement coming.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #3 of 26 Old 09-24-2008, 06:18 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ICLKennyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 151
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Almost certainly not. What will be dying out are media using mechanical components, only electronic/networked media will remain. Example is good old hard disc,its death is on the wall with the SSD (Solid State Disk) replacement coming.

I have heard this argument. I somewhat get the logic - but it's not quite there. The net is a LONG way from being able to deliver 50+GB files on a mainstream basis for commerce. This leaves distributing some form of Solid state storage which is still WAY too expensive for single uses. I am all for network delivery but I fully expect that to be at least a generation behind the generation after what's after blue-ray.

Do you really expect them to deliver your 4k movie @ ~$50 bucks+ on a media that costs $1+/GB.
ICLKennyG is offline  
post #4 of 26 Old 09-25-2008, 04:49 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I'm still hard pressed to see a viable economic model for 4K source material.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #5 of 26 Old 09-25-2008, 02:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
the next method will be download/streaming. BD has been dead since long before it was released.

It will never reach even a shadow of the penetration numbers of DVD.

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #6 of 26 Old 09-25-2008, 08:04 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ICLKennyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 151
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

the next method will be download/streaming. BD has been dead since long before it was released.

It will never reach even a shadow of the penetration numbers of DVD.

Hmmm seems like a rather pesimistic outlook... one that isn't really supported by the numbers.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/09/25...d-dvds-demise/

As for the net
The top 10 DVD titles last week sold 2.5 million units. At a conservative 4.7 GB for just DVD - The distrobution for the top 20 movies alone is 19GB/s of data throughput. That's about 160Gbps!!!! Solidly pegged, 24/7 - and that's a random week in September.

That may be reachable, but it's not quite relevant for a 100% solution. The real problem is the broadband penetration for rural persons who can't get most forms of broadband. Not to mention what happens when we ratchet this up to Blu-ray and larger numbers. Think the net nutrality debate is hot now? Wait till this starts happening. It may be able to be an alternative available for cheap distribution for some providers but it's not ready to be the only method available.
ICLKennyG is offline  
post #7 of 26 Old 09-25-2008, 08:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jim HTPC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

the next method will be download/streaming. BD has been dead since long before it was released.

It will never reach even a shadow of the penetration numbers of DVD.


My opinion is that you will be in-correct with your assertion. People want quality and tangible ownership. Look at DVD sales for the tangible ownership. When blu-rays come down in price, DVDs will go by the way of VHS tapes. Regarding quality downloads... well not if the cable companies have anything to say about it. Comcast's new terms of service has a provision to cap your downloads at 250 GB per month. That equates to 6-8 blu-ray movies to download per month (bit for bit). Comcast wants a piece of the pie of TV/movies downloads, hence the "CAP" for now. Now say you want to compress the movie.... well then why did we buy a HDTV? People are already complaining about the excessive compression artifacts on their HD cable service. Most people I speak too are pissed that Comcast is charging for "HD" when it looks like garbage with all the compression. When we can download at 100mbit/sec it will take about an hour to download a blu-ray. Still too long for us impatient Americans. Not when I can run around the corner and go to Blockbuster and rent it (uncompressed), or plan ahead and watch it uncompressed via Netflix & Blockbuster online.

Just say no to compression artifacts.
Jim HTPC is offline  
post #8 of 26 Old 09-26-2008, 04:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,702
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 116
I think we all know that Blu Ray will penetrate the market like DVD. It'll do it sooner, too.

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is online now  
post #9 of 26 Old 09-26-2008, 09:44 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ICLKennyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 151
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

I think we all know that Blu Ray will penetrate the market like DVD. It'll do it sooner, too.

If we measure Blu-ray vs DVD I'd say it's doing as well as could be expected. The difference between Blu-ray and DVD is that circa 1995 everyone had a color ready television - circa 2006, not everyone had a high-def television.

