or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 117

post #3481 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

I would be surprised if that happens. I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I just don't see television moving away from 30Hz, or film moving from 24fps any time soon.
Hasn't television been 50/60Hz for a long time? Are you saying there have never been any films higher than 24 fps?
Haven't the test 4K broadcasts been at least 50 fps?
post #3482 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

I would be surprised if that happens. I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I just don't see television moving away from 30Hz, or film moving from 24fps any time soon.
Hasn't television been 50/60Hz for a long time?

 

Interlaced.  Now that we're apparently trying to do away with it, we're now looking at complete frames per second, not the number of half-frames per second.

post #3483 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Interlaced.  Now that we're apparently trying to do away with it, we're now looking at complete frames per second again, not the number of half-frames per second.
and progressive - 720p50/p60
post #3484 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Interlaced.  Now that we're apparently trying to do away with it, we're now looking at complete frames per second again, not the number of half-frames per second.
and progressive - 720p50/p60

 

Yes, that's what I mean.  But what shows are filmed in p60 (any res)?

post #3485 of 3670
It's important to distinguish the temporal resolution from the "frame" terminology.

The interlacing doubles temporal resolution while maintaining the same bandwidth. There's 60 full-screen images per second at essentially half vertical resolution ("fields") -- and we terminologically call these "half frames". This can be terminologically hazardous, with the Average Joe User, since it can conjure up the thought a frame cut in half along the middle of the screen. (which is wrong)

Many sports now use 1080p/60 cameras. Also, lots of reality shows use 1080p/60 recordings. Even in the POV cameras too, GoPro Hero3 recording 1080p/60 from an airplane wing, or under a wheel strut -- these cameras do not have a 1080i recording mode -- and then broadcast as 1080i/60. Many broadcast cameras now have a 1080p/60 mode, and is often a preferred master recording format nowadays since it downconverts far better to 720p, for the situations when 720p broadcasting is needed. So current shows that uses full fluidity motion like Amazing Race or Mythbusters are recorded in 1080p/60 and broadcast in whatever format is needed. GoPro's don't have the ability to record in interlaced, anyway. There are cameras now with 1080p/60 but without 1080i/60, and there's a need to be able to broadcast, so it's quite common. 1080p/60 is a common master format nowadays.

I have seen shows broadcast in a temporal resolution of 24, 30 and 60 during 480i/60 and during 1080i/60. A temporal resolution of 24 and 60 is far, far more common than a temporal resolution of 30, at least in both USA and in Canada. In the last few decades, for 480i and 1080i broadcasts, very, very, few shows use a temporal resoution of 30, and only when it's because of the footage available. A temporal resolution of 24 (movie or movie-like shows) and 60 (video/sports/reality/sitcom) is used.

I instantly recognize when material is 24, is 30, or is 60 images per second, even all the way back to the analog days. Regardless of whether the material is interlaced or not. Ever since back in the 1980's Max Headroom days (the Max Headroom TV show was unusual in that it used a temporal resolution of 30, which is less fluid than sports, but more fluid than movies.)

While the full temporal resolution of 60fps is preserved, you get artifacts from the interlacing, obviously. 1080p/60 into 1080i/60 preserves temporal resolution but halves vertical resolution on a per-image(field) basis, and creates the extra vertical resolution temporally (the interlacing process), which obviously generates the disadvantage of deinterlacing artifacts / motion artifacts (especially during vertical motion).

(I use terminology "temporal resolution" to try and punch the true vision science above the 30i/60i terminology quagmire/confusions, including in the TV industries on both sides of the Atlantic)
Edited by Mark Rejhon - 9/19/13 at 4:12pm
post #3486 of 3670

^what he said.  I up-thumbed you on it.  <---yikes: that sounds gross.

