Your Opinion on "Transitional" 4K UHD Projectors: Sony, JVC, etc - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 09:30 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 99
I've recently taken a closer look at where we are on 4K UHD. Although we have a small variety of choices, we don't really have UHD yet. I'd like your opinions about this; where we are, where we should go, and how to get there. That is for everybody here, consumers and the AVS sales guys. As many of you guys know, my perspective comes from several directions: my decades in movie/TV production, but also as an HT designer, seller, calibrator, etc..

We have seen incremental advances from JVC and Sony 1080p platforms with impressive improvements with eShift3 and Reality Creation. Darbee and Lumagen also make impressive contributions. JVC can now accept a 4K resolution signal. Sony has two impressive 4K projectors. We would expect that display hardware capabilities are married somewhat to the 4K "UHD" sources available, but I learned in recent research that things currently seem to be caught in a circle from which I don't yet see an escape.

I focused my homework on Sony because they have some content and two impressive 4K projectors. I first scoured published specs, posts here on AVS, reviews, and spoke with Sony. We understand that not all UHD specs are written in stone yet, but there are enough now to ask questions of providers (manufacturers and content).

With Sony, I began asking about spec details I could not find published. I wanted to find out if the projectors were capable of REC.2020 at > 10-bit color. The answers kind of surprised me. The 600ES is REC.709, but capable of 10-bit. The 1100ES is REC.709, DCI, and Adobe RGB, presumably also at 10-bit. It was implied that the hardware capabilities would not change (improve) until the content provided was other than REC.709 8-bit. That led to the obvious question about the 4K content provided by Sony 4K media players. I was told that 4K content is REC.709 8-bit. If any of you have different facts or specs than I found, please jump in.

So, the chicken and the egg question is obvious here. What motivates manufacturers to bring up the specs on their 4K products to the full benefits of UHD if they also control content, and that content is not fully up to those specs either?

If Sony remained the only provider of 4K content (and before there is UHD BD), maybe they could drive this. But with others starting to step up, albeit very limited, it begs the move forward on several fronts that are closely related. To kick the UHD horse out of the stable we need the sources encoded with 4K resolution and REC.2020 10-bit (or higher) color. It seems to me that what would also help this is 1080p BD players having H.265 and the HDMI/HDCP infrastructure for streaming UHD from Netflix and others until the BD group can get its UHD act together. I hope we eventually have a UHD BD, but until they get their act together on that, we could be getting these other things rolling because they will also have to be in UHD BD players. That would spur the higher specs in the projectors (and other displays).

By all accounts, the 1100ES and 600ES are terrific products with regards to resolution, 4K upscaling, and out of the box PQ. Is that enough ... for now, and at those price points? What should we expect (and want) next in this field?

Cheers. smile.gif
Cam Man is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 11:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
trans_lux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In my theater
Posts: 981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 137
I'm in a similar position.
I'd like to upgrade to 4k but from what I have seen were just not ready.
I grabbed a JVC RS49 with a Lumagen Mini to play around with for now.
The combination looks spectacular.
In a side by side comparison- X55 & 600ES-it was hard to see a difference in perceived resolution with 1080p content.
Given that the X55 i had was not very sharp compared to the RS49 I'm not so sure the JVC would now look better than the 600es.
I will say that there was a huge difference in performance between the 600 & 1100.
BTW I thought the Sony's were only 8 bit.

I'm going to be content/thrilled with my Titan/Lumagen and JVC/Lumagen.
Lets see what 4k DLP has to offer.
Maybe JVC will surprise us with native 4k and 3k+ lumens-one can dream smile.gif
trans_lux is offline  
post #3 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 01:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Until we can watch content in 10-12bits with rec. 2020, we are not going to fully benefit Romm 4k projectors. That's why a $5000 JVC can compete with a $15000 and $25000 4k Sony projectors with our 2k content. Of course you get better performance with the quality parts in a $15000+ projector, like better processing and better lens quality
blee0120 is online now  
post #4 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 01:54 PM
Member
 
AidenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Subscribing - I'm right in this dilemma - X500 or Sony 600.

