The $39,999 Samsung S9 84" 4K UHDTV – Taking a Closer Look - Page 3 - AVS Forum

AVS Forum > News Forum > Latest Industry News > The $39,999 Samsung S9 84" 4K UHDTV – Taking a Closer Look

Latest Industry News

dsteak's Avatar dsteak
08:50 PM Liked: 17
post #61 of 83
03-25-2013 | Posts: 181
Joined: Apr 2008
The reviews of the Sony projector I've read say the upscaling of 1080p/blu ray looks trememdous. Is the issue content, which will eventually come (streaming, server, and player), or standards (media, connections) a la betamax/vhs, blu ray/hd dvd, sacd/dvd-a?
vinnie97's Avatar vinnie97
08:58 PM Liked: 1011
post #62 of 83
03-25-2013 | Posts: 11,657
Joined: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

There is no down side to 4K, which makes the resistant to it puzzling. It will use basically all the same infrastructure as the current 1080p displays, and once volume ramps up will add little to the overall cost of the display.
Greater resolution is not the cure for other even more noticeable parameters of PQ. From my perspective, that's where any perceived resistance stems that I may harbor.
crizz11's Avatar crizz11
09:16 PM Liked: 10
post #63 of 83
03-25-2013 | Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 2007
wait a sec haven't we been watching the equivelent of 8K in theatres for years with actual Film reels? My understanding (from an article I read here on AVS) is that when they started scanning original film reels for blu-ray conversion they were only scanning at 2k but in actual fact the film was equivelent to 8k. I think the article also mentioned some studios were actually scanning at 8k and then compressing the image down to 2k so they didn't have to risk pulling out the original film again when it had to be scanned again for the next tech after blu-ray? Forget what the article was called but it was all about the process of scanning original movie reels for blu-ray production (gr8 article).

thanks
Chris
imagic's Avatar imagic
09:25 PM Liked: 3078
post #64 of 83
03-25-2013 | Posts: 6,422
Joined: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by crizz11 View Post

wait a sec haven't we been watching the equivelent of 8K in theatres for years with actual Film reels? My understanding (from an article I read here on AVS) is that when they started scanning original film reels for blu-ray conversion they were only scanning at 2k but in actual fact the film was equivelent to 8k. I think the article also mentioned some studios were actually scanning at 8k and then compressing the image down to 2k so they didn't have to risk pulling out the original film again when it had to be scanned again for the next tech after blu-ray? Forget what the article was called but it was all about the process of scanning original movie reels for blu-ray production (gr8 article).

thanks
Chris

An 8K film scan mostly guarantees that every last shred of detail from a 70mm original is captured. The lenses used and the film itself are limiting factors. Without IMAX cameras and lenses, actually getting "8K" quality out of film is incredibly difficult, but a blockbuster shot on 70mm would approximately translate to 6K worth of detail.

Digital IMAX cameras shoot 8K (actually 7,000x10,000 pixels). In comparison, 35mm film scanned at 4K captures just about every shred of detail you're ever going to get out of a frame that small. 35mm prints for cinema distribution were not remotely close to 8K quality, they were dupes with analog generational loss. 70mm film played in theaters would also fail to reach 8K quality levels, for the same reason - they were analog dupes. Even IMAX on film suffered generational loss, but probably came the closest of any medium to showing what true 8K imagery looks like.

No matter what, when scanning film it is better to scan at a higher resolution than the final target, in order to avoid aliasing artifacts. Scanners long ago became powerful enough to capture at massive resolutions.


Full disclosure - I'm a pro photographer and I've been at it long enough to have worked extensively with film and scanners. I've owned my own drum scanners and slide scanners and film cameras of every format up to 8"x10". The fact is if you achieve clean 4K digital capture, that's enough for just about any application except "total immersion" like you find in true IMAX and OMNIMAX venues.
crizz11's Avatar crizz11
10:47 PM Liked: 10
post #65 of 83
03-25-2013 | Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 2007
thanks for the reply you wrote "35mm prints for cinema distribution were not remotely close to 8K quality". Roughly what do you think they might be equivalent to? More than 4k?
imagic's Avatar imagic
11:08 PM Liked: 3078
post #66 of 83
03-25-2013 | Posts: 6,422
Joined: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by crizz11 View Post

thanks for the reply you wrote "35mm prints for cinema distribution were not remotely close to 8K quality". Roughly what do you think they might be equivalent to? More than 4k?

