<p>Don't want to distract anyone by talking about PHONES, but I've VERY curious about actual availability of new phones: in the past, it was the practice for phone shipments to trickle in to the Apple Stores on a daily basis, and some number of folks waiting outside, could be sure they'd get phones. This is no longer the case.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On 9/29, an Apple store recounted the above procedure to me by phone; today, that store told me they had received NO PHONES SINCE THEIR ORIGINAL SHIPMENT, they have NO LINES (though they did by eyewitness on 9/29), and the ONLY WAY to get a phone was to order it from the online store and wait three or four weeks. Unfortunately, my ATT trade-in rain-check ($200) is only good for another 18 days. Attempts to speak with ATT about this have been fruitless.</p>
Hmm, I'm late to get back to this thread I see. Of all the things said I think many are spot on, that is, sorry to say, disagree with [@]nht[/@]. While you make solid points they are also rebutted by the [@]Lorin Schultz[/@] and others. This one from [@]Benjamin Frost[/@] stood out for me (amongst others):
[quote]Picture quality is a funny thing, a bit like sound quality. There's a lot to be gained by improving it to a certain point, and then the returns quickly diminish.
When I watch a good tv programme or film, the picture quality is irrelevant, as long as it reaches a certain minimum quality. Good writing will immerse you in what you're watching. The best picture in the world won't make up for poor writing and acting. I feel that the same applies for music, though perhaps to a lesser extent.
We tend to assume that more detail and crispness is always a good thing, and yet, so much of the time, we are watching a fantasy in which these are actually undesirable elements.
How crisp and detailed are our memories?[/quote]
I once took the Apple FCPX workshop and was told that the most important aspect of making film is to have good sound. Sounded spot on, and I fully agree with that statement. Be it OT though.
Oh, and before I forget, [@]ThePixelDoc[/@] also posted one heck of a post - thanks for that one. I wholeheartedly agree.
[I]4K. Not for me. The next generation? We'll see. [/I]
The irony of this response in THE MAIN iPHONE THREAD (hadn't you noticed?)...and thanks, but the ones you link to have wandered as far off-topic as this one
<p>Don't want to distract anyone by talking about PHONES, but I've VERY curious about actual availability of new phones: in the past, it was the practice for phone shipments to trickle in to the Apple Stores on a daily basis, and some number of folks waiting outside, could be sure they'd get phones. This is no longer the case.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On 9/29, an Apple store recounted the above procedure to me by phone; today, that store told me they had received NO PHONES SINCE THEIR ORIGINAL SHIPMENT, they have NO LINES (though they did by eyewitness on 9/29), and the ONLY WAY to get a phone was to order it from the online store and wait three or four weeks. Unfortunately, my ATT trade-in rain-check ($200) is only good for another 18 days. Attempts to speak with ATT about this have been fruitless.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON???</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>I got mine as a walk-in a week or so ago. The store near me has gotten a couple shipments in but I guess even these could end since they are launching elsewhere.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Presumably you could use your AT&T check today and just get your phone whenever it gets here. Or you could try to get one at your AT&T store.</p>
Hmm, I'm late to get back to this thread I see. Of all the things said I think many are spot on, that is, sorry to say, disagree with @nht. While you make solid points they are also rebutted by the @Lorin Schultz and others. This one from @Benjamin Frost stood out for me (amongst others):
Imagine my surprise that yet another european that doesn't believe that 4K content or sufficient internet infrastructure exists (because their country doesn't have it...even though people are already watching 4K content on netflix) disagrees with me.
Ask the Japanese and Koreans and see if they think the infrastructure exists.
Quote:
I once took the Apple FCPX workshop and was told that the most important aspect of making film is to have good sound. Sounded spot on, and I fully agree with that statement. Be it OT though.
And funny how when the same folks that promote good sound (THX/Skywalker) also state that 40 degrees horizontal viewing angle is important for visual immersion folks here seem to think it's just an opinion rather than based on actual science and theater design experience.
Quote:
4K. Not for me. The next generation? We'll see.
Right. Unless you are planning on dying in the next few years odds are you'll end up with a 4K set before you die. The next generation will have it next year.
The irony of this response in THE MAIN iPHONE THREAD (hadn't you noticed?)...and thanks, but the ones you link to have wandered as far off-topic as this one
Mea culpa. I got so caught up on the topic of 4K I simply forgot this was the wrong thread to begin with. Thanks for pointing out my err.