Display : JVC X500 Projector | 130" ReAct 2.1 2.35:1 Screen | Panasonic 65VT30 |
Sources : Oppo 103 D Multizone | Apple TV3 | HTPC | Sky HD | Sonos Connect | Synology 24Tb |
Audio : Anthem MRX 510 | KEF R700 | KEF R600c | KEF E301 Sides & Rears | Paradigm Sub 1 |
Control : Harmony Ultimate |
AidenL is offline  
post #5 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 01:56 PM
Newbie
 
gurgenta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Subscribing, but i do not know what to do.. i am totally lost between what we have now and what the tomorrow brings us..
gurgenta is offline  
post #6 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 01:57 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

Until we can watch content in 10-12bits with rec. 2020, we are not going to fully benefit Romm 4k projectors. That's why a $5000 JVC can compete with a $15000 and $25000 4k Sony projectors with our 2k content. Of course you get better performance with the quality parts in a $15000+ projector, like better processing and better lens quality

Thanks for the input, guys. Did either of you have the chance to compare/evaluate the Sony VPL-HW55ES with the JVCs? I've been a fan of the JVCs going back to the RS1. My room is big, but not a bat cave, therefore even the black levels of the RS1 looked really good to me. The room is big, there are no surfaces near the screen, and the surfaces are not light in color. So, due to law of inverse proportions, there is little light reflected back to the screen to pollute blacks excessively. That said, it does invade the blacks slightly. I wonder if that is just black enough to be acceptable to me, but such that I won't see the benefit of the new JVC blacks verses the 55ES blacks, for instance. Tough to predict.
Cam Man is offline  
post #7 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 02:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

Thanks for the input, guys. Did either of you have the chance to compare/evaluate the Sony VPL-HW55ES with the JVCs? I've been a fan of the JVCs going back to the RS1. My room is big, but not a bat cave, therefore even the black levels of the RS1 looked really good to me. The room is big, there are no surfaces near the screen, and the surfaces are not light in color. So, due to law of inverse proportions, there is little light reflected back to the screen to pollute blacks excessively. That said, it does invade the blacks slightly. I wonder if that is just black enough to be acceptable to me, but such that I won't see the benefit of the new JVC blacks verses the 55ES blacks, for instance. Tough to predict.

I think of a JVC as a dedicated HT projector, and if not used as one, I would choose another projector. I'm sure most will choose the. Sony 55 in your situation. I seen a Sony 50 at Best Buy, but it wasn't set of right. Me personally, I would choose a DLP.
blee0120 is online now  
post #8 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 02:32 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

I think of a JVC as a dedicated HT projector, and if not used as one, I would choose another projector. I'm sure most will choose the. Sony 55 in your situation. I seen a Sony 50 at Best Buy, but it wasn't set of right. Me personally, I would choose a DLP.

Given that dedicated theaters are less common now that they were a few years ago (it's just a trend in the industry), significant effort is going into designing front projection into large open floor plan media rooms these days. It's a lifestyle choice by many to use the room for many things. We don't detect that trend here at AVS so much because so many of us are die-hards. biggrin.gif I've designed and executed a number of dedicated front projection rooms with JVCs. This multi-purpose approach is an evolving animal, and JVCs and others will have a place there, even if dead blacks are not possible.

I've just not seen the 55ES in action, and I'm curious how it compares. I've read the reviews.
Cam Man is offline  
post #9 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 02:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,477
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 446
I briefly considered the 55ES before settling on the RS4810. I know the 55ES calibrates extremely well and I've heard it produces a very natural image and excellent 3D if you need it. The main negatives (to me) is the contrast falls well below the JVC and since I have a Constant Image Height set-up, it doesn't have the lens zoom memories I need as I don't use an anamorphic lens. I have a dedicated room painted and carpeted black, so I can really appreciate the JVC blacks. smile.gif

DavidHir is online now  
post #10 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 03:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,438
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 812 Post(s)
Liked: 925
for myself. I think 99% of the decision will be based on content. if there's no content, I will not upgrade anything to UHD. and the content needs to be practical for me. streaming, downloading, etc is NOT an option as my IP would only allow me about one movie a month worth of bandwidth, which is not an acceptable limitation for me.

without content, I would say the kind of faux-k stuff being done by JVC is as much as I'd ever consider, and only if I went with a much larger screen or closer seating distance than I currently enjoy.


that all being said, if they decided to adopt the improvements that come with UHD not related to more pixels, I would definitely consider that.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #11 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 03:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,438
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 812 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

I think of a JVC as a dedicated HT projector, and if not used as one, I would choose another projector. I'm sure most will choose the. Sony 55 in your situation. I seen a Sony 50 at Best Buy, but it wasn't set of right. Me personally, I would choose a DLP.

true if your other option is cheaper I guess. might as well save some money. but it's not like the jvc(at least mine) has any problems in the living room. I mean they even sell a white case for the x35 so it blends into a non-theatre like room.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #12 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 03:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
trans_lux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In my theater
Posts: 981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

