First Epic Shipped

Yes, but tech versus broadcast specs is a very different thing. The tech has been changing rapidly in the past few years, but it hasn't had a huge effect on broadcast standards. Those standards function pretty independently of what's going on in the camera world. You are talking hypothetical, and it's easy to argue hypothetical cause there's no way to back it up except with a hypothetical time in the future.

Let's do this, let's throw out a time frame when we think 4K broadcast will be implemented. We can put it in this thread and visit it in a year, or two, or three, however long you think this tech will trickle down and really change this industry. If you are right, I'll buy you a beer, if I am, the beer's on you. Deal? :)
 
If I were to put my reputation on the line and take a guess (I know I'm going to get slammed here but f*ck it!) at the near future I woud say
- broadcast as we know it is going to slowly diminish as it diversifies to online, this means a decrease in delivery resolution and quality for broadcast ->online (regular broadcast moves to 1080p or 2k)
- online 'channels' and tv as we know it increases
- the TV episode structure as we know it could get shorter to accomodate the change in the viewing environment (people viewing on the go instead of on the couch)
- the 72 ppi (pixels per inch) as we know it disappears and we start to see small tiny high def hand held screens (as exemplified by the 320 ppi screen I linked to earlier)
- the video acquisition/production industry divides between threatrical (4k / 3D) and online 720p and 1080p which I know youtube are experimenting with now

Ok there you have it, I put my specifics thoughts online publically so I don't doubt I get a lot thrown at me this time. As for a beer Isaac, aren't you a fellow NYorker? (I know we've never met)
 
Last edited:
rereading my post I want to clarify on thing which may be mis-interpreted. When I said decrease in quality I mean this in reference to the quality that viewers are expecting
ie. not 4k home viewing. In fact less that current tv standards of home viewing. I believe the consumer is prepared to downgrade to 720p (or 1080p) compressed internet delivery
and gain in user choice options
 
J, you gotta pick dates otherwise it's a hypothetical. :) Your guesses are open ended. What you just said has no timetable and could be next year or never.

I am gonna say that we are not gonna see any 4K broadcast in the next two years. Two years seems pretty near, Epic should (knock on wood) be out by then, Scarlet should be out by then (double knock) and Redray or whatever Jim was alluding to will hopefully be out in the open by that time.

Got a date in time? You gotta be more specific than "near future" otherwise it doesn't count.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
J, you gotta pick dates otherwise it's a hypothetical. :) Your guesses are open ended. What you just said has no timetable and could be next year or never.

I am gonna say that we are not gonna see any 4K broadcast in the next two years. Two years seems pretty near, Epic should (knock on wood) be out by then, Scarlet should be out by then (double knock) and Redray or whatever Jim was alluding to will hopefully be out in the open by that time.

Got a date in time?
Click to expand...

Oh I though i was clear sorry. My answer is never. I think it (all channels) might move to 1080p or 2k.
I also went on to elaborate why. I think the home theater/tv experience as we know it will decline as we move online.
4k will remain for theatrical and the video acquisition industry divides.
 
Last edited:
For the record I just want to add that I my guess is that 4k delivery to the consumer will arrive one day but it will not be via broadcast as Isaac was wanting me to bet.
I could be wrong as this is a guess.
I believe it will arrive via the internet and it not necessarily be bandwidth driven, but codec driven.

edit:
I'm getting very hypothetical now, sorry. My guess at codec driven is because bandwidth will increase but so will the amount of consumption therefore codec would be the online delivery solution
 
Well that's a safe bet, youtube is/has unveiled that. Still remains though that we will need affordable 4K monitors to even take advantage of that. And when will those monitors hit the market? Oh that's right, the future. :)
 
Aah now we talking monitors not broadcast delivery pipelines. Two very different things.
Affordable 4k monitors within 2 years - but you were talking about the broadcast pipeline before were you not?
 
Yep, you changed the topic from broadcast to online delivery, which is via 4k monitors. Anyway, enough of this. Chasing a tail now. I'm getting off this hypothetical train. None of it really matters until it's actually here.
 
Is there a point about all of that? :) I think all of us understand that 4k in consumer market not going to happen anytime soon, in broadcast most likely not too... Red philosophy reminds me of Sony inventing minidiscs, i.e. trying to push own thing, red's 'horse' is resolution, thus the reason Jim is pushing that. of course, i might be wrong and he may have a trick in the hat, but then again, as some discussed here, there is a point when it's 'good enough' for the average and 1080 i think is that point.

Also red's 4k is soft and downscaled to 1080p is not that much different than real Full HD cam? or am i wrong? And then again, red's raw... it's not raw, it's compressed @ 200 mbits/s or something around that. It's a never ending discussion :) i'm still working with my HPX500 and i love it and will shoot a short on it after new year. It's the story that matters :)
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Yep, you changed the topic from broadcast to online delivery, which is via 4k monitors. Anyway, enough of this. Chasing a tail now. I'm getting off this hypothetical train. None of it really matters until it's actually here.
Click to expand...

uh uh. Isaac, I never changed the topic. I answered your question about 4k broadcast by saying never (my guess). I mentioned (lesser quality) online delivery increasing as to my reason why and to support my guess.
4k monitors is completely different and I think they will arrive and video guys will buy them to pixel peep but my guess is the consumer will not be interested in them for for broadcast delivery TV purposes
because according to my guess 4k broadcast won't happen!
They may (stress on may) appeal to the consumer if a new format like bluray but for 4k were to be invented - but that is not broadcast. That is delivery via disk, legit torrent or some other package (ie not realtime)
 
Last edited:
So 4k near visually lossless streaming delivery at half the bit rate of current broadcast HD won't show up as an online delivery format or as a future broadcast delivery format? (Red Ray). Red has demonstrated their 15 mbit/sec 4k footage side by side with uncompressed 4k with large screen 4k projection. Those who have seen it, including many professional DPs, have said it is nearly impossible to distinguish which is which even up close.
I don't think you will see broadcast codecs change for maybe 10 years since the digital standards were just fully implemented last year and many cable systems still distribute analog NTSC, but they are getting farther and farther behind the technology curve anyway and suffering for it. Since the switch to digital formats is essentially complete in the consumer space, upgrading resolution and codecs to higher standards is a very minor investment compared to the analog to digital conversion of the last 10 years.
 
