DadinWestchester
Well-known member
I'm the guy and I'm telling you it ain't goina happen too soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4k TV on the way....
- Thread starter AtticusLake
- Start date
The Guy for who? Which company? You are the sole designer for cable systems all over the US. Your the guy that my engineering team would have called when there was an issue? C'mon give us more than your the guy, and you can chill out with the exclamation points since this thread has been very civil.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Bingo.
Our studio cameras at work are all HD, and most if not all of the news photog's cameras are HD. But the news photogs all shoot in DVCPro25 instead of DVCProHD or AVC-Intra because the upgrades to handle the server bandwidth for editing all of it would be too much money. So while we're broadcasting in HD, most of the stuff from the field is simply uprezzed SD (which still looks pretty darn good). Upgrading everything to 4k would be a nightmare. And this is a top 15 market. It would simply be impossible for a lot of small market places.
Our cable provider has way to few HD channels. Again I won't be buying a 4k TV anytime soon, but i've always had a contrarian consumer bent (except when it comes to camera stuff).
LiamR
Well-known member
Look how many TV production companies still use SD...
Lots of universities still use SD cameras...
Once 4k televisions are released it will push the price of it's pre-decessor down, just like blu-ray's bumped the price of DVD's down.
Kit Hannah
Veteran
Yeah, a lot of people don't understand too that it was and is still very hard to upgrade all equipment to HD from SD. You're talking massives amounts of money and major overhauls to the system. Local TV stations and cable operators all have to look at the bottom line to be profitable for a business. But the one big thing that I have not heard that will be a very big issue is modulation... Each channel still has to operate in the same bandwidth that the SD signal operated under. This meant going to more efficient codecs like h.264 and it will be a challenge to go to a 4k codec operating efficiently under the same bandwidth. But equipment is SOOOO expensive. Some people seem to think "Well, get a camera that records 4k and a TV that outputs 4k and we have a solution". WRONG. Advertising dollars, especially in this economy, don't allow for local stations and providers to even upgrade to HD in many cases, let alone 4k. For a long time they kept saying that 3D was the next big thing. It has its place, but on my 3D 55" Sony TV, I watched a 3D movie once and that was the day it got home. In the last year, I haven't bothered with the 3D.
Technology is evolving faster, but we have also hit a major plateau because things have simply become good enough and fast enough. I am more than happy and still very impressed at how a 1080o movie looks on my TV. I don't need 4k. Even the movies on TV in HD look pretty darn good and most of the time they are 1080i / 720p because most HD content is not 1080p. I recently downgraded my editing PC to my laptop, went from an i7 processor to an i5. I am still plenty happy with my i5. It's definitely fast enough. Not once have I said "Geez, I wish this were a little faster". We have plateaued and it's going to take a lot of convincing to get people into 4k. Half of people still haven't upgraded to HD TV's yet.
What I think needs to happen is they need to focus on getting the slow adopters over the HD finish line before we start jumping into another race. Previous posters are correct in saying that 4k may have a great place in cinema. Look at IMAX, it had a niche, super high resolution, but what films are playing at IMAX theaters now? Mainstream movies. That's where 4k could/should start making a big presence.
The point is that until there is a reason to move to 4k, it's not going to happen for 99.9% of people. There is not a reason now just because RED has a camera capable of recording it. In the next 7-10 years I believe it will almost be a necessity to buy a 4k TV though because eventually TV manufacturers have to have something to sell and they will push things to go that way to make a profit. I predict though that in 10 years, there will be many fewer TV manufacturers, Computer manufacturers, etc. because of the technology plateau.
Now I'm just rambling.
Technology is evolving faster, but we have also hit a major plateau because things have simply become good enough and fast enough. I am more than happy and still very impressed at how a 1080o movie looks on my TV. I don't need 4k. Even the movies on TV in HD look pretty darn good and most of the time they are 1080i / 720p because most HD content is not 1080p. I recently downgraded my editing PC to my laptop, went from an i7 processor to an i5. I am still plenty happy with my i5. It's definitely fast enough. Not once have I said "Geez, I wish this were a little faster". We have plateaued and it's going to take a lot of convincing to get people into 4k. Half of people still haven't upgraded to HD TV's yet.
What I think needs to happen is they need to focus on getting the slow adopters over the HD finish line before we start jumping into another race. Previous posters are correct in saying that 4k may have a great place in cinema. Look at IMAX, it had a niche, super high resolution, but what films are playing at IMAX theaters now? Mainstream movies. That's where 4k could/should start making a big presence.
