or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › When 4K become mainstream
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

When 4K become mainstream - Page 2

post #31 of 69
You can experience 4k resolution today. Just have the wife slap you up side the head. For a few moments one pixel will look like two
post #32 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohlson View Post

The benefit might be that TI is forced to 4k faster if Sony can at least prove there is some benefit in a true 4k source to projection chain.

I don't see this happening any time soon.
When you have a 99.9% market share (Digital Cinema), nobody can force you do anything until they have proven they can compete with you. Sony cannot at this point.

The main problem with 4k DMDs at this point would be the size of the chip and the equivalent Optics size increase this would require.
Bigger Optics for the same throw = $$$$$$
Unless the 4k DMD is close to an inch diagonally (0.95" or 1.2" DMD) I don't see this happening.

Add to that the inability of the current A/T screens to resolve 4k better than 2k and you can see another major hurdle in the way..
Replacing A/T screens to enable 4k resolution will, again, be $$$$$$.

A no-go in my opinion.
post #33 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

You can experience 4k resolution today. Just have the wife slap you up side the head. For a few moments one pixel will look like two

Either that or a bottle of cheap Vodka!
post #34 of 69
I'm not sure how a 4K would benefit us in the home market with the current source at 2K. Am I missing something?
post #35 of 69
Tryg
That is my line!

Alan G.
That´s only 4k interlaced.

Who is most powerful TI or Hollywood. If the latter party says they want 4k they will get 4k and let us pay for it. I am sure Stewart would love to replace alot of screens in cooperation with new tech that lets the screen act as a loudspeaker.

Lens quality seems to be a popular topic at the moment. Having big panels should not be a downside as far as sharpness is concerned. It would be the opposite an advantage to have big panels. The Sony 4k panel is 1.55 inches.

I am not playing the role of the bean counter!
post #36 of 69
Given the studio's concern's over piracy and copy protection, bearing in mind 4K gives you the potential to have a picture thats identical to the studio master negative, for anything shot up to 35mm, then do you honestly think they will allow this in the home anytime soon?! If there's no 4K media to watch on it it's a v limited market.

M
post #37 of 69
Never say never, In a few years I could see a brave manufacture stepping forward offering a closed consumer format just as JVC offered in the past with DTheater.
We will see two 4k projectors at Cedia targeted for HT & you will pay dearly for these extra pixels. For the time being the additional pixels will serve only as fill factor for those wanting to sit closer or wanting a smoother image.
post #38 of 69
Dont be surprised if new technology comes out soon that eliminates the fixed pixel nature of "resolution" of the projector. Its possible to build something that delivers whatever you feed it.
post #39 of 69
2k 3D > 4k
Bring it on!
post #40 of 69
Prefer the optimistic side here. Read a post by a producer at reduser.net today. He's been recording 4k/3k nature shows with his 4k-sensor (3.2k-effective-rez) RED One cameras for over a year. This ~$17.5k camera (sans lens), as we all know, is aimed at independent producers. Numbers of indie Red-One movies are growing (see a reduser.net thread), as well as at least one major Hollywood feature (also see user site).

And of course any existing film can be scanned at 4k, and digital-intermediate 4k scans, for production purposes, exist for some feature films; search imdb.com technical section for 4k . A 5k EPIC camera and Red One 35mm-size sensor upgrades should deliver full ~4k effective resolution or higher. The upcoming RED Ray optical disc players, based on standard red lasers, is meant for production purposes AIUI. But it might serve for theater projection, too, some speculate.

No need to list them all, but as mentioned initially above, professional 4k-capable displays have been available for years if you have the $$$. High-end consumer versions seem quite feasible. As for the "look" of 4k versus current HDTV, the "wow" reactions of professionals viewing Red One productions at the recent NAB show or earlier (see reduser.net, etc.) suggests the resolution boost is visually dramatic. Assuming an earlier spectrum analysis review of telecined films on ~270-Mbps 1080/24p master tapes is accurate, indicating typical 800--1100 line maximum effective horizontal resolution, a jump to ~3.2k maximum, it seems, should be dramatic in any viewing environment. -- John
post #41 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tryg View Post

Dont be surprised if new technology comes out soon that eliminates the fixed pixel nature of "resolution" of the projector. Its possible to build something that delivers whatever you feed it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason View Post

Prefer the optimistic side here. Read a post by a producer at reduser.net today. He's been recording 4k/3k nature shows with his 4k-sensor (3.2k-effective-rez) RED One cameras for over a year. This ~$17.5k camera (sans lens), as we all know, is aimed at independent producers. Numbers of indie Red-One movies are growing (see a reduser.net thread), as well as at least one major Hollywood feature (also see user site).

