cheezweezl
Veteran
i don't think we need to run out and sell our HD gear just yet...
4k TV on the way....
- Thread starter AtticusLake
- Start date
I don't know what to make of those posting that they don't have HD, or can't be bothered with HD -- their world is so different than mine all I can do is ignore them.
I have five HDTVs, (the smallest of them (37") described by a poster here as 'the largest anyone could ever need') -- and all of them are fed by HD cable boxes, three of them have also got Blu-Ray players attached or built in. In my circle of acquaintances I have more than many but not the largest of the 'most' -- let's settle for the top 20 percentile.
If I were to spring for a 4k set -- and the idea does interest me -- it would be to push my theatre set-up into true theatre territory, because in truth a 60" display makes for a pretty mediocre theatre experience. An 85" to 96" display would nicely fill a wall, command my field of view, and let me replicate the theatre experience in my own home. It is my personal observation that 1920 doesn't get the job done ... sitting close enough to fill my vision, I can see the pixels. But with four times the resolution on display, I think it would work, at least until they come out with 8k.
The absence of viewing material is a big let down, though that too could change literally overnight -- my internet connection is pretty reliably 50Mb/s, and at that sort of sustained speed I could download a hypothetical movie file of say 40GB size (a ballpark guess at a 4k movie size) in about two hours, more to the point a few minutes of buffering would let me watch such a file. So a service that launches tomorrow, offering films on demand at 4k resolution and predictable file sizes, could be on my screen within a matter of minutes without any additional hardware upgrades on my part.
Predicting which technologies will bite is never easy -- I've watched quadraphonic sound die a quick death, and surround sound die a slow one. The Elcaset was a solid idea that never found a market, as was the minidisc -- the 8 track survived for nearly a decade, and it is my guess that the latest attempt at 3d will be done in another year or two. The great advantage of a 4k screen is it can do an entirely reasonable job of delivering 1080p too, so if the price is right ... bring it on! For those that really don't care if they are watching movies on a desktop sized screen, there is nothing to stop you from doing so, and probably nothing to be gained from moving beyond HD. But for those that want an immersive theatre experience, bigger is better, and 4k will do a better job than 2k.
Cheers,
GB
I have five HDTVs, (the smallest of them (37") described by a poster here as 'the largest anyone could ever need') -- and all of them are fed by HD cable boxes, three of them have also got Blu-Ray players attached or built in. In my circle of acquaintances I have more than many but not the largest of the 'most' -- let's settle for the top 20 percentile.
If I were to spring for a 4k set -- and the idea does interest me -- it would be to push my theatre set-up into true theatre territory, because in truth a 60" display makes for a pretty mediocre theatre experience. An 85" to 96" display would nicely fill a wall, command my field of view, and let me replicate the theatre experience in my own home. It is my personal observation that 1920 doesn't get the job done ... sitting close enough to fill my vision, I can see the pixels. But with four times the resolution on display, I think it would work, at least until they come out with 8k.
The absence of viewing material is a big let down, though that too could change literally overnight -- my internet connection is pretty reliably 50Mb/s, and at that sort of sustained speed I could download a hypothetical movie file of say 40GB size (a ballpark guess at a 4k movie size) in about two hours, more to the point a few minutes of buffering would let me watch such a file. So a service that launches tomorrow, offering films on demand at 4k resolution and predictable file sizes, could be on my screen within a matter of minutes without any additional hardware upgrades on my part.
Predicting which technologies will bite is never easy -- I've watched quadraphonic sound die a quick death, and surround sound die a slow one. The Elcaset was a solid idea that never found a market, as was the minidisc -- the 8 track survived for nearly a decade, and it is my guess that the latest attempt at 3d will be done in another year or two. The great advantage of a 4k screen is it can do an entirely reasonable job of delivering 1080p too, so if the price is right ... bring it on! For those that really don't care if they are watching movies on a desktop sized screen, there is nothing to stop you from doing so, and probably nothing to be gained from moving beyond HD. But for those that want an immersive theatre experience, bigger is better, and 4k will do a better job than 2k.
Cheers,
GB
Darky Mikado
Active member
Blu-ray discs are being "fixed" to include 4K, 4K finishing is starting to become viable for triple-A budgets, High-end TV sets moving to 4K... you can see the picture. No, your average Joe won't be running to the store to replace his cheaply bought HD TV with this new "Ultra High Super Mega Definition" display, but he's not the target market just yet -- first the high end people, then the middle, and finally the lower end.
It's not like we didn't see this coming, is it? Once major motion pictures switch to 4K, indies will have a period before the acceptance of "4K in the home" drives them tho follow suit -- so yeah, I think we're safe for the time being.