 

"Temporal Resolution" is a good term for it too.  I was at a loss for coming up with a way of saying 1080i60/60hfps vs 1080i60/30fps or similar.

post #3487 of 3670

Just saw this video. Is the video wrong? The HDMI.org site says HDMI 2.0 supports features such as "4K@50/60 (2160p)". Lots of other sites talking about HDMI 2.0 say similar, but this youtube video is saying "4K resolution up to 120 fps+". Is the video wrong and that it is the lower resolutions that can go up to 120 fps? If HDMI 2.0 could do "4K up to 120 fps+" wouldn't HDMI.org have said that in their press release/site? confused.gif
post #3488 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post


Just saw this video. Is the video wrong? The HDMI.org site says HDMI 2.0 supports features such as "4K@50/60 (2160p)". Lots of other sites talking about HDMI 2.0 say similar, but this youtube video is saying "4K resolution up to 120 fps+". Is the video wrong and that it is the lower resolutions that can go up to 120 fps? If HDMI 2.0 could do "4K up to 120 fps+" wouldn't HDMI.org have said that in their press release/site? confused.gif

 

If that's the statement, then it's part of what makes me worried that interlaced (in this case 2160i120) is still on the table.  <---Note the i.

post #3489 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Just saw this video. Is the video wrong? The HDMI.org site says HDMI 2.0 supports features such as "4K@50/60 (2160p)". Lots of other sites talking about HDMI 2.0 say similar, but this youtube video is saying "4K resolution up to 120 fps+". Is the video wrong and that it is the lower resolutions that can go up to 120 fps?
Several details still haven't been released about HDMI 2.0 so 4K at 120 fps might be possible. HDMI 2.0 has a bit rate of 18 Gbps but after taking out the overhead for TMDS that leaves a bit rate of 14.4 Gbps. With the blanking intervals included the calculation would be 4400 x 2250 x (frame rate) x (bits per pixel):

14.25 Gbps for 4K at 60 fps with 12-bit 4:2:2
10.69 Gbps for 4K at 60 fps with 12-bit 4:2:0
7.12 Gbps for 4K at 60 fps with 8-bit 4:2:0
14.25 Gbps for 4K at 120 fps with 8-bit 4:2:0
post #3490 of 3670
Quote:
Is the video wrong and that it is the lower resolutions that can go up to 120 fps?

No it is not wrong as Richard indicated. It is all about the color depth and the chroma subsampling values.

Use as a computer monitor with RGB 4:4:4 is not possible for 4K 120fps over HDMI 2.0. Not enough bandwidth.
Quote:
If HDMI 2.0 could do "4K up to 120 fps+" wouldn't HDMI.org have said that in their press release/site?

Yes it is a bit surprising they didn't, but seeing how many CE companies call their products 4K with only HDMI 1.4 ports, you may see this more of this type of marketing in future.
post #3491 of 3670

It costs something like $15,000 to join to be able to get the official 2.0 spec.  Anyone have it?

post #3492 of 3670
Something (article) for gamers from nVidia; GeForce GTX Is Powering The 4K Revolution, The Next Big Thing For PC Gamers.

>
Using the average eye quality and view distances determined by scientists, a 27 inch 1920x1080 monitor, the most popular size and resolution, has a PPD of 19.3, meaning there are 19.3 pixels to guide the eye per degree of vision when sat 20 inches away.
When observed closely, the screen can appear grainy, and the individual pixels are easily distinguished. 30 inch 2560x1600 monitors, first introduced in 2006, improve matters somewhat, upping the PPD to 24.7, and the visible quality of the screen by 28%.

Folks in white coats believe an eye in good working order can distinguish 50 Pixels Per Degree of Vision, taking into account the amount of pixels per inch of screen, and the distance of the viewer from it. With gaming monitors we tend to sit far closer than we do with TVs, and so the screen begins to envelop our cone of vision.

So by having 4K we haven't maxed out the resolution yet. wink.gif

.

Edited by coolscan - 9/24/13 at 7:50am
post #3493 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Something (article) for gamers from nVidia; GeForce GTX Is Powering The 4K Revolution, The Next Big Thing For PC Gamers.

>
Using the average eye quality and view distances determined by scientists, a 27 inch 1920x1080 monitor, the most popular size and resolution, has a PPD of 19.3, meaning there are 19.3 pixels to guide the eye per degree of vision when sat 20 inches away.
When observed closely, the screen can appear grainy, and the individual pixels are easily distinguished. 30 inch 2560x1600 monitors, first introduced in 2006, improve matters somewhat, upping the PPD to 24.7, and the visible quality of the screen by 28%.

Folks in white coats believe an eye in good working order can distinguish 50 Pixels Per Degree of Vision, taking into account the amount of pixels per inch of screen, and the distance of the viewer from it. With gaming monitors we tend to sit far closer than we do with TVs, and so the screen begins to envelop our cone of vision.

So by having 4K we haven't maxed out the resolution yet. wink.gif

.