And of course any existing film can be scanned at 4k, and digital-intermediate 4k scans, for production purposes, exist for some feature films; search imdb.com technical section for 4k . A 5k EPIC camera and Red One 35mm-size sensor upgrades should deliver full ~4k effective resolution or higher. The upcoming RED Ray optical disc players, based on standard red lasers, is meant for production purpose AIUI. But it might serve for theater projection, too, some speculate.

No need to list them all, but as mentioned initially above, professional 4k-capable displays have been available for years if you have the $$$. High-end consumer versions seem quite feasible. As for the "look" of 4k versus current HDTV, the "wow" reactions of professionals viewing Red One productions at the recent NAB show or earlier (see reduser.net, etc.) suggests the resolution boost is visually dramatic. Assuming an earlier spectrum analysis review of telecined films on ~270-Mbps 1080/24p master tapes is accurate, indicating typical 800--1100 line maximum effective horizontal resolution, a jump to ~3.2k maximum, it seems, should be dramatic in any viewing environment. -- John

I second Andrikos comment, bring it on.
post #42 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohlson View Post

JVC has just made public their new 8k4k panel!

Here is the press release:
http://www.victor.co.jp/english/pres.../1-75_8k4k.pdf

Lots of interesting info in it related to this thread:
"Super Hi-Vision is a TV broadcasting service currently under development at NHK; a single image has approximately 33 megapixels (7680 x 4320 pixels), with 60 frame/second sequential scanning and 22.2 multichannel sound. Image format is international standard ITU-R BT.1769, SMPTE 2036. Diagonal size is 1.67 inches at Super Hi-Vision standard pixel dimensions of 7680 x 4320."

"a high contrast ratio of 20,000:1 for device contrast."

"In addition to the contribution that the device will make to progress in next-generation ultra-high definition imaging technology such as Super Hi-Vision, JVC also plans to utilize it in development of the ultimate in imaging technology: ultra-realistic 3D display technology.".

So Odyssey and Art, when are you going to roll out 3D, 7680x4320 and 22.2 channel sound in your HTers?
post #43 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by reio-ta View Post

So as a kid when I was watching ET at the local cinema in 35 mm format, there was less ambient light back then? Am I spoiled by the pitch blackness in a HT setup?

No and yes. The current crop of cinema projectors are poor in the On-Off contrast department and the quality of the 12 bit sources goes to waste. It's pointless to go beyond 10 bit when the projector can not resolve the information and it drowns in gray goo.
The projectors have a lot of catching up to do to show the source as it is. And due to the lights in cinema halls it will never be optimal. The only hope for real good quality is at home. With high contrast projectors and DCI source material. The former is available and improving all the time. The latter is not in sight.
post #44 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrikos View Post

Add to that the inability of the current A/T screens to resolve 4k better than 2k and you can see another major hurdle in the way..

There is no such general inability. It depends on screen size. I have seen 4K projection on normal large screens and it was easy to see the difference to 2K.
post #45 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Petersen View Post

So Odyssey and Art, when are you going to roll out 3D, 7680x4320 and 22.2 channel sound in your HTers?

Come on motion sickness and bring out the barf bags! I can handle it
post #46 of 69
Ohlsen is right, 48fps should be the next step, not more resolution.

4k is relatively pointless for home theater; you think it's hard to see the difference between 720 and 1080? Try 2k VS 4k at home. Dumb.

New display technology (LED, lasers, etc) will make a far more dramatic difference in picture quality than resolution.

On top of that, higher frame rates also increase image clarity and give the appearance of higher resolution.

Personally, I think the next step for theaters to stay ahead of home theaters will be 3D and 48 fps - it's going to be a while until we have the ability to do this at home, and so it will drive traffic back into commercial theaters.

But 4k at home? Who cares.
post #47 of 69
MoJo do you really believe that frame rate will drive theater ticket sale ?