I am not sure Blu-ray will quickly supplant DVD the way DVD did to VHS simply because the quality difference isn't that substantial. DVD was - and to a large part still is - the archiving jump. It's (semi) non-destructive nature means that weather you watch it 1 time or 10,000 times you have the same picture. People re-bought their old favorites, not because they wanted the spectacular quality - in fact many DVD titles look horrible - but they bought them because they wanted to know that they could always watch their movie - weather now or 25 years from now. Blu-ray was at least smart enough to stay compatible... but this is way way way off topic of what we started with.

Does anyone know a reason that would prevent Blu-ray from being a 4k source? How much data/second do we need to read a 4k h-264 encoding? Can that even fit on a 50gb blu-ray disc - how about on one of the super 6 or 8 layer bd-r's? Can HDCP be split across multiple DVI's - is it compatible with the current DualLink DVI standard? These are legitimate questions with real answers, not speculation on weather or not BR is a good idea or weather digital downloads will take off in the next 1, 10, or 100 years.
ICLKennyG is offline  
post #10 of 26 Old 10-12-2008, 03:47 AM
Member
 
Rsaeire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I honestly doubt Blu-ray will have anywhere near the numbers DVD have had, regardless of the benefits. By the time Blu-ray reaches a large enough number to rival DVD we will have another storage medium or distribution method to take over. It has already been mentioned by Sony that Blu-ray will most likely be the last optical disc format, so takes its place will be most interesting.

In regard to 4K media. This would only be a viable option for users with their own home theater i.e. projector and large screen, as the benefits of 4K over 1080p would demand a larger screen than most, if not all, living rooms could accommodate.
Rsaeire is offline  
post #11 of 26 Old 10-12-2008, 04:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
W.Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,781
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
ontill the studios not record at better than todays 35mm quality
you will not see a big improvment when usign a 4k pr.
even if the source is a 4k scann from a 35 mm film.

still today at blue ray the source is the limit and the limit for
4k scans is the 35mm film.

it will be change soon as more 4k cameras are come to the market
and they will used instead of 35mm.
W.Mayer is offline  
post #12 of 26 Old 10-12-2008, 07:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
bd will have life for the blockbuster crowd, but while we can all list issues for the streaming side and the quality issues... we have the reality of the netflix model. you pre order, it downloads in the background. you have it on your appliance.

For the instant gratification crowd. VOD is getting more and more robust all the time.

Arguments about wanting the physical copy... they are mostly moot. more and more, software will have no physical copy. the only thing "physical" that you will be able to get is manual/some sort of coverart, note jacket.

No physical copy... no piracy. (i know it is not quite that simple, but it is close.)

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #13 of 26 Old 11-12-2008, 05:05 AM
Member
 
Kressilac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The download market is about to get a huge boost. In 8 days Netflix will have a set-top box installed base of over 20 million units. A good number of those units will have the requisite Xbox Live Gold account and 8.99 Netflix subscription to the point where November 19th is going to be hell on Netflix servers and ISP bandwidth. Next up, Netflix on Tivo. Why is this important? Couple of reasons:

1) Blu-Ray discs are too expensive for the average Joe.
2) Picture Quality goes like this DVD -> Upscaled DVD -> Compressed HD(cable or download) - > Blu-Ray. Each step on that chain means that the price of Blu-Ray needs to be cheaper for the marginal PQ improvement to be worth it. See point 1.
3) Blu-Ray player penetration will not be able to keep up with download set-top box penetration.
4) Once cable sees HD Netflix doing well on the 360 and its ilk, the price of HD on-demand will come down to a reasonable $2 - $3 per rental. Now the download set-top box installed base goes up over 100 million+.
5) Most people realize that all their DVD collection does is collect dust. They've watched the movies once, maybe twice and never touched them again except for a select dozen favorites. Now parents with kids watching Disney movies is an entirely different animal but there you run into the next problem.
6) Most people that watch their favorite movies over and over again can do so in multiple places in the home, camper, car... The premium price of Blu-Ray doesn't work well with its reduced flexibility.