Right. Unless you are planning on dying in the next few years odds are you'll end up with a 4K set before you die. The next generation will have it next year.
Netflix? Who has access to that? That may be the walhallah in The States, and other territories, but it's not a global thing, like TV.
And as far as Intenet speed, read this bit from Wiki (I know)
As of 2013, Akamai measured the fastest average download data rate of 21.9 Mbit/s in South Korea, which is over 40% faster than the next ranked country, Japan, with 12.9 Mbit/s. South Korea's speed is almost six times faster than the world average of 3.8 Mbit/s, and more than twice as fast as the United States at 10 Mbit/s. 100 Mbit/s service is the average standard in urban South Korean homes and the country has rolled out 1 Gbit/s (1,000 Mbit/s) connections nationwide, which cost $20 per month,[2] approximately 263 times faster than the world average and 100 times faster than the average speed in the United States.[3]
4K might be here next year, but it certainly won't be a global thing. Not like TV is now, and it won't be anytime soon. And I don't mean to say this just trying to disagree with you, I simply try to view this objectively. I do hope I will be proven wrong though.
Netflix? Who has access to that? That may be the walhallah in The States, and other territories, but it's not a global thing, like TV.
And as far as Intenet speed, read this bit from Wiki (I know)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds
4K might be here next year, but it certainly won't be a global thing. Not like TV is now, and it won't be anytime soon. And I don't mean to say this just trying to disagree with you, I simply try to view this objectively. I do hope I will be proven wrong though.
Lol...moving goalposts are we? No one said that adoption would be 100% everywhere next year. But the US and Asia will see significant 4K deployment in 2015. 4K will be widespread in a few years, not in a couple generations.
Lol...moving goalposts are we? No one said that adoption would be 100% everywhere next year. But the US and Asia will see significant 4K deployment in 2015. 4K will be widespread in a few years, not in a couple generations.
Don't you agree though that it's a chicken and egg sort of deployment? Kind of like Standard Def -> HD recently... but there was one more factor to consider with the general public upgrading: TV's got way thinner and took up less space for a larger viewing experience. That was a huge determining factor not to be dismissed, even though standard def was 90% of the programming available. Most people that I know to this day still watch upscaled DVDs that they've bought, and only consume HD through a few of the free channels available.
Even a huge sports fan such as myself, have decided to stick with Sky Sports standard def, and upgraded for Sky Mobile €10,-/mo. (for my lovely iPad!) and Champions League for €10,-/mo. At the moment I'm being 10-Euro-ed per month to death for so many services and premium upgrades, I decided to skip HD and instead opted for more programming variety and other areas of interest. Again... most people and families that I know here think I'm crazy for paying extra for what I do now.
So, with the "Jones-ing" fashion statement out of the way... how many people are going to upgrade to 4K, to continue to watch a few 2x scaled HD channels, 2x scaled BluRay (which many have skipped entirely anyway) and 4x scaled DVD? None of the neighbors will even notice until you turn the TV on... so what exactly is the average household gaining here?
The other side of the "chicken-egg" discussion: content producers will also need to make capital investments in all of there equipment, plus purchase more bandwidth, whether over fiber (which doesn't exist for most parts of Germany at least), satellite (most prevalent), or digital tower broadcast (which also will need to be upgraded). Only THEN to find out, that most people are still happy with their flat-screens purchased between at the earliest 2006, 2010 and this year. Fact: most TVs sold in Europe are preceding the World Cup.
I've lived and died by counting pixels literally my entire professional life since '84... my forum moniker alludes to that I think. So as much as I personally would love to have 4K and will more than likely invest in it myself, I don't expect many others that I know will. Nor will they be impressed enough after seeing my TV, to think that it would be wise to upgrade if the TV they have continues to work for them.
I am happy for Asia though that they have nothing else better to spend their taxes and disposable income on. Wish we in Europe were so lucky!
[@]Philboogie[/@] - here's a post to like... my other one was far too short and to the point to give a thumbs up or mention... :smokey:
[...] Standard Def -> HD recently... but there was one more factor to consider with the general public upgrading: TV's got way thinner and took up less space for a larger viewing experience.
That doesn't seem to be a well-recognized factor in the adoption of HD. Buying new hardware yielded benefits beyond just more pixels. The change to HD coincided with (or brought with it) the first-ever really significant difference in TV set technology and form-factor. How many people upgraded to get HD content vs. the advantage of a big, wide, comparatively light-weight and comparatively inexpensive viewing device?