Analog resolution was not more than 4K on 35mm reels sent out to theaters. A rough guess of the effective projected resolution of a 1'st gen dupe, in digital terms, is somewhere between 2K and 3K; that's under the most ideal conditions. The best version you'd ever see exhibited in a theater would be a second-generation copy. What was shown in multiplex movie theaters was a third-generation dupe at best, and most likely a fourth-generation analog dupe. Upscaled 2K is what people see in "regular" theaters today and it looks better than third or fourth-gen 35mm reels—often a lot better.

IMAX is 4K digital projection. I don't know of anyone who thinks today's IMAX projection looks about the same - or even less detailed - than a 35mm print from the 1980's or '90s.
CMonMan's Avatar CMonMan
12:48 AM Liked: 33
post #67 of 83
03-26-2013 | Posts: 269
Joined: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Analog resolution was not more than 4K on 35mm reels sent out to theaters. A rough guess of the effective projected resolution of a 1'st gen dupe, in digital terms, is somewhere between 2K and 3K; that's under the most ideal conditions. The best version you'd ever see exhibited in a theater would be a second-generation copy. What was shown in multiplex movie theaters was a third-generation dupe at best, and most likely a fourth-generation analog dupe. Upscaled 2K is what people see in "regular" theaters today and it looks better than third or fourth-gen 35mm reels—often a lot better.

IMAX is 4K digital projection. I don't know of anyone who thinks today's IMAX projection looks about the same - or even less detailed - than a 35mm print from the 1980's or '90s.

Most films historically have been on 35mm right? If that is correct, there is likely some improvement by releasing them at 4k, but nothing to gain beyond that right?
coolscan's Avatar coolscan
06:16 AM Liked: 105
post #68 of 83
03-26-2013 | Posts: 1,814
Joined: Jan 2006
4K projection is about the equivalent of a 16x9 portion of a 15perf. 70mm (IMAX) which is about the same as a 5perf. 70mm.
This has been shown in side by side tests.

A report from the January 2011 side-by-side test here; http://www.avsforum.com/t/1319207/barcos-4k-dlp-cinema-projector-takes-on-15-70mm-film-at-digital-cinema-symposium#post_21602311

So now we are on the verge of having done full circle and will get the same image quality in the cinema (and even better in the home because of smaller screens) we had 40-50 years ago. Nobody can argue against the fact that the world isn't going forward.............. in circles. tongue.gif
imagic's Avatar imagic
06:20 AM Liked: 3078
post #69 of 83
03-26-2013 | Posts: 6,422
Joined: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMonMan View Post

Most films historically have been on 35mm right? If that is correct, there is likely some improvement by releasing them at 4k, but nothing to gain beyond that right?

The distribution of most films was via 35mm reels, but 70mm was often used for filming—when the budget allowed for it. Back in the pre-IMAX days, a film shot and presented in 70mm was the equivalent to 4K digital in measurable resolution, at least in theory. What most people saw at their local theater, in the form of a 3'rd or 4'th gen 35mm dupe, was the equivalent of a movie filmed in 4K and presented in 2K, but with myriad issues that are directly related to film projection.

Here's an interesting read about "The Master", which was released in 70mm: http://twitchfilm.com/2012/09/jason-gorbers-cineruminations-70mm-4k-and-the-master-split-personality.html
CalgaryJames's Avatar CalgaryJames
08:19 AM Liked: 15
post #70 of 83
03-26-2013 | Posts: 41
Joined: Aug 2012
This is a halo product so I'm not too concern about the high price as it'll come down eventually. But there's set standard of connection for 4K content right now and everything is upscaling from 1080p. So when a true connection for 4K emerges, this set will be obsolete.
imagic's Avatar imagic
09:15 AM Liked: 3078
post #71 of 83
03-26-2013 | Posts: 6,422
Joined: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalgaryJames View Post

This is a halo product so I'm not too concern about the high price as it'll come down eventually. But there's set standard of connection for 4K content right now and everything is upscaling from 1080p. So when a true connection for 4K emerges, this set will be obsolete.

