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

puredrifting said:
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.


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).


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.
Click to expand...

Funny this was talked about yesterday. I didn't see this thread yesterday, but I was listening to a great podcast about generations and doing a little research on the subject.

I was born at the end of Gen X so I know a lot of older Millennials born in the 80s. Younger siblings of friends and my own nieces and nephews who were born to my older sisters who are early Gen Xers. '64 and '68. Most of which have TVs because 4 out of 5 of my nieces and nephews own their own homes already. Which is crazy to me because myself and most of my friends who are late Gen Xers are still renters and one guy I know is 38 and still lives with his folks. So I agree it's usually about living arrangement more than anything. If they have a living room and couch of their own, they'll probably have a TV as well. As the younger Millennials get older, I think they'll eventually end up with a TV.

My son was born in 2004 and falls into Gen Z. The description for these kids is different than Gen Y (Millennials). Gen Z is supposed to be more conservative. They will value money more, be more religious, and more cautious about things overall. The reason is because they were born into a post 9/11 world with a financial recession. So they will grow up with that in mind and know how violative things can be. It's interesting because I already see these characteristics in my son, whereas I am the exact opposite on certain things.
 
puredrifting said:
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).
Click to expand...

I think 10 years from now, ILC cameras will be a dinosaur format reserved for professionals and old-timers. 360 and related tech will be the rage. The battle for TV/monitor resolution may become much less relevant as augmented and virtual reality will provide almost any "screen" size via wearable headset.

Hololens multiple browser windows: https://youtu.be/dau506VZyz4?t=1m26s

The Millennial generation, with their sheer numbers and willingness to adopt new tech, will help push this into the forefront.

Companies like Canon that still hawk their DSLR's perhaps can see the long view of what's coming and maybe know this is the end, that's why they still sell their repackaged T3i's in new iterations.

I think monitors/TVs will still co-exist with newer tech but be much less relevant and just linger as older viewers may still prefer watching that way.

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject (^^^ all opinion ^^^ :)) nor do I look forward to a major upheaval at all...but the writing's on the wall/things are about to change in a big way.
 
Very interesting discussion guys, thanks for your views. I will listen to that podcast roxics, thanks! GHKAM, I am just not sure if 360, VR and AR will be "the thing" going forward, but who knows, totally possible. I was just on the phone with Radiant Images, getting bids for shooting my next project with the Jaunt. It seems too weird to shoot with 24 cameras at a time but I am told that the Jaunt is "it" as far as shooting 360 video. I may just be too old to understand if this is the primary way the younger generations want to experience media. Not having a cinematic language of wide, medium, CU, ECU, reverse, reaction shots is incomprehensible to me but you could totally be correct. Our generations experience media passively, we want to be entertained, which the writer, director, DP and editor do for us, it just washes over us.

I can see the appeal though for a generation raised on FPS and experiential video games of experiencing stories and video in this way, it is much more participatorial than what we are used to, makes sense. Don't know if you guys have seen the new Samsung Galaxy webverts yet with all of the people just reacting to 360 video/VR, it is a GREAT commercial, one of the best I have seen in years. You never see what the viewers are seeing, you just see and hear their reactions, one woman is crying, others scream, cuss, exclaim, it is a genius commercial, really makes you want to experience the product. I like that not all of the people in the spot are kids either, plenty of middle agers and olds too. Seek it out if you have time, it gives me cause to think that you may be correct, I am beginning to come around to 360 video/VR/AR could be more than the fad of 2016, it may have legs. I just think that many of us over 35 may not understand how to exploit the medium anything like the Millenials will. Someone will soon create "the masterpiece" of VR/AR/360 video and then it will really take off. Chances are that "filmmaker" or "experience maker" will be a Millennial.

Imagine shooting VR with a softball sized Lytro VR/AR/360 camera. Imagine what could be accomplshed. It truly is mind boggling and makes everything we are shooting with today seem stone age. Stories are stories and acting is acting, but capturing that experience, that essence of the story could change so radically that none of us can even comprehend it through the lens of TV/film production in 2016. Based upon Moore's Law and what is coming out almost monthly, the pace of this stuff coming to fruition could become reality in even less than a decade.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
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.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more! Resolution is the most easiest concept to understand from a consumer point of view. Bit depth, dynamic range, video compression and codecs are a lot harder to understand (again, from a consumer POV). So companies are squeezing the more they can from this lemon. It will end sometime soon because no one will see a noticable difference from a 4k to a 8k tv...unless they are standing 1 foot away from the tv.
 
360 VR is the new 3D. I think it will not sell much. Just like 3D tv's. With both, you need some sort of glasses...and the 3D VR glasses are not cheap!
 
But then you can watch porn at that work meeting and NO ONE WOULD EVER KNOW.

"What did you think of Stevenson's proposal, Erickson?"

"Oh yeah. Real good. Yeah. I like that."
 
NorBro said:
Fitting...