If Blu-Ray can address all of those issues, it might overtake DVD before downloads/on-demand relegate the DVD world to blockbuster archival releases only. (ie Lord of the Rings and other such landmark movies)

As for the original question: I would think you'll see 4K sources coming from the PC world before you see them coming from a CE stanpoint. If there's a solution to the interconnect issue with respect to HDCP, then the PC world is ahead of everyone else since they can already do dual cable solutions to the big 30" monitors.
Kressilac is offline  
post #14 of 26 Old 11-12-2008, 03:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:


1) Blu-Ray discs are too expensive for the average Joe.
2) Picture Quality goes like this DVD -> Upscaled DVD -> Compressed HD(cable or download) - > Blu-Ray. Each step on that chain means that the price of Blu-Ray needs to be cheaper for the marginal PQ improvement to be worth it. See point 1.
3) Blu-Ray player penetration will not be able to keep up with download set-top box penetration.
4) Once cable sees HD Netflix doing well on the 360 and its ilk, the price of HD on-demand will come down to a reasonable $2 - $3 per rental. Now the download set-top box installed base goes up over 100 million+.
5) Most people realize that all their DVD collection does is collect dust. They've watched the movies once, maybe twice and never touched them again except for a select dozen favorites. Now parents with kids watching Disney movies is an entirely different animal but there you run into the next problem.
6) Most people that watch their favorite movies over and over again can do so in multiple places in the home, camper, car... The premium price of Blu-Ray doesn't work well with its reduced flexibility.

1. A small point but discs are fine... players are the rub.
2. MOST (and i do mean the vast majority of people) are perfectly fine with DVD over component. (lets not even talk about upscaling players) while they can tell if you put both beside each other, they are quite fine with DVD.
3. Not just exisiting set top box/game console penetration, but MCE/Apple TV/whatever the next version is. people want their PC and their home entertainment systems to merge in some way.
4. VOD will always have the issue of bandwidth/quality. however the trade off is acceptable for most. and in all reality, for the VAST majority of people, what we are getting now is fine.
5. once i week i hear from my wife about how the DVD collection just gets in the way. nobody except the geeky want the media sitting around. they would all LOVE to have it on servers for playback, and (maybe) own some hard copies for the ones they always want to have. godfather, shawshank... etc. but if they had the choice of the disc (and all its inherent associated issues) or downloaded copy that came with lots of other neat stuff with notes about the movie, photo stills (think expanded jacket, but not the massive amounts of extras on a DVD that are rarely watched) what do you think most people would choose? kids movies... even more justification to never have to own a physical disc.
6. MMC to the other portable devices.

hollywood has no interest whatsoever in tooling up for any 4 k options. we are about 500 billion dollars in ROI (probably far more) away from anybody looking at that. small specialty studios... documentaries... they would possibly look for ways to rise up a bit... but not likely with the added cost.

To paraphrase bill gates... 2 K is more than enough for anybody. And if we talk about 99.99999999999999999% of the homes on this planet... it will be for our lifetimes.

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #15 of 26 Old 11-12-2008, 09:30 PM
Member
 
Kressilac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So we essentially agree.

It took literally decades for SD broadcasting to be on its way out. Granted 720p was always short lived as a format but 1080p is the next 480i. 1080p will be around for 20+ years unless there is a game changing technological event in the CE space. I'm talking about an event like the invention of the modern microchip. 1080p has such a strong momentum that it will take a mighty disruptive innovation to derail it and get consumers moving towards something else.

Basically, we do not have enough bandwidth in the places necessary to handle 4K and we won't have it for years. Cables, Networks, CPUs, GPUs, switches... Even when we do have it, we'll stuff 500 uncompressed 1080p channels in it before we stuff a single 4k channel. Material science needs to improve. Physics needs to improve. Then those improvements need to become mass market. Decades from now? Possibly. In the near future? No chance. The PC market is likely your best bet and all you're going to get for content is upscaled 1080p.
Kressilac is offline  
post #16 of 26 Old 11-13-2008, 11:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
we very much agree.

the other thing is that we spent years seeing incremental increases with SD. and really, only towards the end did we really see the best that DVD could offer. And in many cases, with proper 3:2 cadence correction, sd can look spectacular.

But what do we still talk about... poor encoding, EE, etc. So even though we are moving to HD, nobody will really argue that we have not seen the very best that SD can offer. get a digital betcam and watch some footage on a direct transfer from a telecine and you will see footage that will blow you away.