4K doesn't have that kind of hardware paradigm shift behind it. The sole benefit to the buyer is a sharper picture, and I think PixelDoc is right that only enthusiasts will care.
Obviously manufacturers will soon offer nothing but 4K sets, just like everyone stopped making SD sets shortly after HD was introduced, so they'll eventually find their way into homes as people replace failed units or buy bigger, but I don't think you'll see the kind of motivation to replace working sets the way we did with the transition to HD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
Most people that I know to this day still watch upscaled DVDs that they've bought, and only consume HD through a few of the free channels available.
My wife and I have discussed this at length. After watching a movie on Blu-Ray, I jokingly asked her if she appreciated the extra enjoyment imparted by the HD picture? We were both surprised, and a little embarrassed, to admit that neither of us had even noticed. Upscaled DVDs apparently look fine to us.
We're techno-geeks who have actively embraced HD and critically evaluated our hardware purchases. If people like *US* are discovering that extra pixels aren't as important as we thought, what hope is there that average consumers will get excited about it? Y'know, the people who choose noisy, ghosted jpeg photos over HDR tiffs and dull-sounding mp3 music over wav files. I don't think convincing them that the benefits outweigh the trade-offs will be an easy sell. I'm not even sure they're wrong to think otherwise.
[@]Lorin Schultz[/@] - Thanks for taking the time to reply and at least validating my theory
Going beyond 4K, I feel a bit of a slow down in consumer and professional spending for new tech gadgets, and more people realizing that what they have already is not being utilized to it's fullest.*** Whether it's cameras, smart phones, tablets, game consoles, TVs, laptops and desktops, audio gear... plus all of the inexpensive apps and software... it's really amazing what a number of us have accumulated in just the last 5 years, and what capabilities we have that were not even conceivable 10 years ago. And to be honest... what we're NOT getting out of that equipment what we should be doing with it, which is being more creative and enjoying it.
For a kid in HS or even prep school, to be able to go out, shoot and edit an HD film of whatever turns them on, create a poster, a website, a YT channel, maybe get some Kickstarter love along the way... from their home on an MBP, armed with a LED flashlight and an iPhone. Imagine what a Spielberg, Tarantino, Cohn Bros., or Lynch (please... just pick your own favorite director) would have done with that ability and youthful energy 30 years ago?!
I fully agree with the normally "ornery" Benjamin Frost on his worthy quote in this thread stating that it's all about the storytelling. We've democratized the cost and trouble of getting a story out there for the world to see in very good (great!) quality without leaving the comfort of our homes. In fact, if you don't like what's out there or you can't find anything to suit your tastes, you can create your OWN stories. We don't need any more equipment or gadgets, we need to pause in wonderment at we HAVE... and take the time to ponder, "how can I make my life better, maybe bring enjoyment to those around me, or even tell a story so good that other people around the world would like to see it... with all of this great tech at my fingertips". Maybe even do something GOOD for humanity and the world... rather than simply use it to consume and participate in the latest Bitch-Fest-of-the-Week about our "lacking" gadgets. I think some people read so much of this that they start to believe that their iPhone really will bend in their pocket and flop over when they want to take a picture, or that it's such a crap device that you couldn't POSSIBLY make anything worth watching once, let alone twice on your lowly 80" HD flat screen from 3 years ago..............!
Oops!... sorry for the rant and tangent. Once again I must assess my own Forum Junky addiction and wonder WTF am I doing here?! I should be creating something!!!! Look in the mirror and ask what you're doing to change your life and the world around you... or something like that... :smokey:
*** Personal wish and utopian dream I'm sure. Of late if I even see the word "consumer" my hair stands on the back of my neck and I want to slug the closest thing within reach. But yes... my cat forgives and still loves me... canned tuna or sardines does wonders.
Don't you agree though that it's a chicken and egg sort of deployment?
No. In this case displays, infrastructure and content are marching forward at about the same pace.
For HDTVs we had (analog) HD displays before we had a lot of content with HD tape being very rare and the BR, HD-DVD war and limited bandwidth for cable and slow internet. Later digital HDTV displays were still expensive.
Today UHDTV displays are under a grand ($799 for a 50" Sekki with Vizio about to release one as well).
Content is already available to millions with 15 Mbps Internet.
DOCSIS 3 will give cable operators more bandwidth to carry more UHDTV channels than today
Our compression algorithms have improved alongside 4K development whereas HD was stuck using MPEG-2 before AVC was ready.
