Viability of 4K?

combatentropy said:
Sorry, I don't mean to take this thread on too far a tangent. Back to your regularly scheduled broadcast (in 720-highly-compressed-p)
Click to expand...

LOL. Well monitors fit into this whole 4K viability thing too. Because every time we have to get new gear for these transitions, SD->HD , HD->4K , 4K->? we have to get new computers, new monitors, storage and all the other things that go along with the new cameras.

I'm thankful my Jib has required minimal modifications since the SD days. That's one thing I like about tripods, lights, mics, sliders etc. They tend to last through camera upgrades :)
 
Better dynamic range is great, but it needs to have the bit depth raised to handle the graduations more smoothly. 10 and 12 bit data streams really need to be put in place with HDR. And that means faster storage to gather everything. And the storage speed and size only gets worse as the pixel count and bit rate go up.
 
The preceding comments show that as with the DSLR's the "Mega-Pixel-War" is over. Talking of HD->4k->8K and rather than saying 4K is "essential" (never mind 8K) people are talking about other things they want more.

I think that over the next few years 4K will become standard (and the major broadcast companies will prep for 8K bandwidth) but just as most TV is still SD/HD now it will take a long time for 4K to be come the norm. HD will I think last for a decade or more. Even if people shoot in 4K because the cameras are available. I doubt that except for a few high end things 8K will get used at all. It's just not needed (like 3D ) . Whilst most will move to 4K cameras I still think most delivery will be HD.

The other thing is, as mentioned in other threads, the market is saturated with cameras. From HD Smartphones and DSLR's upwards. The mass market golden sweet spot for cameras is over. Hence Panasonic re-organising? Therefore whilst 4K cameras are inexpensive now I think in the next few years the price of cameras will rise again as the market contracts. The Rush to 4&8K will not be the same as the rush to HD. This is because for 90% of the world HD is good enough and the marketing people haven't been able to sell 4K as really essential. Just as 3D and curved TV's did not gain mass appeal.

I think the high end will equip for 8K but I can't see most people going there. So it will be expensive. 4K will become the norm but only because you can't get HD kit just as it is difficult to get SD kit now. The problem is more people are watching video on phones and tables (or computers). Most countries the TV's are no bigger than 50inch. The rooms they watch in are not really big enough for huge screens.
 
Yup, it's already started with still cameras. The megapixel race is over and will be switching to other metrics, as evidenced by smartphone manufactures actually changing course and reducing the megapixel count in their phones to allow for greater pixel sizes.

That's the thing about mass market consumers, numbers sell. More megapixels, more resolution, more whatever. Most people want the path of least resistance in understanding a product, so quantifying speaks to the masses more than qualifying, and bigger must be better. For a while it was refresh rate on TVs, which I never understood because it made the image look like crap and I always turned it off immediately, but you still heard people at Best Buy "but this one has a 240hz refresh rate...". Yeah buddy, your movies are going to look grreeeeaaattt with that refresh rate...

Now that things are leveling out in terms of megapixels/resolution, its just a matter of time before they better quantify and more prominently advertise other metrics such as the size of their photosites (3.3 micron), bitdepth, etc.
 
combatentropy said:
Do you really want a monitor with more than 7 or 8 stops of dynamic range? ...
Click to expand...
I think I'd mentioned this before. I had to dial down the brightness on my 2016 el cheapo LED set. Both the resolution - I sit quite ways from it - and the brightness are to the limit of what my eyes can see. I happen to like the HD broadcast colors as well.

Side note - as a kid, our TV was B&W. When I first saw major sports photos in color, I was shocked. I think I sat there motionless, just looking at the hockey frame. I still recall it being shot of the Swedish "Tre Kronor" team in action.
 
Last edited:
jagraphics said:
The preceding comments show that as with the DSLR's the "Mega-Pixel-War" is over. Talking of HD->4k->8K and rather than saying 4K is "essential" (never mind 8K) people are talking about other things they want more.

I think that over the next few years 4K will become standard (and the major broadcast companies will prep for 8K bandwidth) but just as most TV is still SD/HD now it will take a long time for 4K to be come the norm. HD will I think last for a decade or more. Even if people shoot in 4K because the cameras are available. I doubt that except for a few high end things 8K will get used at all. It's just not needed (like 3D ) . Whilst most will move to 4K cameras I still think most delivery will be HD.

The other thing is, as mentioned in other threads, the market is saturated with cameras. From HD Smartphones and DSLR's upwards. The mass market golden sweet spot for cameras is over. Hence Panasonic re-organising? Therefore whilst 4K cameras are inexpensive now I think in the next few years the price of cameras will rise again as the market contracts. The Rush to 4&8K will not be the same as the rush to HD. This is because for 90% of the world HD is good enough and the marketing people haven't been able to sell 4K as really essential. Just as 3D and curved TV's did not gain mass appeal.

