Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no HD mon's in the 80's,
d
Really? Sony is releasing a $30,000 4K TV set and that implies that they will 'now extensively switch to
4K for $300 consumer cameras'? I think I am missing something here.....(aside from the fact that ANYONE
could be foolish enough to pay 30 grand for a FREAKING TV SET!!)
Great... now my cable bill is going to go up again!
So rather than 8k, I'd like to see a new broadcast standard that gave us a minimum of 10 bit 4:2:2 (12 bit 4:4:4 would be nicer), a minimum of 35 Mbps (or whatever eliminates 98% of motion artifacts like microblocking, which will be CODEC dependent of course), lossless 7.1 audio, native frame rates (progressive only, no interlacing) from 24 to 72 fps, no drop frames (goodbye 23.976! Artifacting on analog B&W TV sets is, um, not so much of a problem with a digital signal people!), all wrapped in a modern CODEC designed for it, but at least better than MPEG4.
I'd rather see all this at 2k. I'd rather have this than 4k or 8k. For that matter, all this information should be broadcast in a stream header (say, attached to every I frame) so the TV can decide what CODEC to use to decode, what resolution, what aspect ratio, what sound, etc. This would give us both backward compatibility (existing HD content) and a growth path (future higher quality formats).
That's what I want. What I'm going to have though is what I've got right now, full HDTV. I'll probably be long dead before we get the rest of it.![]()
So rather than 8k, I'd like to see a new broadcast standard that gave us a minimum of 10 bit 4:2:2 (12 bit 4:4:4 would be nicer), a minimum of 35 Mbps (or whatever eliminates 98% of motion artifacts like microblocking, which will be CODEC dependent of course), lossless 7.1 audio, native frame rates (progressive only, no interlacing) from 24 to 72 fps, no drop frames (goodbye 23.976! Artifacting on analog B&W TV sets is, um, not so much of a problem with a digital signal people!), all wrapped in a modern CODEC designed for it, but at least better than MPEG4.
Brilliant analysis, I'm sure it will be every bit as successful as 3D. I find your trickle-up theory of $300 4k cameras especially insightful since Sony doesn't have a 4k camera under $10,000 right now. The FS700 doesn't count since we can actually buy the supposed 4k capability yet.
.

:facepalm:
4k video is only 8.4mp, so in theory its possible with pretty much any digicam sensor on the market right now - sensor resolution is not the issue -
Another truly brilliant analysis.
Why are you worried about Sony's fiances? Who appointed you for that role? That's not your business. Stick to the topic.
What?!?!? Now that's funny, as a publicly traded company Sony's finances is my business - along with a few hundred thousand other shareholders - pure comedy, thanks for the laugh..
:facepalm:
4k video is only 8.4mp, so in theory its possible with pretty much any digicam sensor on the market right now - sensor resolution is not the issue - the issue is data processing and storage as the sheer size of the files are enormous - 4k eats up more than 1TB for each hour of video. Good luck finding a SD card with the write speed to handle that ... *hint* ... it doesn't exist.
If that was true, FullHD would eat at least 256GB (1/4th) for each hour of video, maybe it does in RAW but not with actual consumer cameras. In reality 1080p60 looks great on my camera at "up to" 28 Mbps, so 4K should do well in "up to" 4*28 = 112 Mbps meaning any UHS-I card (minimum 50MB/s = 400 Mbit/s) should be more than enough and a 64GB SDXC card you can get for $50 will give you 1.25 hours of video. Storage is not the problem, processing power is a challenge but not an impossible one. Already there's "pro" 4K video cameras for $5000 (JVC GY-HMQ10), I expect that in a year or two prosumer cameras in the $1000-1500 range will appear.