Art
post #48 of 69
Good films drive theater ticket sales. I will bet that more than 95% of the people sitting in there chairs do not even know what good picture quality is or even care if the movie is lousy.
post #49 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_LA View Post

Ohlsen is right, 48fps should be the next step, not more resolution.

That's not true at all. For digital, refresh rate and response time are better than frame rate. Who cares if you can do 120 frames like some LCDs "claim" to do. It still won't beat a 60hz CRT. No one EVER bitched about 24 frame 35mm film movies, which usually close the shutter twice or more a frame. Use a CRT front projector, show it at 96p hz refresh rate with ~10 ms response time. That will look higher resolution( like on a proper Mike Parker modded Marquee 9500) than even a 120 hz motion flow Sony VPL-VW200.
post #50 of 69
reio-ta
I am talking about capturing at 48fps and you can display at whatever multiple of 48Hz of your choosing. It is about the capture not about the display rate.
post #51 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohlson View Post

reio-ta
I am talking about capturing at 48fps and you can display at whatever multiple of 48Hz of your choosing. It is about the capture not about the display rate.

I understand what you're saying. But Joe Public doesn't care. I'm saying what really matters is display rate and refresh rate. Maybe ONE person out of a hundred, if that, if you gave them a survey after a movie could tell or care and it made a big difference being 48 fps rather than the regular. Also, the one person who did care would probably not like 48 fps and would say, "the movie looked odd, it wasn't like watching film." A lot of the time you're sitting one screen width or closer at a movie theater, people at that distance can see a difference between 4k and 2k, especially if you make it Imax size and ~0.8x seating distance.

Also my point was the technology needs to be better than DLP to realize the difference in FPS. Currently DLP is nowhere near CRT or even plasma refresh and response. Poor refresh and response results in reduced spacial resolution, and in turn makes your images look effectively a lesser resolution.

Another thing, 48 fps is bad because it breaks home theater setups. Blu-ray doesn't have a 48 fps because 48 fps isn't part of SMPTE. Let's say you add it, now what? Lots of displays show 24p film at 72 hz. Many US displays don't show 50 hz PAL. You can't convert 48 hz to 3:2 and show on 60hz. You've just broken watching film on nearly all US televisions. Even on a PAL tv, 48 -> 50 hz has to either be:

1) an extra two frames per 50 resulting in a jerk
2) sped up to 50 hz and making the movie longer and higher pitched
3) same as #2 but pitch corrected.

All three of those solutions are very easily noticed. I once watched a PAL 48 hz -> 50 hz version of a 24p movie. It drove me nuts, more so than 3:2 judder.

You can't just take away every other frame either. Some movies would rely on special effects that would look horrid if you did that. One easy test is take the Nintendo Entertainment System's Super Mario Bros. Hook up the NES to a tv capture card, which will show 30 fps, the NES is 60 fps. Become Super Mario and get hit. On a CRT NTSC tv, you'll see Mario flicker, on the capture card at 30 fps, Mario disappears! So you break how the movie looks and it can be unwatchable for home viewing on TVs.
post #52 of 69
Well, how many people have seen film shot at 48fps or 60fps. Showscan used 60fps. 48fps at 2k is in the DCI standard. I hope 48fps at 4k will be included but really if we are to dump film projectors I would say go for 60fps.
With 60fps at 4k imagine with what detail we could capture moving objects.

With black frame insertion we can fool the brain with lcos and DLP is not half bad at 144fps for the newest Digital cinema units.
post #53 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohlson View Post


With black frame insertion we can fool the brain with lcos and DLP is not half bad at 144fps for the newest Digital cinema units.

That's just what we need, 144 fps units too. Theater sales have been dropping in the past years, and a movie's only hope is home DVD and in the future Blu-ray.

I still say 24 fps has its place and is needed.

24 fps for cinematic stuff
30 fps for documentaries
60 fps for sports and television shows

No offense to any of you Euros and other PAL countries, but 25/50 frames was plain stupid. 50 hz has terrible flicker, 60 hz is bad enough.

What would cure everything is if the whole world decided to start over and only use 24/30/60 and displayed it all as 120 hz in the digital world. Suggesting we add 48, 72, 96, etc isn't going to solve anything and make matters worse. The situation is already FUBAR enough as is.

As far as resolution goes, I personally think 4k is overboard.

1/ ( tan ( 1/60) * 3438 ) = 0.9999x the screen width.

