AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it? - Page 2

post #31 of 385
1/4/13 at 7:02pm
4K content/format is simply not needed today in the vast majority of homes - 99%. Most people do not have the screen size/viewing distance necessary to see ANY difference between 2K and 4K. Many barely have the screen size/viewing distance to see any big difference between 480i and 1080p(i, or 720p).

Though, I can see some value for 4K 3D content/format, where you get a full 1080P picture for each eye.

Some people claim to see noticeable differences on 1080P content using a 4K projector versus a normal 2K projector. While I don't doubt they see a difference, I think people are misunderstanding what's truly happening.

I would wager the difference you have is higher quality optics, better focus and electronics, and scaling in the 4K projector. The true comparison would have to be similar 2K and 4K projectors as possible.

Here's an interesting article dealing why 2K is inferior to 4K for digital cinema presentations.
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/files/mkt/digitalcinema/Why_4K_WP_Final.pdf
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 385
1/4/13 at 7:02pm
4K TVs (read screens 60" or less) are just plain stupid and everyone with a brain knows it. Projectors? Completely different issue.

But, sigh, you now have the usual suspects claiming that the human eye actually resolves far beyond what it actually does...nevermind the further reduced resolution when it comes to moving images.

It's all over the boards already...people insisting that people with 20/20 or 20/10 vision easily discern 1080 from 4k on a 60" screen from 15 feet. Yeah. Sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Reality is not much beyond what Bott noted in the OP: screens are too small (99% are 60" or less) and we (95+%) sit much too far from them to get any benefit from 4k. That's simply a fact, plain and simple. Are there outliers? Of course there are. Does that mean we should start producing 4k TVs while there are so many other picture quality aspects that, if improved, would make a significantly greater improvement in picture quality (better contrast, black levels, color fidelity, off axis viewing angles, etc)?

Of course not. But the drones love their numbers...and even more than that, beating their chest over them- regardless of the depths of their inconsequence. And who knows this better than CEMs? Hence, 50" 4k televisions.

Go figure.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 1/4/13 at 7:11pm
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 385
1/4/13 at 7:29pm
At last, some sensible, practical and relevant comments by tuxedocivic, c-not-k and Saturn 94. Well said gentlemen.
We all know that no matter where we sit watching our tv's or projectors that we can tell the difference between VHS > DVD > Blu-ray.
We can even tell the difference between a high quality Bluray such as Baraka and an average or lower quality transfer.
And no matter where we sit we will be able to tell the difference with 4k2k, and 8k4k too.
Above 8k4k...who knows ?
4k2k computer monitors are coming too and they will also be "better" (in terms of visible resolution) than current monitors, no matter where we sit, in practical terms anyway.
With all due respect to people such as sdg4vfx who are involved in the industry, I have heard too many such views expressed by similar people on the Red forums to give them any real credence.
Not because of any lack of honesty or experience or expertise in their field but because they are looking at this area from multiple angles eg. colour etc which causes them to overlook or downplay the obvious that tuxedocivic, c-not-k and Saturn94 point out to us.
That is why we own 1080p tv's and projectors, and not 720p or lower definition devices.
Even with a 32" tv or monitor we will be able to tell the difference between a 1080p device and a 4k2k device, at any practical viewing distance, viewing native content of course.
End of rant. smile.gif
Edited by catonic - 1/4/13 at 7:45pm
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 385
1/4/13 at 7:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bott View Post

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?

Maybe not for the mobile space, which is what you're describing, although Apple's retina displays are >1080p on a 13" display and they look great. Fortunately people still watch movies on screens larger than a telephone and there is certainly room for improvement. When I can no longer differentiate the image on my TV from the view out the window then maybe technology has gone far enough. 4k is the next incremental step in making things look more real. I'm going to sit this one out as far as being an early adopter, but I look forward to the day I can queue up my favorite movie in 4k and watch it on a 4k display.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 385
1/4/13 at 8:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bott View Post

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 strongly agree with this. We should be calling it 2160p for consistency.

2160p will be a niche suited to projectors, very large TVs, and those who sit very close to their TVs. Many technologies thrive in a niche, and that's typically where we've always found the best quality. Hopefully 2160p can do the same. Unless of course 2160p displays become cheap enough that people will buy them without thinking much or understanding if the higher resolution will benefit them, in which case 2160p will thrive like 1080p now (which is probably more than enough for a lot of people).

