GH4 Delivering "4k"...

One method going back to how we once did it with HD is to use a computer for playback and treat the HDTV as a really big honking computer monitor capable of driving 4k. At the end of the day thats all TV's are anyway. Just LCD panels with tuners built in.

We used to setup media center type of computers to do this. Just about any computer with a GPU that can drive 4k pixels would work. Of course this doesn't work to distribute to others but if you just want to watch your own stuff this may be the way to go. Keep in mind any 4k media player that would come out now would likely be very expensive anyway so buying a simple small form factor computer with enough GPU power to run a 4k computer monitor is a solid and somewhat affordable option for now.
 
I've got a 4k Monitor that I can watch/edit clips on... just trying to push the bleeding edge here and work on solutions that don't exist. I plan to get the Sony USB 4K files working first, then I'll look into the Samsung, since those are the big two. Then LG and more. Nothing wrong with HD and it is here to stay for a LONG WHILE and way better than SD, but I do want to push for 4K delivery. Somehow.

I've got an i7 laptop with hdmi out and 2 gig on the GPU, but not even sure if it can output 4k. Something to try though.

All this input and experience is greatly appreciated.
 
wwjd said:
I've got a 4k Monitor that I can watch/edit clips on... just trying to push the bleeding edge here and work on solutions that don't exist. I plan to get the Sony USB 4K files working first, then I'll look into the Samsung, since those are the big two. Then LG and more. Nothing wrong with HD and it is here to stay for a LONG WHILE and way better than SD, but I do want to push for 4K delivery. Somehow.

I've got an i7 laptop with hdmi out and 2 gig on the GPU, but not even sure if it can output 4k. Something to try though.

All this input and experience is greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

I hear you regarding pushing the bleeding edge. That's cool.

On the topic of HD being way better than SD, I just want to throw in one more point I made with someone recently while discussing this very thing. SD to 720p hd was noticeably better. Going from 720 to 1080 was less noticeable, however on the right sized screen you can still see it. On a smaller screen at a standard viewing distance, one could argue that 1080 would make no perceptible difference. So, if 1080 on a small screen isn't worth much, what size screen do you need for 4k to be beneficial?

I may eat my words in a few years from now, but someone asked me how long until 4K is standard, and my response was maybe never. If you have a giant, and I mean GIANT #$^@ing TV screen, I think matching the movie theater's standard 2.5k would be discernible from 1080p to a very trained eye. But 4k? I think we're already beyond retina-display sized pixel pitch. Consumers will buy it because of the numbers, and it will continue to impress at store displays up-close. But unless you are playing a digital fishtank or virtual window, how often is someone standing so close to the screen that they can't see the rest of it? When we operate our computers, we sit closer, often focusing on portions of the display at a time. A 4k computer monitor makes a tons of sense to have. But when watching a video full-screen, I'll bet you subconsciously sit farther back from the display that you do while reading this forum. The benefit of the finer pixels starts to become negligible, and at a normal couch-to-TV viewing distance all but completely indiscernible. This is my opinion, and again- I may eat my words in a few years from now. I just think there's a limit to how fine of a resolution the human eye can perceive, and I think we're approaching it if we haven't already.

My 2 cents, I'll go back into my corner now. Let us know if you figure anything out!
 
M. Gliden, your input is valued, relevent and interesting.
Sure, distance makes a difference but with 4K you are also getting mo better colors (or color potential) and higher quality images going INTO the final product.

The important thing is to go look at these new TVs yourself and decide. To me, it is a night/day improvement in resolution to HD*. Obviously better, and to me worth it. Believe me, I didn't want it to be... looking at my $3000 top of line Pinoneer HD TV.... but, to me eye, 4K looks better - in scenes where it is amplified like large, detailed landscape shots, big sports scenes etc, that's probably where it really shines... I still think it looks clearer even from far away. But, like many others from the HD revolution, I'm in no hurry at all to dump my wonderful HD TV for the latest new thang... can't even afford to... but I have a 4K camera now and want to push all I can. :)

* I'll admit all I've seen are 4K demos of citys and mountains where they push the color grading so hard, the forrest is deep blue and the evening sky burning orange, but the detail looks great!

And the GH4 looks like a freaking $200,000 broadcast camera when hooked to a nice HD TV!
 
I too was wondering how this is done. I also have a GH4, and in preparation for monitoring my 4K Premiere timeline, I have a Decklink SDI 4K card, and the Mini Converter SDI to HDMI 4K box to feed my 1080 monitor. Can't decide which 4K TV to get, or if this setup will actually work.
 