Until we can watch content in 10-12bits with rec. 2020, we are not going to fully benefit Romm 4k projectors. That's why a $5000 JVC can compete with a $15000 and $25000 4k Sony projectors with our 2k content. Of course you get better performance with the quality parts in a $15000+ projector, like better processing and better lens quality
Unless you have a Prima Cinema-10bit, 1/2 the compression of BD and a proprietary codec =best looking source available to consumers by far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurgenta View Post

Subscribing, but i do not know what to do.. i am totally lost between what we have now and what the tomorrow brings us..
It will always be this way jump in and enjoy today. You could get hit by a bus tomorrow. Of course I don’t want you to hit by a bus. smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

Thanks for the input, guys. Did either of you have the chance to compare/evaluate the Sony VPL-HW55ES with the JVCs? I've been a fan of the JVCs going back to the RS1. My room is big, but not a bat cave, therefore even the black levels of the RS1 looked really good to me. The room is big, there are no surfaces near the screen, and the surfaces are not light in color. So, due to law of inverse proportions, there is little light reflected back to the screen to pollute blacks excessively. That said, it does invade the blacks slightly. I wonder if that is just black enough to be acceptable to me, but such that I won't see the benefit of the new JVC blacks verses the 55ES blacks, for instance. Tough to predict.

I had a 55ES in my hands before the JVCs. At the time best out of the box performance I had ever seen. I say at the time because after testing the RS49 it is certainly the OTB champion. See my measurements below.

Between the X55 and 55ES it was a tough call. The 55ES had excellent contrast and much brighter post calibration. On the other hand the JVC had much lower black floor and with the motorized lens and longer throw worked better for my application.
Combined with the Lumagen mini it was perfect for what I was looking for.

I had some issues with the X55-it was a b-stock after all-and sent it back for an RS49.
Wow what a difference a generation makes.
Today after working with the RS49 I would not hesitate recommending it over the 55ES. Lumagen Mini now optional but highly recommended as well.
To me that's a pretty amazing statement as the 55ES is just incredible.

Note: have not spent much time with e-shift as the image is so sharp to begin with nor with the DI.

Areas of improvement that I see:
  • image sharpness is way, way better than the X55. From the feedback of others this is not normal and I must have had a bad X55 sample. Though the guys over at Projectorreviews also commented on the excellent sharpness. Given that they have seen tons of JVC's they certainly see a difference. I asked them if they thought it was better than previous models but have not heard back.
    Quote:
    The picture pops. The image is extremely sharp seeming. I rarely even turned off the “4K E-shift3 dynamic detail enhancement feature. Details were very good. The JVC almost rivaled the $15,000 Sony 4K projector when both were working with 1080p content , even if the Sony clearly produced the superior picture with 4K content (despite a good effort by JVC).
    http://www.projectorreviews.com/jvc/jvc-dla-rs4910-and-dla-rs49-projector-review/
  • OTB performance was excellent-best yet
  • Noticeably better black level
  • Much better color saturation
  • Much brighter post calibration-equal to that of the 55ES

Note: Sorry these are not the equivalent graphs and projector settings for the Sony. Must have deleted them and my notes. Hopefully some value can be extrapolated -any questions on this please let me know.
JVC RS49 OTB low lamp, black and white levels not set, max throw, cinema mode, standard color space, 6500k, gamma custom 1 @ 2.4, all enhancements off [/B]





Sony 55ES OTB lamp high, black and white levels set, iris full open, all enhancements off max throw-can't recall exact settings but were best I could find.



trans_lux is offline  
post #13 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 05:45 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Wow, ton of info, Trans_lux. I've steered off topic, so I'm sending you a PM.

Sony mentions the Prima products. Hardly realistic for most of us.
Cam Man is offline  
post #14 of 94 Old 04-26-2014, 06:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
trans_lux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In my theater
Posts: 981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 137
Cool I'll check messages when I get home.

Prima is the real deal. It just kills me that I can't swing the bat on it.
I'm betting on companies like Prima and Kaleidescape being the primary delivery systems for high quality 4k.
trans_lux is offline  
post #15 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 11:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
R Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I enjoy reading about these projectors and technologies, but I have ZERO interest in buying a 4K/UHD projector until a significant amount of content is readily available which is truly improved by higher resolution than 2K/1080p. I suspect that is a long way in the future. One recent film that fits that description is "Samsara" which was shot on 65mm film.
R Johnson is offline  
post #16 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 11:33 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post

I enjoy reading about these projectors and technologies, but I have ZERO interest in buying a 4K/UHD projector until a significant amount of content is readily available which is truly improved by higher resolution than 2K/1080p. I suspect that is a long way in the future. One recent film that fits that description is "Samsara" which was shot on 65mm film.

