4K TV Article

I saw people swearing up and down, that a 4k TV in MediaMarket looks better side by side than a HD TV.
Point was, both displays where actually fed by a DVD player, so we are talking about upscaled SD.

So yeah, if you really believe it, you will think you actually can see it.
 
Yep, as I said before, this has to be a blind test. If you know which is which, your brain will make you believe the one labeled as 4K looks better, even if there's no real difference.
 
whether you want it or not everthing is going to be 4k very quickly...display manufacturers will all switch from 2k to 4k to keep from being left with an outdated product.
 
Tv's will all be lcd, all significant content will be upscaled, no one will care. Content quality could be improved right now if broadcasters upped the bit rate to what existing HD is capable of. Native uhd viewing will be only a tiny niche audience in US for 5+ years, Japan and Europe sooner.
 
I just want everything to settle down for a few decades so that the movies we shoot today will still have a valid resolution 30 years from now.

I (like many of you probably) got caught with my pants down shooting my first feature on DV due to budget. Upscaled to 1080p it doesn't look so great. Muddy. That was only 10 years ago. I would like to know the work I produce in my life will be somewhat valid when I'm gone. With film it was possible to go to higher resolution scans. I'm waiting for us to get to that point of diminishing returns with lower cost digital cinema cameras so that we don't have to worry about resolution and color anymore.

I think we're already there with HD distribution.
 
roxics said:
I just want everything to settle down for a few decades so that the movies we shoot today will still have a valid resolution 30 years from now.
Click to expand...

A few decades? Good luck with that.:thumbsup: On the bright side roxics, the validity of your work has nothing to do with the image resolution. Many Hollywood films have been shot in 1080p or 2K and I don't think Zodiac, for example, is suddenly going to become a crappy film if watched on a 4K TV.


-Andrew
 
starcentral said:
I suggest you go to a Sony store, or higher end AV shop where they will have equipment setup correctly so that you will see the difference between 4k and regular HD. Knowing Best Buy they had a DVD signal split into both :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Even at Best Buy, the difference is stark. Though Samsung's demo video is far more effective than Sony's.
 
This reminds me of when the Red first came out. Shooting in 4K was a lot more important than viewing in 4K. Folks used to go on and on about how since a lot of movie house projectors were 2K you didn't need to shoot in 4K. Anyone who ever has to pull a matte instantly gets the advantage to having 4K footage.

The problem most people have with 4K displays is the exact same problem they have always had with new technology. Their shallow experience of things cripples their ability to see what is missing and the presence of which would make a difference. When Fedex, (Previously called Federal Express), was trying to raise capital to get started, people thought the idea of flying something halfway across the country and back when the destination was only in the next city to be insanity. While we get that it was about time and not distance, that concept was completely outside the experience of that era's existing shipping industry.

Therefore, a 4K display in the context of Television as it has been will have the exact same effect, especially with the current pricing.
 
Display isn't acquisition. There are many advantages to acquisition well above what can be displayed. There isn't much (immediate) advantage to a screen which can display content which won't be available for a while.
 
David Jimerson said:
Display isn't acquisition. There are many advantages to acquisition well above what can be displayed. There isn't much (immediate) advantage to a screen which can display content which won't be available for a while.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a common chicken/egg problem? One side always has to take the first step otherwise tech would rarely move forward.
 
David Jimerson said:
There isn't much (immediate) advantage to a screen which can display content which won't be available for a while.
Click to expand...
This is true if we are talking of screens solely intended for "normal" TV viewing.

But increasingly, screens are being used for a lot more - information displays and advertising, say. (It's now common for posters along escalators to be replaced with video screens for advertising, for example.)

Hence, there's a two pronged 4K attack. 4K cameras for acquisition, for all the reasons David above and others say. And a desire for 4K screens for purposes other than just watching video on. (That can be as simple as viewing still images - themselves easily capable of better than full 4K.) All that leads to a likelihood of 4K becoming the norm for hardware sooner than many people may think - whatever actually gets broadcast.
 
harddrive said:
But increasingly, screens are being used for a lot more - information displays and advertising, say. (It's now common for posters along escalators to be replaced with video screens for advertising, for example.)
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm just talking about TVs.
 
adkimery said:
A few decades? Good luck with that.:thumbsup: On the bright side roxics, the validity of your work has nothing to do with the image resolution. Many Hollywood films have been shot in 1080p or 2K and I don't think Zodiac, for example, is suddenly going to become a crappy film if watched on a 4K TV.


-Andrew
Click to expand...

The fact that many Hollywood films have been shot in 1080p or an Alexa just higher than that, does bode well for HD as a format of the future. Considering we have it being projected in mass market theaters and on smartphones just shows the range it has. Like I said, It's a point of diminishing returns. At some we have to reach the maximum of the human eye or at least a point where people don't care anymore because it's good enough (like Mp3). I think we've already reached that point with 1080p. I think it is future proof. That 30 years from now people could pop in a blu-ray of a modern 1080p movie and still consider it beautiful looking in the same way we might look at an older film like Lawrence of Arabia today on blu-ray and say it's beautiful looking.

That doesn't mean 4K or higher won't have it's uses, but I think HD has a futureproof quality about it that SD didn't have.
 
adkimery said:
Isn't that a common chicken/egg problem? One side always has to take the first step otherwise tech would rarely move forward.
Click to expand...

It's just the uphill climb 4K TVs face. Only serious enthusiasts spend the money when there isn't much, or any, content.
 
David Jimerson said:
It's just the uphill claim 4K TVs face. Only serious enthusiasts spend the money when there isn't much, or any, content.
Click to expand...

I feel like 4K's uphill climb is less daunting than HD's or 3D's though (I remember when HDNET first went on their air and they pretty much looped the same content over and over each day). IP-based delivery is much more dynamic and unobtrusive to the end user than broadcast based delivery. I'm sure we all remember the nationwide headache and confusion when analog broadcasts were replaced by digital broadcasts yet when YouTube, for example, made the gradual climb from 240p to 2K in about 5 years it was pretty much invisible to end users. The move to 4K streaming is going to be equally transparent, IMO. I think it's going to take 5-8 years to become mainstream but by that time 4K TV will be significantly cheaper than they are now, many people will already have 4K computer monitors and I wouldn't be surprised if display manufactures started phasing out HD displays.


-Andrew
 
David Jimerson said:
It's just the uphill claim 4K TVs face. Only serious enthusiasts spend the money when there isn't much, or any, content.
Click to expand...
This was what I was thinking of when I said about "screens are being used for a lot more {than "normal" TV viewing} - information displays and advertising".

Apart from "normal TV viewing", it's the usage for the other purposes that may drive the screen manufacturers. Once 4K panels become common leaving the factories (and are little if any more expensive than HD to manufacture), there's little reason to produce anything else. As happened with SD. Yes, SD channels are still being broadcast and watched - but do you think you can buy an SD res panel?

And then once enough people have bought 4K panels by default, the pressure mounts to provide content to drive them.
 
There will come a time when a 4K TV is only a 20% premium over HD. And when you (as a consumer) need to buy a new TV, you will say, "Well, I'm not sure if I need it, but everyone is talking about it, and I don't want to be obsolete in 3 years..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top