And when it comes to HD... we are only at the start. there is a long way to go in source quality before we ever need to think about 4k. DO not forget as well that when NTSC was developed, nobody could ever imagine a TV larger than 20". so HD was developed with much larger screens in mind.

OK, guys with a 16' or larger screen could see some benefit to 4 K, but even then, the quality of the source will be mor eimportant first.

4K is just not a good idea either in viability of market, or the fact that it undercuts the billions that have been already spent in trying to get HD rolled out. nothing can confuse the market more than hearing more noise about the new improved HD...

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #17 of 26 Old 11-13-2008, 02:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 102
One thing is for sure; while the capture side of the industry is racing on, the display side is falling more and more behind.

You think you have bought this wonderful 1080p TV and see HD in full resolution.
You don’t!
Except if you are lucky with your purchase or have done your research and can afford the TV that actually gives you a full HD resolution picture.

According to HD Guru’s: Will You See All The HDTV Resolution You Expected? 125 2008 Model Test Results.
HD Guru’s test results pdf. http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads...-125-hdtvs.pdf

There was only one, (yes that’s 1), out of 125 TV’s tested that showed the full 1080p resolution when the picture was moving (Samsung LN-46A950), and nearly all also faild the 3:2 pulldown.
Most of them showed full resolution with a still image (but not all), but the resolution dropped as far down as 260 vertical pixel when there was movement in the picture.
The possibility for moving pictures is the reason why we buy TV’s isn’t it?
As a minimum we should be able to see the resolution we have paid for.

The display industry, besides the “big TV swindle”, either has problems making displays that follow the capture development, or there’s something more “sinister” going on?
The result is that the gap widens every year.

RED One has heightened the bar for visual quality with 4K RAW capture but there is really nowhere where one can enjoy the full quality of the resolution.

But RED isn’t resting on its acivements.
Today RED announced 2 modular camera systems for 2009/2010 release with sensors ranging from Scarlet 2/3” 3K sensor of 3072 x 1620,
Scarlet S35 5K,
Scarlet FF35 6K 6000 x 4000 (24mp still capture) and the
EPIC range s35, 5K, 5129 x 2700 (13.8mp still),
FF35 6K (24mp still),
Epic645, 9K, 9334 x 7000 (65mp still),
and if that’s not enough,
Epic617, 28K, 28000 x 9334 (261mp still capture) which I guess makes the widest aspect ratio of the movie history?

So my main questions are;
Is it really that impossible hard or expensive to make function displays that can reproduce what the Camera sensors can capture?
Most of the leading companies are involved with the development of both, so what’s really the problem?






Link to a blog that summarise the RED announcement today; http://www.michaelsmith.tv/2008/11/1...this-is-great/


The whole RED “brochure”; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpos...1&postcount=28


coolscan is online now  
post #18 of 26 Old 11-29-2008, 08:19 AM
Senior Member
 
Gradius2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iquique, Chile
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 14
A company is going to release on Q1 2009 a blu-ray challenger called RDM, they acclaim 1920p resolution, pretty odd resolution indeed, if so it would be around 3413x1920.

Even odd when they say it will use red laser with 100GB capacity. They will release it to Europe and Asia markets first.

More info:
http://www.dreamstream.info

Besides, since it uses red laser tecnology, the costs will be the same as DVD today. I dunno, but if proved really good, then Blu-ray got a serious rival.

[]s,
Fernando
Gradius2 is offline  
post #19 of 26 Old 11-29-2008, 03:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
as i have said a few times, we are so far off getting full resolution out of our displays, and top notch encoding off the disks, that talking about 4k is just silly.

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #20 of 26 Old 12-10-2008, 04:22 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
4K?

Sure they are going to sell some displays, but 4K content?

What happened to Deep Color?

At least that is doable using todays technology and it does make a noticeable difference in image quality.

