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

If display size and resolution didn't matter to consumers, all the manufacturers would be selling smartphones with small crappy screens and they would be competing based on price and other features. Every year you would be able to buy a new smartphone with the same display as last year that was cheaper and had some other features (eg., faster cpu, more bandwidth). There would be no tablets. But that's not what happened. Since the iphone was first introduced, we have seen a relentless push for larger displays with more resolution. It's the two features that manufacturer's KNOW that the consumers want and are willing to upgrade for. Just look at the come-on for the latest smartphones and tablets... The Apple home page describes the iphone as "the biggest thing to happen to iphone since iphone" which is them finally responding to the fact that the larger displays on their Android competitors were eating their lunch. Or the ipad as "ipad with retina display". Clearly Apple thinks that the single most important feature of the ipad is that it has a high resolution display --- it's so important they made it part of the name of the product. Now to the Google Nexus 10... "With the world's highest resolution display, all new multi-user features, immersive HD content and the best google apps - Nexus 10 has something for everyone". The Google marketers aren't as skilled as those from Apple, but even they figured out the single most important feature of the tablet is its highest resolution display.

And if display size and resolution didn't matter, consumers would be buying 27" flatscreen tvs with 480p resolution because they were so darn cheap and convenient. But they're not. Instead of saving money by buying a smaller cheaper more convenient lower resolution model, consumers want larger monitors with more resolution and they're willing to pay more for it.

P.S. Nobody's asking you to throw out your TV. They're trying to find something to offer you that you're willing to pay for. Isn't that ideal?
 
It's only ideal if there is content to deliver in the new format...which there isn't, and there isn't even enough full hd content to give people a completely realized hd experience yet. It's not that 4k wouldn't be damn cool, the debate is whether or not it will be cool enough to displace HD anytime soon. The answer, for consumer TV at least is: No.
 
There is 4k content. You can get it a year ago from Youtube and in March 2013 from the RED content distribution network (REDRAY player). Plus even HD content looks better upscaled to a UHD monitor than it does on a HD display. Just like SD content looks better upscaled to an HD monitor than it does on an SD monitor. So it's here today (in limited availability) and there's clearly a consumer demand for for bigger displays with more resolution. Now we just need to wait for the prices to fall and the amount of content to increase before it takes off in the marketplace. Over in the reduser forums, they're running a group buy on a Chinese 50" UHD LED TV for only $1364.51. It may take a while for that Chinese TV to make it out of China to the rest of the world, but eventually it or its successors will, and then who will buy 1920x1080 when they can get 3840x2160 for only a few dollars more???
 
Last edited:
noirist said:
There is 4k content. You can get it a year ago from Youtube and in March 2013 from the RED content distribution network (REDRAY player). Plus even HD content looks better upscaled to a UHD monitor than it does on a HD display. Just like SD content looks better upscaled to an HD monitor than it does on an SD monitor. So it's here today (in limited availability) and there's clearly a consumer demand for for bigger displays with more resolution. Now we just need to wait for the prices to fall and the amount of content to increase before it takes off in the marketplace. Over in the reduser forums, they're running a group buy on a Chinese 50" UHD LED TV for only $1364.51. It may take a while for that Chinese TV to make it out of China to the rest of the world, but eventually it or its successors will, and then who will buy 1920x1080 when they can get 3840x2160 for only a few dollars more???
Click to expand...

Who will not buy it. Me, my step dad, my friends, a lot of people in this forum, people who only have 42" tvs anyway. Who is broadcasting in 4k .....no one. (other than online sources)
 
Most people will switch ONLY if theyre forced to, people in europe are switching now to digital and analog tv signal will be turned off so they have no choice BUT if government would not be forcing them to switch then they would stay with SD analog quality signal.
 
It's the "bigger-numbers-are-always-better" culture.
The average user out there don't even understand how it all works.
He sees a bigger number and his brain makes him think he sees more detail and resolution.
Wee all know that it takes - at least - a 6k if not 8k sensor to get real 4k resolution.

Than you need uncompressed raw recording or you loose resolution in the camera already.

Even if there is a uncompressed pipeline in post - for delivery, you need compression - thous loosing resolution.
The best bet in the moment is DCP, than BluRay - whatever comes over satellite, air or cable has barely 50% of the original resolution - most of the time even less. But folks still think they watch a high-res picture, cause the sticker on TV says so.

If 2k, blown up to 4k looks so great, why buying a 4k camera at all?
 
Who said 2k blown up to 4k looks so great? I said that 2k looks better on a 4k set than on a 2k set. Have you ever upscaled a DVD on a 1080p monitor? Doesn't it look better than the same DVD on a 480p monitor?

