Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 12:06 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
David Bott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Traveling The USA
Posts: 11,672
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43


I submit this to the members of AVS Forum:

I was just asked the other day, "Dave, do we really need 2160P; or 4K; or whatever it is they call it?"

It was a good question that I pondered for a moment, and then thought to myself whom better to ask then the esteemed members of AVS Forum for their thoughts on it.

Now understand that in this world that of bigger is better, the answer surely is yes. I mean who doesn't want larger displays with more pixels, with more colors, and well more of everything? It's just the way we seem to be wired. But in this day and age of you watching television on your telephone it really does make you need to sometimes ask, is bigger always better? (And by this I only mean more pixels.)

Let's face it, for the most part, most of the world won't get any benefit out of it because the displays are just too small in the average household to truly see the high-resolution of a 4K monitor. You really would need a larger display to get the true benefit. To me, I am saying a 10 foot or larger screen to start to be able to "see" the difference side by side up-close. Even say an 84" screen you would need to be like 5 feet from it to "see" any real difference. (If considering 20/20 vision.) So at 10 feet, you would need like a 140" screen.

All in all, are we just talking marketing here are we talking about something really needed for the future? A 2160 image for example can be greatly benefit 3-D for then you can have 1080P by 1080P for each eye. Thus full res.

So I ask the members of AVS...Sound off on your thoughts of 2160P. (BTW...I choose to call it 2160P as that is what we have been doing all along with the resolution. Why change it now? (480P, 720P, 1080i, 1080P, 2160P)

I personally am all for a better image. But the real benefit will only come if you can support a much larger screen. (As far as having content... that is a topic for another time.)


Sound off AVS members....

David Bott
Founder - AVSForum


DISCLAIMER: All spelling and grammatical errors done on purpose for the proofreadingly challenged...:)

David Bott is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 12:15 PM
Senior Member
 
mym6's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm curious how we'll supply that much data to the display. Dish, cable and OTA all compress their signal to some degree now, what kind of improvements in transmission will we need to see to support this kind of resolution.

The other problem I see is that the world would seem to be moving away from physical media where it is easier to throw gobs of data on a disc and play it. A lot of people seem to find what they can get out of iTunes to be just fine.

Linux based Apple file server made easy

ControlPlane - Make your mac context and location sensitive!

mym6 is offline  
post #3 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 12:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
larrimore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,688
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I would buy it faster than I did 3D, and I also think it has the chance to be a bigger thrill than 3D. I think the hobby we have screams for a higher end somewhat "niche" product that sets our systems apart from everyone else and shows how serious we are about it, something that made the hobby a bigger thrill for me in the days of laser disc. I think 4K has the ability to be that if/with available downloadable content.

Even with my 1080P setup, I was astonished by the effect I got from a Darby Darblet. If 4K takes that to another level, I am all for it.

Living the HT Dream...now in 4D.
larrimore is offline  
post #4 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 12:22 PM
Senior Member
 
BMLocal175's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Oswego, NY
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Do we need it? Probably not. Do we need to upgrade a receiver every few years? Probably not. Do I need to upgrade speakers, remotes, blu ray players? Probably not.

It all comes down to money. If the price is right we will make the jump whether we need it or not.

BMLocal175 is offline  
post #5 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 12:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
p5browne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 3,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 168
Waiting! 84 ", 4K . 3D Passive - and lastly, somewhat affordable! (Versus completely unaffordable!)
Had it with Active 3D, Passive 1/2 Resolution 3D - this is maybe what's holding back a lot of Members from wanting to take the plunge?
I think, if the New Sets meet the above parameters, it will Sell, on the above requirements alone.
notabadname likes this.
p5browne is offline  
post #6 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 12:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,737
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by mym6 View Post

I'm curious how we'll supply that much data to the display. Dish, cable and OTA all compress their signal to some degree now, what kind of improvements in transmission will we need to see to support this kind of resolution.
The other problem I see is that the world would seem to be moving away from physical media where it is easier to throw gobs of data on a disc and play it. A lot of people seem to find what they can get out of iTunes to be just fine.

