Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it? - Page 10 - AVS Forum
First ... 8  9  10 11  12  ... Last
Community News & Polls > Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it?
pdoherty972's Avatar pdoherty972 03:16 PM 01-13-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I'm still interested to learn what else comes with the "flexibility" of future screens.

Rolling up screens for easy transportation/installation? Sounds great, just what happens to the same material when you need to display it, flat...and even more imperatively, uniform?

I know what laminated posters and other materials look like, once unrolled and mounted...never anywhere near as aesthetically appealing as their non-rolled counterparts...no matter how much care is taken or the methodology applied to counteract it. Heck, even some of the best home movie screens lack fantastic uniformity and that's much easier to correct, top to bottom, then left to right some dozen+ feet.

Oh wait, by that time we'll have embraced curved (and even more so, irregularly curved) screens...much more "IMAX" and "life-like" that way. wink.gifrolleyes.gifbiggrin.gif

We'll see.

James

Roll up isn't even a requirement, IMO. Just a flat sheet of OLED mounted in a frame would replace a projector perfectly. Takes up as little space as a projector screen alone and has a far better picture to boot.

kdog750's Avatar kdog750 07:25 PM 01-13-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

If people just imagine what 4k. 2160p looks like on a 55" or 65" then they they really can't be sure if they benefit. If they actually see a 4k TV and still don't see the difference, thenI I'd recommend they go get their eyes examined and prepare for an Rx set of glasses.

There are distinct quality differences one can see on a 55" 4k whether it is OLED or just LED. They OLED adds color intensity and depth, the LED just adds detail and sharpness without edge enhancement.

Obviously the larger the screen size the more noticeable the advantages but I can see the distinct advantages of each of the upgrades. 4K OLED is the best of the best right now as shown at CES. This is only developed now to a 56" screen size. LG Is offering only 1080p OLED now. So, we all have plenty of options in the coming months to decide.

Now, do we need 8k? I've seen a few of these in 100" size and really, I'm not convinced that is needed for the ome unless your screen size is greater than 170" width. Few of us will sit that close to a 100" that will display the advantage.

If you are used to sitting 2-3 times screen height in your room, then maybe you will never see an advantage to 4K. Save your money. Instead, you might find OLED at 1080 p a better investment.

Have you seen any 4K sets in action? I drove 3 hours to Houston specifically to see the 84" Sony 4K set. I remember when walking into the store and seeing the TV I was wondering why they had a 1080P signal running instead of 4K. It wasn't until I got closer than normal viewing distance I saw the higher resolution pop out. At normal viewing distance I really could not tell it wasn't 1080P. My vision is 20/20

If you look at the Sony advertisement for this set, they even say in writing to "get very close to the screen" as a selling point. They
made a marketing decision to sell the set based on getting much closer than normal viewing distance to see the difference.
BigC208's Avatar BigC208 09:40 AM 01-14-2013
Do I need 2160 in my living room? No. Untill 2 weeks I had a 720, 32 inch Toshiba lcd I bought five or 6 years ago. A friend asked for help moving. I helped and she gave me her 1080P, 40, 46 and 52 inch Sony Bravia's she has no use for in her new house. I gave the 46 away, the 40 I use in a 4 monitor flightsim setup for out of the window view and the 52 sits in the living room. I sit 12 feet away from the set and Blueray and 720 over satelite look great at that distance. I normally use a 30 inch 2560x1600 HP ZR30w monitor for computing and Blueray viewing. This is where I have a need for 2160p. If I could get a 40-50 inch 2160P computer monitor for around 2-3 grand I would pull the trigger. That's the only time I'm going to need it, sitting one or two feet away from the screen.
majorahole's Avatar majorahole 10:37 AM 01-14-2013
i didnt read through all of the posts, but i wont go 4k unless i hear that there is a pro studio camera that is higher than that.
i have a friend in the movie business, he has done major editing and made some small time directing.
apparently the use for the 4k/"redcam" in studio and other film is that you can take a wider shot and later in editing crop it down/zoom in and still get 1080p res.
so its my understanding that not everything is shot in 4k anyway, and even at that not many use a 4k for most movies.

i hate watching SD content on an HD display, so i would figure that would be the same for 1080p on a 4k display. (although probably not as bad)

just my thoughts/opinions
durack's Avatar durack 07:55 PM 01-14-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigC208 View Post

A friend asked for help moving. I helped and she gave me her 1080P, 40, 46 and 52 inch Sony Bravia's she has no use for in her new house.