I think the high end will equip for 8K but I can't see most people going there. So it will be expensive. 4K will become the norm but only because you can't get HD kit just as it is difficult to get SD kit now. The problem is more people are watching video on phones and tables (or computers). Most countries the TV's are no bigger than 50inch. The rooms they watch in are not really big enough for huge screens.
Click to expand...

3D was dead out of the gate for two main reasons: 1) the viewer had to wear clunky polarized glasses and 2) more importantly, the 3D effect was just not worth the effort. I shoot for a network that HAD a 3D channel and I actually shot 3D BTS at one of the live events being done in 3D for the network and Sony, who was the 'technology partner' and talked to some of the engineers/tech guys and they said most content producers played it way "too safe" with the effect/convergence settings, meaning there was very little 3D effect. The ONLY 3D movie/show I have seen that was really worth a damn(great 3D effect) was at an IMAX theater probably 15 years ago.

Curved TV's: 100% marketing BS to sale TV's to "trendy" consumers. There is absolutely no use or benefit, and I'd argue it actually degrades the viewing experience, to a curved screen at the screen size and average viewing distance in the home.

The potential to quickly go from HD to 4K and higher is there. As we've been saying, the manufacturers are making the higher rez gear and pretty soon you won't be able to buy an "HD" set, just like now you can't buy an SD set and probably not even a 720P set. And you don't need the traditional "broadcaster" anymore. Most all of the 4K content is being consumed from the internet, anyway. Expensive broadcast transmission gear doesn't have to be replaced and swapped out, it's all just data flowing down the big 'ole pipe we call the internet. I may be simplifying slightly, but you get the idea.
 
I've been working on a script where a group of over 22 year old Hollywood actors goes on a mission to kidnap, then slowly torture every video engineer/designer and the marketing departments of every major electronics corporation. The working titile is "4K - Turnabout is Fair Play".
 
Last edited:
Might I again offer a post I wrote a year ago about how I think technology tapers off? It's a bit long but calming, for me at least.

To my graph, though, maybe I should add a stage. As technology tapers off, there is a short phase of wild thrashing, as manufacturers try to push gimmicks (3D, curved screen, 8K) to keep the old days of high sales going.
 
Great input. Thanks guys.

As we mentioned previously, manufacturers push things to stimulate the perceived "need" to buy. Which is really just desire.
I "need" a new and improved TV (when I already have 3 that work fine).
But the deal is, just walk slowly through the electronics dept in walmart and you will probabaly hear 4K mentioned several times on the TV displays loop.
They are pounding in 4K 4K 4K. So the general public will be familiar with it and even want it, even if they don't really understand what it means.
And that ingrained need for 4K infiltrates into other areas of their life besides thier home TV set. Execs decide they need 4K at their work. Ad agencies decide they need 4K.
Everyone decides they need this 4K because it's better.
I wonder how long before brides ask if we do 4K, lol

So my answer to all inquiring clients is, yes, we can produce 4K. And then I talk and find out if they even need it and move past that.

But when trying to sell more TVs, etc they start pushing 8K 8K 8K then will that work the same on the general population? Sounds like many of us agree that will be a harder sell. Not much advantage to the normal consumer beyond 4K. People's rooms and TVs can only get so big.
Billboards and special-use? Yeah I can see that.
Re-framing 8K for 4K delivery? I can see that.
Watching 8K on a little phone screen? Pointless.

Manufacturers want some sort of improved "feature" to try to sell more units. So if/when this resolution plateaus out what do you think they will push?
 
A side swipe..

Back from a job. Broll shot on '4k' gopros and RX 100

Looks like maybe 720p to me.

I personally doubt that the FS7 is 4k (2.5 to 3?)

4k is not really IMO very common right now. Varicam, F65 and Red maybe!

S
 
If someone was to purchase a new TV set and a 60"+ size screen was within his/her budget, then 4K is a given (and finding 1080p sets of that size is getting more difficult by the day). However, be also ready to have it connected to the net (via a Roku or a Chromecast or via a computer or laptop) and/or a 4K Blu-Ray.

When I was a young lad - cue the violins - selling big screens in LA in the early 90's, one of the first questions addressed to a customer was, "How far from TV do you usually sit?". Regardless of the answer, the follow up was to recommend anything in the 50"+ class. 60" was the largest we had until Mitsubishi 70" came out (and we couldn't keep it in stock at $6,000 ... mind you, back around 1990, a brand new Honda Accord EX was ~ $17,000). The moral of the story is that salespeople will try to sell you the biggest and the latest because that's what they have in stock but also because a lot of people want exactly that.

