[andymnfun]

I don't get it because 4K resolution is 4096×2160 or 1.896 to 1. How is that any good? Isn't 1440p (2560x1440) and 2160p (3840x2160) a better option? Wouldn't we rather have 1.78 to 1 to support HDTV or even 2.35 to 1 to support movies? What good is 1.896 to 1?



Edit: 4K in home cinema is 2160p not digital cinema. Cool.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

From a resolution POV, it is the right balance for watching presentations. People with normal, good vision can resolve approximately 1 arcminute. The actual limit is 1.2 arcminutes per line pair so each pixel would be 0.6 arcminutes for high contrast black/white transitions. So 2K resolution is eyesight limited to about 30 degrees. 4K would be eyesight limited to about 60 degrees, which is one screen width away and most people prefer to sit no closer than that. Only specialized venues projecting large, encompassing images where people are expected to look around would need higher than 4K.


Since the need for eye limited resolution is just as needed for HT as it is at the theaters or large venues, I don't see why 4K wouldn't be useful at home for those who like a 60 degree FOV, assuming a source format was created for the home. Now most people watch movies on a TV display and tend to sit 3 or more screen widths back and 2K is perfect for that so I don't see a big push for a 4K format at home but it sure would be nice.

 

[studiox_swe]

4k is the standard in all digital cinemas, specially for 3D.


But to be able to enjoy 4k at home you'll need a fairly large screen (and therefore a large room )


For consumers it would make more sense for a "2160p" screen imho.

 

[PLB]

Alan Gouger in another thread (the Cedia Thread) wrote something about a car having 450 HP when the speed limit was so low. The odd thing is that few cars have 450 HP. But many high performance cars like the new Mercedes gull wing have 550 HP. Some configurations are just easier to market. The big advantage to 4K is that it is easy to comprehend.


I think however a 4K HT front projector makes little sense. I doubt if it would make much difference to most people. Basically just upping resolution is not very imaginative.


My Home Theater is in my media room/den. I have a common configuration with a 110" screen. I could go a little bigger but not much. My screen is eight feet wide. I might be able to go to nine feet wide - but maybe not. I haven't done so because the experience wouldn't be a big enough improvement for the trouble and expense. If I had a 4K projector I would be just cramming more pixels onto a screen already maxed out by architectural constraints.


I rent Blu-ray disks from Netflix. The best Blu-rays are spectacular but only about half the movies I watch benefit from Blu-ray. It depends on the camera work and the plot. The shaky camera, quick cuts, and high contrast style of a director like Tony Scott means you don't see any improvement over a DVD. Lawrence of Arabia would benefit from 4K but not the majority of most movies because most of the action takes place indoors with few long shots and little natural light.


So a small minority of users will have the room and the budget for a 160" screen and they will occasionally watch an epic with sweeping vistas. On those occasions I will envy them their 4K experience - a little.


In the mean time the truly fabulous game changing technology is being ignored.


I remember Cinerama. I was there for an early showing of This is Cinerama in Washington DC. CinemaScope came out a few years later as a cheaper substitute. 2.35 has never done that much for me and anamorphic lens always struck me as a kludge. But Cinerama was analog and there were those fuzzy areas where the separate images met. They could never solve that problem even in the huge custom built theaters of the day. But we can solve it now in our Home Theaters.


I don't want no stinking flat CinemaScope screen. I want Cinerama. I want a 360 degree screen in which I sit in the center and the plot plays out all around me. Some gamers already have these kind of set ups. There are inexpensive products that will perfectly merge the digital images from any number of projectors. So if you look over your shoulder you see what's behind you. That's immersion.

 

[William]



Quote:
Originally Posted by PLB /forum/post/20827700


...I think however a 4K HT front projector makes little sense. I doubt if it would make much difference to most people. Basically just upping resolution is not very imaginative...

Obviously you have never seen 4K source on a 4K display. It is almost unbelievable how real it looks. Like looking out a window. 4K 12 bit source on a 4K home projector would be a giant leap. Of course it would be MANY years (if ever) before Hollywood allows 4K in the home. Also the public would be indifferent.

 

[mgkdragn]



Quote:
Originally Posted by William /forum/post/20827786


Obviously you have never seen 4K source on a 4K display. It is almost unbelievable how real it looks. Like looking out a window.

Sounds very much the same as the 1080p / HD campaign ..


Let's maximize what we have before moving on to ANOTHER format ..

 

[William]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn /forum/post/20827816


Sounds very much the same as the 1080p / HD campaign ..


Let's maximize what we have before moving on to ANOTHER format ..

...and now that you have HD would you be willing to go back to SD since HD was just a marketing campaign?