There are very few native 4k movies and there may not be very many more to come, but this is a needlessly limited view of the uses of 2160p. Most people probably already have images from their digital cameras that could benefit from a higher resolution display during a slideshow (even though most cameras have a higher resolution than their lens can fully support). Video games, especially PC games, could also very easily make use of the extra resolution. Given the right video card and drivers, games both old and new could be output in native 2160p.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 385
1/4/13 at 8:18pm
^ the problem is rabident, that it's not resolution (in the majority of cases, anyway) that keeps an image from looking like it does out of your window. And increasing it (resolution) to "x" is going to have little to zero effect on making it look more like your window view.

Again, most already cannot resolve their 50/60" 1080 screens...upping it to 4, 8, or 16k is going to accomplish nothing more at their 10-15' viewing distances.

I would again implore CEMs to improve contrast, black/white levels, color, off angle, motion, etc to REALLY up PQ but we all know none of the aforementioned will sell new TVs like "super" "ultra" and "mega-magnificent" HD.

Again, go figure.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 1/4/13 at 8:27pm
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 385
1/4/13 at 8:27pm
4k is unnecessary at this point. No content will be available for it. It won't make any sort of profit for at least 3-5 years and at that point maybe will be affordable enough for people to buy. The reason why TV sales numbers are dropping is not every one is like us. They don't upgrade their TV's every year or the second a slightly bigger size comes out. Most people buy a TV and are happy for 10 years. People for the most part have bought their TV's. especially in the last couple of years with the price of 60 inch and below screens so drastically dropping. They don't plan on buying a new TV any time soon. Especially a TV that's only 55 inches for $11,000 when they can get a great 60 inch 1080p set for $1,000. Sorry I think 4k has a ways to go and also feel its unnecessary at this point.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 385
1/4/13 at 8:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post

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 ; )
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.)
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.
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.

Honestly, I just don't think much needs to be added to the above. Thanks for this, I love this kind of priceless professional insight that some just seem to routinely miss or dismiss.

James
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 385
1/4/13 at 8:38pm
The biggest technology that we'll see in the next few years will be super thin borderless OLED's, whose resolution will be 1080p. This too will be unaffordable for at least 2 years.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 385
1/4/13 at 8:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post

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 ; )
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.)
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.
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.

Thank you good post.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 385
1/4/13 at 8:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bott View Post



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)

Its been marketed as 4K, even non HT enthusiast are calling it 4K.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 385
1/4/13 at 8:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Again, most already cannot resolve their 50/60" 1080 screens...upping it to 4, 8, or 16k is going to accomplish nothing more at their 10-15' viewing distances.
James

I agree, but three points:

1. Many of us have much larger screens and sit close to them. We could benefit from 2160p right now without much of a care for what our neighbors have.

2. Many people will buy a much larger screen the next time they buy a TV than they have now, and could benefit from 2160p then.

3. Many people just buy what they think is the cutting edge, which is why many have 1080p displays which are too small for them. These people will be tempted by 2160p despite receiving any real benefit. Sad and stupid, yes, but it'll do little harm to the advancement of 2160p.

If it was a clear cut case where we're getting 2160 instead of better contrast ratios etc, I'd be with you, but I don't think that's how it works:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post

typically newer, higher-resolution monitors also have improved picture quality overall - better color, better blacks, etc.

Picture quality will probably improve uninhibited, but will be paired with 2160p displays first due to marketing realities. Instead of "Better Contrast!" these improvements will be easier to sell blanketed under the more digestible "Super HD."
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 385
1/4/13 at 8:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post

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".

Was true 4k native content being displayed on the 4k monitor and traditional 2k displayed on the 1080p monitor?
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 385
1/4/13 at 9:31pm
I would jump on 4K but I would hope it would be done right from the start. We need a media that will allow for minimal compression. In the end the studios will shove crappy unconverted content and rerelease the same title a year later and make us double dip, we need to let the studios know upfront that we want TRUE 4K content.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 385
1/4/13 at 9:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bott 
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.

I disagree. If you can pack twice the pixels in the same area you should be able to get a better picture: a sharper image, with greater depth, greater gradation of colours, deeper colours, finer detail.

