androbot2084
Carbonite Member
Eutelsat is now broadcasting in 4K and their service is available in the United States.
Death of HD? "2013...2K and 4K to Consumer Cameras"
- Thread starter legrevedotcom
- Start date
legrevedotcom
Veteran
You know.... you old timers are beginning to sound nostalgic..... maybe its you guys who dont want the world changing so fast?
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2013/01/07/eutelsat-launches-europes-first-4k-channel/
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2013/01/07/eutelsat-launches-europes-first-4k-channel/
Why are you trying so hard to pick fights? I'd suggest you reconsider that tack.
legrevedotcom
Veteran
I'm not trying to pick a fight... most definitely not. But I completely fail to see any of you who oppose the arrival of Ultra HD to provide ANY valid arguements, and therefore I question your place in the community. Question why you insist on sticking to the "old ways". HD WILL die or become the new 720p.
Now I said by the end of 2013... this following article might not support that precise date. But we are getting close.
Enter Japan, who says that they will most likely be ready to broadcast the World Cup in 4K in july 2014.... Now that is the way to go. Then everyone else who don't support that can be left behind.
There's a train waiting to be boarded here. Are you getting on or you wanna come running after it after those who got on have placed themselves on the market?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/27/us-japan-hdtv-idUSBRE90Q02520130127
(8K in 2016.... guys... really, get on the train)
Add another prediction to my bold statement. I predict that by 2015-2016, mainstream tv as we know will be finally dead, replaced by a new version of pay per view with more to choose from at a lower price.
Today's tv channels have proven that they by no means are able at providing a full spectre of entertainment or information in high quality. The public will increasingly be more demanding and want the free choice, rather than watching the same BS news cast which we by now know is heavily influence by monetary interests rather than providing actual news.
We want to be able to NOT choose x-factor season 25 or AFV no. 137, we want to be able to watch a marathon of high quality animal programs or science shows if we feel like spending 3-4 hours watcthing that kind of programs.
We want to be able to choose that specific episode of that specific childrens program because we know that is the one that makes our kids laugh or has a sane approach to teaching kids the way of the world.
YouTube is somewhat providing a version of this, but it sure does need fine tuning. NetFlix and the likes are testing their product, but it's not there yet. Just a few more years.... then we will see something useful.
And yes, all those things will by that time be completely made in AT LEAST 4K.....
Now I said by the end of 2013... this following article might not support that precise date. But we are getting close.
Enter Japan, who says that they will most likely be ready to broadcast the World Cup in 4K in july 2014.... Now that is the way to go. Then everyone else who don't support that can be left behind.
There's a train waiting to be boarded here. Are you getting on or you wanna come running after it after those who got on have placed themselves on the market?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/27/us-japan-hdtv-idUSBRE90Q02520130127
(8K in 2016.... guys... really, get on the train)
Add another prediction to my bold statement. I predict that by 2015-2016, mainstream tv as we know will be finally dead, replaced by a new version of pay per view with more to choose from at a lower price.
Today's tv channels have proven that they by no means are able at providing a full spectre of entertainment or information in high quality. The public will increasingly be more demanding and want the free choice, rather than watching the same BS news cast which we by now know is heavily influence by monetary interests rather than providing actual news.
We want to be able to NOT choose x-factor season 25 or AFV no. 137, we want to be able to watch a marathon of high quality animal programs or science shows if we feel like spending 3-4 hours watcthing that kind of programs.
We want to be able to choose that specific episode of that specific childrens program because we know that is the one that makes our kids laugh or has a sane approach to teaching kids the way of the world.
YouTube is somewhat providing a version of this, but it sure does need fine tuning. NetFlix and the likes are testing their product, but it's not there yet. Just a few more years.... then we will see something useful.
And yes, all those things will by that time be completely made in AT LEAST 4K.....
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I still that's a big bunch of hot air
And it seems I'm not the only one:
http://prolost.com/blog/2013/1/22/4k-in-the-home.html
The only thing I aggree with over there is that services will be completely different in just a few years. Think more Netflix and less cable. But I'll be quite impressed if they offer us nice 1080p quality.
And it seems I'm not the only one:
http://prolost.com/blog/2013/1/22/4k-in-the-home.html
The only thing I aggree with over there is that services will be completely different in just a few years. Think more Netflix and less cable. But I'll be quite impressed if they offer us nice 1080p quality.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
LOL. The old "Higher numbers are always better" mantra.
There are two points you are missing.
First is the limitations of bandwidth. Do you really believe, that your posh new 4k tally displays 4k worth of pixels (information) when receiving a compressed to death signal? And yes, this also applies to the new H265 standard. You may want to read some white papers about the nature of compression and how it is achieved by throwing image information under the bus. There is no free lunch.