You sure know how to pick the right friends! smile.gif
Don Landis's Avatar Don Landis 09:50 PM 01-14-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

Have you seen any 4K sets in action? I drove 3 hours to Houston specifically to see the 84" Sony 4K set. I remember when walking into the store and seeing the TV I was wondering why they had a 1080P signal running instead of 4K. It wasn't until I got closer than normal viewing distance I saw the higher resolution pop out. At normal viewing distance I really could not tell it wasn't 1080P. My vision is 20/20

If you look at the Sony advertisement for this set, they even say in writing to "get very close to the screen" as a selling point. They
made a marketing decision to sell the set based on getting much closer than normal viewing distance to see the difference.

Yes, Just last week! And I saw them from Sony, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Toshiba, Sharp and others. I saw the OLED and LED versions. I saw them in 2D and 3D. I saw native content in 4K and upconverted 2K like you did (ie 1080p ^ to 2160p) as well as 2160p native in 2D and 3D. At CES you can see everything, even Projectors with 4K.

What do you call "NORMAL" viewing distance? The industry accepted standard for videophile viewing is 1.5 screen height. So, your 84" would be viewed at about 6 ft away. While I don't necessarily agree with that, it is the industry standard as "Normal" But I can tell you that I can see the advantage of 2160p at a distance of 3 times screen height easily!

The look of upconverted 1080p is not nearly as dramatic as true 2160p content on the 4k displays at most room viewing distances. Kind of like viewing a DVD on a 720p projector and then seeing the same DVD on a 1080p projector. It looks better, but true 1080p ( BluRay) content on a 1080p projector looks best.
erkq's Avatar erkq 10:04 PM 01-14-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Yes, Just last week! And I saw them from Sony, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Toshiba, Sharp and others. I saw the OLED and LED versions. I saw them in 2D and 3D. I saw native content in 4K and upconverted 2K like you did (ie 1080p ^ to 2160p) as well as 2160p native in 2D and 3D. At CES you can see everything, even Projectors with 4K.

What do you call "NORMAL" viewing distance? The industry accepted standard for videophile viewing is 1.5 screen height.
.,.

That seems awfully close! It is closer (has a larger angle of view) than either SMPTE or THX guidelines as far as I can tell. Note I said "as far as I can tell". I'm not trying to claim I'm right... just saying what my current understanding is. Anyway... that would be .8 sw for a 16:9 screen! I find 1.6 sw good for 16:9. It doesn't have to do with resolution. Closer is just too overwhelming. I sit at 1sw for 2.35 material and I don't think there are many who sit closer.
BartMan01's Avatar BartMan01 11:14 PM 01-14-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

That seems awfully close! It is closer (has a larger angle of view) than either SMPTE or THX guidelines as far as I can tell.

And those guidelines seem to change as resolution increases. The 'recommended' MINIMUMS seem to give an FOV less that I get in my local IMAX theater with digital projectors. From everything I have read, the recommendations are set to get you as close as possible without display limitations becoming apparent. That is why the recommendations for SD sets were further away than HD sets and would reasonably be even closer with 4k sets showing 4k material.
erkq's Avatar erkq 11:39 PM 01-14-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by BartMan01 View Post

And those guidelines seem to change as resolution increases. The 'recommended' MINIMUMS seem to give an FOV less that I get in my local IMAX theater with digital projectors. From everything I have read, the recommendations are set to get you as close as possible without display limitations becoming apparent. That is why the recommendations for SD sets were further away than HD sets and would reasonably be even closer with 4k sets showing 4k material.

I see. The recommendations I was referencing were for movie theaters in general, not IMAX. But I guess commercial movie theaters change with resolution too.

I guess I'm just old school. I just wouldn't want to sit any closer than I do now @ 1 sw. The perspective changes and these's more neck craning than I like.
pdoherty972's Avatar pdoherty972 08:12 AM 01-15-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

I see. The recommendations I was referencing were for movie theaters in general, not IMAX. But I guess commercial movie theaters change with resolution too.

I guess I'm just old school. I just wouldn't want to sit any closer than I do now @ 1 sw. The perspective changes and these's more neck craning than I like.