4K may not meen much to some but my own material looks in another league even compared to upscaled broadcast tv which is a lot better on a 4k tv.
 
Keep in mind we will always judge resolution as better when viewing side by side or having access to both 4k and HD versions and our memory can pick out the difference. To truly test if 4k really matters when viewing you have to watch material without comparison. At this point we as humans are less likely to notice the difference. Many a pro has been fooled by this and completely caught off guard. I have seen well produced DVD's fool pro's that swore they were looking at HD material. The same can be true for 4k as well.

Out of context if one has never seen the 4k version they will have no base of comparison and their mind will think the HD looks amazing. Due to the cleaner and sharper details of 4k cameras down converted to HD many will in fact likely swear they are watching 4k material. Especially those who are used to seeing material from other DSLR cameras.

Our brains are funny little things and our perception of what we see is affected by environment. This is how color theory works as well. Colors can be perceived different depending on the surrounding colors. The sam thing with detail and resolution. Without the base of comparison many will likely not be able to tell they are watching a HD version of 4k material that they have never seen the 4k version of.
 
wwjd said:
I've got a 4k Monitor that I can watch/edit clips on... just trying to push the bleeding edge here and work on solutions that don't exist. I plan to get the Sony USB 4K files working first, then I'll look into the Samsung, since those are the big two. Then LG and more. Nothing wrong with HD and it is here to stay for a LONG WHILE and way better than SD, but I do want to push for 4K delivery. Somehow.

I've got an i7 laptop with hdmi out and 2 gig on the GPU, but not even sure if it can output 4k. Something to try though.

All this input and experience is greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

It is true that many current computers and/or GPU's will not be able to support a 4k display. You would likely need something new that can support such a display. For example my great 2011 17" MBP cannot use a 4k display. The newer 15" retina MBP's can however. Thats a pretty expensive HD media player but there are much cheaper PC components/computers that would support 4k playback and could become a permanent device hooked up to your TV.
 
Thomas Smet said:
To truly test if 4k really matters when viewing you have to watch material without comparison. At this point we as humans are less likely to notice the difference.
Click to expand...

This. I don't think anyone walked out of a sci-fi visual feast like Ender's Game (referenced above) and said "Man, if only the picture was sharper". I doubt your TV is as large as the theater.
(if it is, can we be friends around super bowl time?)
 
Thomas Smet said:
I also question if we will ever see a 4k optical disc format. Depending on who you talk to (Apple) there is the belief that optical is dead. We very well could be moving into a file based only option for 4k delivery.
Click to expand...

It's official. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#4K_Blu-ray_Disc
My hope is that it will support various frame rates including 48fps 3D so I can watch the Hobbit movies as I've seen them in the theater. I would also love to see support for something like Dolby Vision.

EDIT: Turns out Cameron has decided to shoot the next Avatar movies at 48fps as well, instead of 60fps. http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1417687477
 
Last edited:
roxics said:
EDIT: Turns out Cameron has decided to shoot the next Avatar movies at 48fps as well, instead of 60fps. http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1417687477
Click to expand...


Sounds good to me! Finally, 100 years later, things are STARTING to "Advance". Will be great when theaters are all 4K, 60+fps. The "old way" people will die out eventually.

...which is why I am pressing forward with this stuff. I plan to master my project in 4K, 60p. The source is 30p, but pushed to 60p it has a smoother flow to it, yet the motion blur is still natural. YouTube is not doing 60p 4K yet, but they are doing 1080 60p, so I will upload there as well as the 4k 30p version.
Cameron and I are on the same page. :D
 
Personally I still prefer the look of 24fps, but I want the new disc format to be flexible enough to accomodate the higher frame rates as the filmmakers intended them to be seen.
 
24 will be around for a long while, if not forever, but NOW we have options to expand quality rather than restrict it. :D
The future looks bright....
 
roxics said:
It's official. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#4K_Blu-ray_Disc
My hope is that it will support various frame rates including 48fps 3D so I can watch the Hobbit movies as I've seen them in the theater. I would also love to see support for something like Dolby Vision.

EDIT: Turns out Cameron has decided to shoot the next Avatar movies at 48fps as well, instead of 60fps. http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1417687477
Click to expand...

My point wasn't if somebody wouldn't attempt to make a 4k optical disc format but if it will be a success. Blu-ray has not been a huge success already and the more we switch to a streaming and file based world the optical formats will start slipping away. There are many that believe every time a new optical format comes out it will be embraced less. Most companies have already ditched optical authoring software and I doubt there is going to be a huge push for 4k Blu-ray.

