or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Intel announces next-gen Thunderbolt with 4K resolution support, 20Gbps speeds coming in 2014
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel announces next-gen Thunderbolt with 4K resolution support, 20Gbps speeds coming in 2014 - Page 3

post #81 of 101
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post
LOL!  They don't use them because they couldn't BUY them!

 

That's not a valid premise.


What a funny notion that RAIDs are causing people to not have gone out and bought Thunderbolt Docking Stations.

 

What a funny sentence to just fabricate a nonsensical, meaningless claim out of nowhere.


And why did I even bother mentioning everything ASIDE from docks if you're going to quote me as if I only had docks as an argument?

 

Probably because that's all you mentioned. You casually cast aside the existing products that people actually care about (far more than docking stations), and continue to push your docking stations line.


Which are out?  The game changers?  No, the adapters and storage.

 

Dissection:

 

You want to know about "game changing" Thunderbolt accessories. Okay. I offered external storage as an example thereof, as on Thunderbolt it can be faster than ever before, allowing for software to do things it never could before. You reject this, and then go on to talk about docking stations again.

 

The "useful reality" clearly meant boxes that would do the more special things that a T-bolt port can provide.

 

But docking stations have existed for years before, taking advantage of the special things that existing ports can provide. They're not a "game changer" in the first place.

 

The Thunderbolt Display is a docking station, in Thunderbolt's regard, because of its one-to-many port approach. And it's out. But you ignored it, too, because you 'have all the monitors you want'.

 

I guess I don't get why I'd ever want one of these magical docking stations, particularly when the vast majority of consumers (as stated by you: Apple's core audience) don't use them in the first place. I've seen exactly one docking station in use, once (well, two, if you count the DuoDock, but that was a LONG time ago), and that was a colleague using an old Dell (with a proprietary connector that would make you think SCSI was tiny). Thunderbolt can only bring the concept of a docking station to the masses if it's in a format meaningful to the masses. Like a display. Or extra ports on the back of an external hard drive.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #82 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) The previous post (obviously) and in a previous post in this thread. It happens. The logic is still sound, but one sentence read incorrectly. However, the context was still the same and my message that HEC display will continue to grow as they grow they will push the viewer closer to not having a Retina effect if they maintain their seating distance and resolution.
 

 

 

Really, because at no point did I ever see you state "Oh I mistyped that".  In fact you doubled down and tried to spin your way out.  

 

Moreover this current statement has a data that shows it isn't true for screen sizes under 60" no data to support that many folks are going to buy a lot of 70+" screens.  Even then at 70" you need to be closer than 9 feet to see a difference.

 

As an AV nut I will. I'm not most folks.

 

Quote:

2) Show me proof that the last row in every movie theater has to have the the equivalency of 1080p. No less. No more.

 

See that pretty picture up there?  You know, the data you claim is irrelevant.  That's proof that my statement is valid.

 

Also I wrote

 

 

Quote:
A 55" 1080p set at 7 feet is like the very last row in a movie theater.

 

See the "is like" part?  It indicates that this is to provide a frame of reference with something folks are familiar with.

 

And that's not what you wrote:

 

 

Quote:
You're repeating what I wrote except for some nonsense that 1080p replicates sitting in the back row of a theater. First of all, theater screens nor their seating capacity, rows and row widths are standardized so you can't possibly say that as fact. Secondly, 1080p TVs are not all the same size thus making a larger TV have larger pixels and therefore affect the minimum viewing distance for the Retina effect.

 

Theaters do have standards.  This the key point were you are wrong.

 

  • The definition of HDTV is 1080p resolution with 30 degrees HVA.
  • The minimum viewing distance for 60 PPD is static as a function of screen height and that number provides the BEST possible HVA number without seeing pixel structure.  30 degrees.  Every HDTV of ANY size when you sit at the CLOSEST point you can before you see pixel structure is ALWAYS no more than 30 degrees HVA (actually 30 and change).  Sit any further away and you have an even worse seat.  Sit any closer and you can see pixel structure.
  • 30 degrees HVA is BEHIND the last row of both SMPTE and THX recommended furthest rows in a theater.

     

These facts show that what I wrote is not nonsense and I can state that as 1080p HDTV was designed to meet minimum specifications as "fact" because it's true.  NHK studies showed that 30 degrees HVA was the minimum required for the induction effect.  This is collaborated by the SMPTE and THX standards for good theater design that exceed this minimum value. 

post #83 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) So now you're again saying what I've been saying all along: 4K will replace 1080p.

2) Of course it takes awhile. Why would you expect people to throw out their current TVs for more expensive TVs that are limited in content?

3) Replace is exact but when it comes to technology we have to use certain metrics. There is rarely any shift in technology that has zero overlap so you need to compare milestones. Duration between first 1080p TV going on sale to first 55" 1080p selling for under $5K. Then compare the firs 4K TV going on sale to the first 55" 4K selling for under $5K. You think that it's taken much longer for that size 4K TV to drop to that price; I don't. If you want research it go ahead, but I have no desire to because I know they will become more common and cheaper in the years to come.

4) Have fun watching 1080p on your 100" projector 5 years from now. That'll be a treat¡


I suspect you're right about 4k. I would also point out that people miss some of the reasons that content may be captured at higher resolution than it will be used in the end due to bits that are lost to things like tracking and stabilization. They can comp in missing bits, but it should be cheaper to shoot a little wider. The same thing happened with early dSLRs. Backgrounds might be built outward for something shot at a 2:3 ratio that would run at a wider vertical crop. It was quite common for some time. In both cases they're still using RGBG sensors, so saturated reds and blues, and to a lesser extent greens, have more difficulty with fine detail. The problems aren't as significant today. it used to be blues would show noise first, reds would bloom, greens would often tint kind of yellow prior to grading. I just wanted to add that as the way things are shot isn't always the way they run in the end.

post #84 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) So now you're again saying what I've been saying all along: 4K will replace 1080p.

 

You heavily edited this post so I'll answer again.  

 

In the same way that Blu-Ray has replaced DVD. Slower and with less total market penetration that proponents believe and with physical media being replaced with lower quality but more convenient internet streaming media.  AKA Netflix/iTunes vs Blu-Ray.

 

With the ubiquity of tablets and phones much of our home media consumption is now on mobile devices and not in front of a big slab of glass.

 

 

Quote:
2) Of course it takes awhile. Why would you expect people to throw out their current TVs for more expensive TVs that are limited in content?

 

Time is of issue before technology changes.  Will UHDTVs replace HDTVs before we have better technology than flat panels?  Time is the determinant.

 

 

Quote:
3) Replace is exact but when it comes to technology we have to use certain metrics. There is rarely any shift in technology that has zero overlap so you need to compare milestones. Duration between first 1080p TV going on sale to first 55" 1080p selling for under $5K. Then compare the firs 4K TV going on sale to the first 55" 4K selling for under $5K. You think that it's taken much longer for that size 4K TV to drop to that price; I don't. If you want research it go ahead, but I have no desire to because I know they will become more common and cheaper in the years to come.

