AVS Forum banner

Predictions for 2013 4K projectors

72K views 690 replies 98 participants last post by  mark haflich 
#1 ·
I'm wondering if you guys think we will see any other 4K projectors announced in a few months at the Cedia show?


What i'm mainly questioning, is since 4K is still a ways out, is it likely that another projector similar to the Sony 4K VW1000 will be available for cheaper (not neccessarily sony). Something with similar picture, with contrast, brightness, and features close to the sony.


I know that the flagship products are always a lot when they come out first, but from what i've read, there is actually a tangible difference between the high end stuff and the lower end stuff that comes out later (lens sharpness/quality, build quality, etc).
 
#327 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01  /t/1411196/predictions-for-2013-4k-projectors/300#post_23033940


I hope this will help with UHD bluray the way you describe, however unless you sit 50" from a 50" TV, there is really very little point in buying a 4K display of that size for video/movie content.

Even with an 84-88" display, you have to sit very close (around 1SW) to see any difference with a 1080p display (except for passive 3D, as this gets much better, but the display you mention has no 3D).

So hopefully lots of people will fall for the marketing of 4K instead of thinking "do I need this in my set up".

42" displays look fine with 768p panels in most living rooms, and 1080p is enough up to at least 60", if not 65" IMHO, unless you use these as giant computer monitors of course.

I have an 88" diag 16/9 display and 4K does very little by itself as the increase in resolution is simply not visible from my sitting distance (12ft). This is the main reason why I stuck to 1080p to date.

So it's the same chicken and egg situation. Unless a 4K standard for content brings more to the table than a simple increase in resolution that doesn't improve the picture quality unless your display is huge and/or you sit very close to it, why would people pay $2000 for a 50" display when they can get exactly the same picture quality for half less?


We need cheaper BIG displays. 88"+ UHDTV or 4K projectors for less than $10K. That will do it!

I agree that you won't generally realize the increased resolution benefits of UHD on a 50" display. This is similar to the situation with selling 32"-42" HDTVs with 1080p vs. 720p where must people watch from too far away to gets the benefits of 1080p. However, once UHD TVs start to get into the mainstream there will be new owners that really want UHD sources and that will help build market demand for such UHD sources. Other CE manufacturers from China (e.g., Westinghouse) announced plans at CES for larger screens (i.e. larger than 50") and as we get more UHD products competing prices will come down. Probably by the end of 2013 there will a few choices for UHD TVs in the 55" to 65" sizes for $5K or less and perhaps some ~80" model selling for under $10K. I do think that industry standard based UHD sources, with the broad backing of the movie studios, will not come to market until the latter half of 2014 or perhaps 2015. I would also expect to see some form of 4K projector in the $10K price range by late 2014 or 2015.
 
#328 ·
The pipe to most homes in the US with vendor limits do not support 4K download. I'm lucky enough to have uncapped FIOS, but still don't like the delay in downloading. H.265 will help, but it still takes time. Optical BD is a necessity until the pipe is big enough and caps removed in the US.


As for 4K displays taking off, the CEs will eventually stop making 2K screens (or only sell them at Walmart). Most 1080p displays are 3D ready now, were once that was an option. Good luck finding a 720p display there days. Marketing dictates that 4K will start to replace 1080p this year and going forward regardless of seating distance.
 
#329 ·

Quote:
The pipe to most homes in the US with vendor limits do not support 4K download.

You mean it won't support 4k streaming. People seem to use streaming and download interchangeably. I have interest in 4k download. I have no interest in 4k streaming. My reason? Where I live, for the forseeable future, 4k streaming will be so bandwidth limited that I expect any PQ improvement due to the higher resolution will be lost because of too high compression, even with h265. But I am willing to wait a day to finish a 4k download with low enough compression that I CAN derive some PQ improvement vs 1080. That of course depends on the caps in place, which would be my limiting factor right now. My current plan has a cap of 250g/mo. At the moment my ISP doesn't charge for overage, but I can't see that lasting very much longer with netflix etc. becoming more popular. Most ISP's here list at least $2/G overage charge for plans
 
#331 ·
Streaming for sure and to an extent, downloading due to cap costs. Downloaded 4K content will quickly hit the cap and become cost prohibitive. 4K needs to be available for the masses that will eventually be buying 4K displays over the next two years as prices come down. Regardless of the perceived resolution benefit, J6P will be buying UHD displays because that's what will be selling in Costco. And they're going to want to pop in an optical disk. That's the only model that will work for the masses.