"Ultimately, we won't need screens because we won't use our eyes to watch video. Instead, somehow, we will merely become 'aware' of it. Which is to say that video will go straight from the source to our brains."

http://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/3815-the-best-quality-video-you-will-ever-see
Click to expand...
This dovetails into what Roxics was thinking with his HDR story telling. Presumably, if someone can develop this system to the level described above, then a viewer would be able to experience a "real life" battlefield or a "real life" parachute jump without risking his life and limb.
 
Hulu dropped their monthly fee for the ad-supported service to $6/mo. Ad-free is still $12.

But it looks like a sign of competition. Good for consumers.
 
The current consensus from people who shoot 360 video is that none of the cameras really offer what the DP want. People like UNIT 9 are hooking up multiple RED cameras just to get the latitude and dynamic range without getting oversharpened images, but the rig is so big and heavy that it's limited to only the highest end shoots.

Stitching is still something that needs to be finessed by hand otherwise you have some pretty bad seams. It's really high end VFX work currently if you want it done right. Automated solutions are getting better as time goes on.

I keep hearing "When can we just get a bunch of arri alexa sensors tied together in a meaningful way?"

Also keep in mind no technology ever really replaces another one, its strengths just become very obvious. I think creating cinematic content for a 2D screen will still be around for some time. TV never replaced film. 360 Video won't replace TV. It's a new medium with its own rules and will eventually find its strengths for content.
 
At an electronics expo in Japan, Sharp showed a demo 27" 8K monitor. 336 PPI. Some smartphone screens go over 500.
 
VR? AR? 360? Sure. I'll be watching those while driving my hover car to work at Spacely Sprockets. All of these futurist takes turn out to be wrong. We were supposed to have wall sized TVs everywhere but instead it looks like we're going to have 4" screens instead of 40' ones. 3D was going to be everywhere. Everywhere! This time. Really. Not like the last three times 3D was supposed to really catch on. This time was different. ...of course it wasn't. TV will still be here for a while but it won't be the only thing. 4k has almost become the norm for people who want TVs. Eventually, after your old HD TV stops working and football season is starting 4k will be the only option.
The reality is that the consumption side of content has already fragmented with one driving motivator. Convenience. It's convenient for me to watch sports on my big TV because I have a DVR and a big TV. It's convenient for my nephew to watch it on his phone because that's more convenient than sitting in front of a TV he doesn't have. VR, AR, 360 isn't convenient. It's hella cool, but not convenient so it's not getting the widespread adoption that TV and phones have.
A prediction for the future? Yeah, whatever that is will be wrong.
 
markoconnell said:
Turn it into a public utility and be done with it.
Click to expand...

can-of-worms.jpg

In any case, below is a pretty exhaustive list of where to find 4K videos. The information is intended for consumers but I would speculate that, at some point, these 4K streamers would be interested in acquiring a more affordable non-scripted 4K material, i.e., pretty pictures. And, if they do, this should turn into a tangible revenue source for a lot of shooters.


http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/where-and-how-to-watch-4k-uhd-content/
 
DLD, Mark is actually right on this one. The US pays way more for way slower internet than the rest of the developed world because...Business!!
Comcast has been fighting the crap out of it up here in Seattle and unfortunately they're winning with the help of our Mayor (who received Comcast money cough cough) against the will of the people who are tired of paying through the nose for lousy internet service.
Municipal broadband has been cheaper, faster, and better for everyone except Comcast in every town that's done it.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
DLD, Mark is actually right on this one...
Click to expand...
There are people who study the economics of public utilities, including the short and long term price, quality, service and innovation and I am sure everyone knows where to find it on the net. The issue of cable companies is a different bowl of wax on top of that (do I need to add a bowl of wax on top of the can of worms?). The X vs Y. solutions offered in one line sentences are a tad too simplistic without listing all the pros and all the cons and the in-depth discussion is more for people with economics and financial degrees.

PS. I have a BBA and I have written here that the "net neutrality" law would be worse for the consumers in terms of speed of access and so it has proven to be. Those who have pushed for it, including major streaming companies, expected "4K in every pot" and haven't even gotten to the level they had prior to the rules being passed by the FCC.
 
I feel that between interactive VR experiences, 360 videos and other "be there" types of experiences, and "virtual cinema" types of apps where you can watch a traditional 2D movie in a virtual giant screen floating in front of you, millennials (and others) will not be left with many reasons to have a large screen hanging on the wall. They just need their phone and a cheap goggle device to completely disconnect from the world around them. One of the few reasons I can think of would be what someone mentioned before, a group experience of watching a TV show, movie, or game with friends and family. For dedicated individual viewing, I think that "VR" (read: a screen stuck to your face) will take a significant market share, and possibly the majority of the market in the end.

Because of a variety of factors, I think that VR is here to stay. It's something completely different from the 3D movie gimmick. I think it's also going to take a few more years for it to really take off because it's not perfect yet, but you can pretty much see how much potential it has and hence why a lot of major companies are investing big money into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top