 

Perhaps but I believe that many, if not most, folks simply wont care.  Even at the $2K price point will folks choose a 4K 55" UHDTV over a high quality $499 55" 1080P HDTV or even a $999 70" 1080P HDTV?  Those are down to $1500 today.

 

Maybe.  3D didn't seem to catch on with all that well.  TV makers aren't pushing 4K so they can sell 85" TVs for $2000 of any resolution in the near future.

 

Actually, we'll probably see both coexist just like we see today with 720 and 1080.  Anything under 60" will likely remain 1080 just like there are still many 720 32" HDTVs out there.  

 

Anything over 60" will be dominated by UHDTVs and the 1080 sets eliminated rather than let the price floor drop much further than today.

 

Whether we actually see 720 phase out will be iffy.  At 32" and below most people will never notice the difference from where they sit hence their survival today.

 

 

Quote:
4) Have fun watching 1080p on your 100" projector 5 years from now. That'll be a treat¡

 

It is a treat.  It was a treat even at 720p and at 480p.  You're like one of those Windows hardware spec folks.  It's not the resolution or CPU speed that really matters in the end but how well the total system performs for what you want to do.

 

A 100" 1080p front projection with so-so blacks and so-so brightness (in comparison to say a high quality plasma) is FAR more like the movie experience than a 4K 55" UHDTV because the size is above a threshold amount to capture that movie theater feeling.  A 70" UHDTV would be closer but there's still a huge size difference between the two.

 

And 100" is actually relatively small for a FP system.  5 years from now I probably will still have a 1080p projection system.  I don't see 4K projectors dropping to the current $999 1080P projector price point in 5 years.  Maybe I'll get an 85" TV but I hate to lose the size and I just don't feel like paying $5000 for a TV anymore.

 

Heck I don't want to pay $1000 for a TV anymore.  The last few have been mid-grade LGs far under that $1K mark.  No more Sony XBRs for me.  The stuff out there for cheap is actually good enough.

 

And if I think that then hell, mainstream consumers will likely think the same as well.

post #85 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post


Really, because at no point did I ever see you state "Oh I mistyped that".  In fact you doubled down and tried to spin your way out.  

Nope. Acknowledged the typo but the context of the other sentences should have clued you in.
Quote:
Moreover this current statement has a data that shows it isn't true for screen sizes under 60" no data to support that many folks are going to buy a lot of 70+" screens.  Even then at 70" you need to be closer than 9 feet to see a difference.

It's actually over 9 feet for the minimum Retina effect. You think the average person sits more than 9 feet away at a minimum? 1rolleyes.gif
Quote:
As an AV nut I will. I'm not most folks.

As a normal housegold you will sit closer than 9.1 feet.
Quote:
Theaters do have standards.  This the key point were you are wrong.

:no:That's not what you originally stated. Of course there are standards that are used within businesses of all types. No one is saying otherwise, but you specifically stated that all movie theaters are built with this one specific standard in use. Do you know how many movie theaters there are in the world? Do you really think the world's oldest operational movie theater L'Idéal Cinéma - Jacques Tati built in 1902 uses this standard? What standard's body had been created then? Not the SMPTE. What international law has made this a requirement? Where is your proof? Sounds to me that you heard something whilst working as a teenager from someone that works at a movie theater and then applied that to everything.

Quote:
The definition of HDTV is 1080p resolution with 30 degrees HVA.

More bullshit? 1oyvey.gif The perceived image is not the same as the HW designation. An HDTV is still an HDTV regardless of where the viewer is.
Quote:
1080p HDTV was designed to meet minimum specifications as "fact" because it's true.

WTF?! What isn't built to a minimum set of specifications? What defines minimum is what sets junk and quality apart.
Quote:
This is collaborated by the SMPTE and THX standards for good theater design that exceed this minimum value. 

So now it's no longer a requirement for the world's theaters regardless of how old they are but a standard by the organizations that we all know about which means you've changed you tune again to agree with my original comment.

To recap, you stated, "1080p is "retina" with 30 degrees horizontal FOV to replicate the movie theater experience in the VERY last row."to which I responded saying that there is no law requires that all movie theater back row be the same distance from a relative screen size. You said there was and despite my efforts to get you to actually mention at least one standards body you didn't until this post to which I am replying.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #86 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

You heavily edited this post so I'll answer again.  

WTF?! I neither edited my post nor cropped yours down in any way. Both are exactly how they were after the first submission.
Quote:
In the same way that Blu-Ray has replaced DVD. Slower and with less total market penetration that proponents believe and with physical media being replaced with lower quality but more convenient internet streaming media.  AKA Netflix/iTunes vs Blu-Ray.

With the ubiquity of tablets and phones much of our home media consumption is now on mobile devices and not in front of a big slab of glass.

That's an opinion, and you're welcome to have it. I think 4K will likely have a faster adoption for the multitude of reasons I've all stated, which include, but not limited to, the ubiquity of smartphones and tablets in the home.
Quote:
Time is of issue before technology changes.  Will UHDTVs replace HDTVs before we have better technology than flat panels?  Time is the determinant.

No disagreement here, but my previous statement shows I think it will be adopted on a large scale before that happens.
Quote:
Actually, we'll probably see both coexist just like we see today with 720 and 1080.  Anything under 60" will likely remain 1080 just like there are still many 720 32" HDTVs out there.  

Anything over 60" will be dominated by UHDTVs and the 1080 sets eliminated rather than let the price floor drop much further than today.

That sounds reasonable to me. As I stated previously there are few technological changes that cause a near immediate change from one tech to another.
Quote:
You're like one of those Windows hardware spec folks.

Your powers of observation are uncanny¡

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #87 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

It's actually over 9 feet for the minimum Retina effect. You think the average person sits more than 9 feet away at a minimum? 1rolleyes.gif

 

I believe based on the studies that most folks sit more than 4x screen height away from their HDTVs.  Yes, that means they typically sit farther away than what is required for 60 PPD and some of the current HD resolution is "wasted".

 

Rather than roll your eyes I suggest you use it to look at the data.

 

Your 9 feet number is meaningless without specifying screen size.  It's true only of 70" screens.

 

Quote:
As a normal housegold you will sit closer than 9.1 feet.

 

Where did you pull this number from?  Citation needed.

 

Quote:
:no:That's not what you originally stated. 

 

What I stated is that 1080 HDTV replicated being the last seat in a theater.  As in that's what it's like in comparison.

 

Quote:
Of course there are standards that are used within businesses of all types. No one is saying otherwise, 

 

You said otherwise here is your direct quote:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 First of all, theater screens nor their seating capacity, rows and row widths are standardized so you can't possibly say that as fact. 

