Death of HD? "2013...2K and 4K to Consumer Cameras"

Hidef1080 said:
Let's not forget that the main reason so many people got HD TV's was because of the move to digital from our government.
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is that digital television has only been around in the USA basically since 2009.

And let us not forget the 5 main supported ATSC formats of DTV.

High Definition 1080p Which is only in use by a few cable operators, and not currently in use by any terrestrial broadcast stations.

High Definition 1080i

High Definition 720p

Enhanced Definition 480p

Standard Definition 480i

4:3 Standard Definition is still a recognized broadcast format and 4K is not!
 
Consumers don't care about 4k as far as resolution goes.....Now, if it gets shoved it in their faces as ULTRA HD and say it over and over and over-then the keeping up with the jonses people will HAVE to own it. Never mind that virtually NOTHING they watch will be in 4K...lol. As far as quality though- consumers have actually downgraded with audio for convenience sake and can't tell the difference.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Consumers don't care about 4k as far as resolution goes.....Now, if it gets shoved it in their faces as ULTRA HD and say it over and over and over-then the keeping up with the jonses people will HAVE to own it.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people have opinions on how to sell to the masses, but wouldn't actually be able to do it if they had to for real.
 
My point was- that the public at large often buys on Buzz words. Many people think the most mega pixels is the most important thing when buying a camera...those of us who follow cameras know better. People buy a new smart phone because it has 2G or 3g or 4g or 10,000,000 apps- not because they've thoroughly tested it's quality. Our society is very driven by having the latest gadgets, whether people NEED them or not is an entirely different story. The proof is in the pudding.
I don't pretend to get it...what makes people gravitate to certain things over the others, but they do want shiny and new and "cutting edge". 4k television would be a hard sell to most because it's a bigger purchase...but I thoroughly expect that smaller gadgets will start getting 4k badges, or Ultra HD badges in the very near future. Even if it makes no difference to the human eye.
 
I think we agree actually- 3D is a big purchase, a 4k tv would be a big purchase and a lot of people have just changed over to HD. They don't see 3d as practical or worth it. The ONLY people I suggested who would want a 4K tv, or something like that would be a minor group who HAS to have the latest greatest everything- I know a few of them...lol.
But in the smaller electronics game- a ton of people I know change to new things faster than I get a new pair of shoes. The conversation goes something like this
Friend: I just got a sweet new phone (insert any device here)
Me: What was wrong with the other one
Friend: This one has X feature, plus it's just cool (reminds me of Nigel Tufnel saying his amp goes to 11!)
 
My prediction: 4K will be the New Consumer 3D Format

...It will be a bit of a gimmick, that won't make much difference to the market until the 4K TV sets are norm. ( 5+ years )

Just wait until these home users try to edit their 4K vacation movies, and run out of hard-drive space before you see them get out of the plane. ;-)
 
CAMERAS: Yes, I'm sure there will be lots of 4K consumer cameras by mid-2014. 4K DSLRs, etc.

At the moment I have a very busy day job doing movie trailers so don't have much time to shoot stuff.

Since I definitely do think this is coming soon, I have been holding off buying nice camera toys... it's not easy when the only cameras I own currently are a NEX-5N, a D7000 (on loan to a friend) and some old HV20s!

Spare money gets saved or goes on sound equipment, re-usable grip stuff or the odd lens. Sanken, Sennheiser, Schoeps, Kessler, Rycote, Wooden Camera and the SpiderGrip people have been doing well from me :)

All of that stuff will work well with those cheap 4K cams when they come.

PEOPLE ACTUALLY CARING ABOUT 4K: Not so much.

A lot of movie theatres will be 4K. I don't think people will care. A lot of TVs will be 4K because ultimately it isn't a big increase in manufacturing costs.

Probably they will upgrade to 4K laser projection and be, like, AMC-IMAX-ULTRA-4K-LAZERRRRR with emphasis on LASER!!!

My secret nefarious plan is to acquire at 4K but do all of my heavy VFX at 3K - I'll get my rendering done in half the time of everyone else and have time to tweak more :)

I doubt any viewer will be able to tell the difference between 3K and 4K, especially if the story is half decent.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
legrevedotcom said:
Or do you believe we will see the end of 2013 before we need to get rid of the once so promised gear?
Click to expand...
You mean this upcoming year?!?!

You do know that something like half the world is still watching standard-def, right? And that's 20 years after HD was introduced. The manufacturers just brought standard-def back, in fact, because when they took it away in 2008 there was such an outcry across India and Asia that they added it back; the HMC80, the new AC130/AC160, AC90, and several Sony models have all added SD recording back in, after they'd gone all-HD for a while. There's still a lot of production happening in SD out there.

You do know that blu-ray still only accounts for maybe 10% of the money that consumers spend on discs; standard-def DVD accounts for 90% of entertainment dollars spent by consumers. And that's after blu-ray has been on the market for a decade.