Did anyone notice they screwed up the 4K dimensions in the graph at 19 seconds in. 3860x2140 LOL
post #3494 of 3670
Here is my take on when 4K is needed

It is simple to determine how much resolution you need if you own a set today: Simply change your viewing distance to check the effect of different numbers of pixels per angle of view. I think a reasonable rule of thumb is to use a pixel spacing just finer than the high contrast resolution limit for your vision. At that spacing, with natural images (not computer generated), the pixels will be invisible for all but the highest contrast edges. This is the value used in the Sony paper justifying 4k theater projection. Sony used 20:20 vision which yields the following ratios for viewing distance to image height based on the number of pixels vertically:

lines: ratio (distance/image-height)
480 : 7.16
720 : 4.77
1080 : 3.18
1620 : 2.12
2160 : 1.59

I think many people can just discern 20:15 details even if they can't identify text at that scale. This resolution yields the following ratios:

lines: ratio (distance/image-height)
480 : 9.55
720 : 6.37
1080 : 4.24
1620 : 2.83
2160 : 2.12

So, at 10 feet the maximum screen size for each number of lines is:
lines: set-size
480 : 25"
720 : 38"
1080 : 57"
1620 : 86"
2160 : 115"

Since after 1080p the next step up usually available for a TV is 2160p (for a 4K set), this chart implies you will see a difference moving up to 4K for 58" TVs and above.

Note: There is an important factor from motion in determining the number of pixels needed for a for a camera to capture an image with "invisible" pixels. (By invisible, I mean one where you can't tell that it is made up of individual pixels.) This is that artifacts that move are far more visible than stationary artifacts. So, while some aliasing is not too objectionable in a static image, any aliasing in a moving image is distracting and ugly. Now avoiding aliasing is at odds with preserving detail right up to the pixel spacing, so having extra pixels at capture is helpful to simultaneously avoid artifacts and have sharp details at the visible limit. If first you capture a high resolution image (as in a 3k Alexa for HD, or the 6K Red Epic-Dragon for 4K), then digitally down-sample it, you can retain more detail without artifacts than if you directly capture at the display resolution. This implies that the Blu-Ray movies with the best image quality are captured with a camera with more than 2K pixels.
post #3495 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

It costs something like $15,000 to join to be able to get the official 2.0 spec.  Anyone have it?
The HDMI 2.0 specification is under NDA. Some of the details about HDMI 2.0 have not been released and for example it may be many months before we find out whether HDMI 2.0 can support the Rec. 2020 color space. It is sad how secretive things have become since up until HDMI 1.3 anyone could go to the HDMI website and download the specification.

I think the CE companies have some reason for their secrecy. Almost all of the HDMI 2.0 products announced are limited to 8-bit 4:2:0 when delivering 4K at 60 fps (which indicates that they used modified HDMI 1.4 chips to lower costs). Here is a link to a post which has several confidential slides regarding the HDMI 2.0 limits of different CE companies. It looks like the only CE company in 2013 that is actually using 18 Gbps HDMI 2.0 chips is Panasonic. The slides also mention that HDMI 2.0 supports 4K at 60 fps with 12-bit 4:2:2.
post #3496 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

The HDMI 2.0 specification is under NDA. Some of the details about HDMI 2.0 have not been released and for example it may be many months before we find out whether HDMI 2.0 can support the Rec. 2020 color space. It is sad how secretive things have become since up until HDMI 1.3 anyone could go to the HDMI website and download the specification.

I think the CE companies have some reason for their secrecy. Almost all of the HDMI 2.0 products announced are limited to 8-bit 4:2:0 when delivering 4K at 60 fps (which indicates that they used modified HDMI 1.4 chips to lower costs). Here is a link to a post which has several confidential slides regarding the HDMI 2.0 limits of different CE companies. It looks like the only CE company in 2013 that is actually using 18 Gbps HDMI 2.0 chips is Panasonic. The slides also mention that HDMI 2.0 supports 4K at 60 fps with 12-bit 4:2:2.

This is the important slide, the rest is mostly JVC spesific.........



As for the Rec.2020, there are no displays currently being manufactured that can show 2020 even if you could feed it to them, and no material for the foreseeable future that will be produced with with rec.2020.

Let the movie content producers get their "head around" 4K at all (which they have big enough mental problems with) not to mention real quality 4K before anybody can start to dream about wider color space and higher framerates.