 

The fact is that theater screens are standardized in terms of aspect ratio.  Given the aspect ratio and screen size the rest is computed.

Theater design parameters are standardized relative to screen height.

Where the back row should be is standardized relative to screen height.

 

I provided those standards.  Not every theater will adhere to those standards but they exist thus you can make generalizations like "1080p HDTV is like being in the very last row".

 

Quote:
but you specifically stated that all movie theaters are built with this one specific standard in use.

 

No, I specifically stated that 1080 HDTV replicated being in the back row of a theater.  Then I rebutted your stupid assertion that no standards exist thus I cannot make such a comparison.

 

Quote:
 Do you know how many movie theaters there are in the world? Do you really think the world's oldest operational movie theater L'Idéal Cinéma - Jacques Tati built in 1902 uses this standard? What standard's body had been created then? Not the SMPTE. What international law has made this a requirement? Where is your proof? Sounds to me that you heard something whilst working as a teenager from someone that works at a movie theater and then applied that to everything.

 

I do not need to prove a stupid strawman you provide.  

 

I provided links to actual standards you claimed don't exist.

 

I notice that you have no data to support anything you state as "fact".

 

Nice ad hom there.  You don't know what I do or know which is why I provide links to the underlying data for smart people to look at and for you to ignore.

 

Quote:
More bullshit? 1oyvey.gif The perceived image is not the same as the HW designation. An HDTV is still an HDTV regardless of where the viewer is.

 

The HDTV specification has a designed seating distance calculated as a function of screen height.  This number is also expressed as HVA since the numbers are directly related.  The 1080 number was not randomly chosen.  It based on the NHK studies on high definition and based on both human visual acuity and threshold studies on when you get a "sense of reality" from the image.

 

http://vrsj.ime.cmc.osaka-u.ac.jp/ic-at/papers/91117.pdf

 

This is true also of 4K systems.  The numbers were not picked out of thin air but developed to meet the desire to induce a higher feeling of reality when viewing images.

 

"The psychological effect of widening the visual angle usually appears as an increase in the sensa- tion of presence or immersion in the image. These effects have been studied when designing new TV systems; in fact, they were studied in the early stages of HDTV development"

 

http://www.ebu.ch/fr/technical/trev/trev_2008-Q2_nhk-ultra-hd.pdf

 

This paper answers to a great degree Marvin's question as to when enough is enough.  It's pretty excessive (22.2 audio?) but it's based on the limits of human perception.  Amazingly there is science behind the marketing.

 

Quote:
WTF?! What isn't built to a minimum set of specifications? What defines minimum is what sets junk and quality apart.

 

Your ignorance is showing.  The NHK studies provided a range of resolutions and viewing angles of which 1080, 4K and 8K are part of the results (along with frequency, color, bit depth, etc) and these were submitted to standards bodies. The minimum resolution and viewing angle was selected as the first step of achieving a higher sense of reality and this is known as the HDTV spec (1080).

 

Hence the current HDTV specification details 1920x1080 resolution with 30 degrees HVA as the standard and not some other numbers.  It was the minimum set of numbers to meet "high definition" video. 

 

In comparison to 8K video, 1080 is indeed junk...if you sit close enough anyway.  Even then there are studies that show that we are aware of objects well below that 60 PPD rule of thumb.  So 60 PPD is also a minimum specification.  Human visual acuity is actually much better even on average.

 

Quote:
So now it's no longer a requirement for the world's theaters regardless of how old they are but a standard by the organizations that we all know about which means you've changed you tune again to agree with my original comment.

 

It is interesting that when you say you didn't say something I provide a quote where you actually said that something.

 

It is equally interesting that when you say I said something that you cannot provide a quote where I actually said that but I can provide a quote where I actually said something different and not what you claim.

 

Again, these are standards that you claim did not exist.  Not requirements or laws like fire codes or something but standardizations from which my generalization could be made.

 

If you wish to be able to say in your marketing literature that you are a THX theater then they do actually become requirements.

 

The easiest and most mature path was to simply say "Oh, there are standards, my bad".  Instead you argue against information that supports your position out of some wierdo desire to "win" an internet argument.

 

Quote:
To recap, you stated, "1080p is "retina" with 30 degrees horizontal FOV to replicate the movie theater experience in the VERY last row."to which I responded saying that there is no law requires that all movie theater back row be the same distance from a relative screen size. You said there was and despite my efforts to get you to actually mention at least one standards body you didn't until this post to which I am replying.

 

Actually, it's beyond the last row in theaters that meet THX and SMPTE recommendations, it's been a while since I looked at them. 

 

But yes, that's what viewing 1080 HDTV is like as a frame of reference for Marvin.  It indicates that some folks do want a higher degree of immersion than what current HDTVs are capable of.  This is offset by the eye fatigue at closer distances and the comfort level of being so close to the screen.

 

You did not say there was no law, you said there were no standards.  See the above where I quoted you again and I provided those standards right in that next post.

 

Are you living in some kind of alternate reality where posts are not preserved?  Because the thread history here is clear for all to see.  I suppose you can go back and edit them if you like.

 

Edit:  In the previous version I said I used the words "is like" when instead I used the word "replicates".  Changes to reflect my actual word choice.  Can't very well bang on Soli for poor word choice without acknowledging the words I actually use as well.


Edited by nht - 4/10/13 at 7:56am
post #88 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

$5K in less than 2 weeks. No one has stated that 4K will be popular right now. If you can't understand the meaning of the word future than there is more wrong with your statements that 1080p is all we'll ever need.

You're right that we can never say where technology will end up. In 50 years, Google's 1 gigabit fiber internet could be everywhere and display and processing technology could be so inexpensive that everyone has Retina everything and SSDs are 20TBs for under $500.

Consumers still buy what they need and prefer though. If people don't want 60"+ TVs in their home, which seems to be the case so far then it's going to affect the uptake of UHD - more so than 1080p. I wouldn't expect UHD to have more than 30% marketshare in 10 years. Let's say UHD on the consumer side gets above 50% in 15 years and qualifies as mainstream. If the TV sizes stay under 60" then there's not much point to it and I guarantee the majority of content will not be 4K. TV networks have no reason to move to 4K because it creates a storage problem with the amount of footage they have to deal with.

Some demos have a wow factor like the 4K TV here:



At 2:00 they zoom into the screen and it stays nice and clear. But then you look at tests like the following with a 65" 1080p, they zoom in around 6:50 and it doesn't really lose much clarity either:



There's a review of a 4K 85" here and they they can see some improvement vs a 1080p 80" but not that much when viewed further away. It doesn't sound that compelling for the $25,000 asking price:



What does look impressive though is the OLED tech:



I thought this was the $5k one coming this year but this year's ones are standard LCD. The OLED ones won't be out until 2014 and they haven't said how much they'll cost.