That is definitely a gorgeous film/BD. I was curious if other semi-modern 65mm endeavors looked so good. Hamlet and Far and Away, both shot on 65mm in the 90s (when it appeared 65mm might get a revival), both have poor transfers/PQ.

I'm beginning to wonder if manufacturers will seek out a product niche that "improves" 2K BD with good upscaling to the 4K panels ... and worry about UHD content later. Given the drift down in pricing on really fine performing 2K projectors, maybe they see this filling a price point. I don't think that price point can exceed $10K and have any success.
Cam Man is offline  
post #17 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 12:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 5,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 334 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
That is definitely a gorgeous film/BD. I was curious if other semi-modern 65mm endeavors looked so good. Hamlet and Far and Away, both shot on 65mm in the 90s (when it appeared 65mm might get a revival), both have poor transfers/PQ.

Samsara is stunning. I've watched it a couple of times on my Lumis.
Quote:
I'm beginning to wonder if manufacturers will seek out a product niche that "improves" 2K BD with good upscaling to the 4K panels ... and worry about UHD content later. Given the drift down in pricing on really fine performing 2K projectors, maybe they see this filling a price point. I don't think that price point can exceed $10K and have any success.

I see the current Sony 4K projectors as competing with / being alternatives to 3 chip DLP projectors. In that sense they can be competitive even over $ 10K. Especially if you need a bright projector.

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Call me on my direct line - 585-671-2972, 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday
Email me at craig@avscience.com http://shop.avscience.com/
Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SIM2, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, and many more!
Craig Peer is offline  
post #18 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 12:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,233
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 323 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Cam Man you bring up a lot of good questions and worries. If you just went by the opinions on these boards I sometimes feel that a lot of the Sony 1100 and 600ES owners think that the Sony is a bit of a future proofing product, and you see a lot of harping on the JVC for being late to the game with a native 4K solution. I've been more hesitant because we keep hearing (again, nothing has come out concrete yet) that everyone wants MORE than just 2160p resolution. They want more bit depth, color resolution, wider gamut and now even talk of HDR (though I think at this point that pertains more to flat panels than projection). Given the limitations of projectors in terms of bit depth for the panel drivers, native gamut, color resolution and more, NOTHING on the market today seems like it would be a future proof option. On top of that I keep reading articles that Joe Kane is publishing from his experience at the meetings for UHD and it sounds like it is still completely up in the air on what will be settled on. His latest is talking about many in the industry feeling like 4K should be skipped altogether and that 8K should be the focus since 4K doesn't provide enough perceptual change in resolution to be worthy. REC 2020 for color is another big issue not only due to the lack of displays capable of actually displaying it but the narrow bandwidth of the primaries for it causing issues with perception of the colors. There just seems to be WAY too many issues being battled out to think that anything you buy at this point will support what UHD may or may not be ultimately capable of. I personally feel that you should be buying any projector on the market at this moment based solely on its performance with the sources available today as your long term viewing content. That isn't to say that a native 4K won't provide a benefit for said content, it is obvious that the new Sony's can make 1080p look fantastic scaled, but I hope consumers aren't kidding themselves that a native 4K device bought today gives them some sort of long term benefit in the years to come. From what I'm hearing about pre-recorded 4K (blu-ray 4K) you're looking at holiday season 2015 at the earliest which is two projector cycles from now if you consider CEDIA to be the big showcase for new projectors. Take into account what will probably be a pretty slow rollout for awhile and you could probably stretch that to 3 projector cycles before you're even talking about a decent library of titles. Obviously this doesn't take into account streaming options (which as a bit of a video snob I don't take very seriously) or Sony's 4K media player (which is essentially Blu-ray specs with a bump in native resolution and a slightly wider color gamut). The more I hear and read from people that are actually in the throws of UHD (insiders) the less and less I think that this is going to play out smoothly or quickly and that people that are looking for little specs to give them security about their AV purchases (read HDMI 2.0, native 4K displays) are going to be bitching up a storm in the coming years over what they thought they were getting compared to what they will end up with. Hopefully we'll know more at CEDIA this year.