We will have real 3DTV before we ever see 4K content - and real 3DTV is years away
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #21 of 26 Old 12-29-2008, 09:33 PM
GXM
Member
 
GXM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Santa Clarita, CA.
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Resolution does have a practical limit. When noone's eye can detect the difference from pixel to pixel, adding more pixels per inch is useless. I am sure we can all look up numbers on this, but we all have seen it as well. It is different for many people based on vision, but unless you are very close to some big screens, then 1080P is better than most can percieve. The human vision system is quite interesting though. If you have a still image, or slow moving crisp detail, you can concentrate on a part and pick out pixel structure, but add real life veiwing of motion and that will go away. If you are purposely close to the screen and looking out your periferal vision, I don't think you are enjoying the movie enough to worry about the jaggies on the text. When I set up some early D-Cinema systems with Christie 1280x1024 projectors I was appauled. I knew that could not be the future of cinema. Yet with a good movie and an excited audience, I heard raves about the great picture. I could not enjoy a movie on those systems. The pixel aliasing artifacts drew my attention, even from the back row of a medium sized theatre. With the current 2K DLP's, I have seen some excellent image quality from mid house seats on large screens. On important screenings with full tech crews checking everything, I would say we are at a point where 80% of the time, the DLP image was as good or better than the film print we were also supplied. In many cases we A-B them to decide which wil be the prime and the backup. Only 3 times in the last years did we run the film and have the DLP chasing doused. In one case, the film print was dramatically superior. To the point the DLP looked bad. But when we put up just the DLP and watched it, it was certainly not a bad transfer or anything like that, it was just a superior print from a great source. The release prints that most theatres got for this same film though were nothing like that one special print, and that print only lasted a few shows before it no longer had that quality.

I have done a few shows using the Sony 4K SXRD projectors. The internal test patterns sure look sharp. You can get closer to the screen before you see pixels too, but once again, that oddity of human visual system showed up. With the still test pattern up, I was again able to see the pixel edge stair stepping on the circles from much further away than I ever expected. My eyes are not great, but I do have very good glasses. The SXRD has a different look to it than DLP but I can not totally put my finger on what it is. They were set up to the same color space using the same PR650 color meter. And we even fed them both the same 1920x1080 4x4x4 soure from an HD CAM SR deck. Either one on its own looked great, but I am so used to the DLP look, my eyes preferred it, but the SXRD had a smoother almost soft look to it. Dare I say, more film like? On fast moving scenes the DLP was much crisper to me. But how much was the fact the 4K had to upscale while the DLP was native? I can't say.

On of the screenings I did recently on a 2K DLP was in a very short theatre with a huge screen. The projector was running in pixel for pixel mode from a 1080P source using 1920x 808 pixels. The door into the auditorium was between the 3 sloped rows and the stadium seats. From that location, the pixel grid was too bad for me to tollerate. Just 4 rows back intot he stadium seats though, and it was a joy to watch. In theory, a true 4K setup could cut the distance to the screen in half before this pixel grid is annoying. But to be honest, those seats are just plain too close as you can't possibly see the whole screen without turning wour head a lot.

I am looking into a 1080P to upgrade my room in the future, but my 5 year old 720P projector throws an amazing picutre on my 92 inch screen with the primary seating being 12 feet back. It is odd how I can see the pixels on still text, but not on a good moving image. I have the restored version of "Grand Prix" that was shot in 70 mm on standard DVD. This image looks like excellet HD with great fine details even in fast moving shots. Many true HD sources don't even come close to this quality. On the other hand, good HD sources look breathtaking. The tonight show off my antenna is superb. Most upscaled broadcast stinks. I would rather see it in an SD feed, but now those are changing to SD>HD>SD feeds as we switch to an HD world. Dish Network Turbo HD channels can look great, but again we are source limited. Some shows look amazing, others mediocre.

All in all I see 4K in the home as being a long way off. I have nothing against Sony, but the SXRD projectors do have some issues for now. One big one is light output. They just can't compete head to head yet. They may be ready for home use sooner as they don't have the heat issues on small screens. If you like to be 4 feet from your 100 inch screen, maybe HD upscaled to 4K will help in your home.