Sony has this in their professional display line so they are able to get it accurate enough in color to be able to use for broadcast. That IMO would be great tech to have in a Cinema Display. Tim Cook said that OLED wasn't that good to use as the colors were all off but Sony must have found a way to get it accurate enough. Perfect black levels so better contrast ratios and insanely fast response times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht 
The LG Hecto laser projector looks promising. The advantage for projectors is that you can easily make the screen disappear but they have many other downsides to be viable for the masses.

I like the idea of projectors instead of fixed sized displays. You could set it at a smaller size for everyday TV and blow it up for movies or sports. Having to avoid walking in front of the projector, focusing, having a big enough projection area etc make it less practical. Perhaps they just need to come up with panels that have no bezel. So they'd be OLED that come in 30" 1080p panels and you just connect them to build whatever size of display you want. Because 30" displays appeal to a wide audience, the individual prices would be low. Say $700 for a single 30" panel. You then get 4 of them and build a 60" 4K for $2800. If you want a 90", get 9 of them for $6300. You can even have super wide screen with 3 of them. It wouldn't matter too much that it has to scale the content when the pixels are so small.

You could have 4 in the bedroom for a 60", 4 in the living room for 60" and a 30" in the kitchen and for a sports event, have people over and join them all up for 90". OLED is fairly low power so they should be able to aggregate the power supply so that you aren't plugging in loads of cables. It's difficult to avoid having some sort of bezel but OLED can bend round corners so they must be able to get right to the edge even if it has to bend in on itself and display extra content in each segment. Sometimes a bezel is preferred so it can even shrink the video down and leave a perfectly black border and it could show foreign films with subtitles below the image instead of on top.
post #89 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The fact is that theater screens are standardized in terms of aspect ratio.  Given the aspect ratio and screen size the rest is computed.
Theater design parameters are standardized relative to screen height.

You change your comment yet again. There are standards commonly used by cinemas but there is no one standard that requires all theaters to do what you claim.

You provided no links to back up your original claim. I argued your position for you by actually stating that standards do exist for theaters. For example, HD Ready is a certification based on minimum requirements but that doesn't mean that all 1920x1080p displays automatically meet that standard.
Quote:
Where the back row should be is standardized relative to screen height.

Now your true colours are showing. It's what you think should happen not what is actually happening everywhere.
Quote:
I provided those standards.  Not every theater will adhere to those standards but they exist thus you can make generalizations like "1080p HDTV is like being in the very last row".

But that's not what you said. You said the last row will adhere to these standards. You made no statement about specific standards bodies, governments that may enforce them, or any other such requirements that may allow/disallow a theater from being able to advertise a certain standards branding or studio from allowing their media to be played.

Your ignorance is showing.  The NHK studies provided a range of resolutions and viewing angles of which 1080, 4K and 8K are part of the results (along with frequency, color, bit depth, etc) and these were submitted to standards bodies. The minimum resolution and viewing angle was selected as the first step of achieving a higher sense of reality and this is known as the HDTV spec (1080).

Hence the current HDTV specification details 1920x1080 resolution with 30 degrees HVA as the standard and not some other numbers.  It was the minimum set of numbers to meet "high definition" video. 
Quote:
In comparison to 8K video, 1080 is indeed junk...if you sit close enough anyway.  Even then there are studies that show that we are aware of objects well below that 60 PPD rule of thumb.  So 60 PPD is also a minimum specification.  Human visual acuity is actually much better even on average.

Minimum is minimum. Even you should able to understand that even the poorest of designs and products have some requirement for minimum tolerances. The differing factor is that some have tighter variances than others.[/quote]

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #90 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

You're right that we can never say where technology will end up. In 50 years, Google's 1 gigabit fiber internet could be everywhere and display and processing technology could be so inexpensive that everyone has Retina everything and SSDs are 20TBs for under $500.

Consumers still buy what they need and prefer though. If people don't want 60"+ TVs in their home, which seems to be the case so far then it's going to affect the uptake of UHD - more so than 1080p. I wouldn't expect UHD to have more than 30% marketshare in 10 years. Let's say UHD on the consumer side gets above 50% in 15 years and qualifies as mainstream. If the TV sizes stay under 60" then there's not much point to it and I guarantee the majority of content will not be 4K. TV networks have no reason to move to 4K because it creates a storage problem with the amount of footage they have to deal with.

Some demos have a wow factor like the 4K TV here:

[videos]

You've gone from what is available today to 50 years from now then back to today. What about in 2 or 3 or 5 years? Do you think technology will stop? Again, as displays grow in size the Retina effect will lessen if the viewer's distance and resolution stay the same. I think TVs will continue to grow in size as the technology allows for larger displays at a lower price.

Quote:
I like the idea of projectors instead of fixed sized displays.

Me, too. I haven't seen one that is as bright or as clear as good TV but I think it's possible for them to be considered excellent. Not having a fixed display size in a projector does allows for cheaper shipping, it's possibly easier setup (especially if homes are then designed with a projector in mind), and a one-size-fits-all design, as you mentioned.

Projector screens can be folded and transported with ease. They all seem to fairly unattractive and utilitarian — perhaps that because of where I've looked for them — but I think it's possible to make an attractive framed design that can be easy for the consumer to assemble and look attractive on a pedestal or hanging on a way.
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/10/13 at 8:15am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #91 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You change your comment yet again. There are standards commonly used by cinemas but there is no one standard that requires all theaters to do what you claim.

 

Given that I never claimed that there is one standard that requires all theaters to adhere to I think you're just arguing with yourself.

 

I said the design of HDTV was to replicate what you got in the last row of theater.  To argue that means I claim there's a theater law is bizzaro.

 

 

Quote:
You provided no links to back up your original claim. I argued your position for you by actually stating that standards do exist for theaters. For example, HD Ready is a certification based on minimum requirements but that doesn't mean that all 1920x1080p displays automatically meet that standard.

 

In your own mind perhaps but not this thread.  If you did then it would be easy to link to where you "argued my position for me".  HD Ready is not a theater certification.  HD Ready is a TV branding certification.

 

On the other hand my links and charts are clearly visible in this thread.

 

 

Quote:
Now your true colours are showing. It's what you think should happen not what is actually happening everywhere.

 

Nope, it's what THX and SMPTE thinks.  I don't really care since I don't sit back there.  My true colors is I like to pop buffoons for fun.

 

 

Quote:
But that's not what you said. You said the last row will adhere to these standards. You made no statement about specific standards bodies, governments that may enforce them, or any other such requirements that may allow/disallow a theater from being able to advertise a certain standards branding or studio from allowing their media to be played.

 

Again my quote is: "1080p is "retina" with 30 degrees horizontal FOV to replicate the movie theater experience in the VERY last row" and you know this since you quoted this.

 

Where in that statement refers to the last row except as a reference to what a 1080 picture looks like?  Only in your mind have you conflated that statement into some weird assertion that I'm claiming that there is some law on theater design. We got into this because you claimed that there's no way for me to know where that last row is.  I showed you standards that tell me where the last rows is going to be in well designed movie theaters.