And I think you would agree that you don't need 4k of measured resolution to benefit from a 4k monitor. Even a 4k sensor with a Bayer color filter that only generates 70% of 4k measured resolution will look better on a 4k monitor than a 2k monitor. Anything above 2k will likely look better on a 4k monitor than a 2k monitor.

Honestly guys I'm surprised at how much resistance there is here to the idea that properly upscaled footage looks better on bigger monitors with more resolution. Or that consumers would prefer larger higher resolution displays to smaller lower resolution displays. Or that the size and resolution of display technology has increased rapidly over the past 10 years and will continue to increase rapidly for the next 10 years. According to NHK, the resolution limit of the human eye is 8k. No it won't happen over night, but that's where we're headed and we might as well plan around it rather than resist the likely future.
 
Last edited:
Back when HD made it's arrival, I remember people complaining "oh it looks too sharp... I don't like it" "Oh it was fine / better / prettier before... why change it?"

Most of the time, these arguments comes from the people aged around the 50s+ and those who just arrived in the previous production level.

Fact remains that today, I don't have a single friend or family member who does NOT have an HD tv hooked up to their 10mbit internet / tv connection. Heck some of my friends are finally jumping the 3D tv train and even more so my younger colleagues.

People are saying the same thing now... and those people will be buying the 4K tv as soon as the price hits a sensible level again. It's not about wether you need it or not... forget that. Once RED Ray arrives, there's more than enough reason to have a 4K TV... Wasn't the reason for HD tvs in the first place that you wanted to see that awesome HD look of the movies you bought on Bluray? You wanted to be able to see Avatar or Lord of the Rings in all it's splendor... poo poo broadcasters. (sorry for cursing)

Also, all the talk about the next Olympics... imagine that being shot in 3K or 4K, MAN! That I really want to see in ultraHD... I'd even spring for a proper sound setup then.

You can latch on to the old days all you want, but like Sony says, the Future is here, and with the latest talk from Jannard, I'm thinking that REDs future might be even further ahead with the paper stats on that Dragon sensor; 16.5 stop dynamic range in 6K!! Headroom for 4K, yes please... and then just buy a 3rd party device to record quick turn around acquisition. And until 4K takes off for real, just use your current recorder.
 
I think some straw men must have wandered into the discussion...

Who's resisting anything? The discussion I was involved in was "will 1080p gear be obsolete by the end of 2013"? Surely you would agree that that's a laughable notion, right?

I was one of the earliest 4K adopters. I bought one of the first Red Ones. I am one of those guys on the very top of the geek pyramid. But just because *I* might want something, doesn't blind me to what the market as a whole wants. The market, as a whole, has resoundingly rejected 3D in the home. And they have repeatedly resoundingly rejected innovations that were solely differentiated from what they currently had by being "better". And that's back when the mass market had disposable income and could consider such purchases.

Today the average household is has a lot less true net worth, a lot less disposable income, and the prospect of tax changes coming to the US in 2013 mean that there's likely to be even substantially less income available to them to spend on some fancy new TV. The way I see it, the average house is going to hold on to their current car for a few extra years because they can't afford a new one. And they're going to hold on to their current television because they certainly won't have several thousand dollars to spend on some bigscreen. The average house is going to be more concerned about making the mortgage or rent payment, than in keeping up with the Joneses.

Will we someday have 8K displays? Sure. Within this decade? Very doubtful.

That's not "resistance", that's just simple observation of consumer behavior and awareness of the current economic situation.
 
Barry_Green said:
I was one of the earliest 4K adopters. I bought one of the first Red Ones. I am one of those guys on the very top of the geek pyramid. But just because *I* might want something, doesn't blind me to what the market as a whole wants. The market, as a whole, has resoundingly rejected 3D in the home. And they have repeatedly resoundingly rejected innovations that were solely differentiated from what they currently had by being "better". And that's back when the mass market had disposable income and could consider such purchases.

Today the average household is has a lot less true net worth, a lot less disposable income, and the prospect of tax changes coming to the US in 2013 mean that there's likely to be even substantially less income available to them to spend on some fancy new TV. The way I see it, the average house is going to hold on to their current car for a few extra years because they can't afford a new one. And they're going to hold on to their current television because they certainly won't have several thousand dollars to spend on some bigscreen. The average house is going to be more concerned about making the mortgage or rent payment, than in keeping up with the Joneses.
Click to expand...

Not a strawman here... I actually dislike the RED community because it's branded by extreme fanboism even more than Apple is.