Quote:
Kind of like Standard Def -> HD recently... but there was one more factor to consider with the general public upgrading: TV's got way thinner and took up less space for a larger viewing experience. That was a huge determining factor not to be dismissed, even though standard def was 90% of the programming available. Most people that I know to this day still watch upscaled DVDs that they've bought, and only consume HD through a few of the free channels available.
Larger screens got a lot cheaper. That was the huge determining factor. Size was important but plasmas were as thing but things didn't take off until LCDs drove the flat panel price below $1000. With 4K displays costing not much more than HDTVs folks will buy since there's little downside.
Quote:
Even a huge sports fan such as myself, have decided to stick with Sky Sports standard def, and upgraded for Sky Mobile €10,-/mo. (for my lovely iPad!) and Champions League for €10,-/mo. At the moment I'm being 10-Euro-ed per month to death for so many services and premium upgrades, I decided to skip HD and instead opted for more programming variety and other areas of interest. Again... most people and families that I know here think I'm crazy for paying extra for what I do now.
In the US large screens are sold most just before the Super Bowl. 10% of sales during the two weeks leading up to the game.
The costs in your particular country are immaterial to the uptake of any given technology anywhere else where the cost structure is different.
Quote:
So, with the "Jones-ing" fashion statement out of the way... how many people are going to upgrade to 4K, to continue to watch a few 2x scaled HD channels, 2x scaled BluRay (which many have skipped entirely anyway) and 4x scaled DVD? None of the neighbors will even notice until you turn the TV on... so what exactly is the average household gaining here?
The "Jones-ing" aspect occurs when everyone comes to your house for the big game whether that's the Super Bowl or the final game of the World Cup. If that sort of thing is important to you.
Quote:
The other side of the "chicken-egg" discussion: content producers will also need to make capital investments in all of there equipment, plus purchase more bandwidth, whether over fiber (which doesn't exist for most parts of Germany at least), satellite (most prevalent), or digital tower broadcast (which also will need to be upgraded). Only THEN to find out, that most people are still happy with their flat-screens purchased between at the earliest 2006, 2010 and this year.
And infrastructure improvements are occurring anyway because it's just bandwidth they can sell as either more internet (which is dominated by streaming anyway) or as more HD channels or as UHD channels.
Quote:
Fact: most TVs sold in Europe are preceding the World Cup.
Which is why the 2014 World Cup was the 4K testbed for the 2018 World Cup (and Olympic) UHD coverage. Japan and NHK is pushing hard in this area. The 2014 games were filmed in 4K and FIFA with Sony is going to make a documentary out of it.
The 2018 World Cup will likely have 4K coverage and I would bet that many in Europe will have access.
Quote:
I am happy for Asia though that they have nothing else better to spend their taxes and disposable income on. Wish we in Europe were so lucky!
Going beyond 4K, I feel a bit of a slow down in consumer and professional spending for new tech gadgets, and more people realizing that what they have already is not being utilized to it's fullest.*** Whether it's cameras, smart phones, tablets, game consoles, TVs, laptops and desktops, audio gear... plus all of the inexpensive apps and software... it's really amazing what a number of us have accumulated in just the last 5 years, and what capabilities we have that were not even conceivable 10 years ago. And to be honest... what we're NOT getting out of that equipment what we should be doing with it, which is being more creative and enjoying it.
Good lord, old (in spirit if not in body) people have been writing this stupid paragraph since time immemorial. Whether it's Blu-Ray or Internet or VHS or Cable TV or MTV or 35mm film or OMG SOUND IN MOVIES! it was always something about how amazing stuff today is and we should all just STOP with the technology madness and live.
Quote:
For a kid in HS or even prep school, to be able to go out, shoot and edit an HD film of whatever turns them on, create a poster, a website, a YT channel, maybe get some Kickstarter love along the way... from their home on an MBP, armed with a LED flashlight and an iPhone. Imagine what a Spielberg, Tarantino, Cohn Bros., or Lynch (please... just pick your own favorite director) would have done with that ability and youthful energy 30 years ago?!
I can imagine this written in 1974:
For a kid in HS or even prep school, to be able to go out, shoot and edit an Super 8 film (1965, sound added in 1973) of whatever turns them on from their home! Imagine what a Hitchcock, Lean, Kubrick, or Bergman (please... just pick your own favorite director) would have done with that ability and youthful energy 30 years ago?!
The fact is that every generation makes use of the latest technology to create. Whether it's Super 8 film, or VHS, or DV, or DSLR video, or iPhones or 4K.