 

You can argue that the design goal wasn't actually to replicate the last row but to capture the "sense of reality" or "induction effect" if you like. And I would agree.  They just ended up with what theater designers already knew...if you go beyond 4 screen heights you end up with crappy seats few people want to sit in because you lose that movie feel.  Only now they had the data to support it.

 

That "induction effect" is a key difference between a movie feel and a big TV feel.  It gives you that sense of being there looking at a real scene over looking at a picture.

 

 

Quote:
Minimum is minimum. Even you should able to understand that even the poorest of designs and products have some requirement for minimum tolerances. The differing factor is that some have tighter variances than others.

 

This has nothing to do with minimum tolerances except in the context of minimum tolerances of human senses.  

 

Again, 1080p resolution at 30 degrees HVA is the minimum required numbers based on human acuity and immersion averages.  4K is close to optimal.  8K covers even the oddball the bases well enough that it's not much worth going beyond.

 

To give folks a frame of reference to understand (and this is where the theater thing comes in) 1080p is the very last row, 4K gives you the middle rows most folks like and 8K can handle the weird folks that always like sitting in the very front row.

 

But the devil is always in the details.  You need a place where the screen can be large enough that you are actually comfortable sitting 2-3 screen heights from the screen.  So Marvin is right.  UHDTV doesn't matter much for TVs 55-60" and smaller and only in the 70"+ range.

post #92 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I like the idea of projectors instead of fixed sized displays. You could set it at a smaller size for everyday TV and blow it up for movies or sports. Having to avoid walking in front of the projector, focusing, having a big enough projection area etc make it less practical. 

 

Yes, this makes it less practical as does the requirement for some light control even when you use a light cannon.  It's worth it though if you really like watching movies as it really does capture that movie feeling vs the big TV feeling.

 

The other nice thing is in some cases it's easier to make the projector blend into the decor than a monster piece of glass.  A motorized screen allows the screen to disappear with a touch of a button.

post #93 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Given that I never claimed that there is one standard that requires all theaters to adhere to I think you're just arguing with yourself.

You did. You clearly stated that the back row of movie theaters would be 1080p. You didn't claim that it's true if they adhere to a particular standard. You made a blanket claim that covered all theaters. I asked you to prove and then only many, many posts later after I repeatedly noted how you had it backwards did you mention any standards bodies.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #94 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You've gone from what is available today to 50 years from now then back to today. What about in 2 or 3 or 5 years? Do you think technology will stop?

I think that content providers will stop at 1080p authoring for the most part. I don't see a move to 4K for content at least not for a very long time (easily 10 years +) because the camera hardware needs to be replaced, networks won't handle it, the TV producers can't store it and the vast majority of people won't have displays that show the difference - that includes 4K TVs up to 60", give or take. Manufacturers are obviously keen to have 4K as one of the next selling points so they are going to offer it but I think they are going to really struggle to sell them, way more than 1080p TVs.

Given that it took so long for 1080p TVs to come down to a price level that has around a 30% market volume, I don't expect 4K TVs to have more than 30% marketshare in 10 years. Say that they drop in price 25% year on year, to hit the $700-800 price from $5000 today, would take 6 years best case and I don't think it will happen that quickly because there's almost no reason to switch from a 50" 1080p to a 50" 4K and pay ~10x the price so there's not enough demand to drive the price drop.

I think Blu-Ray and games consoles helped drive the move to HD but that's not going to happen this time round. 4K is a solution in need of a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I think TVs will continue to grow in size as the technology allows for larger displays at a lower price.

Where I would differ on opinion in this is that I don't see the size growth being unlimited. I don't see it being typical for people to be carting wall-sized displays into their homes. Maybe a new technology will make it feasible to do but like nht pointed out, having such a big display can actually be uncomfortable to watch for long periods of time. IMO, 60"+ will continue to be the exception regardless of price. It's the same thing with phones. Some people believe every manufacturer will trend towards the big displays and that Apple needs to get a move on. The reality is that lots of people are happy buying a size that's fit for purpose.
post #95 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Me, too. I haven't seen one that is as bright or as clear as good TV but I think it's possible for them to be considered excellent. Not having a fixed display size in a projector does allows for cheaper shipping, it's possibly easier setup (especially if homes are then designed with a projector in mind), and a one-size-fits-all design, as you mentioned.

 

 

Given the size of the screen in comparison to most TVs it's more of a pain for shipping and set up is far more annoying even if you have a dedicated home theater room.

 

Quote:
Projector screens can be folded and transported with ease. 

 

 

Only if you want to wreck the screen.  You roll the screens up so your width dimension is always quite large.  I bought the largest size you could ship via UPS which is why my screen is kinda small.

 

Quote:
They all seem to fairly unattractive and utilitarian — perhaps that because of where I've looked for them — but I think it's possible to make an attractive framed design that can be easy for the consumer to assemble and look attractive on a pedestal or hanging on a way.

 

There are plenty of these.  The most attractive are motorized in ceiling screens because they literally aren't there when you aren't using the projector.

 

This is mine:

 

 

Joking.  I have a mixed use space in the basement that doubles as a play area.

 

 

It looks like this only with normal speakers rather than inwall.  Same kind sack seating for the kids.

 

 

 

 

I will probably replace my fixed wall screen with a motorized screen from Monoprice of all places.
 
 
My bad, I have a 106" screen.
 

You can't do this with a 70" HDTV:

 

post #96 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You did. You clearly stated that the back row of movie theaters would be 1080p. You didn't claim that it's true if they adhere to a particular standard. You made a blanket claim that covered all theaters. I asked you to prove and then only many, many posts later after I repeatedly noted how you had it backwards did you mention any standards bodies.

 

LOL.

 

In post #61 I stated:

 

"No, the reason IS to sit closer with a wider horizontal field of view.  1080p is "retina" with 30 degrees horizontal FOV to replicate the movie theater experience in the VERY last row.  Sitting further away from the same size TV negates the resolution advantage AND minimizes any attempt to improve immersion via the "induction effect".

 

In post #62 You stated:

 

"You're repeating what I wrote except for some nonsense that 1080p replicates sitting in the back row of a theater. First of all, theater screens nor their seating capacity, rows and row widths are standardized so you can't possibly say that as fact."

 

In post #63 I commented on how close I sit

 

In post #64 You responded to post #63

 

In post #65 I provided the standard AND a diagram detailing where the standards say the back row should be in a properly designed movie theater.

 

Three posts later is many many posts?  LOL.  

 

Like I said, you're living in a strange little world all of your own.

 

Oh, I see where you went back and changed

 

"What you said is what is what I stated and what I stated is correct."

 

To:

 

"Ah. I see where I switched a word around."