There are still a majority of film makers and broadcast people that think 1080p and rec.709 is "Good Enough forever". rolleyes.gif
post #3497 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

As for the Rec.2020, there are no displays currently being manufactured that can show 2020 even if you could feed it to them, and no material for the foreseeable future that will be produced with with rec.2020.

Let the movie content producers get their "head around" 4K at all (which they have big enough mental problems with) not to mention real quality 4K before anybody can start to dream about wider color space and higher framerates.
So you don't want them to have a better colour space and higher frame rates for 4K for the Blu-ray 4K standard or for UHDTV broadcasts?

Even if there are no current displays that can display Rec2020, they need to have a connector that supports it so that they can display content in that forma when TVs are made supporting itt. They can't just not upgrade anything because something else doesn't currently support that format or we'd never have things like 4K TV or other things.
post #3498 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

As for the Rec.2020, there are no displays currently being manufactured that can show 2020 even if you could feed it to them, and no material for the foreseeable future that will be produced with with rec.2020.
There may not be displays which cover 100% of the BT.2020 color space, but there are a number of wide gamut displays which can cover a large portion of BT.2020.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Let the movie content producers get their "head around" 4K at all (which they have big enough mental problems with) not to mention real quality 4K before anybody can start to dream about wider color space and higher framerates.
Nothing changes with 4K other than avoiding the downconversion to 1080p.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

There are still a majority of film makers and broadcast people that think 1080p and rec.709 is "Good Enough forever". rolleyes.gif
I'm not sure where you got this idea from - film is shot in the camera's native colorspace, which is typically very wide, and then converted down to DCI-P3 for theaters, and BT.709 for home release.
Edited by Chronoptimist - 9/29/13 at 8:18am
post #3499 of 3670
Quote:
There may not be displays which cover 100% of the BT.2020 color space, but there are a number of wide gamut displays which can cover a large portion of BT.2020.

The HP DreamColor LP2480ZX is commercially available and can cover 86.9%. It has the second highest Rec 2020 coverage from any Wide Gamut Displays ever produced.

If Mitusbishi was to resurrect their now discontinued Mitsubishi LaserVue DLP TVs and tweak the wavelength of the blue laser to be less deep, they could probably get very close to 100% coverage.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a color grader who would be against the move to mass market Rec 2020 support or at the very least DCI P3.
post #3500 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLPsajeeth View Post

If Mitusbishi was to resurrect their now discontinued Mitsubishi LaserVue DLP TVs and tweak the wavelength of the blue laser to be less deep, they could probably get very close to 100% coverage.
As I said last time you mentioned this, Laservue is returning, as Mitsubishi recently showed off a new 65" 4K LCD prototype.
post #3501 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

So you don't want them to have a better colour space and higher frame rates for 4K for the Blu-ray 4K standard or for UHDTV broadcasts?
Did I say that?
I don't think I said that.
What I want and what the extremely slow moving film maker and broadcaster industry are doing are two very different things.

I want 8K and the widest possible colorspace, preferably 50 years ago. wink.gif
Quote:
Even if there are no current displays that can display Rec2020, they need to have a connector that supports it so that they can display content in that forma when TVs are made supporting itt. They can't just not upgrade anything because something else doesn't currently support that format or we'd never have things like 4K TV or other things.
I agree, but what I was alluding to was that by the time content producers get around to make and actually release for the home media market any content that has rec.2020, or at least DCI-P3, we will be on our next HDMI version and maybe on our next display.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

There may not be displays which cover 100% of the BT.2020 color space, but there are a number of wide gamut displays which can cover a large portion of BT.2020.
I am sure you find some Pro-Displays that do that, but even expensive PC monitors have problems with even displaying Adobe RGB 100%. Any HT projector or TV will have problems with displaying anything close to Rec.2020. They can't even display NTSC colors 100% mostly, and it is a reason for that.....cost.
Quote:
Nothing changes with 4K other than avoiding the downconversion to 1080p.
First you have to make producers actually shoot in 4K, and release the content in 4K.
The way it is now, most movies are shot with either Alexa 2.8K camera or on 35mm film, non of which produces a real 4K image and have to be up-converted or over-scanned to be "called 4K".
Doesn't mean it is resolving 4K resolution.

