Originally Posted by 8mile13
CNET is a respected source, Ty Pendlebury is a respected tech-reporter.
Oh really? Then why is this article so full of misrepresentations?http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7...#ixzz1kT5Bk1Mq
Still, if you listen to the industry, it'll tell you it's the last resolution you'll ever need.
He opens well. It is a good illustration of the short-sightedness of people "in the industry".
Despite the industry's best intentions, there is still no single 4K standard-
The two needed standards are in place. One is the DCI standard for movies based in "4x" up-conversion of the DCI 2K standard, and the "4x" up-conversion of the HD/TV home media standard.
SMPTE have just finished or are in the finishing stages for the UHDTV-1 (4K) and UHDTV-2 (8K) broadcast standards.
Basic standards are needed but because of variations of Aspect Ratios nothing will be "pixel accurate".
-there are five or more different shooting resolutions available.
Capture/shooting resolutions do not need to be standardised as long as they can deliver the minimum within the standards.
Shooting resolutions are camera dependent, and all quality cameras will have much higher resolution than the output resolution they are shooting for.
In cinemas you see projectors based on the DCI specification, which supports both 4K and 2K, while Sony sports its own standard (also 4,096x2,190-pixel resolution) and series of projectors.
Sony projectors conform to the horizontal part of the 4K DCI cinema standard for 4K. As long as the minimum display resolution is within the standard it doesn't matter if it is higher.
Again; the aspect ratio rules the total amount of pixels displayed.
Things are a little simpler in the home. The HDMI organization recently added two types of 4K support to its latest 1.4 specification: Quad HD (3,840x2,160 pixels) and 4K/2K, also called 4Kx2K (4,096x2,160 pixels).
So what's his point? The HDMI organization just added to their standard the existing two standards mentioned above.
Only Quad HD conforms to the classic 16:9 ratio of modern television screens.
4K/2K (4,096x2,160 pixels) has an aspect ratio of 1:89:1, so it has some more "wriggle room" for projection on a screen and aspect ratio variations.
Quad HD (3,840x2,160 pixels) has an aspect ratio of 1:77:1, the most used aspect ratio for broadcast, documentaries and movies. (although most of the most seen movies in the cinema are mostly 2:35-40:1)
The horizontal pixel variations between the two standards are 256 pixels in favour of the 4K cinema standard. On a 8 million pixels display that's nothing much to "quibble about".
Meanwhile, some industry experts have questioned the necessity of 4K as a home format given the lack of content and the need for very large displays to appreciate the extra resolution.
Because it take longer to develop, manufacture and sell 4K TV's than it takes to produce 4K material or a 4K home format should the 4K display manufacturers wait for the content before they manufacture displays?
One big reason there are not more 4K content is because the content makers don't see the point of 4K material before there are more 4K displays. The lack of 4K displays also slow down the release of 4K home media solutions and hardware releases.
"There was a huge, noticeable leap from standard definition to HD, but the difference between 1080p and 4K is not as marked," said researcher Dave Lamb of 3M Laboratories.
Is Dave Lamb some sort of authority on 4K?
Compared to a "camera nerd" like Jim Jannard of RED Digital Camera company that has used his own money to build a whole company making 4K and higher resolution digital motion cameras, 4K support software&hardware,4K home delivery format and hardware and projector based solely on " 1080 is not good enough".
Or Sony that have manufactured 4K projectors for years, and now Barco, Christie and NEC are following up.
Or NHK that have been developing 4K Broadcast solutions for many years but now have shifted their focus to 8K broadcast.
All of those who have put "the money where their mouth is" would disagree with David Lamb from 3M. A company AFAIK
have no 4K products.
Lamb added that "4K is at the point of diminishing returns," but there could be some benefits for screens over 55 inches.
I guess that's why we see 20" 4K prototypes from Panasonic. 4K displays on smaller than 55" can also display passive 3D in full HD for each eye compared to the SD resolution of today.
So 4K has many benefits for all screen sizes.
Did you see James Cameron's "Avatar 3D" in the theater? Then you've seen 4K in action. Cameron's movie about "giant blue dudes" helped drive high-resolution 4K Sony projectors into theaters around the world, and made a lot of money in the process.
"Avatar" was not shot, made or released in 4K, so no one has seen the movie in 4K.
It didn't drive Sony 4K projectors into theatres. The Sony 4K projector can not display 3D in 4K resolution. It can only display 2K for each eye passively.
Only DLP 4K projectors can display 4K 3D with active shutter glasses (also now at higher framerates which the Sony can't).
Sony announced its 4K home theater projector, the VPL-VW1000ES, in September, but does not make the product available through its Web site or stores and instead sells it directly to custom installers.
The VPL-VW1000ES can be bought through most projector resellers, including AVSciences that own this forum, but at the moment the availabilty might be small.
Meanwhile, JVC announced four projectors in 2011 that upscale 1080p content to 4K but currently are unable to display native 4K content.
The JVC projector is not a projector with native 4K resolution but make "4K" by some "interpolation".
Even with reference-quality native 4K material, however, a 4K-resolution TV or projector won't provide nearly the visible improvement over a standard 1080p model that going from standard-def to high-def did.
As he has seen very little good 4K material (or any native 4K material at all) on a good 4K display it is impossible to conclude that the difference will not be as big as from SD to HD. But it will also depend on the type of material, just as it does comparing SD to HD.
When 4K displays are mass produced (not the prototypes we have seen recently) and improved and good 4K native material is available we can start to conclude how large are the benefits.
To appreciate it you'll have to have sit quite close to a large screen--sort of like being in the front few rows of a movie theater.
That is the same distance to screen "talking point" that is also frequently repeated in this thread.
Won't comment on that now, except to say that "distance to screen" is a very small part of the advantage of the improved quality of 4K imagery.
All in all I find the author of this article as uninformed as most people that write about the "questionable benefit" of 4K and higher resolutions and should not be taken for more than an "popular science" information article about 4K.