 

Good job.  Now if you had read what you wrote in the first place this thread would be a lot shorter even though you wrote this in #69:

 

"So you do think that a higher PPI forces you to sit closer. You do think that a higher PPI means you can't sit farther away and still get the Retina effect for the same size display. You seriously don't see what is wrong with your logic?"

 

Nothing wrong with my logic is there?

 

Are you going to go back and edit this bogus claim of "many many posts" now or are you going to wait a while?

post #97 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

[...] No more Sony XBRs for me.  The stuff out there for cheap is actually good enough.

 

Same here. Our current set is an XBR. I bought it even though the old set was only a couple years old because I wanted to upgrade from 720 to 1080. I spent hours and hours and hours comparing and evaluating and fretting and wound up spending almost twice as much as the old TV cost. When I got it home it looked like a TV. Meh. In the absence of side-by-side comparison and any obvious shortcomings, the benefits of the top-of-the-line stuff go largely unnoticed. I won't do it again. Next time I'll buy "good enough."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think that content providers will stop at 1080p authoring for the most part. I don't see a move to 4K for content at least not for a very long time (easily 10 years +) because the camera hardware needs to be replaced, networks won't handle it, the TV producers can't store it and the vast majority of people won't have displays that show the difference - that includes 4K TVs up to 60", give or take. Manufacturers are obviously keen to have 4K as one of the next selling points so they are going to offer it but I think they are going to really struggle to sell them, way more than 1080p TVs.

 

Until yesterday I thought we were a bunch of techie geeks with our panties in a bunch over something the rest of the world hasn't even noticed. Then I got updates from some of my colleagues at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) show. Affordable 4K production gear is everywhere, and lots of existing product has been updated with versions that support 4K. I didn't expect that.

 

Now, as you said, of course the manufacturers are looking for a way to get every station on the planet to completely retool the entire plant -- again -- but that doesn't mean anyone WILL. The real question, as you wrote, still stands: Will anyone on the production side bite, and if so, WHEN? The cost and hassle for a broadcast facility is non-trivial, so I gotta wonder how many will have an appetite for it?

 

I don't relish the idea myself. None of my current Macs will play even 1080p at production compression rates, much less double-to-four-times that data rate. Add to that the fact that something as fundamental as just SEEING it without downscaling is going to be a nuisance and I think I'll wait until I can get a MacBook Pro with BionicRetina Display at 7680x4320 resolution, SATA-X 10Gbps drives and 4.4 GHz Dodecacore processor (with the 288GB RAM upgrade).

post #98 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I don't relish the idea myself. None of my current Macs will play even 1080p at production compression rates, much less double-to-four-times that data rate. Add to that the fact that something as fundamental as just SEEING it without downscaling is going to be a nuisance and I think I'll wait until I can get a MacBook Pro with BionicRetina Display at 7680x4320 resolution, SATA-X 10Gbps drives and 4.4 GHz Dodecacore processor (with the 288GB RAM upgrade).

 

Well there's always this classic video from last year:  editing 4K RED on a MBA using a Rocket via Thunderbolt...

 

post #99 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Given that it took so long for 1080p TVs to come down to a price level that has around a 30% market volume, I don't expect 4K TVs to have more than 30% marketshare in 10 years. Say that they drop in price 25% year on year, to hit the $700-800 price from $5000 today, would take 6 years best case and I don't think it will happen that quickly because there's almost no reason to switch from a 50" 1080p to a 50" 4K and pay ~10x the price so there's not enough demand to drive the price drop.

Maybe not:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/12/seiki-50-inch-4k-1300/
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7674736

If this is a genuine deal, it shows it's possible to manufacturer and sell 4K TVs at a profit at $1300 already. Sony and Samsung must be trying to keep the minimum prices high to extend the profitability of TVs:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/05/23/samsung_sony_begin_enforcing_minimum_prices_on_hdtvs_to_grow_margins

There's an opportunity here for new brands to drastically undercut the big TV manufacturers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v 
Until yesterday I thought we were a bunch of techie geeks with our panties in a bunch over something the rest of the world hasn't even noticed. Then I got updates from some of my colleagues at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) show. Affordable 4K production gear is everywhere, and lots of existing product has been updated with versions that support 4K. I didn't expect that.

Now, as you said, of course the manufacturers are looking for a way to get every station on the planet to completely retool the entire plant -- again -- but that doesn't mean anyone WILL. The real question, as you wrote, still stands: Will anyone on the production side bite, and if so, WHEN? The cost and hassle for a broadcast facility is non-trivial, so I gotta wonder how many will have an appetite for it?

The following article is quite interesting:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/bbc-not-interested-in-4k-tv-broadcasts-says-panasonic

They mention trying to bring 4K along on the back of OLED. I think OLED is more impressive than 4K. Panasonic suggests broadcasters are holding off for 8K but I think it's more down to storage requirements. The BBC is experimenting with 4K nature shows:

http://www.techradar.com/news/tv/television/meerkats-to-go-ultra-hd-in-bbc-s-first-4k-broadcast-1127915

"the size of the Ultra HD files has slowed down post-production due to their bulk. As such, there's no scheduled release date for the programme just yet."

4K ProRes can be 500-1000Mps so a 90 minute edit would come out at ~700GB, probably even much higher at 12-bit and 4444. That's just what's left though. The source footage could be 10-100 hours so easily 5-50TB.

There's a site here that mentions upgrading the storage facilities at the Natural History Unit editing facility - that's the people working on the meerkat film:

http://www.support-partners.com/recent-client-projects/

They used 500TB of Apple's XSAN storage prior to the upgrade.

In terms of bandwidth, there are stats here for the olympics:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/posts/digital_olympics_reach_stream_stats

"On the busiest day, the BBC delivered 2.8 petabytes, with the peak traffic moment occurring when Bradley Wiggins won Gold and we shifted 700 Gb/s."

If you divide that bandwidth by the number of requests 700Gbps/729000, that is 960kbps per stream. Netflix average is around 2Mbps. That seems to be enough for 720p quality although these programs tend to have compression artifacts. Assuming similar compression quality, they'd probably be able to broadcast 4K at under 10Mbps. Apparently there were HEVC demos at NAB showing 4K at 5Mbps. If it wasn't just static content, that's feasible with today's broadband speeds.

If these relatively unknown brands start pushing ahead with 4K TVs at affordable prices and consumers start to give up their brand loyalty, there will at least be an audience for 4K content. As one of the earlier videos pointed out though, there's almost no difference between upscaled 1080p and 4K on even an 85" 4K TV so it doesn't require content providers to move to 4K.

I still think it will be adopted slowly because of the distribution and storage requirements and it's clear that 1080p still has to become dominant in internet-based TV content. Disc based distribution is not feasible for it. At least there can be the occasional special feature done in 4K via the web and hardware becoming better and cheaper benefits all consumers. 1080p prices will have to come down too.

