3K is Greater than 4K for the 2016 Olympics

In 4 years 4K televisions may be too expensive for most people to afford. Today it is illegal to call 3K televisions ultra high definition but through blind testing it may be demonstrated that because of greater temporal resolution 3K is actually better than 4K. Once this is proven 3k becomes the superior and affordable alternative to 4K.

Remember interlace 1440x1080i is not high definition but rather extended definition and cannot handle motion worth a darn. The Olympic committee is looking for a superior format so that's why 8K was tested but 8K was a failure because 60 fps was too stroboscopic. 720p 60 fps is superior to 1080i but is looked upon as a step backwards. 1080p60 is superior to 1080i but people will complain that there is no difference.
 
androbot2084 said:
How is 3K at 120 frames per second a step backwards when it is the only format that meets ultra high definition requirements for both better spatial as well as better temporal resolution?

Remember sports video is all about motion. 8K at 60 frames per second fails to meet ultra high definition requirements because the temporal resolution is no better than a typical 720p 60 fps sports broadcast. 8K at 120 frames is a bandwidth hog and so is 4K at 120 fps. What we will probably end up with is 4K at 60 fps which is not the best format for sports.
Click to expand...


It's a step backwards in terms of resolution, as many people are alredy using established 4k technology. whatever the next step is, broadcast infastructure will need to be modified at great expense to handle the large bandwidth, and i cant see that that expense being justified for a relatively modest resolution increase to 3k, as it won't be the same dramatic increase in quality we saw when moving from sd to hd. 8k on the other hand... now thats something worth spending money on, it looks amazing, even if it takes another 10 years to reach your home, it'll be worth it. on the frame rate issue 8k is designed to be a 120fps format, it's early days yet but i bet by the next world cup or olympics the format will be trialled at that high framerate.

androbot2084 said:
8K was a failure because 60 fps was too stroboscopic
Click to expand...

well it definately didn't look like a failure to my eyes, it looked like a developing technology with a few minor flaws that will be ironed out over time, based on what i saw i belive the move to 8k will be the most significant evolution in image capture since the introduction of colour television, hardly a failure.
 
Last edited:
what's the point of 3k? Very few Displays support that resolution and the improvement over 1080p is minimal.
I'd much rather have a good 2k 120fps stream or 4k at 60/120fps.
 
I'd much rather have 4K at 60 FPS than 3K at 120 FPS ? Both formats will be blind tested for fast action sports and audiences will decide which is the sharpest highest resolution picture. Once the audience decides they will not be allowed to change their minds based on marketing sales pitches. Until we have blind testing we do not know if 3K or 4K will win the resolution contest for the sharpest picture. With blind testing big resolution numbers have no psychological advantage. 3K 120 fps of course will reduce motion blurring and strobing but 120 fps could be overkill and in that case 4K 60 fps may win out.

The Olympic committee already made the mistake once when they approved that so called full high definition 1080i when the truth was that 720p provided vastly superior picture quality. With blind testing that mistake will not be made again.
 
Why is this even a discussion? 3K isn't a format, nobody's talking about broadcasting 3K. 4K (or QuadHD) would be the next broadcast standard, the manufacturers are already making 4K displays, but it'll probably be 15 years or so before 4K becomes broadcastable over the air. Internet delivery could/should happen much sooner, but OTA broadcast will probably never happen. And 3K won't be broadcast at all.

As for 60fps/120fps, that's not the same as interlaced vs progressive. Yes 720/60p had superior motion rendition over interlaced, because interlaced was and is evil and must be stabbed in the head and killed to death. And it has been, by 1080/60p -- that's the unifying format for today's content creators, the resolution of 1080 combined with the motion of 720/60.

But 120fps? For live stuff? Probably not in any big rush for that to happen. 60fps works fine, and TVs already have internal upsampling to 120hz. Going to 120fps would provide a marginal increase vs. the oversampling tech they already have, and would require a big boost in data rate, so it seems unlikely.