Quote:
I fully agree with the normally "ornery" Benjamin Frost on his worthy quote in this thread stating that it's all about the storytelling. We've democratized the cost and trouble of getting a story out there for the world to see in very good (great!) quality without leaving the comfort of our homes. In fact, if you don't like what's out there or you can't find anything to suit your tastes, you can create your OWN stories. We don't need any more equipment or gadgets, we need to pause in wonderment at we HAVE... and take the time to ponder, "how can I make my life better, maybe bring enjoyment to those around me, or even tell a story so good that other people around the world would like to see it... with all of this great tech at my fingertips".
And if people did that then iPhones, LCD TV or anything else you tout here would simply not exist.
Creatives create regardless of the medium or advances in the state of the art.
It has always been about the storytelling but more equipment and gadgets enable the NEXT generation to do what the prior could not do...or even imagine. Without computer controlled cameras Lucas could not have shot Star Wars. Without computer mo-cap and high quality rendering Cameron couldn't have made Avatar.
Maybe even do something GOOD for humanity and the world... rather than simply use it to consume and participate in the latest Bitch-Fest-of-the-Week about our "lacking" gadgets. I think some people read so much of this that they start to believe that their iPhone really will bend in their pocket and flop over when they want to take a picture, or that it's such a crap device that you couldn't POSSIBLY make anything worth watching once, let alone twice on your lowly 80" HD flat screen from 3 years ago..............!
Oops!... sorry for the rant and tangent. Once again I must assess my own Forum Junky addiction and wonder WTF am I doing here?! I should be creating something!!!! Look in the mirror and ask what you're doing to change your life and the world around you... or something like that...
*** Personal wish and utopian dream I'm sure. Of late if I even see the word "consumer" my hair stands on the back of my neck and I want to slug the closest thing within reach. But yes... my cat forgives and still loves me... canned tuna or sardines does wonders.
Look in the mirror and likely you will see you've become that guy you rolled your eyes at when you were 20.
Good lord, old (in spirit if not in body) people have been writing this stupid paragraph since time immemorial. Whether it's Blu-Ray or Internet or VHS or Cable TV or MTV or 35mm film or OMG SOUND IN MOVIES! it was always something about how amazing stuff today is and we should all just STOP with the technology madness and live.
I want to add that it goes beyond what you can send to a viewing device. Higher resolution gives you significantly more freedom if you have to leave room for parts that are lost due to stabilization in post.
Good lord, old (in spirit if not in body) people have been writing this stupid paragraph since time immemorial. Whether it's Blu-Ray or Internet or VHS or Cable TV or MTV or 35mm film or OMG SOUND IN MOVIES! it was always something about how amazing stuff today is and we should all just STOP with the technology madness and live.
I can imagine this written in 1974:
For a kid in HS or even prep school, to be able to go out, shoot and edit an Super 8 film (1965, sound added in 1973) of whatever turns them on from their home! Imagine what a Hitchcock, Lean, Kubrick, or Bergman (please... just pick your own favorite director) would have done with that ability and youthful energy 30 years ago?!
The fact is that every generation makes use of the latest technology to create. Whether it's Super 8 film, or VHS, or DV, or DSLR video, or iPhones or 4K.
And if people did that then iPhones, LCD TV or anything else you tout here would simply not exist.
Creatives create regardless of the medium or advances in the state of the art.
It has always been about the storytelling but <span style="line-height:1.4em;">more equipment and gadgets enable the NEXT generation to do what the prior could not do...or even imagine. Without computer controlled cameras Lucas could not have shot Star Wars. Without computer mo-cap and high quality rendering Cameron couldn't have made Avatar.</span>
Look in the mirror and likely you will see you've become that guy you rolled your eyes at when you were 20.
You know what nht, I think I have to agree with you here. After waking up and reading your reply... my post surely sounds like that from a geezer. You made some very good points in both of your replies and duly noted here.
However, without tooting my horn too loud, I work with a large swath of clients from millionaires to poor students. I also have worked rather close to the decision makers here and major providers of services. It's a good portion of my job to ask questions of all of them, to see how I can make all of their gadgets work for them and be worth the investment. Unfortunately, I see a lot of "meh" and push back against tech advancements of late. It of course causes me to take note and make sure my services and knowledge are going to be worthwhile for people in the future... or... start creating myself again rather than helping others do it.