And, you do know that the broadcast infrastructure has only recently spent a fortune to convert to digital broadcasting, and there's not a lot of profit in the broadcast industry anymore, so -- there's zero appetite, and I'd wager there's zero interest, among the broadcasters to go ripping that out and replacing it with 4K. Heck, broadcast doesn't even support 1080/60p yet.

So do we all have to throw away our HD cameras now that Sony's introduced a 4K product? I would conservatively say -- no. Did you toss all your 2-D equipment when Panasonic and Sony started aggressively pushing 3D? Avatar came out almost four years ago, and 3-D came and (arguably) went, and had zero impact on end consumers. So will 4K magically change everything? Well... I think 4K will have a lot more appeal to the end consumer than 3-D did, because there's no silly glasses necessary and because the type of displays they're talking about manufacturing (truly flat, even roll-up screens) will have its own appeal. Simultaneously, the global economic situation is in disarray, and three weeks from now it's likely that the average family in America is going to be hit for $300 to $400 PER MONTH in additional taxes. Which is going to take a massive bite out of their "I wanna buy a 4KTV" budget.

So -- will we have until the end of 2013 before we "need to get rid of" HD equipment? I dare say yes, I think you have until at least the end of 2020 before HD equipment is in danger of being actually obsolete.
 
Grug said:
So we'll see a big push for 4K as a means for these companies to sell more TVs, but it's going to be a hard sell for the general public.
Click to expand...
Exactly. 4K is very much in the manufacturer's interest, but I think the consumer has zero ability to adopt it...
 
Consumers have ALWAYS been willing to pay more for bigger displys with more resolution. This is one of the key selling points of the Apple Retina display, for example. Look at every device trend... A few years ago RIM ruled the smartphone market with its tiny crappy displays... now RIM is dead and all the best selling smartphones have giant displays with crazy high resolution. A few years ago there was no market for tablets... Now they are selling untold numbers of them and a key selling point is display resolution. Essentially tablets are smart phones with bigger displays! Same for television sets. In 1990, a 27" CRT was considered a reasonable size for a home television. Now anything less than 42-47" is considered small and no one bats an eye at 65" set. So there is IMHO a nearly insatiable demand for larger displays and higher resolutions that goes back to the beginning of the consumer electronics industry.

You can't compare the trend to larger displays with more resolution to the (predictable) failure of 3D displays. 3D has a long history of failures without any market successes. As soon as they said, "here's some great 3d but you have to wear these uncomfortable glasses and sit in the sweet spot", everyone should have called BS on the whole endeavor. They didn't but now we have the predictable reality... Even the people who bought 3d sets don't use them for 3d.

And just because cable companies/broadcasters/so-and-so etc won't pay for more resolution doesn't mean it won't happen. It's the cost of doing business - you can't just offer the same product to the same people at the same price and expect to stay in business for the rest of time. You have to make continual improvements to your goods and services if you want to succeed. If existing businesses won't pay for it, they'll get swept aside by new businesses that will. The power of no is trumped by a single yes. Youtube has provided 4k content for over a year. And look at RED, they've just created a 4k content distribution system de novo! Now they offer a full path for 4k content, from acquistion to distribution to display. I'm not saying that RED will succeed, but it shows that the old monopolies no longer have the power they once had.
 
Last edited:
I don't think we all HAVE to throw away our low resolution cameras, no. Should we? Yes. Yesterday. (or six years ago *cough*Redone*cough*)

I'm not sure why the motion shooting world is obsessed with not capturing one pixel more resolution than they're absolutely positive they'll need TODAY.

I never print anything larger than 11x14. My 12MP D700 can do that without up-rezzing. Why in the world would I ever buy a 36MP D800 just to downsample it? Because 12-downsampled-from-36 looks a thousand times better than native-12. Because you never know when you might capture something amazing (or even someone who gets famous; when I was a college newspaper photog I photographed a number of football players who are now in the NFL!) that you'll one day want to print bigger.
 
Barry_Green said:
Exactly. 4K is very much in the manufacturer's interest, but I think the consumer has zero ability to adopt it...
Click to expand...

Yup.

4K = 3D

4k (or 3D for that matter) is fine for a $300 million movie, but for daily home use, not so much. Panny bet a large part of the farm on 3D over the past 3 years and has paid a dear price for it flopping. Every set I own but one is 720 and they look fine. Heck, I think Fox, ESPN, and ABC still broadcast only 720. Many paid for streaming services, like Amazon, stream only in standard def. Others, like Netflix and youtube, have much of their content only in standard def.

OTA aux channels (and more people then ever are dropping cable) are overwhelmingly broadcast in standard def. Many of my friends are in the biz, and none of them care a lick about 4K (or even having 1080 for that matter).

In other words, where is the demand? Certainly internet providers aren't clamoring for 4 K content - the tubes are already pretty clogged.

http://www.local10.com/news/Growing...enna/-/1717324/16470364/-/tco4ct/-/index.html
 
noirist said:
Consumers have ALWAYS been willing to pay more for bigger displys with more resolution..
Click to expand...

