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

I haven't read through the 11 pages of hype but seriously........ Death of HD???

death this, killer that. Come in people don't get caught up in hype.

if you are shooting for cinema release then yep, consider 4K but for everything else we are a long long way from HD not being the norm.

edit: 21 pages!!!
 
EIREHotspur said:
And this on-demand TV pushing these new 4k formats have Bandwidth in large supply to give freely to subscribers?
Click to expand...

Today? No. 7 or 8 so years from now? It will be a different story, IMO. H.265 would have replaced H.264, and H.266 (or whatever it's called) will be around the corner. Looking back at the state of video streaming in 2005 or so (YouTube was streaming 240p at the time) I doubt many people would say that in 7 or 8 years we would be watching HD movie streams on our phones over cellular data connections that, depending on provider, can rival cable broadband speeds.
 
look at what Arri says:

"At ARRI we focus on providing the best image quality for cinematographers and high-end features, together with an efficient workflow. Achieving the highest K figure is of less importance. ALEXA’s 3.5K sensor with its high sensitivity and wide exposure latitude produces gorgeous, cinematic images. Given that 4K digital workflows are still in their infancy, and that for the foreseeable future most productions will finish in 2K or HD, ALEXA is the perfect choice for theatrical features as well as television productions. Furthermore, the ascendance of 3D has resulted in a doubling of image data volumes which further complicates the effective storage, processing and movement of such data. So, for the foreseeable future, ALEXA is ideally suited for 2K or HD workflows in 2D and 3D."
 
What else would Arri say? They, like all companies, play to what their products can do, not what they can't do. When Arri feels like 4K has matured, and they've recouped the R&D for their current products I'm sure we'll see an Arri 4K camera in the future.
 
adkimery said:
What else would Arri say? They, like all companies, play to what their products can do, not what they can't do. When Arri feels like 4K has matured, and they've recouped the R&D for their current products I'm sure we'll see an Arri 4K camera in the future.
Click to expand...

You got the point, actually. "When" is the important part of this question.
 
Some people will continue to create hype about the need for more resolution....4K, 5k, 6K....10K.... etc etc. Our eyes will not be able to differentiate. So we will have to hear from some experts as to whether XXXK is better than XXK or not. We will hear/see interviews of such experts in these forums regularly.

HD acquisition will become better and better ie. with lower and more efficient compression, so that the files will be much cleaner and detailed. Latitude will increase, low noise ability will increase phenomenally. HD will still be there for broadcast. Hopefully, youtube and vimeo will molest your files less, would be great if they completely give it up....
 
It is always safer to future proof your investment now with 4K. It might not be the standard now, but I remember the SD days and when HD started rolling out it wasnt long that everyone started shooting HD.

Not to mention some 4K cameras coming out this summer for as low as $4000.
 
alex1 said:
It is always safer to future proof your investment now with 4K. It might not be the standard now, but I remember the SD days and when HD started rolling out it wasnt long that everyone started shooting HD.

Not to mention some 4K cameras coming out this summer for as low as $4000.
Click to expand...

The difference between SD to HD is far greater to the human eye, also...the aspect ratio and flat panels played a big part in the desire for consumers to switch and therefore the creators of content felt the need to provide visuals in what was a much improved format.
Much of what we see is not even close the best HD possible, so I think if the average person were to view content created with a very high res, high quality HD camera compared to a high quality 4K camera...they would have a very hard time seeing the difference. As proof of this....most people would look at a 2K Alexa movie and have ZERO idea it wasn't film. The idea that we will keep getting the same gains from each jump in resolution is flawed. Our eyes can only notice so much detail, esp at "healthy" viewing distances, lol.
The greater gains to be made in "lower level" cameras are better codecs and better sensors with more dynamic range. (and at the same time having the capability to resolve true HD) Shooting at 4k for 2k delivery makes sense, but I don't believe at all that HD to 4K is the same as SD to HD. All one has to do is compare a high end shot HD movie to a movie shot on film to realize it's not that huge leap we saw with 4:3 SD to 16:9 HD.
The one way I could see Sony/Panasonic/Vizio/etc try to capitalize on 4K would be to make TVs with yet another new aspect ratio that matched ultra wide. I'm not saying 4K won't be pushed, I'm just saying people with very good HD cameras won't be left in the dust....because very few people will be able to see the difference.
 
1080P HD was developed to match the spatial resolution of typical 35mm film release prints as projected in theaters. Some years ago I integrated a used 35mm cinemascope projector into a university lecture theater. The calibration films we ran showed a projected resolution of around 850 lines vertical and 1700 lines horizontal limited by jitter and gate weave. This is about the practical upper limit for 1080P HD too. However the film medium itself has significantly higher resolution.
Nyquist theory tells us we should use digital systems with at least twice resolution to fully resolve what we want to show substantially free of visual artifacts and with high modulation transfer function. Ergo 4k is best for acquisition at least and best for display too if we want to reach the same depth of modulation for significant midrange detail that film offers. The result is richer micro contrast and smoother better resolved texture for critical detail in the 900-1800 line range that we can see at normal viewing distances. This is clearly visible even on a 50" size TV at normal 8-10 foot viewing distances. The difference isn't as great as the move from 480P to 1080P, but it is comparable to the move from 720p to 1080p. A comparison MTF chart between the Alexa and Epic for instance shows MTF tapering to 0 at 1.6k horizontal with the Epic showing better than 50% MTF at the same resolution.
1080p acquisition won't be obsolete for a long time. I see production tiering into 1080p/2k as roughly equal to S16mm film in overall performance, 4k-5k matching S35, and 6k-8k systems matching 70mm/IMAX.
Along with better sensitivity, dynamic range and color science, digital will benefit from higher pixel resolutions too.
 
shuenwang said:
You got the point, actually. "When" is the important part of this question.
Click to expand...

Every change has to start someplace. I disagree with the title of this thread, that HD is dead now, but I do think 4K will become a common acquisition and distribution format sooner than some people think.


-Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top