I had the same concern, so I asked about that. The Samsung rep said that when a new standard comes out, whatever connection and standard that may be, a future Smart Evolution Kit will support it. The S9 uses the smart evolution kit, so getting the new connection will be a $299 upgrade. Samsung guarantees that an upgrade kit will be released once per year, and it also guarantees four years of forward compatibility with the Smart Evolution Kits for each year's model that supports the option. As long as the standards for 4K are worked out by 2017, the S9 will not be obsoleted - that's guaranteed.
coolscan's Avatar coolscan
10:45 AM Liked: 105
post #72 of 83
03-26-2013 | Posts: 1,814
Joined: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

The distribution of most films was via 35mm reels, but 70mm was often used for filming. Back in the pre-IMAX days, a film shot and presented in 70mm was the equivalent to 4K digital, which is now sold as an "IMAX presentation", or one of the other "premium auditorium" brands like Regal's RPX. What most people saw at their local theater, in the form of a 3'rd or 4'th gen 35mm dupe, was the equivalent of a movie filmed in 4K and presented in 2K, but with myriad issues that are directly related to film projection.

Here's an interesting read about "The Master", which was released in 70mm: http://twitchfilm.com/2012/09/jason-gorbers-cineruminations-70mm-4k-and-the-master-split-personality.html

It ought to be noted that there are differences between the 70mm used and distributed before IMAX was invented.
70mm "regular" 5perf. back in the heyday of 70mm widescreen until the early 1970's was a regular Medium Format stills film fed vertical through the film camera.
The IMAX 70mm is the same film stock but fed horizontal through the camera and is thereby about twice the image size and resolution of 8perf. 70mm, and about three times the image size and resolution of 5perf. 70mm, which was the format used for the most famous 70mm movie releases.

Some similarity of 35mm film, where the same film stock is used by 35mm movies as in 35mm stills cameras, which we now with DSLR know as Full Frame 35mm. The 35mm Cine film was fed vertical through the Cinema cameras and horizontal through stills cameras, giving Cinema movies about half the size and resolution of 35mm stills cameras.

Vista Vision used the same 35mm film stock fed horizontal through the camera (8prf. 35mm) and have then about double the size and resolution as regular 35mm Cinema film.
The Vista Vision name is best known for this format, but in reality the almost identical format called Technirama produced more features.

When 70mm was abandoned for cost and size reasons, it is very sad that studios went with 35mm vertical and didn't keep VistaVison/Technirama.
Then we would have at least had 40 years of twice the resolution in cinemas.




krazyscotsman's Avatar krazyscotsman
05:54 PM Liked: 10
post #73 of 83
03-26-2013 | Posts: 86
Joined: Mar 2006
I think there's a lot of suppressed envy out there when it comes to this topic. I remember reading it when we started seeing 720p vs 1080p debates. I saw the Sony 4K TV in the Sony Style store in San Diego back in 10/2012 and several times since. Unless you have bad eyes or sitting VERY far away, there is a difference. My eyes are not 20/20 and I could see a difference and not just sitting 5 feet from it. Some of it is picture quality - no doubt. The other part is truly clarity. I could see details that aren't there on my Pioneer Kuro especially when you add geometric shapes such as bricks, side-walks, etc. But you also see it in beaches, close up of people, and other material. Another area I noticed it was straight edges; at 1080p some material will be blurred or aliased. The material demoed at the store had a beach area, the depth of field was much greater; it was easy to see wave peaks at distance where my TV would make it look like white foam or just ripples.

I'm an amatuer photographer, but I have been shooting digital SLR since the Canon D30 - consider the first mass market Digital SLR. What improves between resolution, with all things being equal (f-stop, shutter rate, image processor, etc) is the depth of field resolution and clarity up close. If you compare a 4 Megapixel F8.0 image and a 12 megapixel F8.0 image, the 12 megapixel will be sharper. Is it possible for a 4 megapixel to look better, sure source material, processing, color depth, quality of lenses, etc play a big part... but all things being equal there's a difference; and the same can be said for a 4K TV.