I agree - the closer you sit to the screen the harder it is to view what's taking place. There's a small area of clearest vision in the center of your retina - when you sit closer the portion of the image hiiting that area of your retina is less, meaning you need to "scan" a lot more in order to take in what's happening onscreen. So, for example if you sit back 12' from a 100" screen you might be taking in 33% of the screen in that are of your retina, but if you move closer you might only get 15%.
jlanzy's Avatar jlanzy 09:02 AM 01-15-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

The way I see it...

4K is a solution to a problem that consumers don't have


[FLAME SUIT = ON]


Do they really think they can deliver true 4K content through the pipes? Isn't the average ISP connection speed in the US still under 12Mbits?

The sad hard fact for those hoping for real content is that it is going bitstarved heavily filtered '4K' content that you get over the pipes. Sounds a lot like most of the standard 'HD' streaming services to me.

Physical is the only real option for true high quality content, but they don't want to go that route. Instead they don't want a physical format because it will be much easier for the studios to have control over the content when it is only available in the cloud. The inventors of Circuit City's failed DIVX format are finally going to feel vindicated. They get paid everytime you hit play. How does that make those feel that hated DIVX with a passion?

No thanks. I'll stick with my 1080p/2K blu-ray discs that I don't have to pay for every time I throw them in the player.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

The way I see it...

4K is a solution to a problem that consumers don't have


[FLAME SUIT = ON]


Do they really think they can deliver true 4K content through the pipes? Isn't the average ISP connection speed in the US still under 12Mbits?

The sad hard fact for those hoping for real content is that it is going bitstarved heavily filtered '4K' content that you get over the pipes. Sounds a lot like most of the standard 'HD' streaming services to me.

Physical is the only real option for true high quality content, but they don't want to go that route. Instead they don't want a physical format because it will be much easier for the studios to have control over the content when it is only available in the cloud. The inventors of Circuit City's failed DIVX format are finally going to feel vindicated. They get paid everytime you hit play. How does that make those feel that hated DIVX with a passion?

No thanks. I'll stick with my 1080p/2K blu-ray discs that I don't have to pay for every time I throw them in the player.
 
 

I never watch a movie more than once, have a 120" wide screen in a batcave theater room,  only rent, want the best PQ/AQ ( lossless), and want more convenience than having to go the mailbox for my movie and deciding a head of time what I want to watch later in the week.. I want 4K , 12 bit depth and expanded color spectrum, lossless audio on a video on demand pay per view basis ..that simple.  But since I can't even get 1080p/24 lossless audio except on a disc I guess it won't happen until pigs fly!


BartMan01's Avatar BartMan01 09:45 AM 01-15-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

I see. The recommendations I was referencing were for movie theaters in general,

Pretty sure there are not THX recommended minimum seating distances for where movie theaters can/should start their seating, just recommended maximums (or a minimum viewing angle). Every movie theater I have ever been in has seats just a few feet away from the screen, the industry recommendations are for how far back you should extend the seating for a given screen size.

How close you sit to the screen between the recommended maximum and the screen itself is more of a personal preference but most people try to sit between 2-4 screen heights back in the actual theater.

There is a good discussion here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1004723/chart-distance-x-screen-size-standards-smpte-and-thx
kdog750's Avatar kdog750 09:56 AM 01-15-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Yes, Just last week! And I saw them from Sony, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Toshiba, Sharp and others. I saw the OLED and LED versions. I saw them in 2D and 3D. I saw native content in 4K and upconverted 2K like you did (ie 1080p ^ to 2160p) as well as 2160p native in 2D and 3D.

So the looped demo playing at the Sony Stores is actually upconverted 1080p? I had thought for sure it was native 4K on a hard drive. If so, that screws up my judgement of perceived benefits of 4K
erkq's Avatar erkq 09:57 AM 01-15-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by BartMan01 View Post

...
There is a good discussion here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1004723/chart-distance-x-screen-size-standards-smpte-and-thx