The point is that until there is a reason to move to 4k, it's not going to happen for 99.9% of people. There is not a reason now just because RED has a camera capable of recording it. In the next 7-10 years I believe it will almost be a necessity to buy a 4k TV though because eventually TV manufacturers have to have something to sell and they will push things to go that way to make a profit. I predict though that in 10 years, there will be many fewer TV manufacturers, Computer manufacturers, etc. because of the technology plateau.
Now I'm just rambling.
That's ok...i'll be damned if I remember what the original thread was about.
Erik Naso
Veteran
Pretty much the same deal where I work.
Kit Hannah
Veteran
I think it's like that across much of the US. But then again, look at the average demographic when it comes to watching the 6:00 or 11:00 local news. It's mainly older people who don't care how it looks as long as they can see it. Many people that care about technology and the way their content looks are getting their news elsewhere, namely the internet, on their smartphones, tablets, from Facebook and Twitter, Instant access in the digital age. In the last 10 years or so, Local TV stations have had to compete not only with not only other local affiliates, but now with the internet. Advertising rates and viewership have decreased dramatically as a result and most local stations can't justify the expense of upgrading all of their equipment. The people that are watching the prime time network stuff get the HD content, but if being in HD isn't going to generate any more money for the station, why do it? They are a business in it to make money. Maybe in the next few years they'll be upgrading to 720p/1080i, but 4k? Gonna be a loooonnnng time before that happens.
Maybe, if we're talking local stations. But TV is not limited to local stations right? Look at Blu-Ray which is probably many peoples sole motivation in owning an HDTV. Remember the scarcity and costs of the machines and discs. Now they're what 70-100 bucks for machines that play Blu-Ray and stream internet content. In some respects I can't believe this thread. This site is called DVXuser after a camera that is nothing short of a dinosaur. In our own industry we watched lens adapters storm in and flame out in an unbelievable short time. We clamored for manufactures to stop BS'ing and give us camcorders with interchangeable lenses. RED comes though and smacks everyone, then there is the AF100, FS100, F3 and so on and so forth. If you were here in the beginning, you couldn't edit DV footage on a PC in real time without stuttering, and you could forget having it play in real time. Now consumer gaming cards are accessed by our editing programs for unprecedented performance. You can't look at one segment and say that this is going to be the snag that stops a technology from moving ahead, if that's the case i'd still be makin music on my AMD 486x using the first version of Logic. It's amazing that a group of professionals who have seen so much change can flick their chin at the very technology that we build our livelihoods on. It takes one small thing to get the ball rolling, and yeah maybe not 12 months, but that's no time in the scheme of things to bring about the change Obama promised. Sh*t wrong thread...my bad. I'll pose my last and final thought/question on this thread...What was type of television you most recently purchased? Was it an HDTV, or big ass set top? My first HDTV was a 37 inch and it was $1400...similar set at Costco with better picture...$379. C'mon son 4k is comin.
My last post...you guys keep suckin' me in with good points. I'm not gonna read this anymore. I'm not. I'm serious.
Kit Hannah
Veteran
Ok son
Doesn't sound like you read it in the first place. I'm serious too. I never said that 4k wasn't coming. It's really the inevitable next step. Talking about local stations was an example. HD will plateau at the 1080p level because the technology is to a point where in only certain instances do you need anything more than 1080p. Technology will always move ahead and when the justification is made to switch to 4k, then so be it. Standard Color NTSC 480i stuck around for how long? What? 50 years? And in about half of US households is still the only thing they get? There will be a small number of people that will want higher resolution, always. When 4k comes around, those same folks will be talking 8k. But my point is that technology is going to level off at this point until 4k falls so far down the pricing scale that it's justifiable to get it which won't be for a long time.
Personally, for the time being, 1080p is plenty good enough for me and the things I use it for. Me being in the video and filmaking industry isn't an automatic excuse to say "we must have 4k now" because I think it's more than is needed at this point in time for most areas of the video world. The internet doesn't need 4k. Regular TV doesn't need 4k. There was a discernible difference in SD to HD, but when going from 1080p to 4k, it's not going to be preceived to most as needed. People, albiet slow, are adopting Blu-Ray but many still roll with DVD's which still look decent on a 1080p TV. The video industry is still getting people used to Blu-Ray and trying to recover their investment in the technology. Nobody is about to abandon 1080p yet, it's too soon. I'm sure they'll come out with some $50,000 4k TV's this year, but it will be so slow to adopt. I remember in 1998 I was in an electronics store with Mitisbushi Projection 720p HD TV's for like $10k. Sure some bought them, but very few.