But I think the misunderstandings come from the different situations in EU and the states. Sure we have it bad as well, but I while I can see a slump hitting the US because the economy is failing, I don't see that so much here.
3D hasn't failed in my opinion, people are only just realising that it's a pretty fun thing to have. My best friend just got a 3D tv, and I admit, I thought that it was more fun that I had imagined :)
But enough of that. Let me just say that consumers will remain consumers and I firmly believe they are coming back any day now :D

Yes, I might be able to agree that broadcasters probably wont replace HD next year, but that is only because they can't afford it then. But that doesn't change my opinion that we should be actively moving away from it anyways. Better is better... end of story in my world. I bet one could sell 4K ready footage to clients now.... and if the client has the choice to get 4K footage or HD footage, and 4K is knocking on the door... what would you choose if you were a client?

Would you this day choose 720 or SD over HD just because it's easier to handle? I certainly wouldn't....
 
Barry_Green said:
I think some straw men must have wandered into the discussion...

Who's resisting anything? The discussion I was involved in was "will 1080p gear be obsolete by the end of 2013"? Surely you would agree that that's a laughable notion, right?

I was one of the earliest 4K adopters. I bought one of the first Red Ones. I am one of those guys on the very top of the geek pyramid. But just because *I* might want something, doesn't blind me to what the market as a whole wants. The market, as a whole, has resoundingly rejected 3D in the home. And they have repeatedly resoundingly rejected innovations that were solely differentiated from what they currently had by being "better". And that's back when the mass market had disposable income and could consider such purchases.

Today the average household is has a lot less true net worth, a lot less disposable income, and the prospect of tax changes coming to the US in 2013 mean that there's likely to be even substantially less income available to them to spend on some fancy new TV. The way I see it, the average house is going to hold on to their current car for a few extra years because they can't afford a new one. And they're going to hold on to their current television because they certainly won't have several thousand dollars to spend on some bigscreen. The average house is going to be more concerned about making the mortgage or rent payment, than in keeping up with the Joneses.

Will we someday have 8K displays? Sure. Within this decade? Very doubtful.

That's not "resistance", that's just simple observation of consumer behavior and awareness of the current economic situation.
Click to expand...

One of the best, most real world posts made on this site. Points to two simple facts, A) that the people here aren't the target audience for these sets; that regulars here -almost by definition - will know more about TV then 99% of the general population ever will. And B), Thus, it's all about the average Joe. And the "average Joe" just bought all new tech (in their minds) to replace tech that had lasted nearly 80 years. Everything from the Berlin Olympics in 1936 to President Kennedy getting murdered to landing on the moon to the Superbowl 4 years ago - were all broadcast in SD. In other words, not only does 720/1080 look great compared with the vast history of television so far, it's also - in the entire history of TV - is practically brand new tech.

Here's the thing - I don't think any one here is saying that 4K, or 10K or 100K isn't coming down the line. Heck, in a hundred years TVs will look a million times better then real life. Probably be 3D too - It will happen, eventually. But that wasn't the question. It was about next year.... And in the next year - and I'd argue for much longer then that - there would appear to almost no real world demand for such high resolutions.
 
Answering the original question of the thread, no, HD is not dead. I love the idea of shooting mainly in 4k because it gives interesting options in post (reframing, stabilising, vfx...) as long as the final delivery is in HD or 2K and I can see many of us ditching our current HD cameras in the next 2-4 years (though HD cameras will still be perfectly usable). But at a consumer level HD will be around for quite some time (I hope so!).

I agree with Barry. Whilst I'd love to have a 120" display, the reality is I could't house one in their current form. Most people around the developed world live in 2-4 bedroom flats and space is confined - even if you've managed to convince your wife about it, such TV wouldn't really fit and I don't want to live in a space dominated by huge, heavy flat panel (I agree with the wife on this one). Until they manage to make them lighter and 'rollable' like a blind, I can't really see the point of 4K and 8K displays, and the technology is not quite there yet. And I am putting 4k in the same bag as 8K, because I can't see the point in swapping my current 50" for a stupidly expensive 4K TV of similar size.

Dreaming on, once they've cracked lightweight flexible OLED technology, some will probably have more than one big panel - one for viewing films in glorious 4-8K, one for displaying art, one to make a room with no windows more lively by having a beautiful landscape from wall to wall...
 
http://nofilmschool.com/2012/11/son...tm_campaign=Feed:+nofilmschool+(NoFilmSchool)

They even have material (entertainment) ready to ship to the 4K products.

Sony's on.... great move. Now... let the storm pass, and the price will lower. I remain on the side of "the death of HD". Follow or get left behind.... and we're not talking 120" displays.... 84" will do for now and in time they could probably be smaller still with a replacement product for the Retina type displays.
 