Senior Video Editor
Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity

Click Here To See My Current Setup
Kris Deering is offline  
post #19 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 12:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,233
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 323 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

That is definitely a gorgeous film/BD. I was curious if other semi-modern 65mm endeavors looked so good. Hamlet and Far and Away, both shot on 65mm in the 90s (when it appeared 65mm might get a revival), both have poor transfers/PQ.

I'm beginning to wonder if manufacturers will seek out a product niche that "improves" 2K BD with good upscaling to the 4K panels ... and worry about UHD content later. Given the drift down in pricing on really fine performing 2K projectors, maybe they see this filling a price point. I don't think that price point can exceed $10K and have any success.

This is another area that I agree with Joe Kane on. I would like to see UHD pertain to far more than just 4K. I would prefer a delivery system that is more akin to theatrical playback. In other words, don't focus on the native resolution of the digital source (theatrical has 2K and 4K) but look at the other options. So if they make a UHD Blu-ray format deliver it based on the native resolution of the content (DI's that are 2K would be 1080p, DI's that were 4K would be 2160p) but give us better compression, more bit depth and wider gamut. Even the majority of films playing at cinemas with 4K projectors are just scaled 2K presentations. I would love to see more and more work done on better masters, higher resolution scans, more high resolution capture (digital AND film) but increased specs for films that are delivered to the consumer in both 1080p and 2160p resolutions. Current Blu-ray technology isn't delivering what most consumer displays are capable of and a bump in the spec that includes better features for 1080p would benefit all even if they don't buy new displays (though I'm sure HDCP would throw a MASSIVE monkey wrench into that thought process).

Senior Video Editor
Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity

Click Here To See My Current Setup
Kris Deering is offline  
post #20 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 12:53 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

This is another area that I agree with Joe Kane on. I would like to see UHD pertain to far more than just 4K. I would prefer a delivery system that is more akin to theatrical playback. In other words, don't focus on the native resolution of the digital source (theatrical has 2K and 4K) but look at the other options. So if they make a UHD Blu-ray format deliver it based on the native resolution of the content (DI's that are 2K would be 1080p, DI's that were 4K would be 2160p) but give us better compression, more bit depth and wider gamut. Even the majority of films playing at cinemas with 4K projectors are just scaled 2K presentations. I would love to see more and more work done on better masters, higher resolution scans, more high resolution capture (digital AND film) but increased specs for films that are delivered to the consumer in both 1080p and 2160p resolutions. Current Blu-ray technology isn't delivering what most consumer displays are capable of and a bump in the spec that includes better features for 1080p would benefit all even if they don't buy new displays (though I'm sure HDCP would throw a MASSIVE monkey wrench into that thought process).

Delivering the native source is an interesting idea.

On the rest ... from your fingers to the producers' eyes. I love Sandra Bullock, but a major payout to an actor on a film where money should have been spent on 4K capture, rendering, and/or HFR (IMO), is across purposes. There are so many factors at play. As a crewmember, I've seen the deterioration of pay, rules, and benefits for decades so that top echelon actors can have big up-front bucks. Yes, they are the big draw in many cases, but sometimes not so much. Sorry; it's a pet peeve.

Many of us have been asking for better 1080p over 4K for quite a while. frown.gif
Kris Deering likes this.
Cam Man is offline  
post #21 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 01:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,233
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 323 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Interesting insight, though I imagine without a big name star attached the production budget would be lower anyways. Kind of a double edge sword I guess. I've had conversations that parallel this about Christopher Nolan. Nolan is obviously hot to trot about the obvious benefits of IMAX capture but then only does it for limited scenes (or mixes 65mm with IMAX capture) despite pretty substantial budgets. Why not shoot the whole film in 65mm except for the IMAX scenes to keep the quality a bit more consistent?? How does a film like The Master get shot in 65mm from end to end on a limited budget but a film like The Dark Knight can't?? I can't image Nolan not having enough pull to get what he wants. Thoughts?

Senior Video Editor
Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity

Click Here To See My Current Setup
Kris Deering is offline  
post #22 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 02:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

Interesting insight, though I imagine without a big name star attached the production budget would be lower anyways. Kind of a double edge sword I guess. I've had conversations that parallel this about Christopher Nolan. Nolan is obviously hot to trot about the obvious benefits of IMAX capture but then only does it for limited scenes (or mixes 65mm with IMAX capture) despite pretty substantial budgets. Why not shoot the whole film in 65mm except for the IMAX scenes to keep the quality a bit more consistent?? How does a film like The Master get shot in 65mm from end to end on a limited budget but a film like The Dark Knight can't?? I can't image Nolan not having enough pull to get what he wants. Thoughts?