It's not like we didn't see this coming, is it? Once major motion pictures switch to 4K, indies will have a period before the acceptance of "4K in the home" drives them tho follow suit -- so yeah, I think we're safe for the time being.
greenheron
Well-known member
By the time a client is asking for 4K deliverables the C300 will be long replaced by the newest version by Canon's 4K camera. The C300 will have an average lifespan for a camera which isn't very long these days. For those of us who need to deliver broadcast specks today the C300 will provide years of service. For those dreaming of the future you should definitely wait... and wait... and wait.
Bassman2003
Veteran
I admit, this is a bit of a yawn for me. The HD upgrade in the broadcast space was a huge shift for those companies. I can not see them wanting outlay any more funds in the near future. The T.V. makers might push this but there will be no programming for the sets, just some limited release movies.
I can also see the line - 4k resolution with smoothing technology... Sort of like making Blu-ray movies look like interlaced via the 240 Hz stuff.
I can also see the line - 4k resolution with smoothing technology... Sort of like making Blu-ray movies look like interlaced via the 240 Hz stuff.
I don't know guys. HD is here now. 1080 is today so it's not hard to predict a leap to higher resolutions. It's ludicrous to think that Red is the only game in town to want to "future proof" their technology. Like Kholi said in another thread, 4k is going to be the buzzword in our industry and i'm sure will trickle down to consumers sooner than later. Actors and cable providers will not dictate to television manufactures when to release their new technologies as we've already seen with the current crop of HDTV's. The same way there were few Blu-Ray releases and then a ramp, is the same manner in which 4k will occur. We've all seen it happen faster and faster, for cryin' out loud this site is called DVXuser. We used to buy lens adapters, and LED film lights were the stuff of over priced legend. Again 1k TV is here and the leap to 4k will be easy. It's a matter of economics and marketing. Come back to this thread a year from now and i'll edit this post to simple say I told you so.
dustylense
Veteran
The first and only place 4k viewable should hit is computer desktop technology. Just how many computer monitors are not even 3K yet? Also, price out a 60 inch 4k monitor. You're crazy if you think 4K will be mass consumer in 12 months, much less 24 or more.
Jarek Zabczynski
Veteran
I'm not impressed with these 80"+ 4k displays. They're basically just taking four HD panels and sticking them together to make one larger one. Wanna impress me? Show me a 32" 4k screen with higher pixel density.
Paul V Doherty
Active member
It's all about field of view and screen size.
I have 20/20 vision and I can't see pixels on a 50" screen at normal viewing distances, heck I can hardly tell SD from HD in some cases, especially when the source material is film.
4k on a 50" screen? Forget it - no home viewer can tell the difference.
The screen would need to be 9' or bigger to make it worthwhile.
The way the world is heading the average consumer won't have a 10' wall-sized 4k screen as was promised in the Jetsons and Star Trek.... food & water will be more urgent.
I have 20/20 vision and I can't see pixels on a 50" screen at normal viewing distances, heck I can hardly tell SD from HD in some cases, especially when the source material is film.
4k on a 50" screen? Forget it - no home viewer can tell the difference.
The screen would need to be 9' or bigger to make it worthwhile.
The way the world is heading the average consumer won't have a 10' wall-sized 4k screen as was promised in the Jetsons and Star Trek.... food & water will be more urgent.
Just so we're all on the same page, the new '4k' terminology describes the horizontal resolution, so it compares to 1920 ... or 2k. The step from SD to HD was roughly 4x the resolution, the step from HD to 4k is another 4x. From about 500 vertical to 1000 vertical to 2000 vertical. Unfortunately, we seem to have changed axis for our description midstream -- but 4k is 'only' a doubling of the existing horizontal resolution.
But as I said, I'm all for it -- the crazy talk of can't see a difference & viewing distances sure doesn't apply to me -- I'll be sitting 12' away from a 10' screen as soon as it costs less than two weeks in Mexico!
Cheers,
GB
Normal visual acuity is reckoned to be 1 minute of arc, therefore a 1920 pixel display could subtend 32 deg before pixels become individually noticeable. For a 4k (4096 pixel) display this becomes a little over 68 deg. Diagonal being a bit more. I invite people to put in their viewing distance and see what size comes out. simple trig will give you both the horizontal and diagonal sizes.
As a side note, the "normal" lens for photography / cine is generally reckoned to be equal to the diagonal of the frame, giving, very approximately 1 radian angle, say 57-58 deg, hence the 4k display given above will subtend rather more than the "normal" field of view.
Make of that what you will.
But yeah, food, warmth, and housing rate a heck of a lot higher than even HD
As a side note, the "normal" lens for photography / cine is generally reckoned to be equal to the diagonal of the frame, giving, very approximately 1 radian angle, say 57-58 deg, hence the 4k display given above will subtend rather more than the "normal" field of view.