Is it possible to sit far enough back that there's literally no difference between a 1080p and 4K... absolutely. IMO, I don't think it is practical on TV's smaller than 65" (assuming normal viewing distance) but I think at 65" and above, you will see a difference and at 70" to 80" absolutely.

Ask yourself this, could you see a difference on the current 65" playing 720p vs 1080p. If the answer is yes - why wouldn't you see a difference when going to 65"+ with more resolution?

If the price was say $7K, I would consider buying one today; probably only buy the Samsung since it's suppose to be upgradeable. At the current prices, I would rather add a room to my house and make a dedicatd theater.
tenthplanet's Avatar tenthplanet
06:18 PM Liked: 182
post #74 of 83
03-26-2013 | Posts: 1,514
Joined: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by breezy2012 View Post

Hmmm.

I could get this, or I could trade in my Honda Accord for an Audi A6.

What to do, what to do.....



(jk - I know people who buy this already have way more than an Audi A6)

Test drive the A6 then decide.
carageuw's Avatar carageuw
03:41 PM Liked: 12
post #75 of 83
03-30-2013 | Posts: 409
Joined: Aug 2010
I thought the $25,000 Sony was already insane, this price tag just took it to another level...
NSX1992's Avatar NSX1992
05:45 PM Liked: 14
post #76 of 83
04-01-2013 | Posts: 517
Joined: Jan 2010
I recently bought the LG 84" UltraHD for a small amount above half the price of a Sony. The Sony might have better upscaling than the LG. When I heard the Samsung was priced at $40,000 my mind was made up and I bought the LG. My computer is hooked up to the LG and it has the capability to fill the screen with 1920x1080 without overscan. PC 3D games never looked better at 1920x1080 with passive glasses. My huge 3D bluray collection also looks outstanding. Normal TV looks slightly better but I can't wait for true 4K material.
carageuw's Avatar carageuw
06:50 PM Liked: 12
post #77 of 83
04-01-2013 | Posts: 409
Joined: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSX1992 View Post

I recently bought the LG 84" UltraHD for a small amount above half the price of a Sony. The Sony might have better upscaling than the LG. When I heard the Samsung was priced at $40,000 my mind was made up and I bought the LG. My computer is hooked up to the LG and it has the capability to fill the screen with 1920x1080 without overscan. PC 3D games never looked better at 1920x1080 with passive glasses. My huge 3D bluray collection also looks outstanding. Normal TV looks slightly better but I can't wait for true 4K material.

I've heard elsewhere that Samsung justifies the price because the screen is based on AMOLED, which costs more to produce.
6athome's Avatar 6athome
05:52 PM Liked: 49
post #78 of 83
05-10-2013 | Posts: 682
Joined: Mar 2006
does anyone own one of these? Is the 3D passive or active?
6athome's Avatar 6athome
06:26 PM Liked: 49
post #79 of 83
05-10-2013 | Posts: 682
Joined: Mar 2006
Does anyone have this tv? I was wondering if it is active or passive 3d?
NSX1992's Avatar NSX1992
06:57 PM Liked: 14
post #80 of 83
05-11-2013 | Posts: 517
Joined: Jan 2010
I heard it was active.
imagic's Avatar imagic
11:04 AM Liked: 3078
post #81 of 83
05-12-2013 | Posts: 6,422
Joined: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by carageuw View Post


I've heard elsewhere that Samsung justifies the price because the screen is based on AMOLED, which costs more to produce.

It is a full (micro)-dimmable backlit array LED TV, which is expensive to produce at that size—but definitely not AMOLED.


zoro's Avatar zoro
11:51 AM Liked: 17
post #82 of 83
05-12-2013 | Posts: 10,073
Joined: Mar 2002
I am buying 11/2 Subaru BRZ for my self and just get Sony 65 inch 4K
NSX1992's Avatar NSX1992
01:26 PM Liked: 14
post #83 of 83
05-16-2013 | Posts: 517
Joined: Jan 2010
Last night I saw the set in person at its grand opening at Video & Audio Center in Santa Monica, California. The 4K videos were beautiful but they did not demonstrate 3D which I wanted to see. Also their top executive confirmed that only 250 sets will be made.

Reply Latest Industry News

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3