Study say 4K transition will be faster than HD was.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Andrius Simutis said:
I'm not against 4k, it's actually quite nice, but whenever I hear someone getting really excited about it I just can't get the memory of all the 3D hype out of my mind. It was only a couple years ago that there were people here evangelizing 3D and saying that anyone who didn't jump on the bandwagon with them right then and there were going to be left behind. Now it looks like that bandwagon crashed in the ditch. I'm not saying that 4k will suffer the same fate as it clearly has some advantages on the acquisition side, but I just can't get too hyped up on it at the moment. Let's see where we are on 4k delivery next year.
Click to expand...

3D is more complicated and/or expensive to shoot, to edit, to distribute and to watch. The biggest hurdles to 3D (convergence issues, 3D glasses, a checkered/gimmicky past, etc.,) aren't present with 4K.

joe1946 said:
If Apple puts 4K in the iPhone 6 and the next iMac that will make the general public take notice and 4K will be in demand big time in 2015. People today are watching House of Cards on Netflix in 4K and youtube is getting thousands of 4K videos uploaded every day . Does anyone really think it's going to take 10-12 years for 4K to catch on ?
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between 4K "catching on" and the vast majority of people in the US owning at least one 4K TV. DVD, the fastest adopted consumer electronics technology, took 10 years to hit 80% market penetration in the US so predicting 4K will follow a similar arc isn't exactly calling it chopped liver. It will take a few more years for 4K TVs to hit the pricing sweet spot for mass adoption to start and then you have to wait for people to cycle out of their current HD TVs (the upgrade cycle for TVs and computers is much longer than it is for smart phones).
 
What I disagree with in this thread is the "all or nothing" theme that seems pervasive, that and the lack of any differentiation between market sectors, and between acquisition/distribution/display etc.

Even now, HD co-exists with SD. There wasn't (never will be) a single day when it could be said HD simply took over from SD. What CAN be said is that HD is gaining in significance, SD is declining - and I for one think that 4k will increasingly grow in significance, probably quite quickly. But ALONGSIDE HD, and even SD - it won't be a sudden one thing today, another tomorrow.

And the rate of acceptance must surely differ with what aspect we're talking about? So high end productions will move to 4k relatively soon, run of the mill work will take far longer. (As an aside, in the UK, the BBCs 24 hour News channel has only just gone to HD. Many were sceptical about whether News warranted HD at all - I can only say as a viewer that the difference is very noticeable.) So if you work at the high budget end - it's foolish IMO to now get any camera that's not 4k capable. If your work is "general broadcast", it's far less an issue. And pointless to talk in generalities.

As for displays, then whilst early adopters may be seeing 4k as a "must have", I suspect there are still many more HD screens being sold than 4k at the moment. But (as happened with HD, then "full HD") it won't be long before 4k screens become the norm, and manufacturers simply start phasing out HD screen production. If your TV dies, buy a new one - and it'll be 4k by default. And broadcast aside (which I see remaining HD for quite a while) then the increased resolution will come into play for matters such as display of still images, text, gaming, before we even start to think of screen usage for advertising, signage, etc. Whatever happens with the broadcast image, expect screen technology to go 4k far quicker than many may appreciate - at least for new sales.

And...... I also expect 4k to take off at the consumer end. Cameras like the GH4 are an early sign of that. And there's a virtuous circle. "I've got a 4k screen - I'll make sure my next domestic camera is 4k". So expect 4k to make most impact soonest at the top and bottom sectors of the market.

8k? Personally I doubt it. For general use anyway. With 4k you're already getting into a law of diminishing returns, simply getting as good as the human eye is capable of seeing. Why go further? It may find a market for specialist applications - scientific, medical, defence, theatre projection of live events etc - but for general entertainment?
 
Joncarr said:
We're all chasing that "film look" so why are we fighting the standards set forth by the oldest film company in the world when it comes to resolution.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone doubts that having the option to record in 4K or HD from the same camera isn't advantageous. Many of these discussion threads seem to lump that along with mass consumer 4K adoption/ubiquity together.

I am getting a sense that HD and 4K will always be together in some capacity until the next thing; 8K, VR, whatever...
 
