4K Lite, Phase 1 or Fat free Milk in a 30 YearTransition to the Ultimate UHDTV System or 4K Heavy Cream. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 05:15 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 527
I strongly recommend that all read the latest Science of Imaging article, " 2160p and UHDTV Update", by Joe Kane in the April-May 2014 issue of Wide Screen Review. It is long and not an easy read. It is very informative and the factors discussed through implication help explain what the delay by the 4K Forum in establishing 4K Bluray standards. There is much food for thought here including why Joe doesn't think 2020 color space should or will ever happen and why we might be moving from 6500 K to a 6000 K standard .

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 09:36 AM
Member
 
maglito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Swansea, IL
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
3rd link on google.
http://www.buschhometheater.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Joe-Kane-2160p-update-19Mar2014.pdf
maglito is offline  
post #3 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 10:16 AM
Senior Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 20

4k should be 4096x2160. 3840x2160 is like someone flunked math. Also, where do you get 6000k? DCI spec is 6300k because of the expanded green and red triangle, thus making the white point shift more overall green towards the yellow.

Debonaire is online now  
post #4 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 10:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AVfile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 1,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Mark,
Anything new and interesting that JK didn't say in the AVS special interview that Scott did a while back?

- AVStefan
If you like someone's post, just use the Like button to give thanks.
AVfile is offline  
post #5 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 11:59 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post

4k should be 4096x2160. 3840x2160 is like someone flunked math. Also, where do you get 6000k? DCI spec is 6300k because of the expanded green and red triangle, thus making the white point shift more overall green towards the yellow.

Read the article.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #6 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 12:01 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVfile View Post

Mark,
Anything new and interesting that JK didn't say in the AVS special interview that Scott did a while back?

Yes. considerably more. I suggest taking the time to read the article and giving it appropriate thought.

I hope enough will do this so this thread will generate considerable comment,

I am gone until late tonight.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #7 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 12:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post


Read the article.

 

"Better color fidelity could be had with a color of gray a bit below D65, say 6000 K, something easily reached with control over backlighting.  "

 

I'm also not listening to this Joe Kane fellow after reading this:

 

"Certainly the current specification of 2.4 isn’t the best choice for the majority of display technologies. Something lower would be better for current display technology."

 

That's just ludicrous. We need to change the gamma response curve because most digital engineers can't properly handle what CRT had been doing for about 100 years?

 

DCI uses a gamma of 2.6 and theaters don't have the contrast of even a Walmart special TV. Why does this Joe Kane guy want to break what's not broken? DCI exists and works from what I see. If we could implement DCI even at 2k for the home, I'm sure 99% of the people out there would be fine with the decision. The less deviations we have from the original presentation, the easier it is. Otherwise we'll have more orange and teal revisions with consumer formats.

 

Other wacky stuff is the 4:4:4 at 16 bits, when DCI is 12 bits. With a proper display, 12 bits per pixel is well beyond human vision. 

Debonaire is online now  
post #8 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 03:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,048
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 595 Post(s)
Liked: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post

4k should be 4096x2160. 3840x2160 is like someone flunked math. Also, where do you get 6000k? DCI spec is 6300k because of the expanded green and red triangle, thus making the white point shift more overall green towards the yellow.
The topic at hand is should be UHD, not "4k". No one is making 4k TVs, but they are making UHD TVs.
AVfile likes this.
Stereodude is offline  
post #9 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 03:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,048
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 595 Post(s)
Liked: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post

Other wacky stuff is the 4:4:4 at 16 bits, when DCI is 12 bits. With a proper display, 12 bits per pixel is well beyond human vision.
We should start encoding infrared and ultra violet too! Even though they're not visible doesn't mean we're not influenced by them. wink.gif
Stereodude is offline  
post #10 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 04:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I'm surprised at the mention of a screen size of 12 feet for UHD, without referring to a viewing distance or viewing ratio....is he trying to sell larger screens?rolleyes.gif

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #11 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 04:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post


The topic at hand is should be UHD, not "4k". No one is making 4k TVs, but they are making UHD TVs.