I'd rather see OLED prices come down and what would be great to see is a 30" 4K OLED Cinema/Thunderbolt Display for $999. Apple is obviously looking into OLED technology given their recent job ad. This couldn't happen until next year because this year's 4K TB is pass-through so it doesn't do data and video at the same time.
post #100 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

4K ProRes can be 500-1000Mps so a 90 minute edit would come out at ~700GB, probably even much higher at 12-bit and 4444. That's just what's left though. The source footage could be 10-100 hours so easily 5-50TB.

 

Plus it's not just a technical issue -- cost becomes a factor. It's not that storage is expensive per se, but that one needs so MUCH of it, and in a form that can deliver 1.21 Shitloads of data per second.

 

It's not even just storage for post, either. Somehow all that material has to be acquired in the field. That's a helluvalotta coin tied up in SSDs.

 

Then one needs computers capable of playing and editing streams that enormous. If people think previewing effects and transitions is slow now, just wait until they discover what kind of CPU/RAM/GPU requirements 4K will impose!

 

Then the project has to be archived somehow.

 

So, sure, I can get a nice 4K camera for only $4K (not counting the cost of lenses), but there's a lot of additional cost elsewhere.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

If you divide that bandwidth by the number of requests 700Gbps/729000, that is 960kbps per stream. Netflix average is around 2Mbps. That seems to be enough for 720p quality although these programs tend to have compression artifacts. Assuming similar compression quality, they'd probably be able to broadcast 4K at under 10Mbps. Apparently there were HEVC demos at NAB showing 4K at 5Mbps. If it wasn't just static content, that's feasible with today's broadband speeds.

 

"Compression artifacts" being the operative phrase at those data rates, I would expect. It strikes me as odd that we try to push more and more through the pipe when we're already exceeding its capacity much (most?) of the time. Maybe mine is a minority opinion, but I much prefer a good quality feed at even 480 to a blocky, smeared, ghosty image at 1080.

 

Internet delivery aside, even IF traditional cable/satellite carriers CAN cram 4K down the pipe, I don't know if they will (yet). Their priority is clearly quantity over quality. Given a choice between one high quality channel in a given amount of bandwidth or two over-compressed channels in the same space, guess what they're going to do?

 

 

All that said, since the NAB show I am now convinced that 4K in some form or another is closer than I though a week ago. I guess I should be excited, but all I see is a slowdown in workflow, more storage headaches and yet another money pit. I don't see billing for 4K production commanding enough of a premium to offset the increased costs associated with tooling up for it.

post #101 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Plus it's not just a technical issue -- cost becomes a factor. It's not that storage is expensive per se, but that one needs so MUCH of it, and in a form that can deliver 1.21 Shitloads of data per second.

It's not even just storage for post, either. Somehow all that material has to be acquired in the field. That's a helluvalotta coin tied up in SSDs.

Yes, the cost is a big factor too. There's an article here that isn't loading properly for me so I pasted it from Google cache that talks about costs. They mention minor production increase but estimate 80% higher post-production costs. Technology will become cheaper to counter that somewhat (relative to today):

http://realscreen.com/2013/04/08/nab-13-raising-the-bar-with-4k/
Quote:
Barrie Britton films BBC series "Survival"

With NAB taking place this week in Las Vegas, realscreen looks at how the non-fiction space is adopting 4K. Here, producers and networks working with ‘Ultra HD’ discuss the challenges and advantages of working with the format.

When the BBC’s Natural History Unit (NHU) announced plans to shoot the blue-chip wildlife doc Survival using ultra high-definition 4K cameras, the pundits were quick to pounce.

After all, at present, a 4K television upwards of 85 inches in size retails somewhere in the neighborhood of US$25,000 to $40,000, and there are no regular 4K broadcasts.

Influential blog TechRadar playfully chided the British pubcaster for greenlighting the project “regardless of the fact that approximately eight license fee payers will have a 4K TV by the time Survival airs.”

Survival, a multi-genre wildlife broadcast series that will feature spiders, meerkats, elephants and more, is one of three projects the BBC is developing in 4K – also known as Ultra HD – which offers four times the resolution of 1080-pixel HDTVs. The other two are theatrical 3D projects: The Hidden Kingdom, a “Pixar-esque” micro-photography film about insects aimed at children; and an underwater feature about sharks.

Producers for the NHU are not only future-proofing their library in anticipation of 4K’s disruptive effect on the consumer electronics market, but they want to up the ante on the resolution of their landmark, blue-chip wildlife programming, especially as the BBC begins pushing into the theatrical doc and giant screen markets.

“We’re trying to get very intimate, connected-with-the-animals-type of visuals, and we wanted a very cinematic, low-depth of field look,” NHU creative director Mike Gunton says of Survival, which will ultimately be delivered and broadcast in regular HD.

About a year ago, Gunton’s team began doing tests with Red Epic cameras, which can shoot in variable frame rates up to 5K resolution. In need of a format that didn’t have to be scaled up to 1080 for broadcast, the technology offered the specs and dramatic effect they were looking for. An early 4K shoot of a herd of elephants featured a shot of one of them splashing around a mud hole that was particularly vivid.

“The mud’s flying around and the water is squirting, the droplets are flying off the skin and you can see every ripple, every hair and crease in the skin. It really is stunning,” raves Gunton.

The BBC’s Natural History Unit is one of a growing number of producers beginning to adapt to the 4K production pipeline to stay a step ahead of market demand. The need to understand the format is especially pertinent for companies that market themselves based on technological, 3D or photographic prowess.

Japanese pubcaster NHK has plans to air the 2014 World Cup in 4K (and 8K broadcasts in 2016) and European satellite operators SES Astra and Eutelsat also intend to launch 4K transmissions next year.

In the United States, the Sony/Discovery/IMAX-owned 3D satellite network 3net is developing a slate of 4K programming in both 3D and 2D. So far execs have greenlit Space (working title), a 100% CGI series about the history of the universe that it is coproducing with Percolate Digital.

The network is looking to develop a mix of 4K series and one-off docs in the realm of natural history, travel, “destination-based” series that immerse viewers in a specific place and time, and non-fiction series that heavily use CGI, which minimizes some learning curve hiccups from the 4K pipeline.

3net is also seeing a significant demand for 4K content from brands such as Samsung and Sony, which want to entice viewers into purchasing their TVs. CEO Tom Cosgrove says the network will likely transmit that content via “non-traditional” avenues ahead of a traditional TV broadcast further down the line.

Analyst Deloitte predicts commercial 4K broadcasts are 18 to 36 months away. This year, viewers will have to suffice with pre-recorded or perhaps streamed content, such as Hollywood blockbusters shot in 4K or upgraded to 4K from 35mm. But such films can devour bandwidth – the size of a typical feature film is about 100GBs.

Size also matters for content producers. A one-hour 4K show can take up seven or eight terabytes – a massive amount of data that requires high-end processing and storage. “It’s an issue of how you find the right partners to work with in post-production, and bringing in equipment. We’re doing a little bit of both,” Cosgrove says, adding that going out of house on post has worked for 3D so “that’s a model that we’ll probably look at for 4K as well.”