H.265 should help.The only problem that might come is if cable/satalite stick with MPEG2 as they've done for 720p/1080i. It was a horrible decision as H.264 offers much better compression at lower bitrates. These companies need to take a stand for quality. I don't know the specifics but I'm sure at the time set to boxes were cheaper to manufacture with MPEG2 decoders as opposed to H.264 and H.265 will help dramatically more. So the choice was purely economical versus what's best for their customers.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #7 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 12:37 PM
Senior Member
 
JD NC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 40
For larger sets, absolutely needed. DVD looked great on a 50" display until we got blu ray. As 65"+ displays get more affordable, the demand for 4K content will be there. Back to the Future 2 promised that we'd have full-wall video displays by 2015 - we'll miss that target, but it's not as far off as you think. Hoverboards, on the other hand...

When we get to the point where we are with audio, where we're at the upper limit of what the human ear can detect, we should probably knock it off, but until then, moar pixels please!

JD NC is offline  
post #8 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 12:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Devedander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 34
The only legit use I can see is Passive 1080p 3D... which of course is kind of an odd one because by the time 4K screens become reasonably priced we will probably start seeing 4K content come along and then you will hit another passive 3D half resolution wall...

I do like to sit really close to my screen though... I used to sit 8 feet from a 120" screen however I am ok with current resolutions. My 120 inch screen was only 720p and even that was fine for me. I would of course PREFER more resolution as I can almost always tell 1080p from 720p pretty easily so I can only imagine I will like 4K... just how much will it be worth to me? I probably won't get one until it's less than a 25% premium to go 4k over 1080p;

Monster Gold Plated Optical Cables: http://monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=1263

Awesome user review: "Unreal quality. Sounded like I upgraded my speakers." :D
Devedander is offline  
post #9 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 12:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Frosteh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I'd like to see 4K simply because it means seeing it natively as it was edited, not a scaled down version for home. Too often you see poor transfers to Blu Ray: hopefully the advent of 4k will allow studios to not have to compromise on quality when they release for home

My only gripe with 4k is that the movies usually won't benefit from the added resolution. Its kind of like buying a super high resolution camera. At that high of a resolution, other factors negate any benefit of the added pixels. Most notably, the lenses and the ability of the cameraman are at fault here. You really have to have exceptional lenses and an incredibly skilled cameraman to actually be able to resolve extra detail from those pixels. For example, about 26mins into TDKR when Blake is talking to Wayne, the cameraman didn't have the lens focused properly and the scene is slightly blurry. No added number of pixels will help this since the content simply isn't there. This happens on almost every movie I've seen and just gets more noticeable and annoying as resolution increases.
Andrewnew likes this.

Frosteh is offline  
post #10 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 01:10 PM
Senior Member
 
scJohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
DirecTV transmits everything in MPEG4. Not sure about Dish. I think most cable and all OTA is still MPEG2.

4K can help the quality of 3d but 3d does not seem to be gaining a lot of momentum.
scJohn is offline  
post #11 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 01:31 PM
Senior Member
 
reanimator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
No, I don't need it. Yes, I will buy it.
Tigre, gamermwm, slider03 and 2 others like this.
reanimator is offline  
post #12 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 02:03 PM
Member
 
kromc5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NC, RTP
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm interested in super hd as this may persuade me to upgrade from my 1080ub. Would like to demo to see if the improvement is
noticeable on my 65" x 116 screen. Sometimes I would like to try 3d especially on some ps3 games but have decided to wait,
seems super hd could help this area as well.
kromc5 is offline  
post #13 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 02:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mbw23air's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: KY
Posts: 2,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrimore View Post

Even with my 1080P setup, I was astonished by the effect I got from a Darby Darblet. If 4K takes that to another level, I am all for it.

Amen. The bigger the screen the more resolution that is needed. I want 2160p like yesterday.