Well I bought a new display yesterday as a matter of fact. And I can tell you it wasn't the big bad ass 70", or even the smaller 60", it was a 55" LED that was on sale for $100 off.
 
I didn't mean to say that nobody will ever go to 4K. I was addressing the notion that HD equipment would be obsolete within a year(!)

As for customers ALWAYS being willing to pay more for more resolution -- for displays maybe, but in media that hasn't really worked out for blu-ray. I've made this point several times but -- "quality", in and of itself, isn't a compelling reason for people to buy. People, in general, seem content with "good enough" (witness the proliferation of discount stores, cheapo brands, knockoffs, McDonald's, etc). What they will pay for is "convenience". Convenience is a big seller. And lack of convenience is a deal-killer. Hence why 3-D was and always will be a huge flop, as long as it keeps the glasses -- it's less convenient, and therefore people won't do it. McDonald's is a big hit not because of its quality, but because of its convenience. DVD, I would argue, was successful not because of its quality, but because of the conveniences it allowed over VHS: it eliminated rewinding, it eliminated tape jams, it allowed for an innovation like NetFlix because it was convenient to mail. Blu-ray, on the other hand, offers no such convenience advantages over DVD; its sole improvement is in "quality" and, therefore, the public has been lukewarm in their reception to it.

What convenience did HDTV offer over SD? Big huge screens that take up little space. I had one of the largest tube HDTVs, a Sony XBR 34", and it was ridiculously massive and over 200 pounds and two feet deep, took up most of the corner of a room, and still had a relatively small 34" screen. Meanwhile, Best Buy was offering 46" HDTVs that took up three inches of space. You could hang it on a wall. It opened up options. People loved the flat screen. Did they even KNOW they were buying "HDTV"? I would argue lots of them, at the time, didn't know or care. And I can make this argument off of my observations of how many times I saw people watching SD on their HDTVs, and not only that, but 4x3 SD that they'd stretched out to 16x9, distorting the image by 33%, and they didn't even notice.

But they sure did notice that they had a fancy flat screen and it was huge...

So what will 4K offer over HDTV? What new conveniences will it bring? What flexibility will it bring to the customer? Because if all it is is "a sharper picture", then it's DOA. Now, if they add things like a roll-up screen, or a 1/4" thick stick-it-on-the-wall OLED, or touchscreen operation, or something like that, then yes it could become big. But if it's just "4k for the sake of being sharper", I think the manufacturers are barking up the wrong tree.

Think I'm crazy? Which is the bigger hit: high-def blu-rays that bring the amazing sharpness improvements, or ... YouTube, which brought 320x240 video to your desktop? One brought quality, one brought convenience, and ... yeah, YouTube is now ubiquitous, whereas blu-ray is scraping to get 10 cents out of every dollar spent on media. Or MP3, a highly compressed format, vs. SACD (Super Audio CD). One of those is now ubiquitous and spawned a new era of how we listen to and buy music, even though it was a substantial REDUCTION in quality and fidelity... and the other of those was a dismal market failure, even though the quality was a big improvement. SACD was, effectively, the "4K" of compact discs.

Customers -- at least, the masses -- will vote for convenience over quality every time. Sure there are some tech-heads who value quality, those are the guys who bought SACD. And those tech-heads will buy $20,000 4K TVs. But the masses won't care. The masses don't go to three-hour seven-course dinners either, they go to McDonald's and Taco Bell, get in and get out in five minutes, for five bucks. Sure it's horrid crap that they're poisoning themselves with, but -- convenience trumps quality in the marketplace...
 
How large was your previous display? And how much resolution did it have? You may not be on the leading end of the larger-display more-resolution wave, but you are swept along with it like everyone else. Can you even imagine replacing your monitor with a smaller one with less resolution???
David W. Jones said:
Well I bought a new display yesterday as a matter of fact. And I can tell you it wasn't the big bad ass 70", or even the smaller 60", it was a 55" LED that was on sale for $100 off.
Click to expand...
 
Amazon does stream in high definition. Don't confuse demand (what consumers want) with artificially limited supply (what your friends, internet providers, and other monopolistic businesses are currently willing to provide).

jdv said:
Yup.

4K = 3D

4k (or 3D for that matter) is fine for a $300 million movie, but for daily home use, not so much. Panny bet a large part of the farm on 3D over the past 3 years and has paid a dear price for it flopping. Every set I own but one is 720 and they look fine. Heck, I think Fox, ESPN, and ABC still broadcast only 720. Many paid for streaming services, like Amazon, stream only in standard def. Others, like Netflix and youtube, have much of their content only in standard def.

OTA aux channels (and more people then ever are dropping cable) are overwhelmingly broadcast in standard def. Many of my friends are in the biz, and none of them care a lick about 4K (or even having 1080 for that matter).

In other words, where is the demand? Certainly internet providers aren't clamoring for 4 K content - the tubes are already pretty clogged.

http://www.local10.com/news/Growing...enna/-/1717324/16470364/-/tco4ct/-/index.html
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top