Meaning a resolution of 3440x1935 would be plenty. 1935p would allow you to get 1x or a tad closer and the further distances like the 1.3 - 1.6 that most use at home would be satisfied too, by adding aliasing for free, the image would look very much like 35mm film.
post #54 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by reio-ta View Post


You can't just take away every other frame either. Some movies would rely on special effects that would look horrid if you did that.

You can take every other frame away . As long as the footage has nominally been shot with a shutter speed not much faster than 1/48 ( for 48fps capture this means a totally open shutter, I don't think a mechanical film camera will run at 48fps and get close enough to a 1/48 exposure time. However you can shoot open shutter on the digitals and shoot 48fps.

As long as you have 48fps shot in this way you should be able to frame cull it down to 24fps and have footage that will look little different to nominally shot 24fps film with a 1/48th shutter.

Not that I am advocating this. I actually quite like 24fps with appropriate motionblur.
post #55 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by reio-ta View Post

That's just what we need, 144 fps units too. Theater sales have been dropping in the past years, and a movie's only hope is home DVD and in the future Blu-ray.

I still say 24 fps has its place and is needed.

24 fps for cinematic stuff
30 fps for documentaries
60 fps for sports and television shows

No offense to any of you Euros and other PAL countries, but 25/50 frames was plain stupid. 50 hz has terrible flicker, 60 hz is bad enough.

I don't readily have a problem with 50Hz flicker ( bear in mind most digital panel technologies don't flicker regardless these days): certainly I find it less objectionable than 3:2 pulldown , which I also don't find that objectionable anway.

30fps I feel doesn't warrant the hassle over 24fps: the difference is subtle at best possibly even a little strobey unless its shot carefully.

48fps is potentially bacwards compatable with 24fps workflow for home release again if its shot carefully.

60fps I doubt would feel much different to 48fps.

So if you insist on more frames per second then certainly multiples of 24 are a much more sensible target.
post #56 of 69
Mr D
Why is it a good thing in your opinion to have some motion blur?

Imagine this scene
We see a car coming around the corner in the direction of where the camera is located. Next the car passes the camera and drives away. With higher fps we can actually read the logo for the company owning the car, a bakery for example. Why would it be better to just see some text on the car but being able to read it?
post #57 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohlson View Post

Mr D
Why is it a good thing in your opinion to have some motion blur?

Imagine this scene
We see a car coming around the corner in the direction of where the camera is located. Next the car passes the camera and drives away. With higher fps we can actually read the logo for the company owning the car, a bakery for example. Why would it be better to just see some text on the car but being able to read it?

You need a reasonable level of motion blur with lowish frame rates .

Otherwise things start to strobe: examples of which would be some of the fight scenes in Gladiator shot with a deliberately small shutter angle to minimise motionblur: end result is a stacatto strobing look to the motion.

Most things shot at 24p use a shutter angle of about 180degrees give or take: this gives an exposure time of 1/48th a second for every frame (1/24 frame rate halved by the shutter spinning in front of it...hence a 180 degree shutter angle halves the exposure time...its never that exact but you get my point).

When you shoot at higher frame rates you don't need the motionblur to smooth out delivery ( you won't have much anyway if you were shooting at 60fps your exposure time per frame is going to be south of 1/60th before you even start trying to further modulate it.

I can't understand the fascination with higher frame rates myself but to each their own. Handy for sport but I like the way 24fps looks.
post #58 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_LA View Post

4k is relatively pointless for home theater; you think it's hard to see the difference between 720 and 1080? Try 2k VS 4k at home. Dumb.

Have you actually tried 4k and compared it to 2k?
post #59 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan View Post

Have you actually tried 4k and compared it to 2k?

Yes.
post #60 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

30fps I feel doesn't warrant the hassle over 24fps: the difference is subtle at best possibly even a little strobey unless its shot carefully.

I mention 30 fps not because it's better than 24 fps but because some semi-pro cameras used in low budget documentaries. The Sony HVR-A1u is such an example. You can get the camera itself for under $2,000 and start shooting with everything, including a new computer, NLE software, accessories, etc for under $5,000. The HVR-A1u's native resolution is 1440x1080i which is expanded to 1920x1080i using the HDV mpeg-2 variant at 25 mbit per second. The A1u has a fake 24p mode, but it's not that good. You're best using the 1080i mode which can be edited to give you 30p.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › When 4K become mainstream