CES 2016 catch all -

I'm gonna get a new TV now, it will be an OLED and "only" Full HD, 55" or 65". FH OLED costs more than 4Ks non-OLEDs, about twice as much actually. I rather have "true deep blacks" than higher pixel count (really no "award movies" up until last year was mastered in 4K).

This year though, there seems to be at least 1 or 2 movies in "best picture" that actually is 4K master...
4K = Spectre, The Room...
The Revenant and Hateful Eight might be 4K, no clear info on imdb.com, Hateful is doing 70mm prints (but no idea if visual effects/print outs are 2K or 4K)
2K = Mad Max, The Martian, The Big Short...

But that is me, I think from listening to "average Joe" here in Sweden that 4K is the thing...

I want 4K to come, but it won't help movies that aren't mastered in it, but my OLED will sure as hell be black and nice even on 4K masters :)
 
My wish list includes a Sony camcorder body with a full frame sensor, 24-300 f2.8 constant fixed lens, built in ND, xlr, etc.

Or at least the above with the 1" sensor that's in the rx100 iv and the r10 ii.
 
High1ander said:
... I want 4K to come, but it won't help movies that aren't mastered in it, but my OLED will sure as hell be black and nice even on 4K masters :)
Click to expand...
From that C-Net piece, it's not entirely clear what the 4K Blu-Ray catalog is going to be like (all the rumors say is that discs will run about $30). My assumption is that everything made on film over the last 60 year or so is going to be scanned - if it hasn't been already - into 4K. This leaves a slew of the digitally made features and the bulk of the Alexa shot big budget TV as sub-4K originals. Alexa, of course, does the in-body upscaling, so the images will still look good enough.

As to LG OLED sets, the current difference between a 55" 1080p and 55" 4K is $1,000 in the US.

And these are their new monitors and laptops that will be shown at the CES.

http://4k.com/news/lg-announces-new...-and-usb-type-c-in-lead-up-to-ces-2016-11485/
 
I have a mate who just got a 4k TV... (Or 4G TV , as he calls it).... He was still watching stuff on SD channels, even when a HD version was available. 4k will be sold, now the prices match... But whether broadcasters take it up, I'm still doubtful (UK at least)
 
harddrive said:
Last time I looked in a store, if you wanted a pretty big screen (say 46" or more) all you could buy was 4K.......
Click to expand...

Maybe where you are. I was just in Walmart and Costco today and more than half of the big screens
for sale are 1080P and not 4K. Might be geography plays a role? Not sure, but there sure are plenty of
1080P 55-65 inch screens at the local Walmart and Costco here.
 
DLD said:
From that C-Net piece, it's not entirely clear what the 4K Blu-Ray catalog is going to be like (all the rumors say is that discs will run about $30). My assumption is that everything made on film over the last 60 year or so is going to be scanned - if it hasn't been already - into 4K. This leaves a slew of the digitally made features and the bulk of the Alexa shot big budget TV as sub-4K originals. Alexa, of course, does the in-body upscaling, so the images will still look good enough.

As to LG OLED sets, the current difference between a 55" 1080p and 55" 4K is $1,000 in the US.

And these are their new monitors and laptops that will be shown at the CES.

http://4k.com/news/lg-announces-new...-and-usb-type-c-in-lead-up-to-ces-2016-11485/
Click to expand...

Yupp, and the thing is that movies with CGI probably only have the visual effects in that "master-resolution", i.e. 2K. So my bet is that only movies with no CGI and that are done before the 80's will be *true/pristine throughout.

*Of course they are all shot on film so the quality is still damaged/diminished if the scans are bad prints, or the movie was shot with bad filmstock/lenses...
 
Last edited:
High1ander said:
... my bet is that only movies with no CGI and that are done before the 80's will be *true/pristine throughout.

*Of course they are all shot on film so the quality is still damaged/diminished if the scans are bad prints, or the movie was shot with bad filmstock/lenses...
Click to expand...
A film negative is about 4K, I believe. The final print is about 3.5 (for the 35mm). Either way, a mild upscaling shouldn't be noticeable.

FWIW, here's a preview of the colorized "I love Lucy" special, to be aired on Wednesday. The original footage was shot back in the 50's on a 16mm B&W film. Now, it looks as if it was shot on Alexa!

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/i-love-lucy-cbs-colorizes-classic-151712337.html
 
harddrive said:
Are you sure about 16mm? I'd find 35mm far more likely for "I love Lucy".........

[EDIT - Definitely 35mm. Three 35mm film cameras in front of a studio audience. Detail at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy#Production ]
Click to expand...
I am sure I read the same article ... and thought it was 16mm, not 35mm ... but I guess not.