Most 4K broadcasts in the next years will be shot on Sony F55, which people aren't very excited by, and maybe on a Panasonic 4K small.sensor broadcast camera that comes next year.
Quote:
I'm not sure where you got this idea from - film is shot in the camera's native colorspace, which is typically very wide, and then converted down to DCI-P3 for theaters, and BT.709 for home release.
I was mostly pointing to 1080p as "good enough", but following a lot of discussion, there are a lot of rec.709 material being produced, but maybe not for cinema release features, but all the series for TV are rec.709, and I doubt anybody will go in and regrade this for P3 in the future just for expanding the color space.

A regular feature on the Reduser forum is still people championing that 2K is good enough, and that is a forum for a camera manufacturer that has never made a 2K camera.
So just imagine how it is out in the production industry where the 2K arguments win the day.
Still no Hollywood Studio that has set 4K as a minimum standard for feature releases, they don't even release 4K when they could.
Mostly only Sony that is releasing some few 4K features every year.

Best would be if TV and Movie content was produced in the same color space standard, but I believe that some Hollywood studios will protest.

Rec.2020 can as well be standing for the year 2020 when it come to any hope of seeing such wide colorspace be regularly used or used at all. cool.gif
post #3502 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

I agree, but what I was alluding to was that by the time content producers get around to make and actually release for the home media market any content that has rec.2020, or at least DCI-P3, we will be on our next HDMI version and maybe on our next display.
Why limit progress?
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

I am sure you find some Pro-Displays that do that, but even expensive PC monitors have problems with even displaying Adobe RGB 100%.
Adobe RGB is already considerably wider than BT.709, and while displays may not cover 100% of it, they're covering most of it - and that's using white LED backlighting.

All that needs to happen to cover most/all of BT.2020 is to change the backlight source.

And you don't need to cover 100% of BT.2020 to see improvements. With the exception of cheap white led edge-lit displays, most are capable of going quite a bit wider than BT.709. So while they may not cover 100% of it, they will benefit from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Any HT projector or TV will have problems with displaying anything close to Rec.2020. They can't even display NTSC colors 100% mostly, and it is a reason for that.....cost.
Actually, projectors don't seem to have much trouble going far beyond BT.709 at all. Just look at DLPs and the JVC projectors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

First you have to make producers actually shoot in 4K, and release the content in 4K.
The way it is now, most movies are shot with either Alexa 2.8K camera or on 35mm film, non of which produces a real 4K image and have to be up-converted or over-scanned to be "called 4K".
Doesn't mean it is resolving 4K resolution.
Even if 35mm film does not completely resolve 4K resolution, it resolves more than 1080p.

You don't have to cover 100% of BT.2020 or fully resolve 4K to benefit from source quality that is greater than 1080p and BT.709 offers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Best would be if TV and Movie content was produced in the same color space standard, but I believe that some Hollywood studios will protest.
Content is shot to the camera's native colorspace, which is already much wider than BT.709 and even DCI-P3. The colorspace conversions are relatively trivial.
post #3503 of 3670
Quote:
As I said last time you mentioned this, Laservue is returning, as Mitsubishi recently showed off a new 65" 4K LCD prototype.

The brand "LaserVue" is returning but these "Real LaserVue LCD TVs" have a smaller color gamut that the Mitsubishi LaserVue DLP TVs they used to build. Thought they probably have a wider gamut that Rec. 709 which is always a positive thing in my book.

The "Real LaserVue LCD TVs" use a red laser along with a cyan LED in its backlight unit to attain 126% of the NTSC (1953) Color Space.
Source: http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20110217/189679/

The Mitsubishi LaserVue DLP TVs use a single wavelength laser for each RGB color source to attain 176% of the NTSC (1953) Color Space.
Source: http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20100730/184727/
post #3504 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Why limit progress?
Yes, why indeed.
Ask the guys in Hollywood why they haven't jumped on 4K years ago, or are rolling out 8K in the cinemas before it gets to the consumers.

Ask them why they are the last to jump on technological advantages made specific for the movie industry, and instead behave more like as if they are dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

The movie industry are incredible conservative and slow when it comes to embracing new image technology, and the people are afraid of having to learn new ways of doing things.

