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

combatentropy said:
+1

Here are things I'm waiting for:

- global shutter
- 13-15 stops of dynamic range
- ISO 1600 (clean)
- 60+ frames per second
- affordable media ($10-20 / hour)
- affordable camera (sub-$5,000)
- renderless editing

Some of those things are already here, but nothing exists with all of them together. And if you look at every single one of them, having more and more pixels pushes them further and further into the future.
Click to expand...

If you have a true 1080 camera it will look fine on at 4k, trouble is most HD cams are now maybe 1/4 res of 1080 I guess

I agree camera wise lets see great 1080 first

I still think consumerwise 4k TV will be huge and soon

Of course the delivered '4k' will be as far from 4k as the current 'hd' delivered from cable is to actual 1080

S
 
Zephyrnoid said:
...
I should point out that while 2K/4K are fine and dandy, some of the most pressing issues dogging the prosumer cameras, have yet to be resolved.
I speak of Moire, Jello effect from rolling shutters and the less than stellar DR from some of the sensors out there.

This may all change simultaneously but I sure hope that we don't see 2k/4K DSLR's before the other issues have been worked out first ..
Besides. I'm confident the DSLR form factor is almost over.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that?
While this is somewhat off topic, if the very things you talk about are addressed in the DSLR form factor then they will be around for some time.
Moire and lack of true HD resolution will hurt DSLR's more than the form factor.

And this goes back to the topic at hand, with the average person not seeing any issues with HD what reason [real reason - not manufacturer's hype] does anyone have to replace 1080's with 4K's?

When I look at Blu Rays on 1080p screens all I see is "goodness":Drogar-Happy(DBG):.
 
maarek said:
No no no. It's because CRT's are actually crisper. A CRT at 85hz will BLOW any LCD in motion. Gamers know this. Filmmakers don't.

There is a persistent motion blur with LCD's. Just move your mouse around and follow it with your eyes. That's called "pixel response time". The time it takes for a white pixel to turn black. It's not that fast.

LCD's that insert a black frame... are still bad. Maybe even worse.

Then compare this to plasmas. They are excellent for motion compared to LCD's.
Click to expand...
Yes, I used to use only 85hz CRTs a long time ago and still have one around somewhere, they are actually crisper, exactly because at every 1/85th of a second they stay lit for 1/6th of a hertz cycle. By the time the scan line reaches the bottom of the screen, the top 2/3rds have already gone black, this blanking is what gives us the illusion of crispness.

LCDs have persistent motion blur because the pixels don't blank every refresh cycle, they simply change to the next shade, even LCD screens with very high refresh rates and low pixel response times wil never, ever, seem as crisp because they don't strobe. Plasma screens do strobe on a per-pixel basis, and that improves their motion perception. LCDs with black frame insertion don't quite live up to expectations because even with the blackout, they would still need a 0ms response and at least 120hz refresh to match.

Hidef1080 said:
Why do you think that?
While this is somewhat off topic, if the very things you talk about are addressed in the DSLR form factor then they will be around for some time.
Moire and lack of true HD resolution will hurt DSLR's more than the form factor.

And this goes back to the topic at hand, with the average person not seeing any issues with HD what reason [real reason - not manufacturer's hype] does anyone have to replace 1080's with 4K's?

When I look at Blu Rays on 1080p screens all I see is "goodness":Drogar-Happy(DBG):.
Click to expand...
This is something the 1DC is looking to improve, early reviews say that there is still moire on a low level, but it's essentially gone when used for an HD master. In this case the 4K is mainly there to eliminate moire and provide true HD, as well as post flexibility, for cropping, repositioning, and so on.
4K has a lot of uses in production other than resolution envy.
 
Last edited:
It's all about who wants to be the leader and who will be the followers. Japanese companies, Sony / Panasonic in particular, are under a LOT of pressure from Korean companies, and on the Camera end, RED / Arri. By establishing market leadership early, SONY has a better chance of thriving and surviving in these broadcast and consumer markets.

It has little to do with current broadcast standards and the viability of HD. At least for the moment. Sony wants to maintain their position of engineering leadership.
 
If you read some posts and press releases from two or three years ago, we should all use 3D cameras by now, every household should have a 3D TV and all the broadcasters providing 3D all day long.

Well, as I predicted back than... it didn't happen.

As a matter of fact, a ton of folks out there still don't even have a HD TV.
Also I would be happy to see HD resolution broadcast.
If you actually measure, what you get on your TV at home, after multiple compression, that throws resolution and color out of the window - it's a joke.
Barley 800 lines are left. When they broadcast 4k that way (even with a better codec) we see compression artifacts in the size of match boxes.


Frank
 
Well, 2013 is not going to be the "Death of HD", that is just ridiculous. However, I do see a rapid expansion of 4K production in the coming few years and I do not believe it will be due to content created for consumers. I think that it will be with the possible embrace of 4K content for corporate communications. I can see 4K becoming the norm for corporate video installations, video for corporate events and the like. While content made for this market is very small compared to total consumer content demand, it still represents a serious amount of money and will probably be able to sustain the demand necessary for 4K gear manufactures early in the game to invest in their 4K production capabilities to a level where economies of scale can kick in and begin to lower prices and raise quality that will eventually be applied to consumer products. HD is far from dead, and will be that way for a good time to come, but moderate to higher end content producers that work in the corporate communications world will probably be making some decision about 4K real soon.