Mike

The Mayans were full of sh*t!!!
mbw23air is offline  
post #14 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 02:48 PM
Senior Member
 
speedlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New York, about 40 miles north of "New York"
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 18
The whole world just bought 720/1080 line screens. The best you can do normally is 1080i or p if blu ray. That will be "the standard" for the next ten years, complete with MPEG 2. Hey, NTSC was "obsolete" for the last third of its existence......which was still a long time.
Half of the new folks are still watching SD on the HD Screens.

Internet bandwidth won't be streaming 4k anytime soon in the USA, and there isn't any "super blu ray" yet.

Up to about 60 inches, the HD format is pretty good. When you get to the 80 inch screens, it gets less sharp.

So, other than the early adopters, you know, the guys who bought a plasma when it was $7,500 for a 42 inch screen, it won't be a "replacement" article.

Very long term, it might be a new standard, once the cost of production becomes trivial vs 1080 lines. Maybe.

The push for home 3D missed the fact that this person, who bought a new HD TV, doesn't expect to buy another for a long while...they might get a 3D for the replacement set, but it wasn't compelling enough to motivate the guy who JUST bought to go buy AGAIN.

The problem the TV makers miss is that once everyone bought a new set, they were DONE. The old SD sets lasted like a refrigerator...they didn't die, they just got demoted to the bedroom or garage. Now that HD sales went from high profit early adopter to middle profit mid market to no profit Wal Mart buyers, they need the next bump. We aren't the typical buyer, but even a geek like myself would not buy it...why go for a set that will have to scale when I have pixel for pixel already ?

There is a niche, for the guy with an 80 inch screen, but only if you can give him, as well, 4k content. This is a very small niche.
gtaylor0 likes this.

In Vienna we sit, in late night cafe. Straight Connection, on T.E.E.
speedlaw is offline  
post #15 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 02:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kimeran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 114
I did not hop on the 3D bandwagon. However, I have hoped on the 4K wagon. With 1080P you need to be sitting closer than 6ft to get its benefit with my 50" display...and I sit 8-10ft away so there is enough room for a pathway. With 4K I will have a higher resolution at a further distance away.

That said, I think the consumers who will benefit most from 4K are those that use a projector for movies on a screen of size to do it justice.

Trying to enjoy the simple things in life.

 

Steam: madbrayniak

Kimeran is offline  
post #16 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 02:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Screen size doesn't matter. It's all about angle of view because the angle is what the eye's acuity measures in. How many screen widths do you want to sit at? How good are your eyes? 1sw is plenty close for me. And, judging from acuity graphs there would be a benefit at 1sw. So, yes, I would be interested!
erkq is offline  
post #17 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 03:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
We probably don't really need it BUT, considering how long it has taken for HD to get where it's at the people that can make it happen need something to aspire to. Please don't be satisfied with the status quo. If they think we are then, well, you know.
andy sullivan is online now  
post #18 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 03:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Lethean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Posts: 332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I see no need for it. When i upgrade my TV set from 42 inches, I'm likely going with a 55. If the money is there a 60 inch. If the money is *really* there, a projector and decent screen. The money definitely won't be there for a 4K projector heh.

Now, if I can find myself satisfied with my 42 inch LED until 4k becomes more affordable (which is a pretty subjective term) then I may take the plunge. Again though, if I'm not buying a ginormous TV then I see no point.

Did I just lose having a valid opinion by saying ginormous?

Lethean is offline  
post #19 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 04:07 PM
Senior Member
 
l3ftonm3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Do we need 4k right now? I say no. But then again I haven't seen it in person yet so my opinion isn't worth much. However 4k is a stepping stone to eventually attaining 8k displays and from the little bits I have read on them they give off a picture that has 3d like depth and amazing image clarity.
Five28 likes this.
l3ftonm3 is offline  
post #20 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 04:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Posts: 4,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 435
Personally, I want 4k, despite being very happy with the current tech. Not needed, but will take it.

Will it be accepted by the masses, I doubt it. I won't be buying any stock in it.