 

Why shouldn't we make a 4k TV? Sony does. When we went from SD to HD, we didn't keep the archaic 4:3 aspect ratio.  The only problems are: not good enough black level, motion blur, terrible input lag and no solid state light source. That's minor compared to other manufactures.

 

Read the topic again, UHDTV or 4K Heavy Cream. I vote 4K Heavy Cream!

Debonaire is online now  
post #12 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 05:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

I'm surprised at the mention of a screen size of 12 feet for UHD, without referring to a viewing distance or viewing ratio....is he trying to sell larger screens?rolleyes.gif

 

I'm pretty sure 4K will look spectacular on my 128x72" screen at about 103".

Debonaire is online now  
post #13 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 05:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,048
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 595 Post(s)
Liked: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post

Why shouldn't we make a 4k TV? Sony does. When we went from SD to HD, we didn't keep the archaic 4:3 aspect ratio.  The only problems are: not good enough black level, motion blur, terrible input lag and no solid state light source. That's minor compared to other manufactures.
The format should be 3840x2160p not 4096x2160p. Who is making a flat panel with a resolution of 4096x2160p? And why should we change aspect ratios to something not quite 16:9? I'd rather not have small pillarboxing on all "legacy" HD content.
Stereodude is offline  
post #14 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 05:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post

I'm pretty sure 4K will look spectacular on my 128x72" screen at about 103".

No doubt.....!

For JK to mention a screen size without a viewing distance is just ridiculous.....or carefully crafted statement to move larger screens. A mention of a 17degree horizontal viewing angle or viewing from .75 screen widths or so would have been more meaningful.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #15 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 08:59 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 527
i think JK mentioned a 10 ft viewing distance or so but I would have to go bak to that. Yves Faroudja who is working on $K now does not like a screen that he can't see entirely without moving his head. For a 12 ft viewing distance this would mean about an 8 ft wide 1.78. JK has long felt that viewing distance was pretty fixed at about 10 ft for most viewers. JK is more knowledgeable about video systems than anybody posting here and collectively. He is not always right and does make mistakes just like all of us do here.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #16 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 09:20 PM
Senior Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

i think JK mentioned a 10 ft viewing distance or so but I would have to go bak to that. Yves Faroudja who is working on $K now does not like a screen that he can't see entirely without moving his head. For a 12 ft viewing distance this would mean about an 8 ft wide 1.78. JK has long felt that viewing distance was pretty fixed at about 10 ft for most viewers. JK is more knowledgeable about video systems than anybody posting here and collectively. He is not always right and does make mistakes just like all of us do here.

 



When I tested, "how close can I get," from my 128" wide screen was 105" away, which puts the edges SLIGHTLY in your peripheral vision, if looking directly at the center. Very few scenes in a movie have anything important at the edges. All I needed to do was move my eyes if need be, and no head movement. No different than playing a video game.

Unless we get a hemisphere screen movies like I once saw at the Fleet Space Museum as a kid 30 years ago in San Diego, I see no point in 8k.
Debonaire is online now  
post #17 of 60 Old 05-03-2014, 11:40 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 527
While the DCI spec is a gamma of 2.6 applied at the projector, most here believe such a gamma with a DCI projector causes a significant loss of black detail as compared to a movie played on a high quality home theater projector which all have on/off contrasts significantly higher than available from a DCI compliant projector. Than on/offs associated with DCI projector result in gray blacks compared gto the netter blacks obtainable with a high quality home theater projector.

moving on to 4K Bluray, that format will only succeed if it delivers a higher quality image than streamed 4K. DCI is only 12 bits and a frame rate of 24 fps.out of the projectr in 2d. 4K Blury must exceed DCI.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #18 of 60 Old 05-04-2014, 12:13 AM
Senior Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 20

I'm also hoping the next format uses solid state, since prices are going down real fast for chips.