One thing that excites me about 4K is not 4K displays but the possibility of good quality modestly priced 4K projectors. I have always had a soft spot in my heart for micro-cinemas, and projected content in smaller venues. Shoot, I just look forward to local and regional film festivals possibly looking some much better with a 4K projector than they do now with the HD ones.
 
Postmaster said:
If you read some posts and press releases from two or three years ago, we should all use 3D cameras by now, every household should have a 3D TV and all the broadcasters providing 3D all day long.

Well, as I predicted back than... it didn't happen.

As a matter of fact, a ton of folks out there still don't even have a HD TV.
Also I would be happy to see HD resolution broadcast.
If you actually measure, what you get on your TV at home, after multiple compression, that throws resolution and color out of the window - it's a joke.
Barley 800 lines are left. When they broadcast 4k that way (even with a better codec) we see compression artifacts in the size of match boxes.


Frank
Click to expand...

I agree, it is pretty ovious this is entirely driven by consumer TV sales. Its easier and potentially more lucrative to sell someone "ULTRA HD" than a meaningful incremental improvement on an HD set. Current "pro-sumer" HD cameras rarely do better than 720 res, HD cable and broadcast res is compressed all to hell. I suppose the only reasonable quality delivery model I can foresee ( in lieu of the inevitable "ultra BlueRay") is people downloading 4k content. It all seems a little old-school to me with the majority of eyes currently watching content on laptop and tablet displays.
 
Yeah, and convenience always seems to beat quality.

There is only a few HiFi enthusiasts left out there (the guys that spend 1k on speaker cables and put gravestones under their turntables).
Who cares about HiFi today? Everybody seems to be happy with MP3, played from a cheap phone.

Same goes to video. Most folks don't even see a problem when watching 480 YT videos blown up to HD on a huge LED TV.
When I point out how choppy and crappy that looks, they have no idea what I'm talking about and call me a video nazi.

Even Roger Deakins said, that his Alexa footy looks better when blown up to 4k.

So do we really need 4k cameras, if blown up 2k look so great?
Hell lets blow it up to 8k - higher numbers must be better, right?


Frank
 
4K is a long way off for watching TV. A LONG WAY OFF. There is still a ways to go just in HD 1080. What you will see though is video games coming in 4k through Playstation and maybe the occasional super blueray 4k release. But 4k as a broadcast standard is a good decade out.
 
dustylense said:
4K is a long way off for watching TV. A LONG WAY OFF. There is still a ways to go just in HD 1080. What you will see though is video games coming in 4k through Playstation and maybe the occasional super blueray 4k release. But 4k as a broadcast standard is a good decade out.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your logical input Dusty. Doesn't matter what people WANT to have happen, it's about infrastructure, cost, profit, and many other things...other than simply saying: HERE'S 4K!
 
dustylense said:
4K is a long way off for watching TV. A LONG WAY OFF. There is still a ways to go just in HD 1080. What you will see though is video games coming in 4k through Playstation and maybe the occasional super blueray 4k release. But 4k as a broadcast standard is a good decade out.
Click to expand...

I don't think broadcast will ever go 4K as there is just too much expensive infrastructure to replace (transmitters, satellites, etc.,). IPTV, on the other hand, is much more flexible and I think streaming 4K will be common ( though maybe not ubiquitous) in 8yrs or so. I would honestly be surprised to see 4K video games (native 4K video games) come first as current tech (PS3, 360 & WiiU) can barely hit 1080p60 natively (many games are 720p, or less, and upscaled on output). 8-10 years doesn't seem like that long of a time to me. I mean, look at everything that's changed since '03. HD was just a buzzword that couldn't seem to get traction and now it's common place for cell phones to record 1080p video.

There are certainly bandwidth issues to contend with but H.265 is around the corner so I think for people living in major cities w/fat pipes 4K will be an option.


-Andrew
 
I think the market demand would be so small for 4k that the only things that would ever be done in it is movies, sports and special events (and always only as an option, just like 3D).
What percentage of the people you are all doing video for still want there weddings and the like on Standard DVD and not Blu Ray even though they have a HD TV?
If you look at the Torrent web sights a hell of a lot more people are happy downloading the 350mb copy of a show that is normally done in 624x352 as apposed to the HD that is over 1GB most of the time.
 
I think camera and TV makers will just phase out HD gear the way they phased out SD gear and 4K doesn't have the same technical hurdles that scuttled 3D from being the next big thing (that being said, 3D is becoming a standard feature on HDTVs though not the 'must have' feature companies tried to push). Some people torrent movies at barely SD quality, some people buy Blu-ray for max quality and others stream Netflix at quality some place in between. I think the general populations lack of desire/ability to really discern quality could actually help a move towards 4K as customers will think bigger is better even if they wouldn't be able to tell a difference in a blind test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top