I did not understand too well, excuse me if I understand it all wrong. At first you were saying that you thought that 4k would come fast to the consumer. When pressed about a deadline you are now saying that the consumer will migrate more to the online content delivery. In many case it will be on laptop or ipads type of tablet, even cell phones. So in fact it will be much more regression in terms of delivery, 1080p would be much more resolution than those devices will need.
 
Danielvilliers said:
So in fact it will be much more regression in terms of delivery, 1080p would be much more resolution than those devices will need.
Click to expand...

To just say something for J, 1080p on current 72-75 dpi screens are fine, but when they truly do have televisions that have a much denser pixel count like 300+ dpi, I think the higher resolutions will be needed for small and large TVs, especiallly on larger screens. I do want to note that Apple has already started making higher pixel density screens, including the iPhones and iPads. They are in the 130 ppi range for those displays. It will be interesting to see if that's is the way displays in general start to go. It will give you a much cleaner look, mch like looking out of a window. Eventually they're going to be omething like "real life" diplays.

I'm gonna say this. I think if RED has developed a 15Mb/s codec, we may be closer than we think for delivery because that is very close to what current broadcast standards are now as far as transmission rates go. But if 15Mb/s is what RED is doing for 4k, Jim needs to sell the same algorythms for 1080p and 2k reducing their sizes down to 800Kb/sec and 3.25Mb/s respectively. But one problem for 4k right now is no TV would be able to decode it. Just like SD TVs can't play HD channels. I think that manuafacturers will probably skip 2k, or implement a 2k/4k combo system starting in maybe 5-7 years in higher end units when it becomes more prevelent. This means other camera manufacturers having a "need" to release 4k cameras, the prices of technology coming down, etc.

I also believe that technology in that regard will start to slow down in some ways as certain things like resolution will surpass what the brain can distinguish. I doubt the human eye will be able to tell the difference between 4k and 8k or 16k on a 42" screen. On a big screen, sure. Manufacturers will need to create a need for new televisions in other ways, thats why they have already started the push for 3D, but frankly there is going to need to be more than that offered to get people to replace their current sets. I am purchasing a Sony 55" LED TV in January. Cost is between $1299 and $1499 currently. Amazing. Super thin. It should last me at least the next 5 years, because at this point I cannot imagine any technology that will be prevalent enough in that time period to warrant replacing it.

What I also wonder is if eventually HD video glasses will make their way into mainstream sales. Sony had a semi-big hit with the "Glasstron glasses" and they have recently been shown working on and even demonstrating their new developing HD glasses with built in 3d capabilities. But it sounded like they were still a few years away from releasing something like that.
 
Last edited:
TV and cinema sales will continue to decline as long as they continue to make content aimed at the lowest common denominator American trash market.
 
Kit Hannah said:
To just say something for J, 1080p on current 72-75 dpi screens are fine, but when they truly do have televisions that have a much denser pixel count like 300+ dpi, I think the higher resolutions will be needed for small and large TVs, especiallly on larger screens. I do want to note that Apple has already started making higher pixel density screens, including the iPhones and iPads. They are in the 130 ppi range for those displays. It will be interesting to see if that's is the way displays in general start to go. It will give you a much cleaner look, mch like looking out of a window. Eventually they're going to be omething like "real life" diplays.
Click to expand...

To add to what Kit is saying, the new iPhone4 and iTouch are both at 320 pixels per inch. I kept my old iPod touch and when I compare video playback the difference is remarkable.
Glad you were also paying attention to the RU forums a while back when they mentioned the bitrates of the delivery codecs. I'm sure they are not the only ones to be exploring new codec realms.
300+ ppi screens and better delivery codecs IMO will shape the next 3-5 years to a great degree.
 
J Davis said:
To add to what Kit is saying, the new iPhone4 and iTouch are both at 320 pixels per inch. I kept my old iPod touch and when I compare video playback the difference is remarkable.
Click to expand...

I thought the iPhone4 was up over 300 but I quickly looked up the specs on the iPad and they were like 132ppi, that's why I threw that out there. Thanks for the clarification :) I did see the 4k=15Mb/s but I didn't see the others, just "assumed" they may be able to do something in that ballpark based off of the math. If that efficient of good compression exists, it could very much be a real possibility as transmission rates per current satellite, cable and broadcast air channels are anywhere from 5 to 25 Mb/s, depending on what it is.
 
question is whether average human eye can distinguish 4k and 1080p at the average viewing distance on average screen size? would the difference be worth it? don't think so...
 
Tomas Riuka said:
question is whether average human eye can distinguish 4k and 1080p at the average viewing distance on average screen size? would the difference be worth it? don't think so...
Click to expand...

I can tell you from personal experience that a QHD (3860x2160) 50" display showing a QHD original video viewed at 10 feet is visibly quite superior to 1080p, as visibly different as 480p is from 1080p. And my old eyes are not that sharp. You can't see the pixels in either case, but the smoothness of the image, fine detail resolution, and micro contrast are all vastly superior to 1080p. It is like the difference between looking at a TV and through a window. The demo I saw was for a medical imaging system for viewing and teaching micro surgery techniques.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top