Why 4K Might Not Be the Best Way to Attract Consumers
- Thread starter starcentral
- Start date
adkimery
Veteran
From the article:
"But what if they could choose only one? By a show of hands, the majority of the hundreds of engineers in attendance voted for better pixels, with a fair amount choosing faster pixels (higher frame rates), leaving 4K a distant third with just a few supporters in the room."
emphasis mine.
Try explaining 'nits' and 'better pixels' to a middle-America focus group and watch their eyes glaze over. Easily marketable bullet points sell products. What a better computer? Buy more Ghz. Want better pictures? Buy more megapixels. Want a faster car? Buy more horse power. Hell, how many consumers will buy a 240Hz TV because more Hz must be better, right? Actual improvements and marketable improvements aren't always the same thing.
-Andrew
"But what if they could choose only one? By a show of hands, the majority of the hundreds of engineers in attendance voted for better pixels, with a fair amount choosing faster pixels (higher frame rates), leaving 4K a distant third with just a few supporters in the room."
emphasis mine.
Try explaining 'nits' and 'better pixels' to a middle-America focus group and watch their eyes glaze over. Easily marketable bullet points sell products. What a better computer? Buy more Ghz. Want better pictures? Buy more megapixels. Want a faster car? Buy more horse power. Hell, how many consumers will buy a 240Hz TV because more Hz must be better, right? Actual improvements and marketable improvements aren't always the same thing.
-Andrew
starcentral
Veteran
While the subject of 4k for display may or may not have its merits, I still think acquisition 4k is the way to go, even if delivery is to HD or 2k. It's just "better" in my opinion is so many ways.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I think my next TV won't be 4K. I know it will be huge (at least 80") and it definitely needs to have nice colors. But I don't need anything beyond 1080p, and I don't want it brighter (my current TV is already set at minimum brightness).
Regarding new features, it would be nice if it had an option to use just the central part if I want (watching movies in 80" is awesome, watching the news, scary).
Regarding new features, it would be nice if it had an option to use just the central part if I want (watching movies in 80" is awesome, watching the news, scary).
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
Yup.
Darren Levine
Veteran
i have a 720p projection displaying 72", and it is a far cry from looking bad. yes 1080 would be an improvement but my movies already look fantastic, 720 is the beginning of diminishing returns, 4k is kinda like that guy who just keeps rowing, right off the waterfall. at least in terms of end user experience
That succinctly says it for me. It leaves open a future of expression not bounded by standards. In other words, just give us great cameras, we'll figure out how to use them.
The consumer however makes his own viewing preferences, and he's not getting incentivized for 2160p or feeling much held back by 1080p. Without a strong need for more display pixels, his priority is better images within whatever format he goes with, and 4k acquisition can certainly help in that.
The consumer is stating his display preference for better pixels within the existing 1080p format (OLED) over having more pixels in the 2160p format. On the camera acquisition side of things, there is no equivalent choice to be made, it's just more pixels or less pixels.
I can understand the reasons. With OLED he sees immediate qualitative benefit within his current format that includes the convenience of blu-ray optical, broadband, cable and sat, smartphones and tablets. With native 2160p content on the other hand, on a per pixel 1:1 basis, he gets only the same 1:1 quality he had before from native 1080p content on his former LCD/LED/Plasma, just doesn't break apart at the larger display sizes. Thus, the only real need for 2160p would be driven by a desire for larger display panels. But without the adoption of standardized 2160p transmission standards (broadband excepted), his use of 2160p display panels chiefly ends up being just a larger screen with the main qualitative benefit only as good as the 1080p upscaler.
I can understand the reasons. With OLED he sees immediate qualitative benefit within his current format that includes the convenience of blu-ray optical, broadband, cable and sat, smartphones and tablets. With native 2160p content on the other hand, on a per pixel 1:1 basis, he gets only the same 1:1 quality he had before from native 1080p content on his former LCD/LED/Plasma, just doesn't break apart at the larger display sizes. Thus, the only real need for 2160p would be driven by a desire for larger display panels. But without the adoption of standardized 2160p transmission standards (broadband excepted), his use of 2160p display panels chiefly ends up being just a larger screen with the main qualitative benefit only as good as the 1080p upscaler.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Want to impress consumers. Stop using interlace and switch cameras and broadcast to 1080p 60p for video based work and live productions. All their TVs are already capable to 1080p 60p but yet it could have a huge impact on not only visual quality and motion but the compression quality as well. This way all forms of 1080 will always look equally good. 24p movies, 30p from their phones and devices and 60p from broadcast. 1080p 60p would look great for sports broadcasts and make consumers very happy.
Also doesn't involve as big of an investment for broadcasters since many may already be using tools capable of the format. If not 720p 60p converts very well and can easilly fit into the production and broadcast pipeline. 1080p 60p can also easilly convert to 1080i or 720p for legacy networks until they catch up.
Seems like a win win situation for everybody. Well except for TV manufacturers who want people to buy $3,000.00 + TVs again.
Also doesn't involve as big of an investment for broadcasters since many may already be using tools capable of the format. If not 720p 60p converts very well and can easilly fit into the production and broadcast pipeline. 1080p 60p can also easilly convert to 1080i or 720p for legacy networks until they catch up.
Seems like a win win situation for everybody. Well except for TV manufacturers who want people to buy $3,000.00 + TVs again.
How about explaining it to an artist who wants the best aesthetic display? I think engineers are the all-around wrong guys to ask.
Well, don't get me started. I think it's a great shame the broadcast standards got fixed where they did and the UK broadcast spec never included 1080p/50 as the top standard.