But you are right, "most of the world won't get any benefit," just as they see no benefit to BD. Heck, many don't see any benefit to HDTV (other than size) since they see an inferior SD picture when it is displayed on an HD set. But what if 4K makes SD look as good as when it is displayed on CRT? Then you got them where you want them.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 385
1/4/13 at 10:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

^ the problem is rabident, that it's not resolution (in the majority of cases, anyway) that keeps an image from looking like it does out of your window. And increasing it (resolution) to "x" is going to have little to zero effect on making it look more like your window view.
Again, most already cannot resolve their 50/60" 1080 screens...upping it to 4, 8, or 16k is going to accomplish nothing more at their 10-15' viewing distances.
I would again implore CEMs to improve contrast, black/white levels, color, off angle, motion, etc to REALLY up PQ but we all know none of the aforementioned will sell new TVs like "super" "ultra" and "mega-magnificent" HD.
Again, go figure.
James

What does able to resolve 1080 screen really mean? If it's the point where you can resolve individual pixels on the screen, then I think people may be choosing their screen size / seating distance in part to avoid that. No one wants to to see screen door effect or other artifacts. Did 1080p pave the way for >42" screens? Will 2160p pave the way for even larger screens? sdg4vfx said the differences weren't evident until 75" or 80" screens were used. Sony has an 80". It's $20k, but I remember when a 17" LCD panel was $3,000. Technology is always chicken & egg. I see 2160p as overkill at the moment, but laying the ground work for larger screen sizes in the future.

As far as the displays themselves, I agree with everything you listed, but I don't think it is an either-or situation. I want better CR, improved motion handling, a new wide color space spec that takes advantage of modern display capabilities, better field uniformity, subpixel convergence control, and 4k. If had to pick 1 it would be a new color spec, something like a consumer DCI spec that would allow the native color to be encoded on the disc and let display technology rush to fill any gap. Personally, I think the biggest improvement HDTV brought to smaller screens was the increased color gamut. TVs have been capable of exceeding HDTV color space for quite a few years now. The bulk of Hollywood's existing content also exceeds HDTV color space. To me, coupling 4k with something like "DCI color space for the home" would make a larger improvement available to a broader range of people.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 385
1/4/13 at 11:03pm
The answer is an unequivocal yes. The real drive for increased resolution needs to happen at the "filming" stage though. If we are not pushing the envelope there, none of the content will take real advantage of the televisions in peoples homes. At 8k, the benefits will diminish considerably though, at nearly any screen size. Let's hurry up and get there!
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 385
1/4/13 at 11:11pm
This thread is just another excellent (or perhaps that should be poor) example of people not reading what others are actually saying, as exemplified by sdg4vfx's post.
A number of people have supported his view without looking closely enough at what he actually says.
For example:...... "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.'...
In other words, and this is so common in posts made by such experts, he is talking about issues other than 4k2k resolution compared with 1080p resolution.
Do we need 4k2k, to get back to the original question?
Of course not, nor do we need 1080p.
But we buy 1080p tv's etc because they are better (resolution wise) wherever we sit, on whatever size screen, including computer monitors.
And so will 4k2k tv's, computer monitors and projectors be better, whatever their size or where we sit. The human eye is more than capable of discerning far more than 1080p, probably at least as high as 8k4k.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 385
1/4/13 at 11:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabident View Post

Was true 4k native content being displayed on the 4k monitor and traditional 2k displayed on the 1080p monitor?

We use native 4K content - both the original 4K masters and the distributed HD masters.
Native HD content was also used.

The 4k monitor is fed native 4K masters, native 4K@HD masters and native HD content (the HD content is viewed two ways - up-rez-ed by the monitor and up-rez-ed by our playback systems).
The HD monitor is fed the native 4K@HD masters and the native HD content, as well as the native 4K masters down-rez-ed by our playback systems.

Tested on two playback systems - the DaVinci Resolve and Lustre (The standard tools for finishing film.)
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 385
1/4/13 at 11:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

There are very few native 4k movies and there may not be very many more to come, but this is a needlessly limited view of the uses of 2160p. Most people probably already have images from their digital cameras that could benefit from a higher resolution display during a slideshow ... Video games ... Given the right video card and drivers, games both old and new could be output in native 2160p.
Excellent point. Certainly didn't intend my post to be all inclusive!
I was only referring to 4K TV's perceptual resolution (at normal viewing distances). In essence, if you have 65" or smaller screen and sit 8' away or more - don't worry, be happy ; )
Projection is also a different beast - additive vs subtractive light greatly affects how resolution is perceived. It's easy to imagine 4K projectors (both in theaters and homes) gaining popularity long before 4k TV's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Butny View Post

I would jump on 4K but I would hope it would be done right from the start. We need a media that will allow for minimal compression. In the end the studios will shove crappy unconverted content and rerelease the same title a year later and make us double dip, we need to let the studios know upfront that we want TRUE 4K content.
+1, esp. the compression issue. IMO the single best thing to improve the picture quality (and the experience) of movies at home would be a new "delivery" format/system with radically less compression - not just for streaming but even for Blu-Ray. But my guess is that is a long way off.