As I've said, I'm all for the advances in 4K and tech in general. And will most likely invest in it myself. I'm questioning only how many other people will, and from the feedback I've been receiving of late... I'm not expecting people to be knicking my door down any time soon and saying, we gotta have that installed and running next week. I'm hoping I'm wrong, and thus is just Old Geezer Sceptisism Syndrome... a malady I'll get over. Thanks for the medicine...:smokey:
I want to add that it goes beyond what you can send to a viewing device. Higher resolution gives you significantly more freedom if you have to leave room for parts that are lost due to stabilization in post.
If your image is shaky enough that you need FOUR TIMES as many pixels to wind up with a complete picture after stabilizing it, I'd say you have bigger problems than sufficient resolution!
(It's also handy for zooming in when the shot is too wide, which isn't a problem with professional productions but might be for stuff shot with DSLR or cameras with no zoom like phones.)
If your image is shaky enough that you need FOUR TIMES as many pixels to wind up with a complete picture after stabilizing it, I'd say you have bigger problems than sufficient resolution!
That was just an example, and I didn't suggest you needed four times as many pixels for it. You are doubling the number of pixels in each direction, so that's 2x the vertical pixels. You may not need that, but they haven't standardized anything in between those two points.
Quote:
(It's also handy for zooming in when the shot is too wide, which isn't a problem with professional productions but might be for stuff shot with DSLR or cameras with no zoom like phones.)
or if you wanted to add the aforementioned zoom after the fact.
I know. I was making a joke, as indicated by the "winky" emoticon.
I sometimes have weird loading issues with emoticons. I don't recall seeing it yesterday. Anyway...
Quote:
That's what I meant. "After the fact" is the only option when "shot with cameras with no zoom."
I meant that some people may also change their mind after the fact. As this stuff trickles down, it's accessed by a very wide range of people, not all of which put meticulous planning into their shots, even if they are shooting with dslrs that do have zoom functionality. There are also things such as stock footage where it may be cropped in final usage.
Comments
<p> </p>
<p>On 9/29, an Apple store recounted the above procedure to me by phone; today, that store told me they had received NO PHONES SINCE THEIR ORIGINAL SHIPMENT, they have NO LINES (though they did by eyewitness on 9/29), and the ONLY WAY to get a phone was to order it from the online store and wait three or four weeks. Unfortunately, my ATT trade-in rain-check ($200) is only good for another 18 days. Attempts to speak with ATT about this have been fruitless.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON???</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
[quote]Picture quality is a funny thing, a bit like sound quality. There's a lot to be gained by improving it to a certain point, and then the returns quickly diminish.
When I watch a good tv programme or film, the picture quality is irrelevant, as long as it reaches a certain minimum quality. Good writing will immerse you in what you're watching. The best picture in the world won't make up for poor writing and acting. I feel that the same applies for music, though perhaps to a lesser extent.
We tend to assume that more detail and crispness is always a good thing, and yet, so much of the time, we are watching a fantasy in which these are actually undesirable elements.
How crisp and detailed are our memories?[/quote]
I once took the Apple FCPX workshop and was told that the most important aspect of making film is to have good sound. Sounded spot on, and I fully agree with that statement. Be it OT though.
Oh, and before I forget, [@]ThePixelDoc[/@] also posted one heck of a post - thanks for that one. I wholeheartedly agree.
[I]4K. Not for me. The next generation? We'll see.
[/I]
No idea, but you might have better luck posting in an iPhone related thread.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/182628/
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/182523/
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/182429/
The irony of this response in THE MAIN iPHONE THREAD (hadn't you noticed?)...and thanks, but the ones you link to have wandered as far off-topic as this one
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Capt. Obvious</strong> <a href="/t/182169/apple-announces-4-7-iphone-6-and-5-5-iphone-6-plus-new-design-a8-cpu-retina-hd-display/240#post_2611758"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br />
<p>Don't want to distract anyone by talking about PHONES, but I've VERY curious about actual availability of new phones: in the past, it was the practice for phone shipments to trickle in to the Apple Stores on a daily basis, and some number of folks waiting outside, could be sure they'd get phones. This is no longer the case.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On 9/29, an Apple store recounted the above procedure to me by phone; today, that store told me they had received NO PHONES SINCE THEIR ORIGINAL SHIPMENT, they have NO LINES (though they did by eyewitness on 9/29), and the ONLY WAY to get a phone was to order it from the online store and wait three or four weeks. Unfortunately, my ATT trade-in rain-check ($200) is only good for another 18 days. Attempts to speak with ATT about this have been fruitless.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON???</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>I got mine as a walk-in a week or so ago. The store near me has gotten a couple shipments in but I guess even these could end since they are launching elsewhere.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Presumably you could use your AT&T check today and just get your phone whenever it gets here. Or you could try to get one at your AT&T store.</p>
Hmm, I'm late to get back to this thread I see. Of all the things said I think many are spot on, that is, sorry to say, disagree with @nht. While you make solid points they are also rebutted by the @Lorin Schultz and others. This one from @Benjamin Frost stood out for me (amongst others):
Imagine my surprise that yet another european that doesn't believe that 4K content or sufficient internet infrastructure exists (because their country doesn't have it...even though people are already watching 4K content on netflix) disagrees with me.