Just to clarify my earlier comments on 3D and 4k, I don't think that 4k and 3D are the same at all. I just think that the people who feel the need to evangelize it seem to be cut from the same cloth. IMO, we'll see widespread 4k adoption in acquisition and eventually there will be a lot of displays in place to show it. But that will be eventually. Is "eventually" next year? I highly doubt it. Two years? There will be more. Five years? Common amongst the wealthy and videofiles, but less so amongst the average consumer. Ten years? Sure, I can see that being realistic as more of the HD TVs break down and are replaced. Again, all this is assuming a first world market.
 
harddrive said:
8k? Personally I doubt it. For general use anyway. With 4k you're already getting into a law of diminishing returns, simply getting as good as the human eye is capable of seeing. Why go further? It may find a market for specialist applications - scientific, medical, defence, theatre projection of live events etc - but for general entertainment?
Click to expand...
I think 8K will come soon enough. Remember what's been said about the advantages of 4K -- "allows reframing" and "yields great, 4:4:4 HD"? Well, in a couple of years, with better codecs and faster, higher-capacity storage, the same will be said about 8K -- "allows reframing" and "yields great, 4:4:4 4K." Red, Kinefinity, and possibly Arri have moved to 6K acquisition. It's only a matter of time before they push 8K.
 
Last edited:
Tiger Direct had the Seiki 4K 39" UHD TV for $379.99 and Amazon had the large 65" 4K model for as low as $1,387.89 so it shows they could make 4K UHD TVs for not much more than HDTVs so I bet most of the 65" and larger TVs sold next year will be 4K and smaller TVs will be mostly 1080p.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
But that will be eventually. Is "eventually" next year? I highly doubt it. Two years? There will be more. Five years? Common amongst the wealthy and videofiles, but less so amongst the average consumer. Ten years?
Click to expand...
Following on from my last post, then I'd still say "eventually" will happen earliest at the high end *AND* for the average consumer.

At the high end, because that's where such costs are likely to be low compared to other fixed costs (labour, talent, transportation, costume, lighting, etc etc) and it makes sense to future proof, at the low end because a simple 4k consumer camera is likely to become the norm - we're already starting to see that with the first models. It's the middle (broadcast etc) which is likely to take longest due to the complexities of the chain, the high levels of investment required and the complications from broadcast standards and bitrate considerations. (Though even here 4k acquisition may happen far sooner than transmission.) All the above is exactly what happened with HD.

My guess is that "eventually" may be one or two years at the extremes of the market, ten or more in the middle. (Mainstream broadcast.)
Tzedekh said:
Red, Kinefinity, and possibly Arri have moved to 6K acquisition. It's only a matter of time before they push 8K.
Click to expand...
I take what they mean by "6k" to mean a "6k" Bayer sensor - and the main reason for moving there is to give full 4k luminance resolution. (Same with the F65, though it uses the Q67 design. In each case though, you're talking about around a doubling of the total photosite count compared to 3940x2160 Bayer sensors.) It's the same thinking as the Alexa having about 2880 photosites horizontally to give 1920x1080. If you want true 1080 resolution, you must have a Bayer sensor with more than 1920x1080 - and a rough doubling is the right sort of number. Exactly the same with 4k.
 
Am I only interested insofar as it affects work----when will clients start demanding things like talking head interviews, seminars/presentations, basically things intended for computer/web viewing be shot in 4K? I realize of course this is different for everyone, and depends on who your clients are, but just wondering if anyone has any insight. Logically one would say that except for folks IN the media arts, most computer screens are on the small side (at least in my experience) 19, 22, 24 inches, and those can't (at least not usually that I know of) even display full 1080!. However, maybe that's changing?

Believe it or not I still don't have an HD camera of my own (last cam I bought was an XL2), and am just now looking into getting something (likely an EX1-r).
 
Josh Bass said:
Am I only interested insofar as it affects work----when will clients start demanding things like talking head interviews, seminars/presentations, basically things intended for computer/web viewing be shot in 4K? I realize of course this is different for everyone, and depends on who your clients are, but just wondering if anyone has any insight.
Click to expand...