 

[studiox_swe]



Quote:
Originally Posted by William /forum/post/20827786


Obviously you have never seen 4K source on a 4K display. It is almost unbelievable how real it looks. Like looking out a window. 4K 12 bit source on a 4K home projector would be a giant leap. Of course it would be MANY years (if ever) before Hollywood allows 4K in the home. Also the public would be indifferent.

When Hollywood realizes that 3D didn't (once again) add revenue to their already big pockets they might go another way.


I'm sure most box movies will be recored (if digital) by a RED 4k camera. With BDXL and others space might not be an issue

 

[mgkdragn]



Quote:
Originally Posted by William /forum/post/20827844


...and now that you have HD would you be willing to go back to SD since HD was just a marketing campaign?

It was a marketing campaign and it worked .. I did not slam it in my post .. just suggesting that it's really not time to start up another format .. I'm sure you agree ..

 

[William]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn /forum/post/20828215


It was a marketing campaign and it worked .. I did not slam it in my post .. just suggesting that it's really not time to start up another format .. I'm sure you agree ..

No, because I would like to see the studios offer (in a few years) 4K D-cinema color space/bit depth (but more compressed) 1 month after release in home downloads competitively priced ($15). I know I'm dreaming but you did ask.

 

[mgkdragn]



Quote:
Originally Posted by William /forum/post/20828248


No, because I would like to see the studios offer (in a few years) 4K D-cinema color space/bit depth (but more compressed) 1 month after release in home downloads competitively priced ($15). I know I'm dreaming but you did ask.

agreed ..

 

[Alan Gouger]

4k should cost 4k and not a dime more.

 

[stanger89]



Quote:
Originally Posted by PLB /forum/post/20827700


I think however a 4K HT front projector makes little sense. I doubt if it would make much difference to most people. Basically just upping resolution is not very imaginative.

A few things, people with HT's aren't "most people", we are a more demanding group of people with higher expectations, standards, and generally more observant.


Second, so what? 4K resolution has some great things to offer. As Chuck pointed out, a lot of sit at a viewing distance/ratio for which we would benefit from 4k projection.

Quote:
My Home Theater is in my media room/den. I have a common configuration with a 110" screen. I could go a little bigger but not much. My screen is eight feet wide. I might be able to go to nine feet wide - but maybe not. I haven't done so because the experience wouldn't be a big enough improvement for the trouble and expense. If I had a 4K projector I would be just cramming more pixels onto a screen already maxed out by architectural constraints.

It's not about size, it's about viewing ratio. I have a rather small screen, only 110" wide (scope) but I sit at approximately 1.5 screen widths, so 4K would be a nice improvement for me, even with my "small" screen.

Quote:
I rent Blu-ray disks from Netflix. The best Blu-rays are spectacular but only about half the movies I watch benefit from Blu-ray. It depends on the camera work and the plot. The shaky camera, quick cuts, and high contrast style of a director like Tony Scott means you don't see any improvement over a DVD. Lawrence of Arabia would benefit from 4K but not the majority of most movies because most of the action takes place indoors with few long shots and little natural light.

I have yet to see anything I'd say didn't benefit from Blu-ray.

Quote:
So a small minority of users will have the room and the budget for a 160" screen and they will occasionally watch an epic with sweeping vistas. On those occasions I will envy them their 4K experience - a little.

Again, you don't need a 160" screen, you just need to have a small enough viewing angle, and a lot of us are sitting under 2 screen widths away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn /forum/post/20827816


Sounds very much the same as the 1080p / HD campaign ..


Let's maximize what we have before moving on to ANOTHER format ..

Blu-ray is already maxed out, I'm not sure what you're getting at. 8bit color, SMPTE-C/709 gamut.


Bring on a new format with better color depth, gamut, and sure, why not resolution too.


Though IMO there's no need for a 4K format for 4K projection to be benefitial.


As Alan said in the other thread, "bring it on".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger /forum/post/20828547


4k should cost 4k and not a dime more. A $ per pixel

That's only $8.8M

no problem.

 

[Alan Gouger]



Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/20828644



As Alan said in the other thread, "bring it on".




That's only $8.8M

no problem.

Ok lets get rid of the $1 per pixel

 

[jonnythan]

Because it's a big enough upgrade to be worth all-new components and source material and to be around for a while.


No one wants a 30% increase every 5 years. They want a 400% increase every 15.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Also I don't really get hung up on 4K, 2160p, or 3840x2160p. Ideally for the next big upgrade in resolution the HT projectors will match the cinema at 4096 pixels even if we are still on Blu-ray because we can always use just 3840 of them at these resolutions. I think the next home format standard resolution (in 20+ years) will be driven by the theaters' standards because both are now digital instead of completely independently as was HD. I also expect 4K projectors to make their way into the sub-$10K HT market long before there is any 4K source material for them or even contemplation of a 4K standard for the home.