D-Cinema 4K is done with the same JPEG2000 with a data rate cap of 150 mbps. This does sound like a lot more data than Blu Ray but you have to remember that it is an I frame only system. Every frame is complete on it's own with no interframe compression allowed. This data rate can be greatly reduced over the long term average using long GOP compression scemes such as H.264. I have seen stunning HD video at very low data rates in tests. I see no reason a Blu Ray disk couldn't hold 2 hours of 4K on just a dual layer disk. Look at some of the 9 gig red laser HD disks that were done using advanced video codecs such as VC1 and H.264 and you will see it can easilly be done.

A true 4096 x 2160 image could be done over twin dual link DVI and HDCP will work over that. I have seen a spec for a dual link HDMI connector, just a bit wider with more pins for the 3 extra channels. Sony has a proprietary 8 link HD SDI setup between their media black server and the projector. With the new broadcast 3.0 ghz HD SDI that could be cut to quad link for uncomressed 4K 4x4x4 video at 24P.

All this talk about improved resolution misses one big point. 24 FPS annoys me much more than 2K res. There is a DCI spec for 48 fps data and I have seen some amazing demos. I want that beforer I want 4K for action pictures. With quick motion you will never see the 4K, but you do see motion strobing from the 24 fps all the time. When is a director going to push the edge and use the 48 fps in a big fast paced action film?
GXM is offline  
post #22 of 26 Old 12-30-2008, 04:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
odyssey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
GXM,

Very nice post.
odyssey is offline  
post #23 of 26 Old 12-30-2008, 05:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 49
GXM, when you say : "When is a director going to push the edge and use the 48 fps in a big fast paced action film?"

Are the cameras in place and are all dlp units ready for it?48[fps] I see the Barco has frame acceleration screens that i suspect can be used outside of 3D.

I did see a fantastic close proximity SXRD presentation from Sony this last SHOWEAST but it was a 15 foot wide screen. It was very sharp for sxrd you could almost see the pixels So there is hope for sxrd to look sharp, and uniform and free of any chromatic aberrations, but I am afraid there must have been some supercalibrator standing by on this one presentation.

You can see the back of the booth here:

CINERAMAX is online now  
post #24 of 26 Old 12-30-2008, 03:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
R Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,673
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by GXM View Post

Resolution does have a practical limit.
....
When I set up some early D-Cinema systems with Christie 1280x1024 projectors I was appauled. I knew that could not be the future of cinema. Yet with a good movie and an excited audience, I heard raves about the great picture.
....
I am looking into a 1080P to upgrade my room in the future, but my 5 year old 720P projector throws an amazing picutre on my 92 inch screen with the primary seating being 12 feet back. It is odd how I can see the pixels on still text, but not on a good moving image. ...good HD sources look breathtaking.
...

Thanks for an excellent post!

Count me in those audience members who raved about DLP Cinema quality back in the days of 1280x1024 prototypes. We saw "Mission to Mars" (2000) in DLP and then 5 minutes later from film in another auditorium in the multiplex. DLP was the obvious winner.

Given a good HD source, my little 1280x720 DLP projector also throws what I think is an amazingly good picture. (87" diagonal from about 12 feet.) At this point I have no desire to upgrade to 1080. Maybe when the lamp hits its end-of-life.
R Johnson is offline  
post #25 of 26 Old 03-02-2009, 05:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
fastl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
....You can see the back of the booth here [big stovepipe]....

Where's the spaghetti?
fastl is offline  
post #26 of 26 Old 03-24-2009, 12:00 PM
Newbie
 
renesix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by GXM View Post

All this talk about improved resolution misses one big point. 24 FPS annoys me much more than 2K res. There is a DCI spec for 48 fps data and I have seen some amazing demos. I want that beforer I want 4K for action pictures. With quick motion you will never see the 4K, but you do see motion strobing from the 24 fps all the time. When is a director going to push the edge and use the 48 fps in a big fast paced action film?

Totally agree. While I'd love to see 4K systems all round, if it came to a choice I would prefer 48fps instead. Doubling in the frame-rate produces such an awe-inspiring other-worldly effect that draws you into the feature.
renesix is offline  
Reply D-cinema Equipment and Theaters

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off