Perhaps ultra hi-def streaming will work for Generation X once 8K broadcast and improved bandwidth to the home is a reality. Before then, it has to be optical platters or it's not going to fly in the US. I'm not talking about what folks buy to watch now on their $20+K projector. These folks will watch anything at this point to get true 4K. Their best bet while waiting for some server is to build an HTPC.
 
#333 ·
Let us consider a 4k download service. While not the most demanding case the vast majority of movies are 2D at 24Hz. With a high efficiency compression scheme (perhaps HEVC as per h.265 or even something more efficient) it should be possible to get a 4K UHD movie down to 50 GB probably with 10-bit, and maybe even 12-bit color depth. If you have an internet service that can provide an average download throughput of 10 Mbps it can transfer 1.25 MBps or 1 GB in 800 seconds (13.33 minutes). For a 50 GB movie file that would take over 11 hours. However there are many people located in areas where the only "high speed" internet access is DSL from their phone company and in many cases they may be limited to somewhere between 750Kbps and 3 Mbps. In that case the download time would be measured not in hours, but in days and 4K downloads would be rather impractical in that case. I would speculate that such 4K download service would require a download througput something greater than 5 Mbps for it to be considered practical, and that assumes you only want to occassionally download a 4K movie. Without a physical media for the distribution of 4K UHD movies there will be many potential customers that will not have have a practical means of access to such 4K content.
 
#334 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones  /t/1411196/predictions-for-2013-4k-projectors/330#post_23035360


Let us consider a 4k download service. While not the most demanding case the vast majority of movies are 2D at 24Hz. With a high efficiency compression scheme (perhaps HEVC as per h.265 or even something more efficient) it should be possible to get a 4K UHD movie down to 50 GB probably.

Ron, that's a good point. The 100GB file size number that's been thrown around in headlines is almost certainly for 3D. There's just no way you need 100GB for a 2D movie so 50GB is going to be the majority case.


Yes, this will be totally impractical for people with DSL, but there are plenty of folks with 10Mbps+ cable or even fiber. I don't think Sony cares that not everyone will be able to use the service. It's clearly a halo product for the primary purpose of inducing drool and demonstrating technical superiority over competitors, which has trickle down benefits for the downmarket products in their lineup.


I believe YouTube already will push you up to 4K video if you ask for it. Just choose Original in the resolution settings, and you'll get whatever resolution the uploader used (assuming it is higher than 1080).
 
#335 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xank  /t/1411196/predictions-for-2013-4k-projectors/330#post_23035496


Ron, that's a good point. The 100GB file size number that's been thrown around in headlines is almost certainly for 3D. There's just no way you need 100GB for a 2D movie so 50GB is going to be the majority case.


Yes, this will be totally impractical for people with DSL, but there are plenty of folks with 10Mbps+ cable or even fiber. I don't think Sony cares that not everyone will be able to use the service. It's clearly a halo product for the primary purpose of inducing drool and demonstrating technical superiority over competitors, which has trickle down benefits for the downmarket products in their lineup.


I believe YouTube already will push you up to 4K video if you ask for it. Just choose Original in the resolution settings, and you'll get whatever resolution the uploader used (assuming it is higher than 1080).

I agree there are many people with download speeds of greater than 10 Mbps, but there also many that do not to access to such services. I guess my main point is that industry standardized physical media as well as commercial download services, (along with moderately priced UHD TVs) are needed in order to get the acceptance needed for the success of the 4K UHD format within the next few years.
 