People here in this forum are several steps ahead in the cycles and tempo compared to what is developing in the movie industry, or among CEM.
post #3505 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Yes, why indeed.
Ask the guys in Hollywood why they haven't jumped on 4K years ago
Ahh, they did! , Digital 4K has been around since 2005.
Quote:
or are rolling out 8K in the cinemas before it gets to the consumers.
Show me some 8K production gear on the market I can buy and have support for. And just because you can shoot a YouTube video with nothing more than a camera does not mean you can do the same for an A grade theatrical title. It' takes a bit more than just an 8K camera.
Quote:
Ask them why they are the last to jump on technological advantages made specific for the movie industry, and instead behave more like as if they are dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

The movie industry are incredible conservative and slow when it comes to embracing new image technology, and the people are afraid of having to learn new ways of doing things.

People here in this forum are several steps ahead in the cycles and tempo compared to what is developing in the movie industry, or among CEM.

The movie industry has been using digital effects since the 1970s. Long before there was a hint of a home PC. Digital scanning has bee going on since the 1980s. Did you have a digital camera in 1984? Well I worked with early laser scanners that year.

How about the move to non-linear editing in the late 1980s. The movie industry was editing on DOS based PC platforms long before Finalcut Pro came about.

The Hollywood industry is far more technologically advanced that you imagine.

You don't know what you are talking about here.
Edited by Glimmie - 9/29/13 at 5:17pm
post #3506 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post


The way it is now, most movies are shot with either Alexa 2.8K camera or on 35mm film, non of which produces a real 4K image and have to be up-converted or over-scanned to be "called 4K".
Doesn't mean it is resolving 4K resolution.

Most 4K broadcasts in the next years will be shot on Sony F55, which people aren't very excited by, and maybe on a Panasonic 4K small.sensor broadcast camera that comes next year.
I was mostly pointing to 1080p as "good enough", but following a lot of discussion, there are a lot of rec.709 material being produced, but maybe not for cinema release features, but all the series for TV are rec.709, and I doubt anybody will go in and regrade this for P3 in the future just for expanding the color space.

A regular feature on the Reduser forum is still people championing that 2K is good enough, and that is a forum for a camera manufacturer that has never made a 2K camera.
So just imagine how it is out in the production industry where the 2K arguments win the day.
Still no Hollywood Studio that has set 4K as a minimum standard for feature releases, they don't even release 4K when they could.
Mostly only Sony that is releasing some few 4K features every year.

Best would be if TV and Movie content was produced in the same color space standard, but I believe that some Hollywood studios will protest.

Rec.2020 can as well be standing for the year 2020 when it come to any hope of seeing such wide colorspace be regularly used or used at all. cool.gif

These are all incorrect assumptions.
post #3507 of 3670
In some area's Hollywood is conservative. For instance just a few directors are pushing for higher frames rates while most directors want to stick with (the olmost 100 years old eek.gif) 24fps.
post #3508 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

In some area's Hollywood is conservative. For instance just a few directors are pushing for higher frames rates while most directors want to stick with (the olmost 100 years old eek.gif) 24fps.

And the reason for that is thousands of years old!

1913: Twice the frame rate, twice the film consumed, twice the cost.

2013: Twice the frame rate, twice the digital storage required, twice the cost.

What has changed?

Do you know how much storage is used to make a feature film? Hundreds of hours and that all uncompressed 2K or 4K. Reusable, yes. But it's far more expensive than film stock including the subsequent negative processing.

A lot of you here think only of the consumer side. Sure digital technology has been a godsend for theatrical distribution costs but on the production side costs have gone way up with digital. It sort of balances out now but we will have to wait for yet more cheaper storage until 48fps becomes more commonplace.

How about this: would you trade 4K 24fps for 2K 48fps? Can't have both right now. Not financially feasible by a long shot.
Edited by Glimmie - 9/29/13 at 5:15pm
post #3509 of 3670
I must see some 48fps stuff first before making such a choice but i am more excited about 48fps. We had resolution switch two times now - from SD to HD ready and HD 1080p so UHD does not excite me that much smile.gif Most moviedirectors want to stick with 24fps because of its look it has nothing to do with money.
post #3510 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

" Most moviedirectors want to stick with 24fps because of its look it has nothing to do with money.

You are forgetting that most of the upcoming movie directors are of the Nintendo generation. They are very interested in technology. Once they get into the business however they learn the realistic restrictions as with any successful business.

HFR is a current topic within SMPTE. There is a lot of work being done towards a practical implementation.

Figure out a way to provide a steady predictable revenue stream from HFR and you will get it. But one or two Marvel blockbusters at 48fps isn't going to make it happen for widespread adoption.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?