On the bright side this is a great time to be into HT. The quality of many HDTV's in the last couple years has completely blurred the line between consumer and pro monitors - to the extent that several "high-end" grading monitors are no longer manufactured and some companies that specialized in those monitors have closed. In many film and broadcast post facilities the latest Panasonic plasmas (ST, GT, VT) and the Sharp Elite have started replacing monitors that cost 15k-20k five years ago, because they're better!
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 385
1/5/13 at 1:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post

Excellent point. Certainly didn't intend my post to be all inclusive!
I was only referring to 4K TV's perceptual resolution (at normal viewing distances). In essence, if you have 65" or smaller screen and sit 8' away or more - don't worry, be happy ; )
Projection is also a different beast - additive vs subtractive light greatly affects how resolution is perceived. It's easy to imagine 4K projectors (both in theaters and homes) gaining popularity long before 4k TV's.
+1, esp. the compression issue. IMO the single best thing to improve the picture quality (and the experience) of movies at home would be a new "delivery" format/system with radically less compression - not just for streaming but even for Blu-Ray. But my guess is that is a long way off.
On the bright side this is a great time to be into HT. The quality of many HDTV's in the last couple years has completely blurred the line between consumer and pro monitors - to the extent that several "high-end" grading monitors are no longer manufactured and some companies that specialized in those monitors have closed. In many film and broadcast post facilities the latest Panasonic plasmas (ST, GT, VT) and the Sharp Elite have started replacing monitors that cost 15k-20k five years ago, because they're better!

I see you are from Socal...you should come by to a LA HT Group Get together sometime!

-Kevin
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 385
1/5/13 at 2:57am
In my opinion, for 2d viewing, I'd say no as it will not make much of a difference, but as for the future of 3d viewing then it's a resounding yes, as we seem to be finding more of a push towards passive 3d as opposed to active 3d because of the number pixels that are seen in in passive which only half of the normal 1080p. Passive seems to be the prefered choice of some because of the apparent flickering effect that puts some people off the active 3d model. I'm not fased either way as I think things are pretty good now but I'm always open to new technology or improvements to existing technology that take the format forward. The big question is, will there be enough 4k material available to support those who purchase screens available of playing the higher resolution? I mean it's bad enough that most of the stations on free to air television are still only broadcasting in standard def!
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 385
1/5/13 at 3:30am
I want to keep my library of Blu Rays so long as that's an option.

I wouldn't mind upconverting them on a 4K front projector though... just skip ahead to the point where high quality 3D 4K FP is $2700 refurb.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 385
1/5/13 at 5:41am
Sign me up -- I'm already planning my next upgrade cycle. I do my serious viewing on a 130" screen, so 4K is welcome. It's been noted before:
On small screens there is no point other than bragging rights. But tuxedocivic has a point, 1080p looks better than 720p even on smaller screens, but
my guess 4K will be past the point of diminishing returns on 50 inch and smaller. Just have to wait to see how it looks.

I will let them hammer out the delivery issues and get past the first generation pricing and glitches. By that time I'll be ready for another new projector.

Then there's 4K 3D to wonder about.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 385
1/5/13 at 5:53am
In my opinon we are'nt close to needing 4K. The media has't come close to catching up to 1080p yet. I have seen what a well mastered BR as in IMAX under the sea 3D can do on my cheap HD33 projector its like I have a 110" fish tank on my wall. With all the 1080i or 720p highly compressed media we have now as in cable, streaming or Sat and even most BR media real 1080p is'nt displayed close to its potential. Untill meda catchs up 4K is useless.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 385
1/5/13 at 8:36am
I would like improved resolution in the cinema. Seeing the screen door effect there is the pits.

Now as for home tv, no. Having spent years upscaling sd, I'm glad that 99.9% of my content is now at the native res of my tv. I don't want to start that all over again. Now eventually that resolution will be in every household I'm sure, but not today. And you certainly don't want that with current tech. This is just a stop gap for the real game changer-- oled. If you buy a 4k led set now, the rest of us that will eventually have a 4k oled will be laughing. By the time we've moved past 1080p as a whole (and I mean source material included) so much time will have passed (10-20 years) that these ultradef sets being premiered in 2012-2013 will be just a fun trivia question that most people won't know.