4K offers cinematographers greater depth, different color spectrums and greater clarity of light movement. But better quality generally means higher budgets.

San Francisco-based Golden Gate 3D acquired a Red Epic rig a year ago that it has used for projects in development and an upcoming IMAX film about Jerusalem. Its producers will often encourage clients – large and small – to future-proof with 4K rather than shoot in HD.

Managing partner and producer Robert Mooring estimates that 4K adds a 5% to 10% increase to the production budget and a whopping 80% to post for rendering and storing data. There are also hardware investments in the form of 4K TVs and projectors.

“If you really want to see what shots work the best in 4K – and 3D – it’s good to have a 4K projector and television,” he maintains. “We definitely do that because we want to control the quality of our content.”

Data management is a big issue in the field for the BBC on Survival. “After you spend 12 hours following an animal, the last thing you want to do is spend four hours downloading data,” says Gunton. In the giant screen market, 4K resolution does not offer as crisp an image as IMAX film but it is starting to become a viable replacement for 70mm film stock, depending on the project.

Although 4K can suffice for flat screen, it might not work for a dome in a museum where the surface area is greater. “You need to be in the uber-high resolution to be able to fill the domes and have a comparable clarity to the image that you could achieve with 70mm,” says Andy Wood, senior VP and producer at Giant Screen Films, which released the 4K-shot feature The Last Reef in 2012. “What resolution exactly is unknown but we’re excited about the capture technology coming to market beyond 4K.”

The company completely bypassed 2K digital because the picture quality did not have the big, immersive impact audiences have come to expect with 70mm. Only now, with 4K, are large format filmmakers like Wood beginning to warm up to digital.

The creative and financial benefits can be felt during the production phase. Digital cameras are lighter and can shoot longer than a 70mm camera, meaning savings in labor and days in the field on lengthy natural history shoots. They are also less disruptive.

“If you fire up a 70mm camera it sounds like a lawn mower,” says Wood. “Many animals are going to high-tail it.”


While the giant screen theatrical market is more cautious when it comes to 4K, TV execs such as Gunton and Cosgrove are beginning to view the format as part of an inevitable race upwards for ever-clearer pictures.

“I can’t see me working on a project that isn’t shot in this way in the future,” sums up Gunton. “Blue-chip projects inevitably have more resources available and the expectation is that they will look amazing. If the bar is being raised up, we are expected to be at that bar, or pushing it higher.”

I suppose the ultimate aim for some is to get digital IMAX, which is 16K. What is odd with the Survivor series is they said they plan to broadcast in HD despite working in 4K so it looks like they are future-proofing just now and will deliver in 4K if/when it's feasible to broadcast in 4K.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v 
Then one needs computers capable of playing and editing streams that enormous. If people think previewing effects and transitions is slow now, just wait until they discover what kind of CPU/RAM/GPU requirements 4K will impose!

Then the project has to be archived somehow.

The hardware manufacturers will love this. If they create a scenario where more power and storage is needed, they'll increase demand for their products. Eventually 3.5" drives can scale up to 20TB+ each, including SSD. They are at 4TB just now. But that's about how much it would take for a single project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v 
It strikes me as odd that we try to push more and more through the pipe when we're already exceeding its capacity much (most?) of the time. Maybe mine is a minority opinion, but I much prefer a good quality feed at even 480 to a blocky, smeared, ghosty image at 1080.

I prefer adequate bitrates over resolution too - if it's too small, it gets blurry at a reasonable viewing size but bitrate is an essential consideration. I've seen consumer cameras recording 1080p at under 10Mbps mp4 and the detail is all gone with any kind of movement and there's little point in using 1080p for higher resolution if the detail is gone anyway due to the compression. Given that upscaled 1080p looks no different from 4K on consumer displays, it makes more sense to do that than struggle to achieve 2x-4x the sustained bandwidth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v 
All that said, since the NAB show I am now convinced that 4K in some form or another is closer than I though a week ago. I guess I should be excited, but all I see is a slowdown in workflow, more storage headaches and yet another money pit. I don't see billing for 4K production commanding enough of a premium to offset the increased costs associated with tooling up for it.

I feel the same. It's nice that technology progresses and prices come down but there's always going to be the factor of whether something better is needed for the use case. It won't be necessary to author mainstream TV in 4K. Given that 4K content is planned to be broadcast in HD, it's not going to look any different from 1080p authored content anyway.

The only use case for 4K is if you at some stage plan to show the content on a very large display. Upscaled 1080p on an 85" looks no different from 4K so likely 100"+ displays. Movies and documentaries are obvious examples that would do this but some already work to these resolutions anyway. Pixar has the ability to render out at new resolutions:

http://www.tested.com/art/movies/449542-finding-nemo-3d-interview/

but people still work to a limit with textures and all of movie CGI will have this limitation. Computers ought to be ~4x-8x faster in about 6 years and they are planning to boost storage media (slowly of course):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/12/seagate_hamr/

"Seagate aims to ship enhanced capacity shingled magnetic recording (SMR) disk drives later this year and bring in Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording (HAMR) technology next year, a full two years earlier than supposed. Pimental said SMR drives would be introduced later this year, and enable a 20 - 25 per cent areal density increase. Taking a 4TB 3.5-inch drive and giving it an SMR upgrade would bump capacity up to 4.8TB to 5TB.

Meanwhile, rival HGST is approaching the same problem with a different solution - filling a drive with low friction helium gas and adding more platters so that, for example, a 4TB 4-platter drive becomes, for example, a 6-7 platter drive in the same enclosure with capacity ranging between 6TB and 7TB, assuming 1TB/platter technology.

[With HAMR] today's 4TB 4-platter 3.5-inch drives could become 6.4TB drives.

4-platter SMR drive at 4.8TB - 5TB later this year.
4-platter HAMR drive at up to 6.4TB in 2014.

Back in March last year Seagate was talking about 10 years of progressive HAMR technology generations leading to a 60TB 3.5-inch drive."

1TB SSD is coming too for $600:

http://www.zdnet.com/crucial-m500-drive-significantly-reduces-ssd-price-per-gigabyte-7000013874/

Some hardware looks to be coming sooner than I expected but what really drives consumer demand is a need and I don't see people complaining about 1080p. I think it's a really smart move to tie it in with OLED though because I still feel that standard display quality isn't quite good enough yet. I held onto CRT as long as I could and finally let go but had to endure some pre-IPS panels. IPS has been great so far and really cheap but OLED has perfect black levels and instant response times. Once the color is accurate enough, having a laminated screen will display color good enough to lick. You can bet that won't be coming down in price any time soon though.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Intel announces next-gen Thunderbolt with 4K resolution support, 20Gbps speeds coming in 2014