You can think whatever you want, Cinebuddy, based on your wants, but the truth is that it's way, way, way too soon for companies to even start thinking about a complete switch to 4k. It's gonna be a long time. Niche interest, sure, but mainstream 4k is at least 7-10 years away, if not longer.
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Guys, all of our infrastructure is set up for SD. We've got SD tape-based cameras, SD tape-based booth and editors, an SD infrastructure for delivery, including DVDs which are only just becoming ubiquitous, and the only TV any American can buy is an SDTV. The HD thing sounds nice - maybe good for theaters with their expensive film scans - the resolution makes sense there. TV and indie production doesn't need more resolution than SD - it's too hard to edit HDTV, there's no way to deliver it, and tapeless cameras? Come on.
Oh. Wait. It's 2012. Let me rephrase that.
Guys, all of our infrastructure is set up for HD. We've got HD cameras, HD booth and editors, an HD infrastructure for delivery, including Blu-Rays which are only just becoming ubiquitous, and the only TV any American can buy is an HDTV. The 4K thing sounds nice - maybe good for theaters with their expensive film scans - the resolution makes sense there. TV and indie production doesn't need more resolution than HD - it's too hard to edit 4K and there's no way to deliver it. Come on.
Hmm.
Oh. Wait. It's 2012. Let me rephrase that.
Guys, all of our infrastructure is set up for HD. We've got HD cameras, HD booth and editors, an HD infrastructure for delivery, including Blu-Rays which are only just becoming ubiquitous, and the only TV any American can buy is an HDTV. The 4K thing sounds nice - maybe good for theaters with their expensive film scans - the resolution makes sense there. TV and indie production doesn't need more resolution than HD - it's too hard to edit 4K and there's no way to deliver it. Come on.
Hmm.
Kit Hannah
Veteran
I like that.
But its a discussion about current infrastructure. Your post is about 7 years too early, Michael. Many are still reiterating your first paragraph.
Whoa you got me wrong...I don't want it at all. I just think its like anything else...its a freight train and it will come regardless. Why would you have to abandon 1080p. Doesn't your 1080p television play standard signals? 1080p sets are already backward compatible or am I missing something here> Why have 1080p at all? Again I don't have enough HD channels on my cable system to justify 720p, but the things I watch in HD look fabulous. What I watched in Best Buy on the displays was enough to make me buy one. I went in with my technology eyes wide open and purchased...do you think John Doe is gonna worry about how many channels his cable company has looking at a $2000 4k TV with the Hobbit playing on the showroom floor? If 4k becomes the norm then i'm gonna need a 4k camera at the price point of no more than the AF100 or FS100 or i'm gonna be in trouble...I don't have Red pockets. But when I see things like that LG set pop up on Engadget, I know its just a matter of time. On another not to your point on the Mitsi TV, I don't think we'll see prices stay that high for long durations anymore. 60 inch LED 3D television on sale 1499, that is not a bad price. So my final point for real this time, is why would they have to switch. 4k exists and while content may trickle out, the televisions will be able to resolve all the way down to SD.Ok son
Doesn't sound like you read it in the first place. I'm serious too. I never said that 4k wasn't coming. It's really the inevitable next step. Talking about local stations was an example. HD will plateau at the 1080p level because the technology is to a point where in only certain instances do you need anything more than 1080p. Technology will always move ahead and when the justification is made to switch to 4k, then so be it. Standard Color NTSC 480i stuck around for how long? What? 50 years? And in about half of US households is still the only thing they get? There will be a small number of people that will want higher resolution, always. When 4k comes around, those same folks will be talking 8k. But my point is that technology is going to level off at this point until 4k falls so far down the pricing scale that it's justifiable to get it which won't be for a long time.