DVD made sense to distribute to clients because it was very common. Blu-ray makes less sense because of the cost and it is nowhere as common. 4k Blu-ray will be a very niche format for a long time and will not magically mean a decent distribution format for 4k material. People will clearly need new 4k Blu-ray players to play such discs and that is going to be a hard sell for consumers who partially invested in Blu-ray already or just never cared about Blu-ray.

Don't get me wrong. We will always need optical formats because not everybody lives near an internet hub with endless piles of bandwidth to use. Their relevance is reducing on a daily basis however. I was the biggest supporter of optical formats. I authored complex multi language DVD's with motion menus with nested navigation four or five levels deep. I was a full HD-DVD support and switched to authoring Blu-ray once the format war was over. I still am one of the few who actually creates DVD and Blu-ray media for clients while other colleagues don't even know what I am talking about anymore. I will continue to create optical media because it makes sense to distribute to some clients but I see the writing on the wall that it is a dying format.
 
yeah, I don't know where optical will end up... Archiving maybe? But as network speeds go up, need for hard media shrink. Netflix offers 4K over the net now, more and more will follow - offering online, not just 4K. Why keep discs if you can login to VUDU* and play all your movies, not just on your home TV and player, but on your watch, your phone, your pad, at the office, on a plane.... just more evolution of the medium.

Exciting things ahead!

*I've found vudu a PITA and don't recommend it yet, maybe other's experiences were better
 
wwjd said:
The source is 30p, but pushed to 60p it has a smoother flow to it, yet the motion blur is still natural.
Click to expand...

The only way I know to do this is with Twixor? I don't think the GH4 does 4k @ 60 unless maybe with the YAGH. Anyway sounds interesting.
 
roxics said:
It's official. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#4K_Blu-ray_Disc
My hope is that it will support various frame rates including 48fps 3D so I can watch the Hobbit movies as I've seen them in the theater. I would also love to see support for something like Dolby Vision.

EDIT: Turns out Cameron has decided to shoot the next Avatar movies at 48fps as well, instead of 60fps. http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1417687477
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/theRombus/status/540168531175038976
 
Well, if most people cannot visually benefit from 4K, why is there a push or talk at all about 8K? Supposedly they want to make 4K standard by 2017 - that's only 2 years from now (it's almost 2015), and then immediately 8K:

8K Resolution

"8K resolution is the highest ultra high definition television (UHDTV) resolution to exist in digital television and digital cinematography. 8K refers to the horizontal resolution of these formats, which all are on the order of 8,000 pixels, forming the total image dimensions (7680x4320).[1] 8K is a display resolution that may eventually be the successor to 4K resolution. 4K is speculated to become a mainstream standard in televisions by 2017.[2]One advantage of high-resolution displays such as 8K is to have each pixel be indistinguishable from another to the human eye from a much closer distance. On an 8K screen sized 52”, this effect would be achieved in a distance of 50.8 cm (20 inches) from the screen, and on a 92” screen at 91.44 cm (3 feet) away. Another practical purpose of this resolution is in combination with a cropping technique used in film editing. This allows filmmakers to film in a high resolution such as 8K, with a wide lens, or at a farther distance from a potentially dangerous subject, intending to zoom and crop digitally in post-production, a portion of the original image to match a smaller resolution such as the current industry standard for High-definition televisions (1080p, 720p & 480p).[3]
Few video cameras have the capability to film in 8K, with innovators NHK being one of the only companies to have created a small broadcasting camera with an 8K Image sensor.[4] Sony and Red Digital Cinema Camera Company are both working to bring larger 8K sensors in more of their cameras in the coming years.[4] Although 8K will not be a mainstream resolution anytime soon, a major reason filmmakers are pushing for 8K cameras is to get better 4K footage. Through a process called downsampling, using a higher resolution 8K image downsampled to 4K could create a sharper picture with richer colors than a 4K camera would be able to achieve on its own with a lower resolution sensor.[4]"

In other words, it's not stopping at 4K - the push is on for 8K. After that, I don't know if there is more, but there you have it - 4K is old tech.
 
I thought THE HOBBIT in 48fps HFR looked fantastic and groundbreaking. I'm so sick of slow 24fps "JUDDER"... we don't SEE like that.... I've never seen JUDDER in real life. There are better options in existence, why not use them?

People CAN see the difference in 4K. If they couldn't, it wouldn't sell at all. And it is selling.
I'd read Japan is gearing up for 8K broadcasting. Why not? The tech exists, it IS better, why stay with 100 year old technology?

Digital cameras ARE better than film cameras now. Lead, follow, or get out of the way, old tech. :) Unlike film, DIGITAL is still advancing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top