#336 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones  /t/1411196/predictions-for-2013-4k-projectors/330#post_23035568


I agree there are many people with download speeds of greater than 10 Mbps, but there also many that do not to access to such services. I guess my main point is that industry standardized physical media as well as commercial download services, (along with moderately priced UHD TVs) are needed in order to get the acceptance needed for the success of the 4K UHD format within the next few years.

Ok let's agree to agree then.



Sadly I don't see any real progress being made in the last mile problem for a large percentage of America, at least if you're talking about hardwired. 4G/LTE may be a 10Mbps+ solution for some with no other options, but the cellular carriers will never let bandwidth caps high enough to even dream of downloading 4K content. Optical discs will continue to be necessary for a long time.
 
#337 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xank  /t/1411196/predictions-for-2013-4k-projectors/330#post_23036262


Ok let's agree to agree then.



Sadly I don't see any real progress being made in the last mile problem for a large percentage of America, at least if you're talking about hardwired. 4G/LTE may be a 10Mbps+ solution for some with no other options, but the cellular carriers will never let bandwidth caps high enough to even dream of downloading 4K content. Optical discs will continue to be necessary for a long time.

Agree - the last I checked Verizon wanted $300+ per month for a 50GB 4G download limit. I think most would rather spend $30+ for a UHD disc than ten times that amount for a single 4K movie via wireless download.
 
#338 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xank  /t/1411196/predictions-for-2013-4k-projectors/330#post_23036262


Ok let's agree to agree then.



Sadly I don't see any real progress being made in the last mile problem for a large percentage of America, at least if you're talking about hardwired. 4G/LTE may be a 10Mbps+ solution for some with no other options, but the cellular carriers will never let bandwidth caps high enough to even dream of downloading 4K content. Optical discs will continue to be necessary for a long time.
Agree. My cell cap at 1GB data limit per month. I have to resort to buying Bluray Disc because downloading movie is impossible for me.
 
#340 ·
We previously discussed the potential for a 4K UHD blu-ray using quad layer discs. I just noticed that tiger direct currently has a LG WH14NS40 blu-ray burner (internal drive) on sale for $59 that has support for BD-XL quad layer discs. It appears that support for 4 layer discs is now becoming a standard capability for BD drives/burners and its not much of a reach to speculate that the new PS4, not due out until late 2013, will include a BD rom drive that can read quad layer discs. This would be just one hardware capability that might eventually enable the PS4 to support playback of future Blu-ray 4K discs (if they do come to market).
 
#341 ·

Quote:
It appears that support for 4 layer discs is now becoming a standard capability for BD drives/burners and its not much of a reach to speculate that the new PS4, not due out until late 2013, will include a BD rom drive that can read quad layer discs.

I think it has also been mentioned that more than 2 layers will likely be for R/W formats. I don't think it is that economically feasible to produce triple or quad layer ROM formats. The R/W formats will take far too long to write to ever become mainstream delivery media for movies. Same with flash or hologram. That doesn't mean I don't think some kiosk idea where you insert your own media couldn't be done, but I really don't see that happening either. Lots of hurdles to overcome.


What I think might be more likely is increasing the capacity of each layer in a dual layer format. There are already 33G/layer drives and triple layer R/W media out there. That would make for a 66G dual layer disk. With h265 I think very good quality, long 4k movies could be delivered.


I do kind of agree with Mark on one thing though. Other than Sony, I don't know if there is much willpower from the studios for any 4k delivery format other than download. Many TV series get the first season delivered on BD, then the other seasons go missing, presumably because sales of season 1 were so poor. But I could download decent quality HD episodes from itunes or vudu or netflix. At a cost of something like $3-4 each episode? That gets $60 out of your pocket for a 20 episode season. They are probably happy with that. Very little effort on their part. No huge investment to create a bunch of disks that don't move from the shelves. Either it sells and they collect, or it doesn't and cost them nearly nothing. So I for one think that 4k delivery may not happen in nearly the quantities that I'd like. But 4k download might happen and become the new norm.


Look at the bright side. With 4k download you probably won't have to look at forced previews, interpol or fbi warnings. Or the SOB's will ruin that also and force you to watch some dumb@$$ commercials before you can view your movie/tv show.
 