PS. At least, in the consumer TV biz, the range of the required investment is reasonable. A 70" Vizio with Chromecast is just over $1,000 and, if one sets it up properly, the image quality won't be much different from the far more expensive OLED sets. Compare it with buying a car, fully knowing that you want the latest Porsche but being a tad $hort in your wallet, with a tad being $70,000.
 
firehawk said:
Not much advantage to the normal consumer beyond 4K. People's rooms and TVs can only get so big.
Click to expand...

Not much advantage to normal consumers beyond full HD. Certainly true in my experience, but it's also true according to this Sony whitepaper.

Personally, I can't sit close enough to my TV to be able to take advantage of what 4k would give me. According to Sony, that would be 2.3 "picture heights" from the screen, or 61.5cm x 2.3 = 1.4m which is insanely close to a TV. I'm just sayin' that I certainly won't upgrade my lovely Panny plasma just to get extra resolution that I can't even use. Not happening for 4k. Sure as heck won't happen with 8k.

I think you'll find that 8k is even less popular with consumers than 3D was.
 
What that paper by Sony appears to be saying is that you only notice the difference if you are close to the screen. "Close" is relative. Most of use will be sitting far enough away from our monitors, tablets and phones NOT to notice the difference. Also where we have screens 40-50" or less we won't notice the difference in most (European) homes. However in a cinema people will be sitting closer than 2.3 times the hight of the screen and will see a difference. Therefore those who are expecting to have their work on a cinema screen would need 4K. Those who are on everything but the Big Screen will find 2K is fine...

8K? Not even cinema's will need that. Though setting up the TV stations and edit suites to handle the 8K bandwidth wouldn't hurt... You can *never* have too much bandwidth, disk space, RAM, CPU power, GPU power even for my 2 minute Youtube blogs :-)

Edit: Though it doesn't seem to have stopped Sony (since they did the paper in 2010) producing 4K cameras and TV's and even 8K cameras their report seems to think are technically not required... I expect Sony Marketing to be along any time soon to explain that whilst the Sony Technical people are technically right there is a market for 8K and Sony have to address it :-) (can't say I blame them if people are going to buy them)
 
Last edited:
I'd have to see that Vizio set up next to an OLED in the same dark room with the same content to believe that there isn't much difference in the picture. I know advancements have been made, but is anything able to go completely black(no light emitted period) besides OLED? I bought my first professional OLED display, the Sony 1740, shortly after it was released, and was sold immediately. I demoed one at my house and set it up next to three Panasonic LCD's I had(17", 8.4", 9") and fed them all the same signal from my VariCam. I called my rep the next day and said send me one. I have three professional OLED monitors and two VF's and nothing else touches them.

I finally bought a consumer OLED set last fall, a 55" LG, and put it in my bedroom. I wish they would produce a 90"-100" affordable set, so I could replace my 92" Mitsubishi in the den, because it is a dog compared to the LG. By affordable in that size range, I mean $7K or less.

For anyone who hasn't watched an OLED in a nice controlled environment(not the showroom floor at Best Buy)so that you can truly appreciate its abilities, you need to. The first night that I had the new set, I was watching it in the bedroom with the lights out and my girlfriend happened to walk back into the bedroom to come to bed at the same time the program faded out to black. She MF'd me, because she thought I turned the TV off on her, because the room went pitch black.
 
I believe the initial question of whether 4k is viable in our local markets, depends greatly.

As some have previously stated, some region broadcast stations still operating SD...or barely moved on from SD. However, 4k footage from A7S or a GH4 is so small compared to a 10/12bit 2K footage that broadcast requires. And that is strictly talking about the broadcast world. And obviously there are exceptions.

If the question really is, should I get a camera the shoots 4K, then that is a slightly different question. But you can technically shoot 4k footage that takes up less memory space than certain HD RAW footage...or what have you. If I were to buy a camera nowadays, I would only consider resolutions if they were able to be captured in 10bit or higher. So 8bit 4K camera is not as good an investment for me as a camera that shoots 2K or HD at 10bit or higher. So a BMPCC would be a welcomed tool, strictly from an image point of view...haha.

Everyone has their different reasons for using 4K or not, but ultimately, are you producing the work with which you and your clients are happy?

Also, capture and display are very different things. I'm capturing most of my jobs on 4K RAW, but they never get displayed in 4K. And repositioning is very seldomly a factor. Instead, it is about getting the most resolution and color info to work with in the post process. I don't know if broadcasters will ever adopt 8K on a mass level. Probably? I don't know. But there are so many scenarios where I would gladly capture an 8K image, only to work with in post and then export and display in 2K or 4K. Plus, on a 55" 4K display, that means you can theoretically tell the difference up to 10 feet away. On a 32", that is 6 feet away. Those distances seem pretty in line with normal scenarios and comfort standards for consumer viewing.