Ask the Japanese and Koreans and see if they think the infrastructure exists.
And funny how when the same folks that promote good sound (THX/Skywalker) also state that 40 degrees horizontal viewing angle is important for visual immersion folks here seem to think it's just an opinion rather than based on actual science and theater design experience.
Right. Unless you are planning on dying in the next few years odds are you'll end up with a 4K set before you die. The next generation will have it next year.
Mea culpa. I got so caught up on the topic of 4K I simply forgot this was the wrong thread to begin with. Thanks for pointing out my err.
Netflix? Who has access to that? That may be the walhallah in The States, and other territories, but it's not a global thing, like TV.
And as far as Intenet speed, read this bit from Wiki (I know)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds
4K might be here next year, but it certainly won't be a global thing. Not like TV is now, and it won't be anytime soon. And I don't mean to say this just trying to disagree with you, I simply try to view this objectively. I do hope I will be proven wrong though.
Lol...moving goalposts are we? No one said that adoption would be 100% everywhere next year. But the US and Asia will see significant 4K deployment in 2015. 4K will be widespread in a few years, not in a couple generations.
Don't you agree though that it's a chicken and egg sort of deployment? Kind of like Standard Def -> HD recently... but there was one more factor to consider with the general public upgrading: TV's got way thinner and took up less space for a larger viewing experience. That was a huge determining factor not to be dismissed, even though standard def was 90% of the programming available. Most people that I know to this day still watch upscaled DVDs that they've bought, and only consume HD through a few of the free channels available.
Even a huge sports fan such as myself, have decided to stick with Sky Sports standard def, and upgraded for Sky Mobile €10,-/mo. (for my lovely iPad!) and Champions League for €10,-/mo. At the moment I'm being 10-Euro-ed per month to death for so many services and premium upgrades, I decided to skip HD and instead opted for more programming variety and other areas of interest. Again... most people and families that I know here think I'm crazy for paying extra for what I do now.
So, with the "Jones-ing" fashion statement out of the way... how many people are going to upgrade to 4K, to continue to watch a few 2x scaled HD channels, 2x scaled BluRay (which many have skipped entirely anyway) and 4x scaled DVD? None of the neighbors will even notice until you turn the TV on... so what exactly is the average household gaining here?
The other side of the "chicken-egg" discussion: content producers will also need to make capital investments in all of there equipment, plus purchase more bandwidth, whether over fiber (which doesn't exist for most parts of Germany at least), satellite (most prevalent), or digital tower broadcast (which also will need to be upgraded). Only THEN to find out, that most people are still happy with their flat-screens purchased between at the earliest 2006, 2010 and this year. Fact: most TVs sold in Europe are preceding the World Cup.
I've lived and died by counting pixels literally my entire professional life since '84... my forum moniker alludes to that I think. So as much as I personally would love to have 4K and will more than likely invest in it myself, I don't expect many others that I know will. Nor will they be impressed enough after seeing my TV, to think that it would be wise to upgrade if the TV they have continues to work for them.
I am happy for Asia though that they have nothing else better to spend their taxes and disposable income on. Wish we in Europe were so lucky!
[@]Philboogie[/@] - here's a post to like... my other one was far too short and to the point to give a thumbs up or mention... :smokey:
Excellent post, and I'm only half way through!
[...] Standard Def -> HD recently... but there was one more factor to consider with the general public upgrading: TV's got way thinner and took up less space for a larger viewing experience.
That doesn't seem to be a well-recognized factor in the adoption of HD. Buying new hardware yielded benefits beyond just more pixels. The change to HD coincided with (or brought with it) the first-ever really significant difference in TV set technology and form-factor. How many people upgraded to get HD content vs. the advantage of a big, wide, comparatively light-weight and comparatively inexpensive viewing device?