Oh and by the way, 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.
Five28 and gamermwm like this.
tuxedocivic is online now  
post #21 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 04:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Utopianemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 32
We need 4K for projectors. That's about it.
Five28 and RLBURNSIDE like this.
Utopianemo is offline  
post #22 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 05:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
N8DOGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,601
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 256
I agree with having 4K for projectors. I had a 1000ES fof a few weeks. It's amazing how much better 4K was on my screen and it's only 108" and sit 12 feet away. Anyone that couldn't tell the difference between 4K and 1080P on that screen should be banned from owning a projector.
Five28, calv1n and hrotti like this.

Blasting brown notes for 10 years and counting!

N8DOGG is online now  
post #23 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 05:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Krobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,965
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrimore View Post

I would buy it faster than I did 3D, and I also think it has the chance to be a bigger thrill than 3D. I think the hobby we have screams for a higher end somewhat "niche" product that sets our systems apart from everyone else and shows how serious we are about it, something that made the hobby a bigger thrill for me in the days of laser disc. I think 4K has the ability to be that if/with available downloadable content.
Even with my 1080P setup, I was astonished by the effect I got from a Darby Darblet. If 4K takes that to another level, I am all for it.

Early post but got it right. I will be speccing up my new HT room with projector in 6 months and 4K would be a good start. I used to like collecting rare import laserdiscs and HDDVDs, Blurays are a bit boring these days.
Krobar is offline  
post #24 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 05:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
benclement11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 1,295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimeran View Post

I did not hop on the 3D bandwagon. However, I have hoped on the 4K wagon. With 1080P you need to be sitting closer than 6ft to get its benefit with my 50" display...and I sit 8-10ft away so there is enough room for a pathway. With 4K I will have a higher resolution at a further distance away.
That said, I think the consumers who will benefit most from 4K are those that use a projector for movies on a screen of size to do it justice.

Isn't it the opposite? The farther away you sit the less resolution you need to make it look good? What am I missing?

Panasonic P60ST50-Yamaha RX-V467 receiver-Sony PS3-Velodyne SMS-1-Canton 430 mains, 455 center and 402 surrounds-Rythmik FV15HP subwoofer- Pro-ject Debut III turntable- I also have a pair of Mark K's DIY design, the ER18DXT's
.
My humble entertainment room
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1417652/midwest...
benclement11 is offline  
post #25 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 05:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
hoozthatat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Big Sky Country
Posts: 603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
I'm not one to shun new technology, which is possibly beneficial and possibly relevant at some point. I'm as skeptical as most about content, compression factors, viewing distance, etc. but I do believe 4K will be beneficial eventually. I also believe there are other things which could be more desirable to have today, like OLED, lower compression rates for broadcast TV, HFR, Deep Color, etc. But 4K markets better and the mfcts. will run with it.
Lets see how it pans out.

60F8000; RX-V367; TSi300 x2; YST-SW102; Harmony 650; Apple TV; Microsoft Xbox One Console; RF-HTS120;

xRite i1 Display Pro (OEM); CalMAN 5 Basic; ColorHCFR
hoozthatat is offline  
post #26 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 05:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Five28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Chicago, Illinois suburbs
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
As a front projector owner, I say bring it on! I'm currently viewing on a 96" screen and the larger the screen, the more detail that's needed. For smaller displays though, it's probably overkill.

Five28 is offline  
post #27 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 06:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
LowellG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Helotes, TX
Posts: 1,312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 79
I am waiting for a 4K passive projector. I bought a Panny AE7000. Tried watching a 3D movie and can't even recline. So, I haven't watched any 3D movies; six pairs of glasses wasted.

Lowell


The MARVELous Home Theater: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-ded...e-theater.html
LowellG is offline  
post #28 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 06:12 PM
Senior Member
 
c-not-k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ellicott City, Maryland
Posts: 431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I, too have a front projector. I sit about 12' from a 92" 1.78 screen. When I upgraded my 720p projector to a 1080p projector it was quite noticeable. That was with a 225% increase in pixel density. (OK, I admit I'm ignoring other aspects of the difference between the two projectors, such as optical clarity and black levels, which may have biased my opinion of the improvement, but nevertheless...) 4K (3840 × 2160 ) is a 400% increase in pixel density from what I have now.

Yes, I'd upgrade my projector to a 4K unit, especially if I could get native 4K source material.