For those of you comparing them to mobile devices, please that is stupid. You hold a tablet a foot or less from your eyes, you hold a phone closer. Resolution makes a difference there because of the field of vision. Having a tv set on the opposite side of the room pretty much guarantees a retina experience for 1080p (most likely 720p as well) for most commonly bought tv sizes. And I don't expect the median tv size bought to keep linearly increasing, it will plateau off and probably soon (in the next few years).

You can't get people to buy and use 3d when (a) you can see 3d and (b) it has content, so how do you sell ultradef when (a) you most likely can't see the improvement as compared to full hd, and (b) it has no content?

On why source material will not be there in a long time: blu-ray has not been adopted by the majority of hdtv watchers. An even higher res format would be dead in the water. Streaming is commonly at only 720p, and bandwith restrictions cut back on picture quality. Cable and sat. compress their hd channels so much they could not afford to offer ultrahd material, and having the fiber optics for that around the world is a pipe dream. The game consoles are still at 720p and the next gen at 1080p will certainly last as long as the current gen-- several years. AVS forumites are so removed from reality that they forget that they still live in a world where most people watch dvd, youtube and compressed cable for their video needs.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 385
1/5/13 at 9:30am
This past summer I got my first projector - a budget 720p LED unit. I thought projecting on a 100" diagonal screen, perhaps 720p would be a problem. It hasn't been a problem. Most of my material is 480P or lower anyway. And when I finally picked up a blu-ray the other day (Lord Of The Rings), the image quality was very nice on the 100" screen - to the point everyone who saw it marveled at the image quality. I think there is a point of diminishing returns, and if I don't need 1080p on my 100" screen, I don't see myself needing 4K. I am talking watching movies and playing video games.

On the other hand, surfing the web and looking at small text and static graphics, I wouldn't mind 1080p. And 4K would probably look even better for these sort of activities. So, it seems to me, 4K could have a place for PC type viewing, but not so much benefit for home theater. Cost benefit of 4K is not there for my usage. No way I am going to pay to upgrade my video library to take advantage of 4K, and 720p looks good enough anyway.

Manufacturers will push 4K like crazy though, because they must keep people upgrading equipment to maintain revenue stream. So get ready for the big 4K push, to convince folks their perfectly nice and enjoyable equipment is junk, and they simply must upgrade to 4k in order to be happy, lol.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 385
1/5/13 at 9:35am
For the Masses - and we see lots of them - 50" RCA for $498 - rushing from Walmart, through the parking lot to their cars, then home. 3 Years later, TV is curbside, then back to Walmart, and now 60" RCA for $498. I don't think they care about 4K at all!
4K will be a Niche market, but it be Our Market, for Our Forum and Our Electronics. It will not be a Walmart product. (Well maybe in 10 years when it can sell a 84" 4K RCA for $498!)
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 385
1/5/13 at 12:09pm
i do not understand why people allways feel the need to be posting their tv screen size when discussing such topics. I have a 60 inch plasma pioneer kuro myself i can only spot a difference between bluray 720p or full avc 1080p with my nose pressing flat on my screen, and then only in paused images with a lot of shade. I am ofcourse not talking about digital tv , or hdtv as some of u might know it. The only thing i can imagine when u are noticing a big difference between 1080p of 720p is because the transcode from the source to the 720p version has been done crappy, or the digtal tv broadcast adds noise or your tv just has a crappy processor. The only time i ever noticed a real difference between 1080p or 720 p was on a 500 inc (yes 5 hundred inch) using a marantz 3 chip dlp, and then still the differences where marginal, and u still had to be standing about 2 meters away, from the moment u were further of screen the difference where not noticeable anymore.

having said that, since i have seen some 4k demo's, i'm all for it. where good 1080p can give u a '35 mm film' experience, the 4k brings us much closer to the 72mm experience. having seen baraka in 4 k with 16 bit color processing has made me a believer. I'm not sure its actually the added resolution alone that is responsible for the experience, i think it's the added processing possibilities that make it such a nice experience. It truly offered a window into the movie, a window without glass that is. I'm also pretty sure that it would benefit 3d material as well, as i am not a fan of 3d yet, 4k could very well make it 'endurable'.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 385
1/5/13 at 12:53pm
55" OLED for around 10K or Sony XBR-84X900 4K Ultra HD for 25K.

Which would you buy?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it?