4k - like a candle in the wind...

ushere wrote on 1/9/2016, 1:18 AM
just one of many after ces...

http://fortune.com/2015/10/23/tv-resolution/

frankly i'm too old for all this hype and bulldust.

most isp's (in aus) have problems even delivering 720p. broadcasters are happy to put out 720p and call it hd, and there's nothing to speak of being produced in 4k, and by the time it is they'll all be talking 8k...

as dire straits put it - We gotta move these refrigerators we gotta move these color T.V.'s.

ever so tired of it all....

Comments

farss wrote on 1/9/2016, 4:42 AM
[I]"there's nothing to speak of being produced in 4k"[/I]

I cannot name the program but there's at least one been shot in 4K here in Sydney
Even when Sydney City Council asked for someone to give them a locked off shot of the NYE fireworks it was shot in 4K.

On the other hand the footage from the consumer level 4K cameras leaves me cold. The compression artefacts from squeezing 4K into such a restricted bitrate are pretty obvious.

Bob.
JJKizak wrote on 1/9/2016, 6:01 AM
Most of our broadcasters in the USA only put out 720P/1080I. I also wondered if they have to put up new satellites for 4K.
JJK
JohnnyRoy wrote on 1/9/2016, 7:09 AM
IMHO, 4K is a solution looking for a problem.

My cable TV provider (Verizon FIOS) still provides 500 SD channels and a lot less HD channels that quite often break up and stutter occasionally during playback. FIOS is regularly sending me letters about having to turn off channels to use the bandwidth for other new channels. It's not because they are running out of channel numbers... it's because are running out of bandwidth! There is no way they are going to shut down five HD channels to provide bandwidth for one 4K channel. That would mean 5x less money from commercials!

My family still watches SD. I'm constantly fighting with them to switch to the HD channel for the same SD content. No one really cares about quality except a few videophiles. Everyone else is happy with a stretched SD picture on an HD TV. How are you going to convince them that 4K is better when they still don't care that HD is better?

Very few clients ever asked me for Blu-ray. They all still want DVD's. What does that tell you? People don't care. We watch movies all the time on my old Apple TV which is only 720p and they look fine on my 46" HD TV. If 4K requires 50 inches or greater, it's a small audience that can fit that large a TV into their small family rooms.

As I said... 4K is a solution looking for a problem. With more and more people consuming content on their tablets and phones, I don't see anyone really caring or noticing the difference. At what point do you declare that enough resolution is enough?

~jr
winrockpost wrote on 1/9/2016, 7:57 AM
agreed!
We are fed "HD" through cable or dish/direct,me being a videophile for the nfl playoff game today with the" Stillers" I willI switch to rabbit ears, the difference is significant,, the bandwidth crunch of cable is very obvious on probably everything, but sports for sure.
Former user wrote on 1/9/2016, 8:05 AM
One of our local stations actually shoots their news in HD, but because of s-tupid corporate decisions, has to downrez to SD to edit and then uprez for broadcast. 4k will take a long time to be embraced by local broadcasters.
VidMus wrote on 1/9/2016, 8:29 AM
I just bought a 4k camera not for the purpose of creating 4k videos but for the high quality cropping I can do with it.

So I can effectively have the benefit of multiple cameras in one. Also, in very low light situations where zooming in would increase the F-stop and thus reduce the light coming into the camera, I can use the 4k camera zoomed out and then digitally zoom in in Vegas and still get the maximum amount of light.

So I see 4k cameras as a great tool to improve 2k videos and even SD DVD's.

I take advantage of HD when creating SD DVD's that certain people still want.

Success doing the above requires proper camera setup.

If I did not have a severely limited budget, I would simply get more cameras.

Beyond 4k and greater resolutions I wish the focus were on dynamic range. At least open it up to 0 to 255 instead of limiting it to 16 to 235. That would be a helpful start.

Grazie wrote on 1/9/2016, 9:38 AM
I'm with you VM.

If Leslie ain't griping ( " . . ever so tired of it all.... ") then we know the World, or he ain't right where things should be. Kinda nice and reassuring to hear the ol' boy is setting the standards of world-weariness to 2016 values.

Ah, normal service has been restored . . . back to sleep . . . .

G
NormanPCN wrote on 1/9/2016, 11:03 AM
Why would I care about 4K when my primary method of receiving video is via broadcast/cable/satellite TV and they commonly do not provide enough bandwidth for that to maintain fine detail. Internet delivery bandwidth is typically worse.

Yes one can put together spectacular demos with fairly static images or highly predictable/compressible sequences to make those services look great at 4K.
John_Cline wrote on 1/9/2016, 3:31 PM
Wow, what a bunch of Luddites! I shoot 4k exclusively and watch it on a 65" Samsung 9500 series S-UHD television, it looks so much better than 1080 that I can barely stand to watch 1080 video anymore. There are new sources for 4k content every day, 4k is here, get used to it.

http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN65JS9500FXZA
Tim Stannard wrote on 1/9/2016, 3:59 PM
Surely the Fortune article is wrong when it states:
"In general, a number followed by the K defines the number of horizontal lines that run across the screen to create a picture. In theory, a 1080p television could be considered 2K, since it has nearly 2,000 horizontal lines (1,920, to be exact). A 4K TV, with its 4,096 horizontal lines, therefore, delivers more than twice the resolution. To make matters worse, there are other Ks to worry about."

I thought the 4K related to the number of horizontal pixels. Surely a 1080p (or i for that matter) has 1080 horizontal "lines" and 1920 "vertical lines" (these being lines of pixels)

Or have I been under some ridiculous misapprehension for the past 10 years?
Grazie wrote on 1/9/2016, 4:37 PM
Pick dah bones outta that!