As it is, no existing tuners would be capable of dealing with it, so to the consumer it's analogue switch-off time all over again if the move was to 1080p/50 broadcast - everybodys equipment needs replacement.
And whilst I can't believe the existing broadcast standards are the be all and end all, then for any change of that nature it would be silly to just do it for an incremental change. Hence I'd expect any new broadcast standard to cover 4K, and maybe even higher than 50/60fps frame rates as well. (As well as other factors.) That wouldn't mean all broadcasting would have to be 4K (any more than it's all 1080/720 at the moment) but would mean that all equipment in the transmission chain should be compatible.
As for acquisition, then it must depend on type of work, budget and all sorts of factors, but yes, there's a lot to be said for 4K and RAW ACQUISITION - whatever it gets transmitted/displayed at.
As far as this thread goes, then the whole question of "more pixels or better pixels?" may be an interesting question, but an ultimately pointless one. Surely it's likely to be a case in the future of more pixels AND better pixels!?! Why not a 4K OLED display?
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
What about content and compression? Too many "HD" channels are 720 and compressed to within an inch of being watchable. Is that going to look any better on a 4k display?
The better question is which use would drive the demand? Would 2160p OLED display panels fuel the demand for more 4k acquisition choices? Or would native 4k content fuel the drive for 2160p OLED display panels? Right now there doesn't seem to be enough momentum from either to do anything more than coexist as choices, yet already 1080p OLED is pitted as a competitor to 2160p when it comes to consumer choice. We can speculate about the future case for more pixels AND better pixels, but when you weigh the advantages, for the former it still comes down to justifying the need for larger size panel displays versus for the latter better imagery within the exisiting size panels and current transmission formats. I can't really see broadcasters or consumers in a rush to ditch what most agree is already good enough resolution-wise at the sizes they prefer to watch, which is everything from smartphone/tablet/wristwatch and everything else up to 65 inch.
I can however see the continued case for 4k acquisition, because the benefit applies to both display technologies, 1080p and 2160p.
Last edited:
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
A rather eye opening point on this subject, is the behind-the-scenes workflow for Ender's Game. In this video, they explain that although the initial image acquisition is 5k from a Red Epic, towards the end of the pipeline it gets exported at 2048 x 880. The narrator informs us (at about 10:04 into the video) that "this is the final resolution for the movie". That's it- a big theatrical Sci Fi feature like that, at roughly the same amount of resolution data as 1080p (albeit at a different aspect ratio).
egproductions
Veteran
I love my samsung 1080P plasma. It's the perfect brightness for nighttime viewing and the color fidelity, dynamic range, and skin-tones are beautiful The only problem is that it seems to be a trend among popular TV shows to make their low light scenes overly dark, no doubt to offset the ridiculous default amount of brightness that LED TVs are set too. I wind up having to pump up my cell light which ruins the well lit scenes.
nyvz
Veteran
Yeah basically every CG heavy feature does VFX and finishes in 2K since 4K VFX are pretty impossible at this point. I'm sure they'd do 4K if they could but its 4x the render times and storage among other things. At least they can monetize the 3D which is twice the render time and storage since the tickets are more expensive.
Also keep in mind that 1080p from 4K originals is not the same as 1080p from a 1080p sensor. And any CG heavy work is still likely to want well over 2K for the extra real-estate and post options, so shooting in >2K still has a lot of merits even if >2K distribution is still a bit rare.
Last edited:
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
You can't really think that they don't output in 4k because it would take more rendering time. Render farms, son. Just add more processors to the mix. That's probably the simplest and cheapest obstacle to overcome in post production.
Also, movies that are displayed in 3D cost the theater more money- glasses and special projection equipment, etc. I'm sure the studio gets some more money out the deal too, but as not as much as you may think. A lot of that extra surcharge gets eaten at the box office first.
Meanwhile, all that "1080p from 4k originals in not the same as 1080p from 1080p sensor"... indeed. But how many 1080p camera are actually natively 1080p on the sensor? Cameras that shoot 1080p are generally already re sampling a much larger image (especially DSLR-type cameras). A further resample in post isn't going to improve matters - in fact, in some instances it makes it worse if you aren't doing it right. However, where it DOES come in handy, is in the ability to resize and reframe a shot instead of reshooting it. Ideally, this shouldn't be necessary on a carefully controlled big budget Hollywood set. And if 4K does come barreling down the road in the near future on consumer electronics, I'd think movies being released now would want to be mastered higher in order to be future proof. But apparently they don't see the value in that. Which speaks VOLUMES for it as a technology.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Bottom line - we work in a messed up space. All of this junk to try and get us to buy and produce with when consumers are still happy with DVD in many places. Just kind of tired of this tireless march forward when the pack seems to be left behind.
Yes, all of the channels (many useless) on the dial are just above the point of being overly compressed. I am starting to see artifacts on NFL games which were never there before. The thought of adding more resolution or information to the pipe just sounds rediculous. Time for a reality check.
The 4K TVs look nice, but in reality they just allow you to get closer without losing integrity. When you get a proper viewing distances they look like a quality 1080p TV to me. But people are so used to living their life on a cell phone that being 1' away from a screen is second nature. This will probably be a big selling point.
I will step down from the soapbox now and go back underneath my rock...
Yes, all of the channels (many useless) on the dial are just above the point of being overly compressed. I am starting to see artifacts on NFL games which were never there before. The thought of adding more resolution or information to the pipe just sounds rediculous. Time for a reality check.
The 4K TVs look nice, but in reality they just allow you to get closer without losing integrity. When you get a proper viewing distances they look like a quality 1080p TV to me. But people are so used to living their life on a cell phone that being 1' away from a screen is second nature. This will probably be a big selling point.
I will step down from the soapbox now and go back underneath my rock...