Thanks!
stevenjw's Avatar stevenjw 04:54 PM 01-15-2013
Do we need it? Not sure if WE need it or if we NEED it either. However, I am sure that I want and NEED it whenever it's affordable. Just saw The Hobbit in IMAX 3D High Frame Rate (thier words, not mine) and was completely blown away by the PQ. Peter Jackson used 48 Red Epic digital cameras at 5K resolution 48 fps to produce a fantastic looking 3D movie. I'm hoping that Red delivers on its promise of an affordable 4K 3D projector so that it's in my theater by the time the source is out. Hopefully, Red will figure out a way to deliver that source in 4K to the RedRay player I'll have too. Bright, high contract, passive 3D, 4K is what I'm looking for. Yes, 4K is a definite need for me.
ultravio1et's Avatar ultravio1et 05:44 AM 01-16-2013
1080p wasn't going to be the standard till the end of time was it? of course resolution is going to get better over time. although i am curious if its needed right now, are film companies equipped to give us this 'new standard' on a blu-ray, wouldn't cameras need to be upgraded and such? which i would think would be a massive investment; if only a few companies got behind it a new 2160p TV would be pointless
Frohlich's Avatar Frohlich 06:06 AM 01-16-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenjw View Post

Do we need it? Not sure if WE need it or if we NEED it either. However, I am sure that I want and NEED it whenever it's affordable. Just saw The Hobbit in IMAX 3D High Frame Rate (thier words, not mine) and was completely blown away by the PQ. Peter Jackson used 48 Red Epic digital cameras at 5K resolution 48 fps to produce a fantastic looking 3D movie. I'm hoping that Red delivers on its promise of an affordable 4K 3D projector so that it's in my theater by the time the source is out. Hopefully, Red will figure out a way to deliver that source in 4K to the RedRay player I'll have too. Bright, high contract, passive 3D, 4K is what I'm looking for. Yes, 4K is a definite need for me.

Pretty sure you were blown away by 2K Hobbit scaled to 4k. I know it was shot in 5k but the CGI was all done in 2K...according to what I was reading yesterday. 48fps is also not coming to the home any time soon as there is no hardware capapble of playing it, now , or in the next few years.
HD Hockey Guy's Avatar HD Hockey Guy 08:22 AM 01-16-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frohlich View Post

Pretty sure you were blown away by 2K Hobbit scaled to 4k. I know it was shot in 5k but the CGI was all done in 2K...according to what I was reading yesterday. 48fps is also not coming to the home any time soon as there is no hardware capapble of playing it, now , or in the next few years.

MPEG-4 XAVC supports up to 60 fps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XAVC
Quote:
XAVC uses level 5.2 of H.264/MPEG-4 AVC which is the highest level supported by that video standard. XAVC can support 4K resolution (4096 × 2160 and 3840 × 2160) at up to 60 frames per second (fps).
Quote:
On November 14, 2012, Sony stated that it might release consumer products that use XAVC.

Randomcreek's Avatar Randomcreek 09:43 AM 01-16-2013
"I've never understood the argument "you can't see it on X" screen unless you're Y' away". I've always found 1080 to be a better image than 720, even on small screens. It just looks more real. Not that I can pick out the individual pixels."

This is actually a very poignant comment to the question at hand and true in my experience as and enthusiast videophile as well. If you use the corollary of digital photography, it becomes apparent that visible pixel structure is not all that higher resolution it is about. It's the character of the picture and apparent depth that could benefit (along with the resolution) the most. There may be some cases where poorly implemented 2160P resolution is actually worse than 1080P and others where there are significant benefits depending on the implementation. We've been talking about these subtle differences between images of exactly the same resolution along these same lines of thought for years here (ad nauseum at times). - between CRT and plasma, plasma and LCD, LCD and OLED. Even if the pixels are turned sideways versus vertical . .. . backlight, side light, full array, etc, etc The added resolution (regardless of if you notice it in all instances or not) will almost certainly be able to enhance the character of the image and the thought provoking experience as a result. With some content perhaps the viewer will feel "there" and not just as though they are watching through a window because of the added PQ characteristics, depth, etc.. Some (perhaps most) may not appreciate this, but to the critical viewer it may be significant. I can’t afford it, but I'd love to have a 2160 set or projector and welcome the new technology.
Don Landis's Avatar Don Landis 01:52 PM 01-16-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

So the looped demo playing at the Sony Stores is actually upconverted 1080p? I had thought for sure it was native 4K on a hard drive. If so, that screws up my judgement of perceived benefits of 4K

I think it depends on the store but if you saw a round black disk about 10" in diameter and about 2" thick, that was the 4K server with 4K content loaded. Its a really strange looking device shape. If it was a BD playing on a BR Player then it could have been standard 1080p disk or one of the new special disks that was made from 4K masters. Both of these disks will be upconverted to 2160p in the TV but only the 4K content on the server would be native 2160p.

