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

Honestly for most non-film industry people that I talk to, the shape of the TV set (flat rather than boxy) had much more to do with them buying an HDTV than picture quality did - and the rest of them just wanted to get rid of the letterboxing.

The general public really doesn't care - more resolution doesn't do much for reality tv, sitcoms, or celebrity gossip.
 
legrevedotcom said:
just like everyone said before they bought a simple HD tv..... and by all reports so far, 4K does look so much better than HD.
Click to expand...

Most people who bought an HDtv usually bought a s*%tty one with bad contrast and horrible pre-set configurations.

Resolution is better when you are sitting close to something. Like for example, monitors and when doing actual work. For movie usage it's just... a bunch of hot air. Skyfall was projected in 4k but shot way lower. I'd much rather get real black than a higher resolution screen. For what good is that resolution? To see the unbelievable softness of anamorphic lenses they use? With a 1/48 shutter half the frame is in motion blur anyway.
 
nothing said:
Or you could hire a decent camera operator and not have to reframe.
Click to expand...

If it's good enough for David Fincher... link
I think one of the most powerful techniques done was an intentional center extraction from the RED footage. The actual frame was probably 75 to 80 percent cut out of the center of the whole image they captured. We color corrected the full 4.5K plate, but only 3600x1500 made up the actual frame. We have almost 1,000 pixels horizontally to do repositions, stabilizations and blow-ups. David was able to come into the DI suite, look at a shot and then say, "...zoom in a little bit" or "pan left" without any resolution penalty.
.
.
.
From David Fincher's point of view, he had enough resolution to spare and used that as a creative tool to adjust the framing with more precision in post rather than when it was shot.
Click to expand...


-Andrew
 
nothing said:
Honestly for most non-film industry people that I talk to, the shape of the TV set (flat rather than boxy) had much more to do with them buying an HDTV than picture quality did - and the rest of them just wanted to get rid of the letterboxing.
Click to expand...

Exactly! HDTV came riding in with flat panel LCD screens that you could hang on a wall. An overall brighter more saturated pop! to the look than conventional TVs and as a bonus, energy savings.

Which is the same reason why DVD took off and Blu-ray hasn't been quite as revolutionary. It takes more than just a quality improvement, you need something entirely new.

If 8K gets any consumer interest, it will be years from now with the introduction of flexible video wallpaper.
 
legrevedotcom said:
just like everyone said before they bought a simple HD tv..... and by all reports so far, 4K does look so much better than HD.
Click to expand...

I personally never said that with SD to HD. HD TV wasn't just the resolution, it was the aspect ratio, the flat screen, etc. Modern HD makes movies look the way they look at a theater...I even prefer movies at home. Higher resolution makes sense for giant screens, but from where I view my TV I don't see any flaws when the broadcast is even up to par with the televisions capability. I'll get a 4K TV when Best Buy has them for $500 in a 42" and there is broadcast to actually make it worth while. Until then, why would I even bother.
 
Until Joe Average can convince Mrs Average to hand over the biggest room in the house to be devoted to a 200" 4k screen which will have to consist of a lightweight flexible roll-on wallpaper in order to simply get it into the house, 4k and beyond is just pure marketing hype and is grossly misguided.
4k at less than 100" at average couch distance of 8-12' is a waste of time.
I watch Blu Rays down-rezzed to 1024x576 on a 2m wide projection screen at a viewing distance of about 3m and I can barely see the difference between Blu Ray & DVD.
4k is going to have to be bigger than 2m wide for me to value the difference.
I'd bet not 1 wife in 20 will approve a 2m+ screen and a room to put it in.
 
Paul V Doherty said:
Until Joe Average can convince Mrs Average to hand over the biggest room in the house to be devoted to a 200" 4k screen which will have to consist of a lightweight flexible roll-on wallpaper in order to simply get it into the house, 4k and beyond is just pure marketing hype and is grossly misguided.
4k at less than 100" at average couch distance of 8-12' is a waste of time.
I watch Blu Rays down-rezzed to 1024x576 on a 2m wide projection screen at a viewing distance of about 3m and I can barely see the difference between Blu Ray & DVD.
4k is going to have to be bigger than 2m wide for me to value the difference.
I'd bet not 1 wife in 20 will approve a 2m+ screen and a room to put it in.
Click to expand...

4K(or 8K for that matter) as home movie watching is misguided, but 4k(or 8K) as a 2d/3d viewing screen in the home is not. I hope that makes sense. As I am not always lounging on a couch with freshly made popcorn ready to watch a movie. Sometimes it is a tool and I am standing up closer to it.