Debonaire is online now  
post #19 of 60 Old 05-04-2014, 05:49 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 527
You mean in terms of the medium instead of a disc. Unlikely, since data storage requirements will be too high especially if we get greater bit lengths etc. This has been discussed already in several threads.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #20 of 60 Old 05-04-2014, 01:22 PM
Senior Member
 
Ballis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Considering how much Sony struggles with bluray compeeting with streaming, its hard to imagine anyone willing to have a go at another physical format and even harder to imagine such a format succeeding.

Discs are dead. Thats a fact.
Ballis is offline  
post #21 of 60 Old 05-04-2014, 02:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Hampton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 6,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Call me a luddite but regular Blu Ray and a 1080 3D capable front projector and I'm done. I've got what I need to be happy.. just add more blus.

(maybe in 10 years I'll feel different though ... if I'm still around.)
Brian Hampton is offline  
post #22 of 60 Old 05-04-2014, 02:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Hampton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 6,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ballis View Post

Considering how much Sony struggles with bluray compeeting with streaming, its hard to imagine anyone willing to have a go at another physical format and even harder to imagine such a format succeeding.

Discs are dead. Thats a fact.

Not my discs... not even some of my CDs from 84 (that's 30 years back and they still play on.)

My blus are the cats pajamas so to speak... I have some of them on Vudu (since that version comes free with them) but the quality gap is large for anyone paying attention.

If discs went away at light speed ... I will still have them for the duration.
Brian Hampton is offline  
post #23 of 60 Old 05-04-2014, 03:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
d.j.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 24
I think he ( JK ) has a lot off good points in his writings - and he even admits, that sometime he is wrong or didnt see something else coming ( such as the uncompressing off the signal in the set, making his recommendation of a displayport in the set unnecessary )


dj
d.j. is offline  
post #24 of 60 Old 05-04-2014, 08:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,427
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post




"Certainly the current specification of 2.4 isn’t the best choice for the majority of display technologies. Something lower would be better for current display technology."

That's just ludicrous. We need to change the gamma response curve because most digital engineers can't properly handle what CRT had been doing for about 100 years?





I haven't read the article yet (but will soon), but I think 2.4 and bt1886 looks too dark and artificially "contrasty" on current calibrated displays I've seen. From insider comments I've read, most movies have largely been done in the 2.2 range up to this point.

DavidHir is offline  
post #25 of 60 Old 05-04-2014, 09:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post


I haven't read the article yet (but will soon), but I think 2.4 and bt1886 looks too dark and artificially "contrasty" on current calibrated displays I've seen. From insider comments I've read, most movies have largely been done in the 2.2 range up to this point.

 

2.2 is way too washed out. It's only good for the low IRE, 0-9 and maybe for 10-19. You need at least 2.4, preferably 2.5 for the mid ranges. 2.6 for 90-100.

 

Like I said before, human vision doesn't have even a curved linear response, it's closer to an S. We have three ranges of vision. If such a system were implemented, there wouldn't be any need for the tricks we see in movies, like making a dark love scene overly blue and adding more red and over saturating green to a hazy desert sun scene.

 

If you're really picky, the gamma needs to be much higher than 2.2 from 0-0.5 IRE. 

 

I don't know why people talk about one gamma. The auto iris for most projectors most closely resembles something similar to what I described. Correct gamma is a mixture of both the display and environment. 

 

My suggestion is to use both a CRT and something like an OLED as the reference. If you want to deviate from that, it's up to you. We're not going to have terrible digitals as the mainstream for long, well I hope not. Once something is a standard reference, it's very hard to get rid of it. It'd be a shame if about 10 years from now a breakthrough which does the blacks of OLED and the gradations of CRT, and decided on a standard which won't ever make such a display look it's very best.

 

A good example is the 60/1.001 hz for NTSC when color was added. Such a thing isn't needed for digital, but is with us to this day with ATSC and causes problems with 24hz blu-ray players which output 24.00 hz when the display expects 23.97.