I agree with others not to waste time and money on the first out BD said just to be "from 4K masters" or what some call super Blu Ray. Sony demoed that too at CES and I felt it looked a bit soft compared to the true 4K content on the round server.
saprano's Avatar saprano 05:51 PM 01-16-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

I think it depends on the store but if you saw a round black disk about 10" in diameter and about 2" thick, that was the 4K server with 4K content loaded. Its a really strange looking device shape. If it was a BD playing on a BR Player then it could have been standard 1080p disk or one of the new special disks that was made from 4K masters. Both of these disks will be upconverted to 2160p in the TV but only the 4K content on the server would be native 2160p.

I agree with others not to waste time and money on the first out BD said just to be "from 4K masters" or what some call super Blu Ray. Sony demoed that too at CES and I felt it looked a bit soft compared to the true 4K content on the round server.

Since when was the demo upscaled 1080p? The demo on the sony TV is native 4K.
kdog750's Avatar kdog750 09:52 PM 01-16-2013
Question:

Let's assume 3 years from now, 4K sets are relatively cheap and Red-ray players can be had at Walmart for $79.99. If they started releasing physical disks of motion pictures would all the past movies be 1080P upscaled to 4K? I mean is it a standard that would apply to all movie releases on disk from that point on or is there a way to get true 4K of past movies over the last few decades from the original print?

I ask this because I am in somewhat of a sticky situation. I bought the Sharp Elite 70" at a wallet breaking cost. I might have to exchange this one for a newer set because of problems but would still like to keep the Elite brand. But it would be sickening to spend that much on a TV only to have 4K become the standard 3 years later.
victor tubeman's Avatar victor tubeman 02:44 AM 01-17-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frohlich View Post

Pretty sure you were blown away by 2K Hobbit scaled to 4k. I know it was shot in 5k but the CGI was all done in 2K...according to what I was reading yesterday. 48fps is also not coming to the home any time soon as there is no hardware capapble of playing it, now , or in the next few years.

Yes The Hobbit was mastered at 2k( 2k DI) vFX 2K.

3D is always at a max 2k/eye.

Many versions of this movie.

DCP:

Warner Bros.
Technicolor Digital Cinema
2D/3D, 24fps
Includes two 3D versions: 4.5ftL (standard light level) and 7ftL (high light level)
2048 x 858 (2K scope)
913 GB (total package size)
Run Time: 2:49:25
Credits Start: 2:39:20 (unverified)
5.1/7.1 Audio

Trailers (not on drive; it says to get them from the Trailers by Deluxe drive):
"Beautiful Creatures" #2
"Jack the Giant Killer" #2
"Pacific Rim" #1
"Man of Steel" #2 (2D/3D)

The paperwork lists the numerous, mostly color-coded drives (signified by the stripe of color on the drive) being sent out, depending on what version you're showing:

1.) Red - 2D/3D 24fps Combo, 4.5ftL & 7ftL (what we got)
2.) Pink - 3D HFR (High Frame Rate, 48fps) 4.5ftL
3.) Orange - 3D HFR 7ftL
4.) Yellow - French Dub 2D/3D 24fps Combo, 4.5ftL
5.) Green - French Dub 3D HFR 4.5ftL
6.) Blue - Spanish Dub 2D/3D 24fps Combo, 4.5ftL
7.) Purple - Spanish Sub 2D/3D 24fps Combo, 4.5ftL
8.) IMAX 3D 24fps & HFR

Technicolor is shipping all of these except for the IMAX, which IMAX will ship. Red, Pink and Orange also have 7.1 audio. The HFR versions can't be ingested on an LMS; they must be ingested directly to the screen server.
Don Landis's Avatar Don Landis 07:31 AM 01-17-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Since when was the demo upscaled 1080p? The demo on the sony TV is native 4K.

Your question was answered in my post. Read!
HeadRusch's Avatar HeadRusch 10:31 AM 01-17-2013
Lately, and I'm sure this experience is shared by more than a few people, after the VHS to DVD to HD boom in the past 12 years or so (longer for you in the big cities), resolution just isn't much of a draw for me anymore. Of course I'm not 20 or 30 anymore either, when
"NEW, HOT, IMPROVED!" meant something as I was filling my first Apartment/Condo/House with all the hot new gadgets to impress my friends who were doing the exact same thing.