Make of that what you will.
But yeah, food, warmth, and housing rate a heck of a lot higher than even HD
The THX recommended viewing distance for a 1920x1080 screen measuring 120" diagonal is about 13' -- with the increased pixel density of 4k factored in, a screen of the same size would allow for the even better viewing distance of 10' -- at these sizes and distances the viewing experience starts to approach a cinema, where we choose to sit something like 50' away from a screen with a diagonal of closer to 60'.
As for choosing housing, food & warmth over big screen viewing, I have little doubt that this is both true and irrelevant to those who will buy the screens. By that logic, BMW, Porsche and Mercedes would be long out of business -- for those that think a couple of thousand dollars spread over a couple of years is chump change, big screens will be an easy choice. I will note that I have noted a difference in expectations between the UK and North America -- when I was living in the UK in 2008 a 37" screen was considered 'massive' -- by contrast the 46" screen I left in America was considered 'middling' ...
Cheers,
GB
As for choosing housing, food & warmth over big screen viewing, I have little doubt that this is both true and irrelevant to those who will buy the screens. By that logic, BMW, Porsche and Mercedes would be long out of business -- for those that think a couple of thousand dollars spread over a couple of years is chump change, big screens will be an easy choice. I will note that I have noted a difference in expectations between the UK and North America -- when I was living in the UK in 2008 a 37" screen was considered 'massive' -- by contrast the 46" screen I left in America was considered 'middling' ...
Cheers,
GB
Proof will be in the pudding. Again technology takes leaps once its in place and made appealing to the masses it takes off. Consumers always want the newest and the fastest especially when it comes to what their neighbors have. Your thinking like a camera techie, not a consuming american. So yeah i'm crazy (like a fox), but i've also been an affiliate marketer for years and my business is based off of people buying stuff they don't need. I have an HDTV with probably only 30 available HD channels out of 150, did that stop me from buying one?
Hidef1080
Well-known member
Sounds like a friendly wager of which I'd take a piece of the action.
A year from now we'll still be an HDTV world and fighting about 4.2.0 and 4.2.2. and 10 bit vs 8.
I do agree with your points on people always wanting bigger and "better" but when people fail to see a big difference in HD vs 4k the sell will be hard.
Maybe in 6 years maybe but I don't see it in the near future.
Considering the relative slowness with which HDTV has been adopted in homes, I don't think you can make these conclusions.
Especially when you consider that not too may people are going to want to re-buy a TV so quickly, without obvious and immediate benefit. People in general simply are not resolution junkies.
In a year, the consumer penetration of 4K TVs will be slight, a statistical blip.
How do you figure it to be slow? Not being snarky but an honest question. I would sat it was slow but I haven't been to a persons home that doesn't have an HDTV. I really cannot remember the last time I visited a friend and sat in their family room and looked at a big ole' heavy 37" tv.
Your on Hidef1080 and when I win we'll do lunch and one of the several fabulous restaurants in the ATL
Maybe in the UK Dave, but here in the good ole US you can see an Iphone 4S stuck to the head of the poorest of the poor in any hood USA. It's what we do here consume to a fault. I was behind a kid at MicroCenter who was buying a $600 video card. I'm thinking man that would be great for my editing rig CUDA acceleration and all, he's upgrading probably from the last model to frag people on line. Do you think the new card offered that much improvement? And for crying out loud where does a 15 year old get $600 bucks for a video card?
BTW this post should be sticky'd to demonstrate how you can disagree with out causing other members to combust in to flames.
It took 10 years even to make 20% penetration. Most adoption has been in the last couple of years only -- it made a 50% adoption rate in mid-2010. And Blu-ray has not been adopted at anywhere near the rate of DVD.
That's with a distinct, palpable advantage over SD TV, not least being the widescreen aspect ratio, which I suspect figures into its appeal at least as much as resolution. 4K over 1080 does not represent anything like the leap from SD TVs to HDTV (much like Blu-ray over DVD vs. VHS), and the advantages it has are, as I said above, mostly for very large screens, which is a relatively niche market. Under 50", where most people will be, it's not nearly so obvious. Why would anyone be in a rush to run out and buy an expensive new TV when they just bought one, especially when there's hardly any content, if any at all, to display on it?
That's assuming they will be expensive. Unlike the old flat screens whose format was so "new" the technology is already in place. As to content I remember how few Blu-Ray discs there were. I'm just saying...people buy what they don't need all the time. I'm not saying your reasoning isn't sound...i'm saying peoples buying reasons are rarely sound. I think 3d t.v.'s are ridiculous but i'll be damned if my brother the dentist with plenty of disposable income doesn't have two of them...