G

winrockpost wrote on 1/9/2016, 6:33 PM
Glad you are enjoying what you shoot John! I too enjoy the 4k I shoot on my 4k tv...but no one else wants it......yet
deusx wrote on 1/9/2016, 8:22 PM
>>>Wow, what a bunch of Luddites! I shoot 4k exclusively and watch it on a 65" Samsung 9500 series S-UHD television, it looks so much better than 1080 that I can barely stand to watch 1080 video anymore. There are new sources for 4k content every day, 4k is here, get used to it.<<<

Sorry, but my 1080 Sony has a far better picture than most of those and maybe even your Samsung. If you paid $4000 or more then you may have gotten a good panel, but those in $1000 - $3000 range are crap. . It has more pixels, so what? Everything else about it is about as good as a $300 1080 panel.

There is a lot more to a panel than # of pixels.
PeterDuke wrote on 1/9/2016, 9:41 PM
"Wow, what a bunch of Luddites! I shoot 4k exclusively and watch it on a 65" Samsung 9500 series S-UHD television"

Time to get your cheque book out again John. Ultra HD Premium with HDR is knocking on your door. And you will need an Ultra HD Blu-ray disc player to go with it if you still want optical discs. (For example, Panasonic DMP-UB900, Philips BDP 7501 or Samsung UBD-K8500). Sorry, HD 3D support not mandatory, and UHD 3D not available.

4K Ultra HD Blu-ray disc format to make its big debut at CES 2016

What is Ultra HD Premium? New HDR standard explained

Ultra HD Blu-ray: All you need to know about 4K Blu-ray players, discs and the rest

Blu-ray wants to take on 4K streaming with UHD discs
John_Cline wrote on 1/9/2016, 11:05 PM
"I too enjoy the 4k I shoot on my 4k tv...but no one else wants it......yet"

I have two clients that require me to shoot and deliver in 4k (and downsampled 1080) so that their material is as "future proofed" as practically possible.

"Sorry, but my 1080 Sony has a far better picture than most of those and maybe even your Samsung."

My 9500 series Samsung is their current top of the line model and, yes, it was more than $4,000. It does HDR and 3D with active shutter glasses. It also has an amazingly decent 2D to 3D converter.
PeterDuke wrote on 1/9/2016, 11:56 PM
Does it support UHD at 60fps, and HEVC at 10 bit colour depth with Rec 2020 colour space? If so you only need the UHD player.
John_Cline wrote on 1/10/2016, 1:13 AM
"Does it support UHD at 60fps, and HEVC at 10 bit colour depth with Rec 2020 colour space?"

Yes.
NickHope wrote on 1/10/2016, 1:50 AM
Interesting that Dolby have managed to put their name to a video standard. They must have run out of audio ideas since Atmos.

Personally, HDR is of more interest to me than 4K for home viewing. I can't imagine wanting more than 1080p.
John_Cline wrote on 1/10/2016, 3:17 AM
"I can't imagine wanting more than 1080p."

Apparently, you haven't seen it demonstrated optimally. A lot of people were saying the same thing here on this forum about SD when HD came out...
JJKizak wrote on 1/10/2016, 6:35 AM
When they start pushing the 21 x 9's I will buy.
But until then my Sony XBR is quite sufficient.
JJK
Geoff_Wood wrote on 1/10/2016, 4:23 PM
Most things I watch for recreation are not what I shoot myself. Well, I'm not admitting to those 'other' ones ;-0

And those curved screens - great for a single viewer, but increasingly wrong' for those not in the sweet spot. What is better - flat and slightly sub-optimal for all, or perfect for one and less so for the others ?!!!

Oh these dilemmas ;-)

geoff
GeeBax wrote on 1/10/2016, 5:13 PM
It probably does not matter if the TV is 4K, or curved screen or whatever, when all of those sold today have the most appalling colour rendition and audio.
JJKizak wrote on 1/10/2016, 6:24 PM
What is your appalling color rendition factor percentage wise?
JJK
ushere wrote on 1/10/2016, 7:11 PM
@ grazie - ;P) - (but you're spot on with my world weariness).

ok, the vast majority of US here are either pro's or serious amateurs and all our discussions are based on a grounding (more or less) about what we're talking about, looking at, and knowing the options available to US (again in caps).

once you venture outside of our little world, (avoiding the equally relatively small world of home theater, tech enthusiasts and status seekers) and into the REAL world of moms and dads and budget conscious purchasing from harvey norman / walmart / or other large stores, you'll soon find that the vast majority of people are happy enough watching what they enjoy on a 'big' screen at ANY resolution, including sd.

wherever i go i always ask, and given the chance check-out, what internet connection people have, screen size the family tv is, what they watch (eg. ota, dvd, media files, etc), and what they know about THEIR options. and yes, i'm worse that win 10 at collecting information from users. but like m$ (i hope anyway) it's with the intentions of trying to understand my market and deliver a better product.

from the day i was called into a major corporations board room to look at my "weirdly coloured' video (over 40 years ago now) and discovered the 'colour' knob turned all the way up to the present day when i find a surprising number of sets are still set to the store 'demo' mode, ie. super saturated colour, etc., i sometimes wonder why i bother.

but i DO bother, my name goes out with my work and in that respect i wish to maintain my reputation.- however, i refuse to be beholden to the needs of manufacturers who need to keep producing profits for their shareholders, true, 4k does have great advantages in reframing for hd, and perhaps looks 'much' better on a 'large' 4k screen, but... and now talk of 8k... hey, 3d failed (again), lets find another hook...

yes, grazie is right - he ain't right where things should be but then again, i'm still making serious money from happy clients with 'old' hd and no longer even think of reinvesting profits in technology that might well be 'obsolete' before they've even paid for themselves.

what a way to start the new year ;-)