Personally, for the time being, 1080p is plenty good enough for me and the things I use it for. Me being in the video and filmaking industry isn't an automatic excuse to say "we must have 4k now" because I think it's more than is needed at this point in time for most areas of the video world. The internet doesn't need 4k. Regular TV doesn't need 4k. There was a discernible difference in SD to HD, but when going from 1080p to 4k, it's not going to be preceived to most as needed. People, albiet slow, are adopting Blu-Ray but many still roll with DVD's which still look decent on a 1080p TV. The video industry is still getting people used to Blu-Ray and trying to recover their investment in the technology. Nobody is about to abandon 1080p yet, it's too soon. I'm sure they'll come out with some $50,000 4k TV's this year, but it will be so slow to adopt. I remember in 1998 I was in an electronics store with Mitisbushi Projection 720p HD TV's for like $10k. Sure some bought them, but very few.
You can think whatever you want, Cinebuddy, based on your wants, but the truth is that it's way, way, way too soon for companies to even start thinking about a complete switch to 4k. It's gonna be a long time. Niche interest, sure, but mainstream 4k is at least 7-10 years away, if not longer.
Greg Smith
Veteran
I have no crystal ball. But the transition from 2K to 4K is not as big a deal as was the change from SD to HD, which in addition to just making the picture sharper, simultaneously forced us from the analog domain to the digital, made nonlinear computer-based editing ubiquitous, pushed mechanically based tape and film media out of the mainstream workflow, and killed the CRT as the dominant display technology. Increasing resolution now "just" (and I put that in quotes because it's certainly nontrivial) requires more processing power, storage and bandwidth at every stage -- but these things are coming as part of the natural evolution of digital technology, and it's really not as big or traumatic as the analog to digital revolution, which has now mainly been completed.
The more interesting question is where we will eventually settle for different applications and expectations of quality -- what do we actually need to deliver to serve consumers in their homes, sports fans, paying moviegoers, and so forth? I expect there will be multiple answers to this question, and systems at all levels of quality will thrive in their different niches. Youtube and the smartphone have proven that there's a place for even sub-SD quality in many applications, while IMAX remains viable for a limited number of top-end projects. The great thing about digital is that the same infrastructure can support all these options and the quality and resolution become essentially parameters that you can dial into the system to choose the most appropriate tradeoff of cost and quality for each project. This, itself, is a permanent outcome of the SD-to-HD (or more correctly, analog-to-digital) transition and represents a huge paradigm shift from the days of the NTSC standard when all equipment from top to bottom had to be designed to work to the exact same and never-changing specifications.
We have created a much more complicated environment now, but a much richer one in which to work. We need to make more choices now -- which is a challenge to some, and an opportunity for those willing to embrace the different options and help others choose appropriately between them.
- Greg
The more interesting question is where we will eventually settle for different applications and expectations of quality -- what do we actually need to deliver to serve consumers in their homes, sports fans, paying moviegoers, and so forth? I expect there will be multiple answers to this question, and systems at all levels of quality will thrive in their different niches. Youtube and the smartphone have proven that there's a place for even sub-SD quality in many applications, while IMAX remains viable for a limited number of top-end projects. The great thing about digital is that the same infrastructure can support all these options and the quality and resolution become essentially parameters that you can dial into the system to choose the most appropriate tradeoff of cost and quality for each project. This, itself, is a permanent outcome of the SD-to-HD (or more correctly, analog-to-digital) transition and represents a huge paradigm shift from the days of the NTSC standard when all equipment from top to bottom had to be designed to work to the exact same and never-changing specifications.
We have created a much more complicated environment now, but a much richer one in which to work. We need to make more choices now -- which is a challenge to some, and an opportunity for those willing to embrace the different options and help others choose appropriately between them.
- Greg
Last edited:
Michael Olsen
Veteran
True in some cases. Many other cases had that discussion years ago, made the leap to HD, and have been reaping the benefits since. But I think it speaks to the fact that we won't be seeing a universal adoption. Ultimately, I think we'll be seeing all kinds of content in all kinds of resolutions. Maybe a 4K feature being shown on a channel along with with HD and SD commercials.
Some productions are SD now. Many are HD. And, for some time now, some have been 4K. And the number that have been shot in 4K has only been increasing. And that doesn't look like it will be slowing down - Sony and its F65 are giving plenty of people who don't like shooting on a RED camera (and some who do) some urges to go well beyond HD in capture. And, unless I'm mistaken (which I easily may be), the numbers of 2K DI have gone down in proportion to 4K DI. So acquisition seems to be cautiously embracing the technology.