In any case, this is a piece on the HEVC/H265 development, which should bring 4K of all sorts to the consumers faster and sooner.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...-duck/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix

PS. I was under the impression that, until the sitcoms went to the 1" pro-video tape, they were using the 16mm because 35mm was a tad too expensive.
 
Letv will enter the U.S. market with a 120-inch 4K Ultra HD TV, which is slated for a formal introduction at CES next month.

Beijing-based Letv has a hand in a number of CE categories, including smartphones, health and fitness, and connected car.


“The year 2016 will be remembered as the time Letv entered the U.S. market, and we’re kicking it off with our debut at CES,” said Eric Mika, open ecosystems, strategic alliances and partnerships senior VP. “We’re excited to show the world how dynamic the Letv brand is and all the new, exciting experiences and innovations our open ecosystem offer consumers — and we’re doing it on a truly global scale.”


The Super TV uMax 120 features 3,840 by 2,160 resolution, 120Hz refresh rate, 3D video support, 1.4GHz quad-core CPU, Mali-T760 quad-core GPU, 3GB of RAM and Bluetooth 4.0.

Pricing wasn’t given.
Vizio also has a 120-inch Ultra HD TV.
Click to expand...
http://www.twice.com/news/tv/letv-bringing-120-inch-4k-tv-us-and-ces-super-tv-umax-120/59771
 
DLD said:
I am sure I read the same article ... and thought it was 16mm, not 35mm ... but I guess not.
Click to expand...
I think you got confused by the sentence "West coast viewers were able to view live programs only through low-quality kinescopes, which derived their images by using a 35 mm or 16 mm film camera to record the show from a television monitor."

So electronic production, then "filmed" by recording onto film the image from a TV screen. (In the UK it was referred to as telerecording.) And believe me, it was never remotely as good as recording directly on to film in the normal way - 16 or 35 mm! Especially the case in 1951, when it may only have been capturing a single field.

DLD said:
PS. I was under the impression that, until the sitcoms went to the 1" pro-video tape, they were using the 16mm because 35mm was a tad too expensive.
Click to expand...
1" didn't come in for broadcast until late 1970's - a lot of TV productions were already being done by then on 2" quadruplex. (You may be interested in this link - http://www.vtoldboys.com/amlaunch.htm - which describes the moment video recording was first demonstrated in public, at NAB 1956. Yes, less than 60 years ago. 2" quad reigned supreme in the broadcast world until the 1980's.) A lot depended on market, as a big advantage to film always has been that it is independent of system - a 35mm film print is equally at home transmitted NTSC or PAL. In the UK series such as "Star Trek", "Dallas" etc just looked high quality. When a "video" US programme came over, then since it would be several generations of VT, and a 1970's NTSC-PAL analogue standards convertor, then well, technically it looked pretty ropey.

For 1950's there wasn't a lot of serious 16mm production at all, and for "I Love Lucy", then reading how it came about (they wanted for personal reasons to produce on the West Coast, so Hollywood) the studios would have been centred around 35mm production gear, and such would have been on hand together with editing, viewing facilities etc
 
Thanks. I am sure I had read a lot of that stuff but somehow confused the cut-off lines. I recall reading about AMPEX because it was curious about (His Excellency) Alexander Poniatoff and his role in copying the German "Magnetofon" that was "requisitioned" by Jack Mullins after WWII, then Richard Nixon surprising Nikita Khrushchev with the first generation video recorder at a US exhibition in Moscow and the Soviets then trying to develop their own version. Then I remember reading about Cronkite/CBS using a portable (Ikegami, IIRC) video recorder for an Apollo (?) rocket launch.

Here's what I remember personally. The first instant replay I must have noticed it as a young boy was following the 1970 World Cup, though it was fairly common in the US earlier.

What's harder to tell is the video quality, as the technology progressed during that era. Some of those 1970 WC clips look pretty awful but the 1974 WC quality can be viewed on modern monitors. Most US TV shows from the late-60's-early'70's also look to have been shot on film (saw a few episodes of "That Girl" recently and the image holds up fairly well). However, then tape become dominant. The adult industry much have switched to video tape somewhere around 1982-83, as described in "Boogie Nights", but that may have had more to do with growing popularity of the VCR and home based entertainment. On "Mork and Mindy", I recall the producers saying how they were "running out of film" when Robin Williams and Jonathan Winters began to improvise their bits live under the lights but, by the mid-80's, most sitcoms were shot on tape and then occasionally transferred to film.

PS. I saw a few documentaries that claimed that a VCR was as much responsible for the collapse of the USSR as the low oil prices. When the first Soviet home system appeared in 1984 (a poorly made copy of a top-loading Panasonic from the late-70's), people began to smuggle in (often pirated) video tapes from abroad and stage video viewing parties. Obviously, once one saw "Flashdance", there was no going back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top