Also there is a resolution ceiling, which is the limitation of you eyes and a certain ratio between screen res, size and viewing distance, that can't be changed unless you get a new set ultra high res eyes.
I don't go into this, since it has been discussed and proved to death already.
Like with 3D, some folks kept telling me, "it's here to stay - get used to it" since a few years (actually since over 100 years) I failed again and was completely dead on CES (as I predicted). 4k (or 8k) will not gain speed at home TV, since there is no benefit for the viewer - so why should he pay for it?
If he don't pay, broadcasters have no appetite to waste money in acquisition and bandwidth.
They don't run a charity, they run a business. It's about the money.
There are two points you are missing.
First is the limitations of bandwidth. Do you really believe, that your posh new 4k tally displays 4k worth of pixels (information) when receiving a compressed to death signal? And yes, this also applies to the new H265 standard. You may want to read some white papers about the nature of compression and how it is achieved by throwing image information under the bus. There is no free lunch.
Also there is a resolution ceiling, which is the limitation of you eyes and a certain ratio between screen res, size and viewing distance, that can't be changed unless you get a new set ultra high res eyes.
I don't go into this, since it has been discussed and proved to death already.
Like with 3D, some folks kept telling me, "it's here to stay - get used to it" since a few years (actually since over 100 years) I failed again and was completely dead on CES (as I predicted). 4k (or 8k) will not gain speed at home TV, since there is no benefit for the viewer - so why should he pay for it?
If he don't pay, broadcasters have no appetite to waste money in acquisition and bandwidth.
They don't run a charity, they run a business. It's about the money.
EIREHotspur
Well-known member
Have to agree with Postmaster.
Where is the huge takeup on 3D?
For 4k to take off it would take people like on the forums to actually buy the cameras.....and no wait you need a whole new computer system to edit it.
Cannot see it happening until the price comes down to HD prices which won't be for a good few years if at all.
Where is the huge takeup on 3D?
For 4k to take off it would take people like on the forums to actually buy the cameras.....and no wait you need a whole new computer system to edit it.
Cannot see it happening until the price comes down to HD prices which won't be for a good few years if at all.
NVentive
Well-known member
I read an article the other day that suggested that, even though the grunt work on h.265 was nearly complete, the roll-out was going to take years. I read that one early in the morning and the coffee has not completely set in, but I seem to remember the prediction number was 8. When you figure the huge amount of infrastructure that will be required required to deal with this (new chips in playback devices, etc) the slow adoption makes sense. I'm confident that 4K will eventually make inroads, but not any time soon. Me....I'm still waiting on the flying cars.....
pulpfiction007
Veteran
It doesn't matter what you WANT to be able to do as far as watching content...it matters what is being produced and offered by creators of the content and the providers that air the content...whether its cable or internet. All of these artists/producers/companies are not going to drop the HPX250s/insert any camera name here they JUST bought because YOU think it should be done. They will do it when it is profitable and there is a strong infrastructure in place to do so...it's business, pure and simple. 8K in 2016- utter nonsense. There may be concept cams and displays, but for widespread use... no freaking way. It's called being realistic - look into it.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
(not talking to everyone here)
Why people insist on fighting so hard over things like this...I'll never know. Go shoot something.
Why people insist on fighting so hard over things like this...I'll never know. Go shoot something.
Jim Martin
DVXuser Sponsor
I have no idea how fast the adoption will be, but where exactly is the limit going to be - 8K? The human eye can only see so much. BUT that is a flawed argument - because while it is true that the human eye has limitations, you may want to push beyond that for reasons of post-production. Think of it the case for 4K - it allows you to f.ex. reframe with no loss of perception if you are looking at 2K; well, what of 16K for 8K? And so on - what if you want to blow up a tiny detail to full screen - kinda science fiction like in Blade Runner with that photo, today it's science fiction, tomorrow it might be reality. Bottom line, even if we reach the limits of human perception when it comes to projection display on screens, we may still wish to continue beyond that on the acquisition side (cams), because you can't dig out data that's not there - like in Blade Runner, if there was no further data in that photo, zooming in further would be pointless. So, for the sake of post, we may need more than human perception.
Or you could hire a decent camera operator and not have to reframe.
Greg Smith
Veteran
Yes, but that comes at a real cost -- for comparable sensitivity and dynamic range, a higher resolution camera must be larger, consume and dissipate more energy, and use better lenses. (I omit processing capability and storage requirements on the assumption that these will in time become almost trivially cheap and compact.) These all mean increased cost and bulk, so there will be a point of diminishing returns that will put an eventual ceiling on how far the industry is willing to go. It'll be interesting to watch just where the technology and economics reach equilibrium, which I don't think anyone can predict yet. One guess: Cameras and post-production equipment will continue to get smaller, cheaper and better, but good-enough glass to keep up with them will actually rise in price over time.