Where did this idea of 3K come from? SMPTE isn't talking about 3K, the ATSC isn't talking about 3K, as far as I know. Only 3K thing to ever exist was a windowed mode in the Red cameras, and Red already has said they don't consider 3K professional, so ... you certainly can't expect them to go promoting 3K. Red is all about 4K, Sony's already making 4K equipment, Panasonic has said they're going 4K, JVC is even making a 4K handycam. Nobody, as far as I know, is making 3K cameras or planning on distributing a 3K format.
 
Barry_Green said:
Why is this even a discussion? 3K isn't a format, nobody's talking about broadcasting 3K. 4K (or QuadHD) would be the next broadcast standard, the manufacturers are already making 4K displays, but it'll probably be 15 years or so before 4K becomes broadcastable over the air. Internet delivery could/should happen much sooner, but OTA broadcast will probably never happen. And 3K won't be broadcast at all.

As for 60fps/120fps, that's not the same as interlaced vs progressive. Yes 720/60p had superior motion rendition over interlaced, because interlaced was and is evil and must be stabbed in the head and killed to death. And it has been, by 1080/60p -- that's the unifying format for today's content creators, the resolution of 1080 combined with the motion of 720/60.

But 120fps? For live stuff? Probably not in any big rush for that to happen. 60fps works fine, and TVs already have internal upsampling to 120hz. Going to 120fps would provide a marginal increase vs. the oversampling tech they already have, and would require a big boost in data rate, so it seems unlikely.

Where did this idea of 3K come from? SMPTE isn't talking about 3K, the ATSC isn't talking about 3K, as far as I know. Only 3K thing to ever exist was a windowed mode in the Red cameras, and Red already has said they don't consider 3K professional, so ... you certainly can't expect them to go promoting 3K. Red is all about 4K, Sony's already making 4K equipment, Panasonic has said they're going 4K, JVC is even making a 4K handycam. Nobody, as far as I know, is making 3K cameras or planning on distributing a 3K format.
Click to expand...
Interlaced must be stabbed in the head and killed to death! LOL.. Get em Barry!
 
dustylense said:
Interlaced must be stabbed in the head and killed to death! LOL.. Get em Barry!
Click to expand...

Oh my God! There is nothing wrong with delivering content in an interlaced CONTAINER. The problem is when you acquire or master in an interlaced format.

When you output a 1080p30p acquired and mastered timeline to 1080i and broadcast it, it just splits each frame into two fields, each of these fields within the pair showing half the lines of a single frame . Then the user's TV ( assuming it is not really old and/or crappy) sews those two half-frames together before displaying a single, full resolution 1080p frame.

So the home viewer sees something which is 100% IDENTICAL to a 1080p broadcast, when viewing a 1080i broadcast of a anything that was acquired and mastered in 1080p, and only converted to a 1080i container as a last step.

No plasma or LCd that you can buy today for consumer use is able to display an interlaced frame as interlaced. They can ONLY show you progressive frames

If you shoot 1080i (so you have 60 separate moments in time per second, rather than 30 moments, separated into field sets of 2.) then obviously the TV cannot sew something coherent together from pairs because each field is different. what you get is either combing (because the progressive frames displayed are made up of two different moments in time, pasted together, so there are little lines in motion rather than normal motion blur) - or very distracting "bobbing". EIther option sucks.

If you master/acquire in 24p, and convert to 1080i, then the TV will convert that to progressive 3:2 pulldown.

It's not complicated. It is simply idiotic to acquire anything at 1080i as only rare HD CRTs will be able to properly display it. But I still hear producers say "broadcast is 1080i". NO. Broadcast is a 1080i container for 1080p content, which the viewer experiences as 1080p (or 720p on some lower resolution televisions) after their TV de-interlaces it. 99% of viewers have no way whatsoever of actually seeing interlaced content as their TVs can ONLY display a progressive signal.