I recently started a thread concerned about the same thing.

The gist of the responses was not to worry about it, for now:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?321438-HD-How-much-more-time&
 
GHKAM said:
The gist of the responses was not to worry about it, for now.........
Click to expand...
I think the key phrase that Josh used was "I realize of course this is different for everyone, and depends on who your clients are......."!

It's true that some people don't need to worry yet, others need to be giving it a great deal of thought!! :)
 
harddrive said:
I take what they mean by "6k" to mean a "6k" Bayer sensor - and the main reason for moving there is to give full 4k luminance resolution. (Same with the F65, though it uses the Q67 design. In each case though, you're talking about around a doubling of the total photosite count compared to 3940x2160 Bayer sensors.) It's the same thinking as the Alexa having about 2880 photosites horizontally to give 1920x1080. If you want true 1080 resolution, you must have a Bayer sensor with more than 1920x1080 - and a rough doubling is the right sort of number. Exactly the same with 4k.
Click to expand...
Yes, but most of the 4K cameras released or announced so far have only 4,096 x 2,160 or even 3,840 x 2,160 active photosites, so no oversampling to yield a closer-to-4K luminance resolution.
 
Josh Bass said:
Am I only interested insofar as it affects work----when will clients start demanding things like talking head interviews, seminars/presentations, basically things intended for computer/web viewing be shot in 4K? I realize of course this is different for everyone, and depends on who your clients are, but just wondering if anyone has any insight. Logically one would say that except for folks IN the media arts, most computer screens are on the small side (at least in my experience) 19, 22, 24 inches, and those can't (at least not usually that I know of) even display full 1080!. However, maybe that's changing?

Believe it or not I still don't have an HD camera of my own (last cam I bought was an XL2), and am just now looking into getting something (likely an EX1-r).
Click to expand...

Instead of waiting for clients to demand 4K, think about it another way, like providing the ability to shoot a single camera talking head, seminar, with a single camera wide(r) shot that can be reframed to mediums, close ups, smooth zooms exactly where appropriate and better than humanly possible, etc. Reframe the shot left or right and add graphics.
 
For people who were around the forums and remember... how long did it take HD to really take hold professionally once it was unveiled? At what point did it feel like the DVX100 simply wasn't good enough anymore to stay competitive in your markets?
 
edithouse said:
Instead of waiting for clients to demand 4K, think about it another way, like providing the ability to shoot a single camera talking head, seminar, with a single camera wide(r) shot that can be reframed to mediums, close ups, smooth zooms exactly where appropriate and better than humanly possible, etc. Reframe the shot left or right and add graphics.
Click to expand...

To add to this. Some big reality shows are now shooting their interviews in 4K for precisely that reason. One 4K camera can get a wide two shot plus singles of interviewee. Easier and cheaper than shooting with multiple cameras.
 
DBP said:
For people who were around the forums and remember... how long did it take HD to really take hold professionally once it was unveiled? At what point did it feel like the DVX100 simply wasn't good enough anymore to stay competitive in your markets?
Click to expand...

Well, the DVX100 was released in December 2002, and the HVX200 in December 2005.

It is just a matter of opinion (same as this thread is) as to when either became obsolete, or at least no longer current.

The 4K transition may be quicker than HD was (or may not). But even if it is, nobody can say (now) that it will be 2 years, 10 years or whatever. Nobody knows that. Or can know that.

Is 4K more important to some than others now?

Yes, obviously- look at this thread.
 
Is the DVX that old? That's crazy.

I can say that for me, it took a while before I was ever asked to shoot HD specifically (like 2-3 years after it was fairly mainstream at the prosumer level, maybe 2008 or 9). I just grew to hate dealing with tape/capture after a while that I started using HD all the time.

As for the "don't worry about it" response. . .obviously that's not true for everyone, as the uproar regarding the 4k/Odyssey debacle resulted in many threads. Just on this board there is a substantial user base who feels 4K necessary RIGHT NOW. Perhaps these guys are all working in the feature film world, though. I do not.
 
so is the implication that 80% of people will be watching 4k content from their blu-ray players within 10 years? how is this not, ultimately, an infrastructure and bandwidth question?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top