- Greg
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
All I know is that if I can get a consumer 4k camera for the same price as 1080p I'm going 4K.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Is there anyone who "opposes" the arrival of UltraHD? ANYone?
All we said was "market adoption will be much slower than you expect." That's all.
Any valid arguments to what? That the companies will introduce ultrahd? Of course they will, who's arguing that they won't?
Now that sounds like trolling. Tread carefully please.
Who is sticking to the old ways? Who is clinging to the past? Before leveling unfounded straw man accusations, you might want to identify who you're talking about.
Of course it will. Not before 2020, of course, but at some point it will. Just like SD did. Just like film will, eventually.
But listen to yourself -- you sound like one of those guys who went around declaring "FILM IS DEAD" when the Sony F900 was introduced, back in 2000. Here we are 13 years later and still the majority of hollywood movies are shot on film. It didn't die in a year. It hasn't died yet. It will, at some point, but not yet.
4K has been on the market for six years now. SIX YEARS. Would you argue that HD is currently dead, and that nobody's using 1080p? If you do argue that, you'd be a fool and a laughingstock. So what difference will another year make?
Every one of us on this board will switch to 4K origination, when it makes sense to do so. And none of us (who actually make a living from this business) will bother switching until it makes sense to do so. The only argument here is WHEN will it make sense. You seem to think that the entire market will switch over in 11 months. I question whether the entire market will ever embrace 4K at all, or if they'll just wait for the real 8K UltraHD. And I do predict that the majority of households in America will not be actively watching 8K content before 2020.
DO you seriously, honestly think 8K will be a viable market for the end user in 2016? If so, I propose a bet -- if 8K is a wide-distribution format in 2016, as defined by the consumer electronics association's market penetration statistics saying that 50% of consumer households in the USA are receiving and watching 8K broadcasts or transmissions... I will buy you the top of the line Red Digital Cinema 8K camera on the market at that point. And if 8K is NOT a wide distribution format by 2016, meaning the CEA says that its market penetration is under 50%, then YOU will buy ME that top of the line Red 8K camera.
Are you willing to make that bet? I am.
You'll have to define what you're predicting more. Are you saying that the broadcast networks of ABC, NBC, FOX, ABC, and all the hundreds of independent stations, will no longer be broadcasting? And that the entirety of content distribution to the home will be through a pay-per-view or pay-per-channel system?
So you're describing typical Video On Demand. We all know about this. But here's the part you don't know (apparently): VOD has been predicted to be "the next huge thing" since ... are you ready? Since 1994. People have been declaring the imminent future of VOD for nearly 20 years. And yet, here we are today, 20 years later and we're barely getting there with Hulu and NetFlix and YouTube.
Things move much slower than anyone seems to want to acknowledge.
VOD, as an idea, has been with us for 19 years so far. Still feeling confident that 1080p will disappear this year?
I'll tell you what -- if you feel so strongly about this, why don't YOU buy some 4K equipment this year, and prepare YOURSELF for the massive huge marketshare increase you think you'll benefit from... and how about letting everyone else make their own decision?
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
8K by 2016 may indeed be the betting man's choice. With 16 times the resolution as 1080p and twice the frame rate, the difference in picture quality will be so dramatic that who in their right mind would buy a 1080p television? 4K may be regarded as an incremental improvement but 8K is the quantum leap that will drive television sales. Affordability will come through mass production which will be fueled by consumer demand if consumers get excited about the new technology.
It seems that Japan, in 2014, is going to start broadcasting some things in 4k.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/27/us-japan-hdtv-idUSBRE90Q02520130127
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/27/us-japan-hdtv-idUSBRE90Q02520130127
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Or one might ask who in their right mind would buy a 4k or 8k TV set when you can't tell the difference
in resolution from a 1080p one? I sure wouldn't pay the premium for no discernible improvement.
Now if I ever got a house where I could fit a 105 foot projection screen in and had tons of money, sure
I'd think about it then. You have to think about the percentages of people that have the resources
(space, money, and so on) to take advantage of 4k or 8k vs. those that do NOT have these resources.
Especially in this economy, I think the percentage is highly skewed toward those who won't.
So in your equation, we have yet to see consumers excited about this technology (much
like with 3D.) So will mass production occur without high consumer demand? That would
seem unlikely. What about affordability? Again unlikely to occur before mass production.
So either the manufacturers have to take a risk and mass produce affordable 4k and 8k
TV sets and hope people will buy them, or people have to demand it. It will happen, I just
dont see it happening so soon. In high end areas yes. In the average household, I don't
think so.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
Agreed with the above. I'm a movie fanatic and football fan, so I love a nice viewing experience...but my Panasonic 42" looks great from where I sit. Flawless when the content matches the TV. I have zero desire for anything better.