Please get the word out. This is fact.
 
The reason why nobody talks about 3K is because 3K televisions are considered illegal because
3K does not meet cinema 4K ultra-high definition spatial resolution requirements.
However if the higher temporal resolution of 3K can smoke 4K in blind testing of fast action sports content then this is the result:
4K sports televisions will be illegal unless they have the ability to turn the scaling off and display a native 3K image.

Now that 3k sports televisions are legal consumers will have a choice to get an ultra-high definition sports television for half the cost of a 4k cinema display.

And 3K sports cameras will be half the cost of 4K cinema cameras.

The Reason why Jim Jannard does not sell 3K sports cameras is nobody wants to buy one. This will change if the 3K format is recognized by the Olympic committee as the best broadcast format for fast action sports.

In lower resolutions 120 fps is a marginal improvement but as spatial resolution increases strobing becomes more noticeable when filming fast action sports.
 
I just love it when somebody who obviously has never worked in broadcast television decides what format the 2016 Olympics are to be broadcast in.

It's kind of like when some engineer working for a camera manufacture that has obviously never shouldered a professional camera designs a camera for handheld work which must be held out in front of ones body.
 
I never decided what format the 2016 Olympics should be broadcasted in. I said different formats should be blind tested and the people in audience should decide which is the sharpest picture.
 
well if we are building on perpectives, we now that industry is not going anywhere with new things.
They prefer to smoothly evolve from one stuff to another. So they can push the same data in the same pipes for a while , it is just a matter of reading data a different way.
So what we get now ? we get 1080p30 at best or usually 1080i60, most movie are still 1080p24.
what do we get better in the pipe ? we get 2x 1080p24 (thanks to 3D) so we can get out of that a 1080p48 (best guess since it is darn easy, you just need to split even and odd frames and encode like if it was 3D ) or shift pixels and use it as a 3840 x 2160 picture , this one being trickier because currently there is no circuit/device existing for that model and you still need to interpolate the missing half of pixel, but since it is just software, it can be implemented the easy way. The only problem is industry is already ready for high frame rate (any screen is able to go 120Hz today, and any camera can shoot 48fps) but screen/camera with higher resolution are not here or at leastnot in the big consumer market , so the favor still go to the easy way, 48fps instead 4k.
 
Last edited:
androbot2084 said:
I never decided what format the 2016 Olympics should be broadcasted in. I said different formats should be blind tested and the people in audience should decide which is the sharpest picture.
Click to expand...

So if the majority of the world viewing audience decided standard def was fine for them?
 
For example the so called standard definition interlace 480i format should be called low definition 240i because the latter more accurately describes its resolution performance.
 
androbot2084 said:
For example the so called standard definition interlace 480i format should be called low definition 240i because the latter more accurately describes its resolution performance.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean 240p, not 240i?

So standard definition, to you, is a progressive 480 lines?
 
That makes no sense. You could call it 240p, if you wanted, or 480i, but 240 makes no sense.

Look, these names are set by standards organizations. This isn't marketing, it's SMPTE and the ATSC and the EBU who set these names. Facts of the matter are:
Standard-def is 480i or 576i.
Enhanced-def is 480p or 576p.
High-def is 1080i or 720p, and has been extended to include 1080p at 23.976, 25, 29.97, 50, and 59.94 frames per second.

Those are the formats and the definitions. 3K doesn't exist as a standardized format. Neither does 8K, yet. And 4k is still kind of twisting in the wind, there are "standards" of "full aperture 4096x3112", "Academy 3656x2664", "Digital Cinema 3999x2160", "Digital Cinema 4096x1714", and "QuadHD 3840x2160". All are called "4k". As far as I know, neither SMPTE nor the EBU has issued a final ruling on what is included in "4k", nor has any broadcast organization standardized "4k". Only the DCI exists as a true 4K standard (and they're the guys that came up with the 3656-pixel size).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top