I'd wait longer with just 2K content around.
c-not-k is offline  
post #29 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 06:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Saturn94's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post

Personally, I want 4k, despite being very happy with the current tech. Not needed, but will take it.
Will it be accepted by the masses, I doubt it. I won't be buying any stock in it.
Oh and by the way, 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.

That has been my experience as well.

Saturn94 is offline  
post #30 of 451 Old 01-04-2013, 06:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sdg4vfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 1,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 92
I work in film post production as a finishing artist for vfx and film titles and we often get demo's of the latest 4K projectors and prototype 4K monitors. Myself and the colorists typically evaluate the new gear to advise the execs/owners on what to purchase. In a real sense our task is to get past the hype - yes, even in the pro gear market hype is a big problem ; )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post

The only legit use I can see is Passive 1080p 3D... which of course is kind of an odd one because by the time 4K screens become reasonably priced we will probably start seeing 4K content come along and then you will hit another passive 3D half resolution wall...

It's a big plus for Passive 3D. But don't expect a lot of "native" 4K content anytime soon. (More down below on that.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post

... Oh and by the way, 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.

Actually the "you can't see it on X" screen unless you're Y' away" is a very salient argument. Assuming you're dealing with two calibrated, equal quality monitors (not an easy setup to find/create) there are clearly sizes at which increased resolution matters and doesn't matter. I would guess that the consumer perception of this is often skewed because typically newer, higher-resolution monitors also have improved picture quality overall - better color, better blacks, etc. Regularly during our testing A-list colorists (the artists who do final color and QC on feature films) sitting at normal viewing distance could not accurately pick out which monitor was 1080p and which was 4K on screens less than 75" or 80". If anything the colorists as often as not picked the 1080p screen as better - this is because it is still technically difficult to get evenly distributed color/luminance on the 4K monitors, often making the 1080p monitor the more accurate of the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosteh View Post

I'd like to see 4K simply because it means seeing it natively as it was edited, not a scaled down version for home. Too often you see poor transfers to Blu Ray: hopefully the advent of 4k will allow studios to not have to compromise on quality when they release for home ...

Two different issues really. A bad transfer to Blu-Ray has less to do with resolution than it does with colorspace issues:
For the last few years films are typically "finished" digitally in P3 colorspace while blu-rays are in Rec709 colorspace. Converting between those two colorspace's is not a simple, linear process, and often includes re-timing (or re-grading) a large percentage of the movie's shots individually (P3 has ranges/variations in color/luminance that don't exist in Rec709). The last couple of years there has been a trend with higher profile movies to do more than one grade in the movie's original color/finishing sessions - i.e. they do separate color-timings for projection (P3), BluRay/Broadcast (Rec709) and streaming (RGB/sRGB linear). This new trend is also because movies are making more of their money post theatrical-release on BR, broadcast, streaming etc. And of course on top of all this there is the issue of how the blu-ray compression is handled.

"I'd like to see 4K simply because it means seeing it natively as it was edited, not a scaled down version for home."
An understandable comment but not a very accurate one. Almost no feature films (excluding IMAX) are shot, posted and finished in 4K.
HD resolution is 1920x1080. DCP (digitial cinema projection) resolution is only 2048x1080. So 2K projection has the same top/bottom resolution as HD and is only 9% wider.
Doing the vfx and post on a 2K project can often cost as much as 50% more than doing the vfx and post on an HD project, so, a lot of A-list movies (most movies with budgets under 100 million and many "blockbusters" with budgets over that) are actually posted/finished in HD. These "HD" finished movies are converted to 2K (DCP) by either up-scaling them 9% or adding 64 pixel wide black columns to each side. 99% of the IMAX theatrical releases of "Hollywood" movies are high-quality up-rez's. The higher-end digital projectors (such as Christi) at theaters with larger screens read 2K DCP files and up-convert on-the-fly to 4K for projection.

Viewing native 4K content won't be much of a reason to upgrade to 4K TV's for another 10 years or so.
JDF1384, dbcooper.nz and spimm like this.
sdg4vfx is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

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