I'm waiting for 4K fad to fade in favor of 8K

groveChuck said:
Or, in the case of higher res vs increased DR, yen vs yang... :happy:
Click to expand...
Are you yenging my chain?

David W. Jones said:
I sold my Studer A810 reel to reel on ebay last year for $1700, and a couple drove all the way from Toronta to pick it up. Crazy!
Click to expand...
The new custom-built R2R run ~ $10,000 at the lowest and can easily end up upwards of $20,000. The custom made tapes run ~ $300 per reel too. The secret sauce is the guy making them runs a couple of RCA cables from a cheap-ass CD player into his "master recorder". That's it. So, who would have thunk that, when I copied a CD onto a cassette for my car stereo back in the late-80's/early-90's, I was on the verge of striking it rich.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I'm still waiting for the 1080 fad to pass over. I miss the good ole' SD days and am looking forward to everyone going back to that.
Click to expand...

You haven't really lived until you've done a complete realignment and registration of a brand new set of Saticon tubes in an Ikegami.

I counted once, and there were over 200 trimpots on the main board of my ITC-350 that could (and often had to) be tweaked ... which comes AFTER you have done the mechanical rotation, registration and focus alignment on all three tubes.

- Greg
 
Things may not play out in a linear fashion (2K>4K>8K>16K) with rectangular monitors to suit better resolutions.

In the near future, virtual and augmented reality is going to be very significant. As you've seen with demos of Hololens, you'll be able to "project" a screen anywhere, among other AR/VR tech.

TBH, I would rather the linear progression...besides the familiarity and love of real cameras, I hate the thought of having to make videos for a 360 degree perspective and/or even have to constant watch such content while wearing something and being "immersed".

But the fact remains that the next decade of video is not going to look like the previous decade. Hopefully "flat screen" tech can live alongside VR and AR for some time.

Nokia's Ozo virtual-reality camera packs $60K price tag
http://www.cnet.com/news/nokias-ozo-virtual-reality-camera-on-sale-for-60000/

Nokia Ozo Camera – The Virtual Reality Camera for Filmmakers
https://socialbarrel.com/nokia-ozo-camera-the-virtual-reality-camera-for-filmmakers/101120/
 
With regards to 4K - Canon (you may have heard of the name) has released a $53,000 (retail) 4K projector. With its 5,000 Lumen lamp, it's more than enough for a 200-400 seat (dark) theater, which is on the high side of your typical multiplex with its 80-250 seat screening rooms. Naturally, if Canon can do it, so can everyone else, which would mean a lot more 4K rooms everywhere. Current 4K pro projector lineup can be rather pricey at $150,000-$250,000.

And, of course, the new 4K Blu-Ray disc players should be out by February or so. One won't even need a huge and hugely expensive server to run each room. Just press "play" and take a nap.
 
I have no doubt that at some point I will find myself editing 8K files at home. Maybe in 2030, but I think it will happen.
 
Samuel H said:
I have no doubt that at some point I will find myself editing 8K files at home. Maybe in 2030, but I think it will happen.
Click to expand...

David W. Jones said:
Give it 3 years.
Click to expand...

I'd say 4-5 but ... an 8K file size is going to be roughly the three times the size of a 4K file, since a lot of information will be redundant. And, with double the compression rate of HEVC (or alike), this gets to the ~ 1.5 size. So, this is definitely doable.

The processing power, aka video cards, and the SSD's are getting cheaper continuously too. I read a piece somewhere yesterday that, by Christmas 2017, SSD's will be close to matching HDD's in terms of cost per memory unit.

Finally, in terms of the currently non-existing (in general sense) 8K cameras. Let's presume that the Samsung-to-Nikon rumors are true. Then let's presume that the NX1 sensor is scalable from its current APS-C size to the FF. That gives us a roughly 60 MPX full frame sensor. That certainly seems possible, as there are current 50 MPX FF sensors out there already. (plus, if one adds smartphones with their 1/2.3" 23 MPX photon catchers, one can go into the 200's already).

Then process the signal, compress it with HEVC and record it onto the CFast 2.0 at about 400 Mbps. Newer 14 nM FinFET processors shouldn't produce an overwhelming amount of heat compared to their predecessors and a large D4 style body should easily handle it (once again, NX1 handled HEVC in a fairly compact form just fine).

Voila. It'll be out within a year.

PS. If one thinks the above is a far fetched scenario. Two years ago, the lowest priced 4K DSLR was 1D C at $12,000, with no pro cameras having it until one hit the F55/Epic level. Now, one can get a well reviewed G7 for about $500, lens included. G7 won't deliver the same image as 1D C but, with good grading, it'll be close enough. Oh, and if anyone's counting, $500 is slightly over 4% of $12,000. And all it took, if you deem the date of 1D C release as the starting point, was two years. A more interesting comparison is 1D C to GH4, which took about a year and a half and brought in about an 85% reduction in price.
 
* Currently the cheapest HDDs are around $0.03 per TB, and the cheapest SSDs are around $0.30 per GB. In the past year, cheapest HDD prices have gone down by around 10% (3TB drive, from $100 to $90), and cheapest SSD prices have gone down by around 30% (512GB drive, from $200 to $140). At that rate, and with that starting point, the crossing point is 2024.
I used data from here.