When I look at the movies I am watching and going "Gee, I sure wish this picture were twice as sharp".........oh wait, I never do that. I watch movies on my 720p projector, or my 1080p flatpanels....and the effect is largely the same. Is the movie any good? Is the show?
Do I care that I could see Tony Stark's Armor Scuffs "maybe a bit sharper if I pause and squint" if I had all new 4K equipment......no, not even a little bit.

We, on this forum, get really caught up in ScreenShots and other things that can largely be called "Bull****" when the day finally closes.....its a hobby, we all chase tech if we hang out here....but 4K is really starting to bump into the law of diminishing returns. At least to me.
I'm sure many will disagree.

4K will be the new norm because, lets face it....if we already have Television Sets that will last 50 years and provide a super sharp picture when presented with the right content (in focus, CGI, etc).....what else can they sell us? They have to bump the resolution, its almost the only
dog they have left in the fight. 3D? Meh. Better PQ? Seems to me they improve one thing and ruin something else with each new model release......"Black Levels are now great! Once you get past the flashlighting or buzzing or color inaccuracy or..."
They are already milking 1080p for all its worth with almost no place left to go.


I welcome our new 4K masters.......however I won't be jumping on the bandwagon until its "The norm" and not the fringe.

You early adopters, I thank you profusely for the trail you blaze, but I can say unlike the move to HD (which had everyone excited), I see this more as a "ok, evolution", not a game changer.

(although I will be happy to be proven wrong, too.....) smile.gif
steve1971's Avatar steve1971 03:42 PM 01-17-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post

Lately, and I'm sure this experience is shared by more than a few people, after the VHS to DVD to HD boom in the past 12 years or so (longer for you in the big cities), resolution just isn't much of a draw for me anymore. Of course I'm not 20 or 30 anymore either, when
"NEW, HOT, IMPROVED!" meant something as I was filling my first Apartment/Condo/House with all the hot new gadgets to impress my friends who were doing the exact same thing.

When I look at the movies I am watching and going "Gee, I sure wish this picture were twice as sharp".........oh wait, I never do that. I watch movies on my 720p projector, or my 1080p flatpanels....and the effect is largely the same. Is the movie any good? Is the show?
Do I care that I could see Tony Stark's Armor Scuffs "maybe a bit sharper if I pause and squint" if I had all new 4K equipment......no, not even a little bit.

We, on this forum, get really caught up in ScreenShots and other things that can largely be called "Bull****" when the day finally closes.....its a hobby, we all chase tech if we hang out here....but 4K is really starting to bump into the law of diminishing returns. At least to me.
I'm sure many will disagree.

4K will be the new norm because, lets face it....if we already have Television Sets that will last 50 years and provide a super sharp picture when presented with the right content (in focus, CGI, etc).....what else can they sell us? They have to bump the resolution, its almost the only
dog they have left in the fight. 3D? Meh. Better PQ? Seems to me they improve one thing and ruin something else with each new model release......"Black Levels are now great! Once you get past the flashlighting or buzzing or color inaccuracy or..."
They are already milking 1080p for all its worth with almost no place left to go.


I welcome our new 4K masters.......however I won't be jumping on the bandwagon until its "The norm" and not the fringe.

You early adopters, I thank you profusely for the trail you blaze, but I can say unlike the move to HD (which had everyone excited), I see this more as a "ok, evolution", not a game changer.

(although I will be happy to be proven wrong, too.....) smile.gif


Headrusch this has got to be one of the best post's I have read about this subject and its how I feel all the way and I couldnt have said it better.


smile.gif
erkq's Avatar erkq 03:58 PM 01-17-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post

Lately, and I'm sure this experience is shared by more than a few people, after the VHS to DVD to HD boom in the past 12 years or so (longer for you in the big cities), resolution just isn't much of a draw for me anymore. Of course I'm not 20 or 30 anymore either, when
"NEW, HOT, IMPROVED!" meant something as I was filling my first Apartment/Condo/House with all the hot new gadgets to impress my friends who were doing the exact same thing.

When I look at the movies I am watching and going "Gee, I sure wish this picture were twice as sharp".........oh wait, I never do that. I watch movies on my 720p projector, or my 1080p flatpanels....and the effect is largely the same. Is the movie any good? Is the show?
Do I care that I could see Tony Stark's Armor Scuffs "maybe a bit sharper if I pause and squint" if I had all new 4K equipment......no, not even a little bit.