It is fun to see all this bulls*%t said by Barry to be nodded by others just because he is who he is.

Guys, 3D was not and is not a flop. I can assure you as I am familiar exactly with customer side of this.

4K will be available in VERY near future. With monitors, TVs and even tablets (what could play 4K) available in 2013 and cameras annouced in 2013.

And consumers will buy them happily despite accelerating collapse of US and EU economies.
 
Didn't read everything above..and jumping around here but..

HD is not going anywhere...and ofcourse 2k/4k will be in consumer cameras next year. That's how it was when HD was coming out and getting popular. Every company and their mothers were producing HD cameras; regardless if they were atrocious and unusable even for the regular joe. Marketing was fresh and fun again because they could now use new terms like "720p" and "Crystal-Clear High Definition". Within the professional industry, you will also continue to see raw cams roll out. It's not like HD will suddenly stop...it's a smooth, slow transition. I'm sure they sill make SD cameras. As far as 3D - I don't know anything about it and I don't even know how long it's been out on the market - consumer or professional - but I would never use it unless I was forced into it. The whole idea of wearing something to watch something just hassles me.
 
Vitaliy Kiselev said:
It is fun to see all this bulls*%t said by Barry to be nodded by others just because he is who he is.

Guys, 3D was not and is not a flop. I can assure you as I am familiar exactly with customer side of this.

4K will be available in VERY near future. With monitors, TVs and even tablets (what could play 4K) available in 2013 and cameras annouced in 2013.

And consumers will buy them happily despite accelerating collapse of US and EU economies.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

And if I happen to agree with Barry it's not because of who he is.

Look we all know 4K monitors, cameras and the like are poping up. FYI I owned one of the first 4K cameras available. But HD is not going to die a painful death in 2013, which in case you missed it it 3 weeks away. And as far as 3D goes, we put a production package together early on along with a demo and nobody in our region bought into doing 3D production so we got rid of everything. We do not have a 3D TV in the house, nor are we concerned with watching 3D content. As a matter of fact, I have only watched 2 3D movies at a theater in the course of my lifetime. I might go see The Hobbit, so let's say 3 3D movies in my lifetime.
 
Canon 5d mark iii can't resolve same number of lines as a sony ex1r yet they are both advertised as being capable of FULL HD. What is exactly FULL HD? We have FULL HD, then we have REAL FULL HD?!

We are soon in 2013 and we don't even have affordable 1080p 12bit 444 cameras. It's 2K this, 4K that bla bla bla. Color space, bit depth, high frame rates, good codecs? "IT IS 4K! SCREW THE REST!"

I'd pick a 40" 10bit 100hz lcd over a 60" 8 bit 60hz lcd. I have no place to put that big of a screen anyway. There's difference from display to display. "Oh look, 80" 4k LCD TV, that has no detail in blacks!" :S

Do you watch 1080p videos on youtube in a small screen? No right? What's the point of having 4k resolution on a 7" screen of a table then? It will be moire all over the place, wrong?

Resolution rush is all marketing. I demand quality camcorders that's sold for under 5k$ first. 1080p 444 12bit > 4k 420 8bit . MAKE THOSE 1080p CAMERAS!!

Lastly I'd never buy anything 3d relatedfor home use. If i'm going to look at that screen for long hours, i don't want 3d. period. It may be good in cinema. It's absolutely not functional at home.
 
Yeah, ex1r777...I'm more interested in 1080p cameras that resolve an actual 1080p amount of detail in their image, and then don't hobble it with a 4:2:0 codec. I don't even need 4:4:4...if we'd just start seeing a move to more cameras with acquisition formats that are around the equivalent to AVC-Intra 100 I'd be happy.
 
I'm all for 4k. Who knows.. we might actually get sharp/full raster 1080p images from DSLR's if they are advertising them at 4k. Based on the fact that the current crop advertise '1080p' but resolve nowhere near that (generalisation, I know some of them like the gh2 come close but still no cigar if you ask me).

noirist said:
You say that 4k doesn't make sense on an ipad.... I disagree. The Google Nexus 10 tablet already has a 2560x1600 display. The current ipad has a 2048x1536 resolution, but the next version will have higher resolution to beat the Android competition. Within three years the high-end tablets are all going to have 4k resolution. So 1920x1080 is no longer enough resolution for movies, even on tablets.
Click to expand...

Do you even understand the premise behind retina screens? The DPI is so high that pixels are indistinguishable and any improvements on resolution would be literally pointless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top