* Even if you solve all other issues, upscaling the NX1 sensor from APS-C to FF has a downside in terms of RS, if nothing else (number of photosites increases 2.25x, number of ADCs increases 1.5x because it doesn't depend on the area of the sensor but on the number of columns). RS is already pretty bad on the NX1...

Give it a couple of generations, though :)

In any case, I really think you're likely to get the current $8000 image in the $800 cameras from 2017. But that's "just" FS7 kind of image. No 8K there. Just super nice 4K with lots of DR and a great codec. OK, I'll settle for that...
 
Samuel H said:
* Currently the cheapest HDDs are around $0.03 per TB, and the cheapest SSDs are around $0.30 per GB. In the past year, cheapest HDD prices have gone down by around 10% (3TB drive, from $100 to $90), and cheapest SSD prices have gone down by around 30% (512GB drive, from $200 to $140). At that rate, and with that starting point, the crossing point is 2024.
I used data from here.

* Even if you solve all other issues, upscaling the NX1 sensor from APS-C to FF has a downside in terms of RS, if nothing else (number of photosites increases 2.25x, number of ADCs increases 1.5x because it doesn't depend on the area of the sensor but on the number of columns). RS is already pretty bad on the NX1...

Give it a couple of generations, though :)

In any case, I really think you're likely to get the current $8000 image in the $800 cameras from 2017. But that's "just" FS7 kind of image. No 8K there. Just super nice 4K with lots of DR and a great codec. OK, I'll settle for that...
Click to expand...

My mistake on SSD, as my memory (not to be confused with the 3D Nano) was off. This article still estimates a 4/1 price disparity in 2016 and 3/1 by 2017. Still, looking at 2017 (13 months away), a projected price of $170 for 1 TB makes storage more and more affordable.

http://www.computerworld.com/articl...and-hard-drive-prices-are-nearing-parity.html

As to the NX1, it already fully reads out its 28 MPX, so the increase to 33 shouldn't make it that much worse. With other improvements, it may even be better.

Of course, 33 MPX is only 4:2:0 8K. To go 4:2:2, a camera will need 66 MPX. I say, give Samsung 24 months and it'll be here.
 
harddrive said:
I believe that viewing distances in the home tend to average out very close to about 2.5-3 metres, and that's down to the size of the average living room. Take that and 1080p is good enough up to screen sizes of around 55" before 4K would make any discernible difference.
Click to expand...
itumeukr.png
link
International Telecommunications Union said:
Worldwide television audiences have acquired certain viewing habits, which they might bereluctant to change unless the viewing experience is enhanced greatly.A typical viewing habit is to watch television while sitting on the sofa in the living room. The TVscreen is watched from a position perhaps 7 feet (2.1 m) away. This viewing distance did notchange when television transitioned from black and white to colour, or from SDTV to HDTV.Indeed, in the latter transition, the viewing distance remained roughly the same, while the TVscreen became larger.A 52” (132 cm) HDTV 1080” receiver today is viewed at a distance of about 7 feet (2.1 m).Assuming that the home viewing habits will not change dramatically when transitioning fromHDTV to 3 840 × 2 160 UHDTV, it can be expected that 100” (2.5 m) screens may well exist, insome instances such a large screen would take up a good part of the living room wall. This could beconsidered an enhanced viewing condition.It cannot be excluded that consumers would be prepared to install such a large screen in their livingroom, but it seems unlikely that they will be prepared to install the 200” (5 m) screen that could berecommended for 7 680 × 4 320 UHDTV viewing.It could be concluded that, from the point of view of image presentation, 3 840 × 2 160 UHDTVtelevision broadcasting to the home may find acceptance with in-home television audiences, while itmay be unlikely that 7 680 × 4 320 UHDTV will do so. The 7 680 × 4 320 UHDTV image systemmay instead find applications for television presentations to the public in theatres, in home theatres,auditoria, theme parks, and other public venues.
Click to expand...
(why does dvxuser remove paragraps)
 
1.5 height of a 16x9 60" TV is about 4 feet. LG reports that they are not going to make as many OLED's in 2015-16 because they expected to sell a bunch of 50" and 55" models. It turns out that people want larger sets.

Anyway, those tests are the averages. Some people can see from further away, some need to move in.
 
I tested myself, and my conclusion was that for taking full advantage of 1080p I need 78" for my living room (viewing distance: 330cm, or about 11 feet). That comes out at 3.4 heights, so, pretty close to that table. I like to quote it as "width has to be around half the viewing distance" (I hate using height as the main dimension, as it changes with aspect ratio; width makes a lot more sense to me).
 
DLD said:
1.5 height of a 16x9 60" TV is about 4 feet. LG reports that they are not going to make as many OLED's in 2015-16 because they expected to sell a bunch of 50" and 55" models. It turns out that people want larger sets.
Anyway, those tests are the averages. Some people can see from further away, some need to move in.
Click to expand...
The way I read the above table for UHD is this: This is the distance you should sit if you want to be dazzled by the pixels and have a “wraparound wide-angle experience.” Or, this is the distance you should sit if you want to justify your paying for UHD. But who sits 4 feet away from a 60 inch TV?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top