Elix likes this.
Debonaire is online now  
post #26 of 60 Old 05-05-2014, 05:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,048
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 595 Post(s)
Liked: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post

A good example is the 60/1.001 hz for NTSC when color was added. Such a thing isn't needed for digital, but is with us to this day with ATSC and causes problems with 24hz blu-ray players which output 24.00 hz when the display expects 23.97.
You don't really believe that do you? confused.gif
Stereodude is offline  
post #27 of 60 Old 05-05-2014, 05:22 AM
Senior Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post


You don't really believe that do you? confused.gif

 

What's not to believe? The divide by 1.001 is an artifact of the analog color carrier wave. It's not needed at all on digital. Your 60p is also really 59.94hz.

 

If you try forcing sync of 24 hz when the tv expects 23.97, about every 17 seconds you will notice a slight stutter. There are some blu-ray players where the engineers were idiots and don't do 1080p24 correctly, and literally do 24.00hz.

 

So, yes it's needed because that's how the signal is encoded and sent(because of legacy issues), but if the standard were developed right now from scratch, the signal sent would be exactly 24.00hz.

Debonaire is online now  
post #28 of 60 Old 05-05-2014, 06:17 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 527
I agree. For what its worth. the DCI specification is exactly 24.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #29 of 60 Old 05-05-2014, 08:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,427
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post

2.2 is way too washed out. It's only good for the low IRE, 0-9 and maybe for 10-19. You need at least 2.4, preferably 2.5 for the mid ranges. 2.6 for 90-100.

Like I said before, human vision doesn't have even a curved linear response, it's closer to an S. We have three ranges of vision. If such a system were implemented, there wouldn't be any need for the tricks we see in movies, like making a dark love scene overly blue and adding more red and over saturating green to a hazy desert sun scene.

If you're really picky, the gamma needs to be much higher than 2.2 from 0-0.5 IRE. 

I don't know why people talk about one gamma. The auto iris for most projectors most closely resembles something similar to what I described. Correct gamma is a mixture of both the display and environment. 

My suggestion is to use both a CRT and something like an OLED as the reference. If you want to deviate from that, it's up to you. We're not going to have terrible digitals as the mainstream for long, well I hope not. Once something is a standard reference, it's very hard to get rid of it. It'd be a shame if about 10 years from now a breakthrough which does the blacks of OLED and the gradations of CRT, and decided on a standard which won't ever make such a display look it's very best.

A good example is the 60/1.001 hz for NTSC when color was added. Such a thing isn't needed for digital, but is with us to this day with ATSC and causes problems with 24hz blu-ray players which output 24.00 hz when the display expects 23.97.

I would agree 2.2 looks washed out, but I find even 2.28 looks too dark and crushes too much shadow detail on some Blu-ray movies. I'm getting my RS4810 re-calibrated this Friday and will probably have my calibrator target something like 2.25. This makes sense since most Blu-ray movies have been calibrated in the 2.2 range.

2.5?! Yikes. That is way too dark and beyond what anyone is recommending. bt1886 makes the most sense if you're looking for a higher gamma and that is supposed to be the new standard going froward.

I do think it also depends on the projector/display technology. LED seems to look better with a higher gamma, for example, where as plasma looks better a bit lower.

I find 2.28 on my JVC RS4810 crushes detail just slightly near black.

I agree it depends on the viewing environment and I was referring to a dark room/controlled lighting situation.

DavidHir is offline  
post #30 of 60 Old 05-05-2014, 08:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,151
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 368
I know they are pushing for 24 Hz for the new 4K Blu-ray as opposed to the decimal points to make things easier. I also think that BT 1886 largely takes away most of the issues commented here for gamma. Your low end ends up being lower than 2.2 and you're upper end ends up being around 2.4. You get the best of both worlds. DCI's material is encoded for its gamma spec, so it doesn't look as bad as running your home display at that gamma. What your home content is graded at is a crap shoot. Many say most studios are still grading for 2.2 while some have now adopted either 2.4 or 1886. I would like to see a reliable metadata system that tells the playback chain EXACTLY what it is encoded at and the system reliably sets up for that. No guess work. DCI has this (math is easy with DLP) but I would love to see this happen with most digital display chains.
AVfile likes this.

Senior Video Editor
Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity

Click Here To See My Current Setup
Kris Deering is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

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