Originally Posted by jrodefeld About 4k:
To me, it seems to be extremely premature to be releasing 4k displays in 2013. In the first place, there is no content to speak of to view on a 4k television.
The "chicken and egg" situation. Who starts first?
Why should display manufacturers make 4K displays if nobody shoots 4K content?
If there are no way to display 4K then there are no incentive to create 4K content.
People have been shooting 4K motion content for about five years now with no way to display it in full resolution except for some cinemas.
About time 4K displays arrived so content makers can use affordable 4K displays when creating their content and an incentive to create 4K because there will be somewhere to sell and distribute 4K.
It is the display manufacturers that have been slow because they where diverted by 3D.
Had they been smart and made 4K displays first and then 3D, there would have been a better chance of 3D becoming a success.
It will take years for a new format to be introduced (new generation of blu ray?) to hold 4k video releases and satellite and cable companies cannot even send 1080p video over their platforms. Even the 1080i video is heavily compressed (TOO heavily). And do we really want to rely on streaming 4k video? What a joke. Who would prefer to view low bitrate, compressed streaming 4k video over a high bitrate 1080p Blu Ray?
1#; Compression and bitrates for TV transmissions are all about cost. About how many channels can fit on one transponder.
2#; 2K~HD was always a too low capture resolution to start with. Compress it and it falls apart. 4K camera capture can be compressed much heavier than 2K and still retain its quality because it has sufficient resolution to start with.
And who really benefits from an increase in resolution at this time? It seems to me that most people would not even be able to perceive the increase in resolution unless they sat 2 feet from their tv. Displays would have to be 80" or larger for the benefits to be obvious. The obvious candidate for 4k then, would be Front Projector owners. But for most people who buy 50 to 60 inch televisions? No signficant improvement.
With 4K, people will get the real HD quality they thought they should get back in the day.
Don't listen to all the seating distance nonsense. Watching moving images on a TV has nothing to do with watching pixels dancing on the screen.
The most important part of the 4K quality is happening at the capture stage where details (better understood as surface texture of objects) has enough resolution to be reproduced in sufficient quality.
As long as the capture has enough resolution, preferably much higher than 4K and oversampled to 4K for the end product, and nobody messes up the content in the process from camera to display, 4K should give you an improved quality experience from all normal seating distances.
At least if you are capable of seeing image quality improvements. Not everybody even care. For them a picture is a picture regardless how bad it is.
Now, eventually 4k will take over and all displays will be made at 4k resolution, even at 50 inches. And eventually this makes sense. But at present, why is the industry not pushing to improve black level performance of televisions? Why not work to improve viewing angles, use higher quality components, increase the color from 8 bits to 10 or 12? Why not work to reduce compression on satellite broadcast HD? There are SO many things that would make a much larger and more immediate effect on the viewing experience than increasing the resolution of the display.
I wouldn't be bothered about 4k being pushed if more emphasis was placed on improving tv tech in other areas that would have a bigger effect on the viewing experience.
Fact is that displays, and specially projectors, are capable of reproducing stunning quality that exceeds what you mostly see.
I am sure you have seen content on your display where you have thought; "wow, this is fantastic".
That's how good your display is.
The fault of this doesn't happen often enough lies on the authoring side of the content sent to you display. One would think that the peole and companies producing content does this to the hoghest possible quality. But that is not so, proved by so many sub-par quality BDs that are released.
Another part is the aforementioned low resolution.
4K is the cheapest way to increase the quality.
Doesn't mean that all 4K will be fantastic. The same people will mess up the authoring, but now they have less chance of doing that with 4K.
Beware of a lot of content that will get the 4K Tag, like the Sony "mastered in 4K", which is mostly up-converted material.