A bit of inside info on the IMAX camera: it's really noisy and is not very reliable (prone to break-downs). The Master is shot with the Panavision 65 system, which is the modern one developed for and used on Far and Away and Hamlet. Although modern compared to 65mm cameras of the 60s, I'm sure it's a bitch on a Steadicam, if it can even be done. eek.gif

I know it sounds like heresy from me, but I think the future is in digital cameras that are capable of high resolution and the non-linear response of film (via s-log and the like). The Sony F65 is blazing that trail, but so are others. An, of course, posting, rendering, mastering at high levels.
Cam Man is offline  
post #23 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 02:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,233
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 323 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no issue with digital capture. Sure there are some films that look a little too clean and I don't always agree with the colors or post work done but when done well they can look FABULOUS. But there are also a lot of 35mm films that look great too. From what I've seen so far I would take high resolution capture and mastering over high resolution display anyday. The benefits of 4K or higher capture and mastering with 1080p Blu-rays is obvious almost immediately. Not that this won't benefit native 4K and higher display as well, I just think that for the majority of the market even 4K in home is probably more than most need. Heck, I'd love to see what just DCI spec'ed material would look like fed at home fed to a capable display. Better compression, higher bit depth, more color resolution and a wider gamut. Bet it would look really great even at a measely 1080p resolution compared to a Blu-ray master.

I haven't seen a lot of the Sony F65 material yet, but I've seen a lot of Red material. Honestly, I've been really blown away by material shot with the Alexa despite its lower resolution. I've seen quite a few films lately that were shot with it that looked fantastic theatrically shown on a Barco projector.
Cam Man likes this.

Senior Video Editor
Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity

Click Here To See My Current Setup
Kris Deering is offline  
post #24 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 06:51 PM
Member
 
dan30306's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Well, I'm an electrical engineer by trade- board level design. So, when I look at any product I see 'parts' instead of a projector if that makes sense. I recently bought the Sony 55ES and contemplated 4K as well as waited for a year while I did research.

Here is my take on all this. 4K is NOT a fad, but right now its too early to invest into it unless you have the extra cash to get in early. I actually believe that 4K is going to come and go quickly as a stepping stone into 8K. Regardless of what we as consumers are willing to spend- engineers have to deal with Moore's Law. The cost of silicon (chips) will come into play as well as the systems architecture behind the products being developed (reuse of old design work to lower development costs). All this will drive the costs down over time for the hardware. I think 4 years from now 4K will have blown by and 8K will be the newest trend which will actually have significant steam behind it (read that as more companies will be pushing it, not just Sony). This evolution will occur simply due to competition and the evolution of chip technology, which will happen quickly. I doubt it will take more than 2 more years before we start seeing 8K projectors at CES.

The reason behind 4K being a stepping stone to 8K is mostly driven by content. Even if there was an 8K projector available today, at a reasonable cost (sub-$5K)..... what would you do with it? The same thing applies to 4K right now. Yes, there is content but its very scarce. You can't just walk into a Best Buy on Tuesday (when they release new movies) and find a 4K disc like you can a DVD or Blu-Ray. So, by the time the content catches up, the technology trend will be 8K capable hardware and devices upscaling the new "4K Blu-Ray" to 8K. biggrin.gif
Cam Man likes this.
dan30306 is offline  
post #25 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 07:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
R Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I'm glad to see that several others also appreciated the quality of "Samsara". In my view, it truly benefits from 4K because of the large format film source, plus its style of "near-still" photography with time lapse sequences and very slow pans. These characteristics seem to be shared by rather few recent films.

I'd be interested to read suggestions of which other recent films would be appreciably improved by a 4K/UHD presentation.
Cam Man likes this.
R Johnson is offline  
post #26 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 07:24 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Kris and Dan, I think you both make great points. I agree that 4K resolution is not needed at home until you get into front projection that is of the scale that visual acuity and visible artifacts are at parity. But all the other PQ factors you mention would be fabulous to have in 1080p.

Oblivion (shot with the F65) was an epiphany for me. I realized that, for the first time, I could see that it is capable of things that film just is not, especially in low light. As Dan says, you have to do it justice in post, but Oblivion was darned impressive.