I also wonder if 21:9 panels will become a standard in the theater. I mean really, what does 4K mean other than 4096 horizontal pixels and seems to imply CIW? I guess if we had 21:9 panels it would then be a CIH system although it is odd to express that as the variable resolution and 2160p would make more sense. Personally I would love to see a CIA system for source and projection built around 2.05:1 panels (no zooming, no A-lens) but that is probably too variable for anywhere but commercial theaters.

 

[Pecker]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey /forum/post/20829168


Also I don't really get hung up on 4K, 2160p, or 3840x2160p. Ideally for the next big upgrade in resolution the HT projectors will match the cinema at 4096 pixels even if we are still on Blu-ray because we can always use just 3840 of them at these resolutions. I think the next home format standard resolution (in 20+ years) will be driven by the theaters' standards because both are now digital instead of completely independently as was HD. I also expect 4K projectors to make their way into the sub-$10K HT market long before there is any 4K source material for them or even contemplation of a 4K standard for the home.


I also wonder if 21:9 panels will become a standard in the theater. I mean really, what does 4K mean other than 4096 horizontal pixels and seems to imply CIW? I guess if we had 21:9 panels it would then be a CIH system although it is odd to express that as the variable resolution and 2160p would make more sense. Personally I would love to see a CIA system for source and projection built around 2.05:1 panels (no zooming, no A-lens) but that is probably too variable for anywhere but commercial theaters.

We should have gone CIA/c.2.00:1 when we went widescreen (TVs).


Even without variable masking the 'black bars' (top and bottom for 2.40:1, sides for 1.85:1) are not a lot greater than for 1.85:1 on a 16:9 screen. People could decifde whether to show in the OAR or crop - and that cropping would lose far less than a 'scope film on a 16:9 screen.


It was the obvious thing to do, and I know a lot of cinematographers would have preferred it, but I think they dropped the ball on this one.


Steve W

 

[stanger89]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Gouger Ok lets get rid of the $1 per pixel

I'm in for $4,000 for the display

 

[mporlier]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey /forum/post/20827020


From a resolution POV, it is the right balance for watching presentations. People with normal, good vision can resolve approximately 1 arcminute. The actual limit is 1.2 arcminutes per line pair so each pixel would be 0.6 arcminutes for high contrast black/white transitions. So 2K resolution is eyesight limited to about 30 degrees. 4K would be eyesight limited to about 60 degrees, which is one screen width away and most people prefer to sit no closer than that. Only specialized venues projecting large, encompassing images where people are expected to look around would need higher than 4K.


Since the need for eye limited resolution is just as needed for HT as it is at the theaters or large venues, I don't see why 4K wouldn't be useful at home for those who like a 60 degree FOV, assuming a source format was created for the home. Now most people watch movies on a TV display and tend to sit 3 or more screen widths back and 2K is perfect for that so I don't see a big push for a 4K format at home but it sure would be nice.

Very well said Chuck. Your facts are quite accurate. 4K for theaters was pushed by Sony initially. They did a very good marketing job at it and other manufacturers, not believing in 4K for mass market, got caught off-guard. TI had to struggle to get the 4K chip out. The cost of producing a native 4K movie from capture, post-production and delivery is expensive. Mass storage and rendering times are outrageous. It is a factor of 4 vs 2K. The push now is more about frame rate. I have seen many times 48/60fps on 2K and 4K and the benefit to the viewer is tremendous. You don't know your are missing information at 24fps until you see a 48fps movie. Everyone remembers the feeling of seeing for the first time an HD movie. Well the same goes for 48/60 fps. For the movie industry, going to 48fps is only a factor of 2 from capture to distribution. So it is cost effective vs 4K. One other reason FPS can be the next thing is theater owners possessing Series 2 DLP units will have near $0,00 investment. Projectors can do it already or just require a firmware upgrade. The servers may need some modifications but that's it. Only time will tell if 4K will gain momentum. But to most viewers, the difference will not be noticeable.

 

[stanger89]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mporlier The push now is more about frame rate. I have seen many times 48/60fps on 2K and 4K and the benefit to the viewer is tremendous. You don't know your are missing information at 24fps until you see a 48fps movie.

I'm still very curious to see some 48 or 60fps "motion picture" content. I must say I'm skeptical. The reason is I've seen enough "video" to know that it works very well for creating that "through the window" look. Problem for me is I don't like that look for movies, the reason is it looks like I'm looking "through the window" at the movie set.


I find that the 24fps "artifact" actually aid in my suspension of disbelief, that it results in a surreal look that makes it easier to forget you're sitting in a chair looking at a picture on a screen, where as higher frame rates tend to have the opposite effect.


Now I'm open minded to the possibility that maybe there's just some different shooting or film-making technique that will return that "surreality" to higher frame rates.