The cost and such can be argued. HD seemed like a waste from the beginning. I saw it have a 10 year life span when it was introduced. Maybe it will last longer, but it will be outdated long before SD is phased out. I may sound like I am contradicting myself, but I am not.
 
Last edited:
maarek said:
I'd much rather get real black than a higher resolution screen.
Click to expand...

^ This!

High dynamic ratio displays would be awesome. A brightness level of true daylight plus the darkness of a cave.. it would be like looking through a window.
 
Paul V Doherty said:
Until Joe Average can convince Mrs Average to hand over the biggest room in the house . . .
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a decorating issue. But we need not see the wife as the roadblock. I am wondering whether even Mr. Average wants a screen beyond a certain size.

In Disneyworld, there was a 360-degree theater, a circular screen all around you. It showed you flying through the French countryside or something. It was a nice gimmick. I wonder if I would want it for my daily television, if even it were possible. I'm thinking not, because I would have to turn my head all around to see stuff. Usually, when relaxing in front of the TV, I want to just lounge on my couch, moving as little as possible. So, the screen should be all in front of me. And I think I want to be able to take it in without even moving my head from side to side much, if at all. That's back to the whole lack-of-effort mood I'm in. But also a very large screen in my living is a little overwhelming. Do I really want to see a 12-foot image of Ted Koppel's head --- or even Tom Cruise's head? It's a little unnerving.

THX established a certain minimum viewing angle, something like 30 degrees. But don't you think that there is a maximum viewing angle, one that's comfortable for watching day-to-day narrative fiction? I like to suspend my disbelief, but I still feel more comfortable with a little bit of distance between me and the screen. So I think for me I would not like it to fill more than, say, 40 degrees or so. I'm guessing, based on tests I've done in the past. This is maybe not an exact science that I can get down to a degree. The point is, for me, there is a maximum viewing angle.

And if there is a maximum viewing angle and a maximum resolution to my eyes, then there is a certain TV resolution beyond which you are just throwing pixels away. I'll leave it to you to calculate it. I'm not going to tell you the ideal viewing angle, because you may prefer something slightly different --- although I bet we are all around 30 or 40 degrees. And I'm not going to tell you what the maximum resolution of your eyes is, because part of that's genetics. Although I bet ours are pretty close. I will, however, say this. A program need not be at or above my eye's resolution to be immersive. I've watched movies on my 720p laptop at around 30 degree viewing angle and been fine. In fact, with Amazon's streaming service, it probably was streamed at 480p or something.
 
legrevedotcom said:
Time to revive this thread....

Taken from this DVX thread:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?299956-4K-Sony-Handycam

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/07/sonys-4k-handycam-and-hxr-ifr5-4k-interface-unit-prototypes-eye/

I still maintain that we need to see the death of HD by the end of 2013, and I still don't care if broadcasters can't follow suit, they better shape up then.
Click to expand...

That's sure a lot of technological evolution in only 10 months time! :Drogar-Shock(DBG):

Even when the 4k cameras become more affordable, the target resolution is still going to be HD for quite some time.
 
Last edited:
This technology has been around for a while at the manufactures in there little secret little rooms, As with everybig company they have to keep there shareholders happy and try to get marketshare. As it is the manufactures which is making it more and more difficult for us to make a living, providing cheaper products with better qualty to the home users, amatures and semi-pro at a cheaper price. Our company has given up the arms race ,we make do with what we have, if not able , then we buy a cheap prosumer or comsumer products. Many customer only know the words behind the technology, but they do not know the technology, Most customers are just happy with beautyful pictures and effects and having a standard SD dvd or somthing for the web.
 
Time to rip up this wound again..... Sony supposedly ready with 4K streaming this fall at the mere price of 700 dollars for the device including 10 movies.

With all the news from NAB this year, especially BMD (I know... wont come out just yet but hey...) I stand firm with wanting to stab HD deep in the heart in 2012 and follow progress.
 
Received an email from Best Buy today announcing the availability of the Sony 4K Tv's. Meanwhile America happily watches 720P broadcasts on their 1080P TV's, thinking they are seeing 1080P.
 
Kraut69 said:
Received an email from Best Buy today announcing the availability of the Sony 4K Tv's. Meanwhile America happily watches 720P broadcasts on their 1080P TV's, thinking they are seeing 1080P.
Click to expand...

Most likely America is watching SD on their 1080p TVs and thinking they are seeing 1080p. ;)

People's ability to be convinced that bigger is better coupled with confirmation bias is one reason why I think in-home 4K will become a reality.
 
And this on-demand TV pushing these new 4k formats have Bandwidth in large supply to give freely to subscribers?

That limitation is going to ground that particular one to a halt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top