NorBro
Major Contributor
Wake me up when movies shot with the Alexa stop getting Oscars and Golden Globes because they are not 4K.
I wonder how many of those movies were shot in 1920x1080 with the camera.
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.
Wake me up when movies shot with the Alexa stop getting Oscars and Golden Globes because they are not 4K.
http://www.cepro.com/article/digital_projection_previews_4k_e_vision_highlite_laser_projectors
And for those on a ... ahem ... slightly tighter budget.
http://www.whathifi.com/news/hisense-4k-projector-delivers-100in-image-50cm
What has happened with the projectors was that companies have been waiting for Texas Instrument to release their 4K DLP chips. The chips were supposed to be available last year but are just coming out and, obviously, the first place where they can be found is in the high end of the market. But, if one compares these laser powered $20,000-$40,000 units to the $150,000+ Barco, then they present quite a bargain. Of sorts. When Mitsubishi introduced their HD Laser Vue TV's in 2008, they priced on the level of flat panels. LV cabinets were deeper but offered a superior picture quality. The consumers wanted flat screens and Mitsubishi bowed out of the TV manufacturing soon thereafter. Nowadays, the traditional 4K projector - not counting the pixel shifting pseudo 4K - can already be had for under $10,000.I am indeed a projector man myself. been so for near a decade. my current screen is 100", but only by the grace of our well situated movie room, and a wife who actually appreciates such things
Projectors are a great candidate for 4k, but pricing has been sluggish to say the least. market share for projectors vs TVs is probably fractional...
Who made those comparison shots? the 1080 appears to be a blurred version of the 4k one, detail isn't the same as out of focus/blurry, any comparison where the lower res is obviously blurry, is very suspect.
A sharp image is a sharp image regardless of the resolution, so long as it's viewed in a 1:1 scale.
This kills me because I worked for a company that created training programs and business sims for a lot of Fortune 500s, including companies like Sony and Samsung. One of the business simulations we did was to run the television (not production, the branch that manufactures television sets) branch of Sony for a year. With the real budgets, division heads, meetings, strategies, etc. I was curious about Sony's business model, why introduce new television sets almost monthly? In going through the business simulation, that truly is their business strategy against the Koreans (Samsung and LG), flood that mass market with brand new models, obsolete those models 1-3 months later and introduce yet new models 3-4 times a year. Crazy business model. This is why we have cheap 4K sets everywhere. Not because they are needed or wanted, 4K and anything above it, from a consumer viewpoint. It is purely a marketing move. 4K is basically a waste and being on the production side, we are the tail the dog is wagging. It's bad because 4K and greater creates more production problems than it solves. Makes talent look worse, makes hair and makeup more difficult, makes production design and props lives more difficult, even the sound mixer because it is harder to hide lavs on talent. Makes post more expensive and difficult. It's a shame that we have all had to buy into this 4k, 6k, 8k and eventually 16k and 32k crap instead of making cameras that create BETTER images. We have already surpassed the resolution needed, we are just in a pointless resolution war that is hamstringing much of the true progress in imaging devices because it is all just about more resolution and more bit space. There is a lot more to a good image than just resolution and bit rate.
4k adoption in 2016 is dependent on one thing. HDTV sets breaking down.
Sorry kids, that's the reality. No regular consumer is running out to buy a 4k TV unless they need a new TV.
Another trend to consider is that a lot of millenials aren't buying any TVs at all.
So, basically, your kids have the same size TV as my grandma had back in the 1960's.*Both of my kids are Millenials and they only consume media on their phones or occasionally a laptop. Neither owns a TV or probably will ever own a TV, it's just not what they do.
Both of my kids are Millenials and they only consume media on their phones or occasionally a laptop. Neither owns a TV or probably will ever own a TV, it's just not what they do.
So only old people play games like Grand Theft Auto V, Call of Duty: Black Ops III , Minecraft etc ? My kids have gaming PCs, XBOX One, PS4 etc that are on large TVs.
Daughter is graduating from college and didn't want a TV when I offered to buy her one. She is happy watching stuff on her 4" iPhone screen, which to me is weird. Son is a senior in high school, has an X Box 360, PS3 and Wii, all hooked up to our 50" TV, all are collecting dust. He plays on-line games with five friends on his phone, all of the other five 17-18 year old friends are the same way, rarely watch TV, spend most time on their phones. My little sister, who is 31, I just shot photos for her of an event, wantes to send her the selects, 38MB file, she could not download from Dropbox on her phone for some reason, I asked her if she could download them to her computer, her reply was, "I only have a phone, got rid of my computer." Her boyfriend also didn't have a computer at home either, I had to send them to him at his work email so he could download them at work, on his work laptop. Times, they are a changing. Apparently, having a TV means we are "olds". I am delivering a 4k 3D animated corporate project right now. Client wants to use 4K Prores 444 for tradeshows/video walls but is actually having us increase line width in the animation because he is more concerned about aliasing on phones. To me, as a producer, phones used to be a secondary audience concern, but I can now see that I need to pay a lot more attention to how my deliveries look on mobile because mobile is arguably as important as "TV" and may soon far overtake "TV", with viewing content on a TV just being a secondary market for "olds". Gotta evolve guys.
... Just an image shooting out of a little crystal ball on your table, ha. ...
Funny you mention that, son is a football fanatic, he has been watching all of the NBC games on his phone while texting friends who are doing the same. Does not like being tied to the TV where we are. He watches the game, texts and usually is doing at least one other task at the same time. The ADD is strong with this generation.How will they watch a sports game with a group of friends? Watch a movie with a significant other or their children someday?
According to The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/national...on-begins-and-ends-according-to-facts/359589/ Millenials were born between 1982 and 2004. My kids were born in 1994 and 1998, so both are Millennials. Daughter is 22. Lives with boyfriend. She has told me that her generation, her included, are mostly NOT getting married, the statistics bear her out. Marriage for Millennials is out. Same with kids. She doesn't want kids, but she said if she ever does, she will adopt. In the U.S. birth rates for white, middle class are diving, while minority birth rates are rising. I think the things our generation valued, like money, having a lot of kids, capitalism, having a big TV, are not important to Millennials, (other than the birth rates, which in the U.S are increasing for Latinos mostly).What you are describing has more to do with the fact that they are teenagers who are not yet living on their own and entertaining people in their own homes. I didn't have a TV either back then.
Wait until they get married and have a family. Can't watch a movie with the kids on their phone. We have to be careful not to confuse Millenials with teenagers.
Having a TV was always important for me but I was in the electronics business/film fanatic in my 20s so probably not "average" in that respect. Personally, my generation (I was born in the cutoff year for boomers, 1963) caused the Millennials, we caused the "Participation Ribbon, not materialistic (fostered by all of the ex-hippies, who ironically became very materialistic), not embracing of capitalism, everyone needs a reassurance that they are a special snowflake, single parent raised epidemic) that resulted in Millennials being the way they are. I see a lot to admire in the Millennials but we have to accept that what is important to us (Baby Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y) is totally NOT important to this generation.I agree not a lot of 16-24 year olds going out and buying a TV. Did we even do that when we were that age? Eventually they will get older and they will mature and they will determine a TV makes more sense at that stage in their lives. If not they may be blind by the time they reach 40 and develop one heck of a hunchback.
Yes, but that is a standalone device that is not, inherently, a phone...
Funny you mention that, son is a football fanatic, he has been watching all of the NBC games on his phone while texting friends who are doing the same. Does not like being tied to the TV where we are. He watches the game, texts and usually is doing at least one other task at the same time. The ADD is strong with this generation.