#344 ·
The guy doesn't sound like he knows what he's taking about. He makes it sound as if you can only release movies in 4k if they were shot digitally on a RED or some other digital camera. The last few years most films (shot on film) have at least a 4k master created when the film went through a telecine process. There are a lot more than a "handful" of films that can be released today if there was a 4k format standard and thousands more that can be converted to digital. There are many films that probably won't be released on 4k. Older dated film may have an issue with showing 4k detail and thus wouldn't warrant a 4k release. Studios will probably release them anyways to make money.
 
#346 ·
Film has been scanned at 3-5k resolutions for a long time now. Since before BluRays. 3-5k is the range of detail that can be pulled from 35mm film (70mm and specialty film, like Kodak Super-X b&w have more detail). That is one of the best reasons to get to 4K quickly. People can buy their movie collection again because a hundred years of film, outside of the few shot on 70mm or iMAX, will never ever get any sharper. It is a resolution plateau. We already have Master audio, this will effectively be Master video. Sure 8k and higher cameras will be able to get past that in the future, but everyone's favorite films won't ever get sharper. In addition, 4K is about the largest image for comfortable viewing. Being able to see 8k details require a 100 degree field of view, which might be okay for some people for theater events but is horrible for home. 4k can be seen at full sharpness with a 50 degree field of view, which is pretty big, but still workable in the home.
 
#347 ·
The "Master Audio" isn't exactly what you think. It's bit for bit identical to mix made for the BD. That doesn't always mean that its the same as what you heard in theaters. I don't know the specifics but I hope the mixes and quality aren't that different. An example where it's different in theaters would be the recent release of The Hobbit, which was mixed for Dolby Atmos but we're "only" seeing 7.1 on BD. I quoted only because most people don't take advantage of 6 channels let alone 8, but I'm just trying prove a point even though it's a bit ridiculous.
 
#349 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdnola  /t/1411196/predictions-for-2013-4k-projectors/300_50#post_23076822


many older films have 6-12k masters done already. godfather unfortunatly was so damaged it was only able to be saved in 6k i think though.
Nonsense. There are practically no films with a 6K master, much less an 8K or 12K master. The standard is 2K and over 95% of all films with a DI the last couple of years have been done in 2K. The rest are 4K (mostly some high profile new releases and some restorations of classic films). 6K or 8K or 12K are scanning options. 6K is for 35mm with a 4K finish, 8K is for 65mm scanning, and 12K is for IMAX segments. 8K is also UHDTV material from digital cameras in the Japanese prototype system. Godfather was a 4K restoration.
 
#350 ·
So for fun at work today, at break we were talking about 4K and blu-ray etc. I'm really the only one thats a techy and I was asking if people would DL even 50 gigs to watch a 4K movie. Not 1 person out of 30 would. Pretty much everyone has netflix or similar as well. For an everyday customer, its just not going to fly as the only way to get your media. Regular people want nothing to do with it, especially with the general internet speeds we have. It would take a crazy amount of time for most people to dL a movie. They need discs, at least until a way pops up that will satisfy the masses that takes into account that we have crap internet speeds and garbage caps (well I don't but most people do)
 
#351 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG  /t/1411196/predictions-for-2013-4k-projectors/330#post_23107491


So for fun at work today, at break we were talking about 4K and blu-ray etc. I'm really the only one thats a techy and I was asking if people would DL even 50 gigs to watch a 4K movie. Not 1 person out of 30 would. Pretty much everyone has netflix or similar as well. For an everyday customer, its just not going to fly as the only way to get your media. Regular people want nothing to do with it, especially with the general internet speeds we have. It would take a crazy amount of time for most people to dL a movie. They need discs, at least until a way pops up that will satisfy the masses that takes into account that we have crap internet speeds and garbage caps (well I don't but most people do)

Agree 100%.......DL only model is not going to fly on its own as yet....will need physical media to suppliment it till DL speeds are 'acceptable' less than 15min for a 100gig file IMO....


Movie studios and ISPs' will need to get into bed together and nut out the details....no caps if the movie is being paid for.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top