To Dan's point of leapfrogging over 4K to 8K, I wouldn't be terribly surprised. The wave (or is it a tsumani) I see in advancements and attitudes in the production world (at least in capture) certainly would support that theory as a possible outcome. The bottleneck is in post and in the pocket book when it comes to CGI and resolution > 2K. The files are huge and take a lot of time and money. The biz seems eager on the capture end, but risk averse on the post end.

Braka and Samsara!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post

I'd be interested to read suggestions of which other recent films would be appreciably improved by a 4K/UHD presentation.

Obviously, I'd vote for Oblivion, but there is a lot of discussion about Gravity with respect to it being one that could benefit so much from 4K (and HFR, IMO). I've commented on that in detail on the Blur-ray Software Gravity thread.
Cam Man is offline  
post #27 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 07:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,426
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 533 Post(s)
Liked: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan30306 View Post

Well, I'm an electrical engineer by trade- board level design. So, when I look at any product I see 'parts' instead of a projector if that makes sense. I recently bought the Sony 55ES and contemplated 4K as well as waited for a year while I did research.

Here is my take on all this. 4K is NOT a fad, but right now its too early to invest into it unless you have the extra cash to get in early. I actually believe that 4K is going to come and go quickly as a stepping stone into 8K. Regardless of what we as consumers are willing to spend- engineers have to deal with Moore's Law. The cost of silicon (chips) will come into play as well as the systems architecture behind the products being developed (reuse of old design work to lower development costs). All this will drive the costs down over time for the hardware. I think 4 years from now 4K will have blown by and 8K will be the newest trend which will actually have significant steam behind it (read that as more companies will be pushing it, not just Sony). This evolution will occur simply due to competition and the evolution of chip technology, which will happen quickly. I doubt it will take more than 2 more years before we start seeing 8K projectors at CES.

The reason behind 4K being a stepping stone to 8K is mostly driven by content. Even if there was an 8K projector available today, at a reasonable cost (sub-$5K)..... what would you do with it? The same thing applies to 4K right now. Yes, there is content but its very scarce. You can't just walk into a Best Buy on Tuesday (when they release new movies) and find a 4K disc like you can a DVD or Blu-Ray. So, by the time the content catches up, the technology trend will be 8K capable hardware and devices upscaling the new "4K Blu-Ray" to 8K. biggrin.gif

The issue I see with this viewpoint is that I don't think it's viable, at least within the time frame you propose, and for one simple reason. Professionals don't even have access to 8K video capture yet. Most digital cameras used in Hollywood are between 4K-6K currently. There's no way consumers are going to be able to get ahold of 8K devices (capture or display), before professionals do. I also see an issue regarding theatrical presentation. Again, not even commercial cinema's have the ability to display 8K. They've ALWAYS had at least a few years lead time ahead of consumer display devices in regards to resolution. You also need to take into consideration bandwidth requirements. The United States as a whole is no where near ready for 4K bandwidth requirements let alone 8K. There would need to be a major revolution in the way we compress video for something like 8K to the home via cable or satellite to work with our current infrastructure. That compression revolution would most likely require some pretty beefy decoding hardware and I don't think most companies want to spend that kind of money on the necessary STB or media player needed for the task. A perfect example of this would be US cable and broadcast companies choosing to stick with MPEG2 instead of adopting H264 as the official broadcast video compression system used for HD. At the time H264 decoding was deemed too expensive for companies who would ultimately be giving millions of STBs away to their customers. 8K today (and in the next few years) is the same thing. It takes some beefy hardware to decode H264 and H265 4K, I can't imagine what the requirements are for reliable 8K decoding at necessary bitrates. Yes, Moore's law will continue to happen for a while still but no where near fast enough (and economical enough) to drop prices down enough to do it in the time frame you propose.

You also cite the lack of 4K content as a reason why 4K will be short lived. Most, if not all, movies captured on 35mm film will not have 8K details. Most won't have 4K details without going through an expensive restoration and re scanning process. 8K will most likely be a good solution for live broadcast sports, news, or award shows, but I don't see Hollywood or the US in general adopting 8K anytime soon. I would make a large wager it will be more than 10 years before we see consumer 8K, if not longer. The infrastructure for it is not even in it's infancy. There's no method for capture, processing, delivery, or display. 4K is already past the majority of those roadblocks and I think it's going to be around for a lot more than 2 years.
W8MM likes this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Crazy Projector Journey
Seegs108 is online now  
post #28 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 07:56 PM
Member
 