We, on this forum, get really caught up in ScreenShots and other things that can largely be called "Bull****" when the day finally closes.....its a hobby, we all chase tech if we hang out here....but 4K is really starting to bump into the law of diminishing returns. At least to me.
I'm sure many will disagree.

4K will be the new norm because, lets face it....if we already have Television Sets that will last 50 years and provide a super sharp picture when presented with the right content (in focus, CGI, etc).....what else can they sell us? They have to bump the resolution, its almost the only
dog they have left in the fight. 3D? Meh. Better PQ? Seems to me they improve one thing and ruin something else with each new model release......"Black Levels are now great! Once you get past the flashlighting or buzzing or color inaccuracy or..."
They are already milking 1080p for all its worth with almost no place left to go.


I welcome our new 4K masters.......however I won't be jumping on the bandwagon until its "The norm" and not the fringe.

You early adopters, I thank you profusely for the trail you blaze, but I can say unlike the move to HD (which had everyone excited), I see this more as a "ok, evolution", not a game changer.

(although I will be happy to be proven wrong, too.....) smile.gif

Well, I'm one who disagrees. But I do agree on one point. It is most certainly not about "Tony Stark's Armor Scuffs"! That misses the point entirely. For me it's a combination of resolution, great contrast, accurate grayscale and gamma and accurate color. The results can be jaw-dropping... literally. My neighbors and wife agree. Probably the most gorgeous movie I've seen since I got my theater calibrated is the HD-DVD version of Pride and Prejudice. You are not aware of the detail of natural surroundings out by the pond, but it would not be as utterly stunning if the grass blades were less distinct or the sun reflecting off the water was more mushy. And, it's a group effort. Gamma and color are just as important. I view 10' back from a 10' wide screen and resolution is very important! Now, do I need 4k? No... not really. But 720p most definitely wouldn't cut it either. I designed this theater to take advantage of the resolution currently available: 1080p. Believe me, until you've seen 1080p on a properly calibrated high contrast display at 1sw, you haven't yet milked 1080p for all it's worth.
BartMan01's Avatar BartMan01 05:11 PM 01-17-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

For me it's a combination of resolution, great contrast, accurate grayscale and gamma and accurate color.

Exactly - I would love to see them fix the color and compression issues with Blu Ray before they add more pixels - doing all three at once would be great. For large screens, more pixels would be great but not if all it does is make the macro blocks sharper and still have the limited color gamut (compared at least to what is actually shown in the theaters) of 709.
catonic's Avatar catonic 06:43 PM 01-17-2013
I, like most others who have posted here, have not seen any 4k2k footage. And it is understandable that quite a few people are sceptical about the amount of visible improvement that will result from going to 4k from 1080p. Some people who have seen 4k footage on 4k tv's / projectors are very impressed, others not at all.
However a few things need to be kept in mind, imo.
One is that the whole 4k2k chain is still in its infancy. Most 4k2k films to date have been shot using cameras from Red, and they are already onto their 3rd generation sensor, Dragon, which is a big improvement over their Red and Epic sensors.
4k2k tv's and projectors are going to keep getting better each year and DP's and directors are going to learn how to get the best out of their improving equipment.
According to Red, based on their actual experience, they only need a stream of 2.5MBs (20Mbps) to show top quality 4k2k, far less than most people have believed was necessary.
What all this adds up to, imo, is that 4k2k is going to be as big and obvious a leap forward as going from SD tv's to 1080p HD tv's, as the following chart helps to make clear.

Time will tell of course, probably by the end of 2013 there will be enough content and 4k tv's and projectors available for us to all know just how much better it is than 1080p.
And this thread will then make for just as interesting reading as it does now. smile.gif
kdog750's Avatar kdog750 04:08 AM 01-18-2013
The articles I've read state the best estimates are that by 2017, 4K TV's will still only account for 0.8% of the market. If that's true, I don't think that's enough to spawn any kind of market for source material. If I'm not mistaken, even 3D TV's are a bigger percentage than 0.8% yet there are only a handful of titles available for 3D and no cable/satellite channels that I know of. So if the original assumption is correct, wouldn't we be looking at a time frame closer to 10 years before 4K content becomes as available as 1080P content?
First ... 8  9  10 11  12  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop