The shift to 4K is happening much faster than the move to HD did

When CD's came out in the early-80's, they eliminated the source - records, tapes, radio - as the weakest link in the audio chain for the majority of music listeners. Prior to that, only the audiophiles enjoyed reel-to-reel, L-Cassette, high end tape decks and record players (with half-speed masters, no less). After that, the weakest links became the speakers and the amplifier. A portable CD player + a set of headphones solved that problem too.

BTW, in 1985, New York Times reviewed Dire Straits' "Brother in Arms" album and lamented that, from now on, the quality of recordings would take a precedent over the quality of music. As many New York Times' predictions, this one did not come true either.
 
CDs contain audio data stored in a "loss less" format 16/44.1 packed from 1411kbps. I think data on the CD is exactly as it was intended by the mastering engineer at the final point in its production. Of course there is a lot of equipment (player, amp, speakers) to muck things up before it gets to your ear.
 
Then again, there are many of us who were in the audio business when the first CD players hit the market. I recall evaluating the early CDs and CD players. To say that they sounded good or better than vinyl or a good multi track reel to reel at the time is a stretch. The early CD releases and CD players with various single bit D/A conversion gave me an instant headache. The absence of noise floor and increased dynamic range was all that was apparent to casual listeners. But to most audiophiles and engineers, early CDs and gen 1 and gen 2 CD players were a train wreck. Harsh, abrasive, tinny, they sounded like fingernails on a chalkboard. The technology did get better but the actual quality of sound took many years to equal a good piece of vinyl on a high quality turntable with a killer cartridge.

Video is in the same cycle, people equate more resolution as "better". You quickly reach the level where the average viewer can barely discern the difference between 1080 and 4K at the viewing distances and screen sizes most consumers have at home. It seems as if every high end 4K consumer monitor I see can looks okay but there is still a ton of moire, lots banding on gradients, etc. The endless pursuit of resolution is, to me, a cop out on the true advancement of imaging technology. All engineers have to do is develop higher resolution systems, imagers and screens. It's much more difficult to increase the dynamic range of the images, the smoothness of edges and increasing color gamut. We are in a similar place as we were in the late 80s when CDs came onto the scene. It will all get better but we are in an awkward phase right now. Going from 4K to 8K is arguably not advancing image technology, it's just slapping more resolution into products. Pointless and a distraction to real innovation.
 
Last edited:
Josh Bass said:
I need it to stay awkward for a while longer cause i just got a C100.
Click to expand...

I've actually been contemplating doing this myself because I love the look. Honestly I think it will be some time before I have any clients request 4K for delivery. 90% of projects for me wind-up on the internets anyway or shown at trade shows in HD. That is, aside from the legal video work that STILL gets delivered on DVD. That area of the business is VERY slow to change.
 
I have had a couple agencies ask if we did 4K but none of them actually need it.
I've had one bride ask for Blu-Ray. All the rest are DVD

I know there are some on here that do high end work: How many of you are producing 4K due to client demand and not just for reframing or increasing shelf life on stock footage?
 
This is the 4k tech trailer for Mass Effect: Andromeda.


The new Xbox One S and Playstation 4 Pro can play back in 4K, and the Xbox One Scorpio released next year will be able to render games in 4k. Between that, and both consoles integration of various video apps (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video)... plus computer monitors and video cards increasingly being 4k capable... I'm beginning to think the previous paradigm of relying on when broadcast switches to 4k, much like the switch to HD from Standard Definition, is a moot point. I went from "4k is cool, but kind of pointless for a while beyond being an acquisition format" to going 4k when I buy a new monitor in the next couple of weeks simply because of games... and the inevitable 4k video streaming... in a very short period of time.
 
puredrifting said:
Then again, there are many of us who were in the audio business when the first CD players hit the market. I recall evaluating the early CDs and CD players. To say that they sounded good or better than vinyl or a good multi track reel to reel at the time is a stretch. The early CD releases and CD players with various single bit D/A conversion gave me an instant headache....
Click to expand...
My first retail job was in 1986 (it's like five-six years ago) and I really knew very little about audio then. I wanted to buy a JVC player with my store employee discount. My buddies in the audio department laughed at me and told me to buy a Sherwood. I asked why. "Philips A/D converter", they replied. A couple of years later, I discovered that there were several companies that were modding that Sherwood player by adding better caps and so on. they were also charging in excess of $1,000 for the package (the retail was ~ $300, when I got mine).

Mike Harvey said:
... I'm beginning to think the previous paradigm of relying on when broadcast switches to 4k, much like the switch to HD from Standard Definition, is a moot point. I went from "4k is cool, but kind of pointless for a while beyond being an acquisition format" to going 4k when I buy a new monitor in the next couple of weeks simply because of games... and the inevitable 4k video streaming... in a very short period of time.
Click to expand...
I am not into video gaming but the broadcast system overhaul needs an official government approval. ATSC 3.0 has been in testing a while but the move toward the next standard will take a long time. Meanwhile, 4K over the IP has been available for a couple of years already. And, in any case, the on-demand streaming is the future of entertainment.
 
DLD said:
I am not into video gaming but the broadcast system overhaul needs an official government approval. ATSC 3.0 has been in testing a while but the move toward the next standard will take a long time. Meanwhile, 4K over the IP has been available for a couple of years already. And, in any case, the on-demand streaming is the future of entertainment.
Click to expand...

I know broadcast needs FCC approval... I worked for the local CBS affiliate during the headache that was the switch to HD :)... and 4k over IP has been available for awhile. But, I think the fact that the latest updates to the two current generation and widely adopted gaming consoles... and the monster update occurring with the X1 Scorpio next year and game developers embracing it... coupled with 4k over IP being integrated into both is going to drive a lot of demand for 4k TV sets. Which is going to increase demand for 4k video content, at least at the higher end of the scale, a lot quicker than I previously thought would happen.
 
firehawk said:
I have had a couple agencies ask if we did 4K but none of them actually need it.
I've had one bride ask for Blu-Ray. All the rest are DVD

I know there are some on here that do high end work: How many of you are producing 4K due to client demand and not just for reframing or increasing shelf life on stock footage?
Click to expand...

I suspect for most it is that they want to deliver 4K. In my business, only Netflix, Amazon and Hulu require 4K, none of the major studios even want it at this point. Keep in mind I shoot marketing and promotional material for TV shows and movies. If I were shooting the TV shows and movies themselves, then the studios might require 4k?
 
Emanuel said:
I fully concur.

Take a better look now, naysayers...! ;-)
Click to expand...

Emanuel said:
Also true. The point is people denying only because they don't want upgrade their workflow. I mean, people willing to impose to the world their own inner interest.
Click to expand...

Which "naysayers"?

People around here were making crazy claims that 4K was going to reach HD-level saturation by the end of 2014 or even earlier. Others, including myself, thought that idea was ridiculous -- and it was.

But now, late 2016, 4K is starting to make non-trivial inroads on the consumer side? I doubt anyone finds that too surprising.
 
I think those who don't want to accept 4K and are putting it off because their clients don't need it, or the processing power isn't there, or a general interest for it simply doesn't exist, are the ones who actually have never filmed in 4K. (Not a bad thing; just saying.)

Many who start working with high-quality 4K resolution files and see how much better their 2K master/delivery looks are quickly convinced. And if you're delivering for YouTube or Vimeo, a 4K file/upload is super ideal. The client doesn't need to watch it in 4K...the HD stream will look better than if you uploaded an HD master even if the images are automatically selected to play in 720p based on your internet connection.

Resolution is just as important as dynamic range and color and depth and everything else. 4K images are beautiful.

It's like...would you shoot your stills in 1920x1080?
 
I think you have to distinguish between 4K capture and 4K delivery, as many people are shooting 4K to deliver 1080p.
 
TheDingo said:
I think you have to distinguish between 4K capture and 4K delivery, as many people are shooting 4K to deliver 1080p.
Click to expand...

I included examples of both...

Personally, I don't work on anything important...all online for me. But it all gets shot in 4K, edited in 4K and uploaded in 4K.

4K is a must for me for capture and delivery because that's what I am now used to. It was the exact same feeling I had going from SD --> HD although I only caught the tail end of the SD world...but some of those SD images were really good!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top