dan30306's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

The issue I see with this viewpoint is that I don't think it's viable, at least within the time frame you propose, and for one simple reason. Professionals don't even have access to 8K video capture yet. Most digital cameras used in Hollywood are between 4K-6K currently. There's no way consumers are going to be able to get ahold of 8K devices (capture or display), before professionals do. I also see an issue regarding theatrical presentation. Again, not even commercial cinema's have the ability to display 8K. They've ALWAYS had at least a few years lead time ahead of consumer display devices in regards to resolution. You also need to take into consideration bandwidth requirements. The United States as a whole is no where near ready for 4K bandwidth requirements let alone 8K. There would need to be a major revolution in the way we compress video for something like 8K to the home via cable or satellite to work. That compression revolution would most likely require some pretty beefy decoding hardware and I don't think most companies want to spend that kind of money on the necessary STB or media player needed for the task. A perfect example of this would be US cable and broadcast companies choosing to stick with MPEG2 instead of adopting H264 as the official broadcast video compression system used for HD. At the time H264 decoding was deemed to expensive for companies who would ultimately be giving millions of STBs away to their customers. 8K today (and in the next few years) is the same thing. It takes some beefy hardware to decode H264 and H265 4K, I can't imagine what the requirements are for reliable 8K decoding at necessary bitrates. Yes, Moore's law will continue to happen for a while still but no where near fast enough (and economical enough) to drop prices down enough to do it in the time frame you propose.

You also cite the lack of 4K content as a reason why 4K will be short lived. Most, if not all, movies captured on 35mm film will not have 8K details. Most won't have 4K details without going through an expensive restoration and re scanning process. 8K will most likely be a good solution for live broadcast sports, news, or award shows, but I don't see Hollywood or the US in general adopting 8K anytime soon. I would make a large wager it will be more than 10 years before we see consumer 8K, if not longer. The infrastructure for it is not even in it's infancy. There's no method for capture, processing, delivery, or display. 4K is already past the majority of those roadblocks already and I think it's going to be around for a lot more than 2 years.

The decoding/playback technology will be there I think, but the encoding/recording technology won't if that makes sense. In theory, Blu-Ray came out before its time technologically. The processor technology on the decoding is a lot cheaper to develop than the encoding technology. It comes down to MIPS (millions of instructions per second) on the processor and its ability to write information to a drive/memory bus. With decoding, you only have to have a fast enough bus to decode the signal stream which is a lot easier than encoding. There are plenty of processors coming out that are capable of 4K encoding- even on cell phones. So, to decode you don't need a processor as fast as the encoding processor capturing the video if that makes sense. Memory busses are fast enough these days to support almost anything. Today, there are plenty of low cost processors that can easily decode a 4K video accurately. The key word being accurately. The encoding side of things is what slows down progress and that's a whole different conversation.

I completely agree 100% on the bandwidth/broadcast topology. Its simply exceeded its throughput and these days there has been a huge push for compression technology advancement. This year at CES Motorola and Alcatel Lucent showcased 4K video multicast over wireless (LTE Advanced) which is an interesting concept. I think 4K/6K/8K whatever is going to be disc only just like BluRay for quite some time unless you involve high end media servers.
dan30306 is offline  
post #29 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 07:58 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

I haven't seen a lot of the Sony F65 material yet, but I've seen a lot of Red material. Honestly, I've been really blown away by material shot with the Alexa despite its lower resolution. I've seen quite a few films lately that were shot with it that looked fantastic theatrically shown on a Barco projector.

I just spent a week operating with a RED Epic shooting 4K for a feature. Seemed nice.
Cam Man is offline  
post #30 of 94 Old 04-28-2014, 08:04 PM
Member
 
dan30306's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 28
And also... you guys are thinking on the details side of things.... 97% of the market doesn't. There aren't a lot of people that know what REC 2020 is nor do they care. Its all about what it is marketable and what makes money. The people that look into the details of picture quality aren't the ones that make up the market. If that were the case- LCD wouldn't have made it and plasma would still be #1. Pioneer Elite would still be a real brand. Everyone is excited to see that $4K Sony 4K TV in action when they get home after seeing all the demo's at Best Buy. The majority are sadly disappointed when they turn it on the first time and see a crap picture when viewing cable which drives down sales dramatically. You would be surprised at the number of 4K capable sets being returned. I read an article in CEA magazine where they discussed it. The numbers are astounding- something like 72% of 4K televisions get returned to the store by consumers. Its killing Sony quietly...... but they set the expectation with demo discs so....
aoshiken likes this.
dan30306 is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP
Gear in this thread - 1080p by PriceGrabber.com

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