I'm looking to upgrade my coloring monitor to an OLED, but it won't be 4K, since that is way too expensive for me, and I don't need resolution to judge color. And when I want to judge noise patterns and grain on a 4K project, I can just zoom to 1:1 pixel ratio. But I may buy a cheaper 4K monitor for non-color-critical work.

But if it's a matter of shooting 4K on an A7S or a 5DIV, I'd pass on the resolution and opt for a more robust 2K or HD solution such as 10/12bit. Although most of my work is drama, music videos and the random promo/doc here and there...so your mileage may vary.
 
morgan_moore said:
A side swipe..

Back from a job. Broll shot on '4k' gopros and RX 100

Looks like maybe 720p to me.

I personally doubt that the FS7 is 4k (2.5 to 3?)

4k is not really IMO very common right now. Varicam, F65 and Red maybe!

S
Click to expand...

Good point, Morgan.

There is a big difference between 4K in spec and 4K in spirit (for lack of a better term). The Mavic Pro does "4K" and literally looks better at 2.7K, and it's not just the codec's bitrate running thin. Same thing observed on GH4's 4k vs the GH5's 4k -- the GH5 resolves much more detail at 4K even though the actual final output resolution hasn't changed.

So yes, it's possible to really stretch a sensor thin on the amount of detail it can resolve and still claim 4K because of the final output resolution. And while displaying an inherent lack of detail with more resolution is technically accurate per spec sheets, it's true benefits to final IQ become questionable outside of advertising. Proper 4K, IMO, is when you have a sensor resolving so much detail that more resolution is *needed* to really do the sensor and image justice.

I'm not saying it's useless or has no benefit, but without a true 4K worth of detail being resolved, to a certain extent it's just polishing a turd. It's like taking an old video game and displaying it at 4K. Even if genuinely rendered out at 4K, if the source assets aren't remastered you're just rendering old pixelated 256-bit colors more finely. Not a perfect analogy by any means, but enough to serve the general point. Yet some people would still buy a GoPro with 4K assuming it must be better quality than the outdated Canon C100 mark I with 1080p...

Sensor and resolution should work in tandem. If not, you have 4K only in spec, not in spirit.
 
Just yesterday I took delivery of a 65 inch or 165cm LG OLED 4K beast, HDR and Dolby vision equipped.

I upgraded my Netflix account to the higher data rate and put on Marco Polo and WOW, so yes, with screens this size 4K is quite noticeable - stunning, (viewing distance and other factors are taken into consideration). But 4K and HDR wow just wow.

In a side note, the toss up was between the new Samsung QLED's especially the flagship Q9s. The Samsung range has Q7, Q8 with different levels of processing. They are good, very good.
I appreciate this is a personal thing and tastes vary but for me, QLED is still not good as OLED and it's noticeable.
 
Last edited:
jagraphics said:
Edit: Though it doesn't seem to have stopped Sony (since they did the paper in 2010) producing 4K cameras and TV's and even 8K cameras their report seems to think are technically not required...
Click to expand...

4k and 8k cameras are certainly required... if you are shooting for a screen that will run the length of an arrivals hall in an airport or various VR experiences that allow the users (or even editor!) to pan/tilt/zoom

But overall I shoot '4k' because I want to deliver 1080 that resolves 1080 lines and '4k' is the affordable route towards that, I would suggest that only the Alexa and the Sony F35 are the only HD cameras that actually resolve 1080 lines (maybe F900, grassvalley p2 varicam?)

S
 
New LED's are so bright, that one can down the brightness and up the contrast and get pretty close to an OLED for an untrained eye. Sure, if you place them side by side at a specially designed home theater, OLED would look better but, as a stand-alone living room set that is placed near the window to placate the significant other, the differences become very marginal.

As to 8K - as I was watching some hockey games recently, I immediately noticed the puck traveling out of the frame on a closeup. I assume that was a 1080p camera (it may not have been, however). 8K would allow a much wider framing and magnification. Personally, I'd prefer the 50p/60p 'reality TV" look and would rather have 1440 @50p than 2160 @24. But that's for sporting events only.
 
DLD said:
As to 8K - as I was watching some hockey games recently, I immediately noticed the puck traveling out of the frame on a closeup. I assume that was a 1080p camera (it may not have been, however). 8K would allow a much wider framing and magnification.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're getting at here. Framing is dependent upon aspect ratio, not resolution. Can you clarify?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top