More than HD delivery is coming down the distribution pipe. NHK have been talking about it for years now. As have the usual U.S. television technology frontrunners - ESPN. And the interesting thing is, people really seem to like 4K. For every comment I've heard saying "Eh, I can't really tell a difference between 2K and 4K" I've heard several people saying that the extra resolution is really good stuff. I'm sure that as soon as the technology is there (F-65 might be the de facto 4K TV camera with its special pixel design that supposedly allows for live TV work), content providers and device manufacturers will be happy to walk hand in hand to present the next step up from HD, just as they did with HD from SD.
---
People like the audio analogy, so that's fine. The digital world has done a lot to mix things up, and it has changed the state of the market. But now we have vinyl, CD, MP3, and various lossless formats. Essentially an analog format, and digital formats at different qualities. So what would be so extreme to think about a world made up of film (analog), SD, HD, and 4K? Not much, in my opinion.
I don't think anyone is predicting a realistic universal 4K takeover of every production, every distribution, and every display device over the next couple of years. But the technology will be coming to market and people will be buying it.
I don't buy the infrastructure argument. I've swapped out whole networks from crappy Nortels running routing protocols that the creators of had forgotten how to configure, on infrastructures way more sensitive than cable systems, nationwide in a years time. Remember its gonna go over Fiber...not copper coax...bandwidth won't be an issue...cable providers will to change may be an issue....but this won't stop manufacturers from making 4k televisions and people from buying them.
Michael Olsen
Veteran
But see, it doesn't matter if they like 4K for their display or not, if it becomes as popular as HD is now.
Because Best Buy doesn't stock a single standard definition TV. Neither does Target. Or Walmart. Or Tiger Direct.
Fry's - fortunately - has one SD TV. It's a beautiful TV/DVD combo from the fine people at "Grand Prix". Unfortunately, it's price is undercut by a swath of 720p and some 1080p TVs of more repute.
The number of people who own an HDTV and the number of people who watch HDTV are disproportionate.
Last edited:
Kit Hannah
Veteran
You also have to get a 4k picture into a 5Mb bandwidth for TV signals. I'm sure it can and will be done, but it won't right now. TVs have to resolve a 4k image at a price point that people can afford. There has to be some sort of delivery method, a 4k disc, with a 4k cable standard that will offer higher resolution than HDMI currently does, plus things worth watching will need to be recorded in 4k to justify it making sense for the common person to own a 4k TV. I'm not saying the technology isn't there or doesn't exist, I think it could be done, but won't be adopted by the masses for some time to come.
Why would the average person buy a 4k TV if there is very little content available for it? There won't be any TV channels in 4k for some time, we hardly even have any full 1080p tv signals (98% are 720p-1080i). There are many people on here that confuse "able to be done quickly" with "will be done quickly". You have to think about it from the average consumer's point of view - they just switched or in many case have not even switched yet to HD. You think they'll want to be switching to 4k anytime soon? Nope. And just as Greg said, it will not be as big of a deal / big of a jump to go to 4k (preceived) than it was from SD to HD, which means that even less people will feel the NEED to switch until they absolutely have to. Less demand will keep prices higher, just like they did for HD TVs up until just a few years ago.
Along with my video business, I also have a home theater company. We install TVs every single day and so many consumers don't even know that what they're seeing on their TV is a SD signal, not HD, and they are completely oblivious / fine with it. Economics drives the technology, what makes the most sense from a profit standpoint, and 4k doesn't make sense right now. No matter how many of us would want it, the bottom line is will it sell to the masses? In 7-10 years, yes. Right now, no.
Kit Hannah
Veteran
But it is still a long ways off. ESPN in the last 10 years has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into HD equipment, HD OB trucks, studio equipment, etc. They finally upgraded when everyone came together and the technology was there from multiple companies. And HD equipment is still VERY VERY expensive. How expensive do you think 4k equipment is gonna be? If you guessed 'way more expensive", you'd be right. So much has to happen for 4k to be a viable solution for someone like ESPN. It's not just about having TVs able to view it, but it's about having cameras, switchers, frame syncs, 4k cart machines, 4k cabling (that's a big one), modulation equipment, etc. etc. They fortunately were able to fit an HD signal into the size of an SD signal through more efficient compression techniques, but fitting a 4k signal into those same SD bandwidth requirements for sat transmisson is going to be VERY tough.
It's all gonna happen, without a doubt, but again, we are quite a ways away.