3K is Greater than 4K for the 2016 Olympics

I was referring to the performance in regards to screen resolution tests. 480i resolves to 360 lines of resolution when there is no motion and its resolution can go down to 180 lines of resolution during fast action. Originally 1080i was not recognized by the International Telecommunications Union because they defined high definition as having superior temporal resolution. However the ITU grandfathered in the 1080i format due to its widespread use.

Now concerning 4K it is generally agreed by the electronics industry that for a television to be marketed as ultra-high definition it must resolve 4K.
By this definition 3k televisions would be illegal and could only be marketed as full high definition plus. However an argument could be made that the 3K format at 120 frames per second actually outperforms 4K at 60 fps. So when a 3K television is sold it could be marketed as outperforming 4K and outperforming ultra-high definition for the fast action sports so long as the manufacturer can prove that claim.

Now let us look at the pricing. Currently a 27 inch 1440p Apple Cinema display goes for $1000 and a clone can be had for $500. Next year 4K televisions will probably cost $5000 to $10,000. 3k televisions could be half the cost and remember only a 3K television can properly upscale a 720p
 
No. 3K televisions would not be half the cost.

I suspect that the amount it would cost to make a 3K vs a 4K TV will be pretty similar.

The main cost is in setting up the mass production system.

Once it's set up, the individual panel and controller chips are cheap. 3K vs 4K makes little difference.

HD is cheaper vs 4K because its development costs are paid off and they can just churn out panels with the same recipe... NOT because it has less pixels.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Kind of like arguing the point that if we could feed Tuna fish mayonnaise we could save a step when making a sandwich.

Like 3K TV... It ain't going to happen!
 
30 inch Apple Cinema Displays are 2560x1600 resolution. The IPAD is 1920x1440 resolution. These devices are not yet televisions but they are a heck of a lot cheaper than buying a 4K television. It probably does not cost more to make a 4K television so in actuality a 3K television is just a crippled device so the high end is not destroyed. Even if manufacturing is a non profit enterprise, once the high end is destroyed the company goes bankrupt.

Now if we had 8K televisions and 8K broadcasting we could position 4K as the poor mans alternative to 8K. This won't happen for a long time.

So rather than complaining about how camera companies cripple their technology to protect their high end why not instead find ways to shoot around the limitations?
A crippled camera can not only hold its own but for certain specialized applications it can actually exceed the performance of its more expensive counterpart.

In the next thread I will discuss how a 3K television can give us glasses free 3D in the 720p, 60 frames per second format which is the best high definition that Blu-Ray offers for the fast action sports.
 
androbot2084 said:
In the next thread I will discuss how a 3K television can give us glasses free 3D in the 720p, 60 frames per second format which is the best high definition that Blu-Ray offers for the fast action sports.
Click to expand...

Oh noes, not another thread!

TRANSLATED: "Hey, everyone, I'm not yet done showing off my astounding level of ignorance on technical subjects!"
 
David W. Jones said:
Kind of like arguing the point that if we could feed Tuna fish mayonnaise we could save a step when making a sandwich.

Like 3K TV... It ain't going to happen!
Click to expand...
I think youre onto something... if only we could get cows to turn their milk into cheese internally, then distribute it evenly though out their bodies........
 
3K television does not have to happen. A person that cannot afford a 4K television probably probably will not be able to afford a 3k television even if it is only half the price.

However a 3K computer monitor is another story. 30 inch computer monitors with 2560x1600 resolution and up to 120 hertz sampling are available today for $500 to $1000. Of course these are not a replacement for a big screen 1080p television but a 2.5K computer monitor sure would be a nice addition if you don't mind watching 4K you tube videos or creating your own 3K content.
 
What is this obsession with resolution? A long time ago I was watching something I filmed myself through a high quality CRT monitor. It was shot with an HDV camera. It looked 100% real. Like I was watching through a glass but reality behind it. I saw exactly 100% what I filmed. Production has now been moved to LCD's and cameras progressed tenfold...But I've never experienced that again. Even the BEST quality LCD with material shot with one of the best cameras does not look like I'm seeing it through the monitor live. It always looks like some sort of digital representation.

I guess that was the magic of high quality progressive CRT monitors. Horrible in desktop but great with video. Maybe when OLED's will come around we will experience this once more?
 
Last edited:
Currently the Olympics are broadcasted using the 1440x1080i interlace format. What format can possibly replace it?
720p at 60 fps cannot properly scale up to a native 1080p television and has strobing problems and is perceived as a step backwards.
1920x1080p at 120 frames per second eliminates strobing and scales perfectly but naysayers will tell you that since 1080i is full high definition what's the difference?

3072p 120 hertz televisions have the big resolution numbers that sell.
 
Why is there so much hostility about what is essentially how many squares of light you want to point your eyes at whilst working a groove into your couch and stuffing junk food into your fat mouth, it really, really, really doesn't matter.
 
Actually it is the story that counts. An Advant Garde filmmaker should be more concerned about the story, the actors and actresses, the costumes etc. rather than the cinematography.
 
3k ain't gonna happen.
Ever.
At any frame rate.
The industry big guns have spoken.
4k it is.
Period.
The marketing hype is already gearing up to promote 4k as the next must-have technology for the cognoscenti.
Tests have shown that humans cannot perceive more than approximately 75fps.
120fps is great for slow-mo to 24p but it ain't gonna be broadcast anytime soon - bandwidth just cannot support it and will not for years to come.
We might see a step up to 75fps but 120fps is out of the question.
The most likely distribution format will be 4k @60p.
Anything else is just pie in the sky fantasy, no matter what the IOC says.
At the end of the day somebody has to broadcast their silly games, and broadcast is firmly embedded with 60i and later 60p for the foreseeable future.
 
That's what the big guns said 10 years ago when they promoted full high definition 1080p televisions. Problem was nobody could afford a $10,000 1080p television so the consumers settled for a $2000 720p or 1080i or even 480p.

The proponents of 1080p claimed that the human eye cannot perceive frame rates above 30 fps and they still make that claim.

If you listen very carefully to Jim Jannard he made a strong case of 3K at 120 fps and called that format the three Aces rather than the 2 pairs but everyone thought they were somehow being cheated out of resolution just like everyone thought they were being cheated when the 720p format was first proposed as a
superior alternative to the so called full high definition 1080i.

So now the ante is being quadrupled. The next generation Scarlett will feature a 6K sensor that will down sample to 3K for the best possible picture and may even shoot at 300 frames per second for compatibility. But here is the catch and the catch is there will be no 4k recording possible. Thus the 4k high end is protected and this will allow for cheap 3k cameras. Of course you can buy a cheap 4K JVC camcorder but what is the dynamic range of that device compared to the Red?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top