4K doesn't have that kind of hardware paradigm shift behind it. The sole benefit to the buyer is a sharper picture, and I think PixelDoc is right that only enthusiasts will care.
Obviously manufacturers will soon offer nothing but 4K sets, just like everyone stopped making SD sets shortly after HD was introduced, so they'll eventually find their way into homes as people replace failed units or buy bigger, but I don't think you'll see the kind of motivation to replace working sets the way we did with the transition to HD.
Most people that I know to this day still watch upscaled DVDs that they've bought, and only consume HD through a few of the free channels available.
My wife and I have discussed this at length. After watching a movie on Blu-Ray, I jokingly asked her if she appreciated the extra enjoyment imparted by the HD picture? We were both surprised, and a little embarrassed, to admit that neither of us had even noticed. Upscaled DVDs apparently look fine to us.
We're techno-geeks who have actively embraced HD and critically evaluated our hardware purchases. If people like *US* are discovering that extra pixels aren't as important as we thought, what hope is there that average consumers will get excited about it? Y'know, the people who choose noisy, ghosted jpeg photos over HDR tiffs and dull-sounding mp3 music over wav files. I don't think convincing them that the benefits outweigh the trade-offs will be an easy sell. I'm not even sure they're wrong to think otherwise.
Going beyond 4K, I feel a bit of a slow down in consumer and professional spending for new tech gadgets, and more people realizing that what they have already is not being utilized to it's fullest.*** Whether it's cameras, smart phones, tablets, game consoles, TVs, laptops and desktops, audio gear... plus all of the inexpensive apps and software... it's really amazing what a number of us have accumulated in just the last 5 years, and what capabilities we have that were not even conceivable 10 years ago. And to be honest... what we're NOT getting out of that equipment what we should be doing with it, which is being more creative and enjoying it.
For a kid in HS or even prep school, to be able to go out, shoot and edit an HD film of whatever turns them on, create a poster, a website, a YT channel, maybe get some Kickstarter love along the way... from their home on an MBP, armed with a LED flashlight and an iPhone. Imagine what a Spielberg, Tarantino, Cohn Bros., or Lynch (please... just pick your own favorite director) would have done with that ability and youthful energy 30 years ago?!
I fully agree with the normally "ornery" Benjamin Frost on his worthy quote in this thread stating that it's all about the storytelling. We've democratized the cost and trouble of getting a story out there for the world to see in very good (great!) quality without leaving the comfort of our homes. In fact, if you don't like what's out there or you can't find anything to suit your tastes, you can create your OWN stories. We don't need any more equipment or gadgets, we need to pause in wonderment at we HAVE... and take the time to ponder, "how can I make my life better, maybe bring enjoyment to those around me, or even tell a story so good that other people around the world would like to see it... with all of this great tech at my fingertips". Maybe even do something GOOD for humanity and the world... rather than simply use it to consume and participate in the latest Bitch-Fest-of-the-Week about our "lacking" gadgets. I think some people read so much of this that they start to believe that their iPhone really will bend in their pocket and flop over when they want to take a picture, or that it's such a crap device that you couldn't POSSIBLY make anything worth watching once, let alone twice on your lowly 80" HD flat screen from 3 years ago..............!
Oops!... sorry for the rant and tangent. Once again I must assess my own Forum Junky addiction and wonder WTF am I doing here?! I should be creating something!!!! Look in the mirror and ask what you're doing to change your life and the world around you... or something like that... :smokey:
*** Personal wish and utopian dream I'm sure. Of late if I even see the word "consumer" my hair stands on the back of my neck and I want to slug the closest thing within reach. But yes... my cat forgives and still loves me... canned tuna or sardines does wonders.
Don't you agree though that it's a chicken and egg sort of deployment?
No. In this case displays, infrastructure and content are marching forward at about the same pace.
For HDTVs we had (analog) HD displays before we had a lot of content with HD tape being very rare and the BR, HD-DVD war and limited bandwidth for cable and slow internet. Later digital HDTV displays were still expensive.
Today UHDTV displays are under a grand ($799 for a 50" Sekki with Vizio about to release one as well).
Content is already available to millions with 15 Mbps Internet.
DOCSIS 3 will give cable operators more bandwidth to carry more UHDTV channels than today
Our compression algorithms have improved alongside 4K development whereas HD was stuck using MPEG-2 before AVC was ready.
Larger screens got a lot cheaper. That was the huge determining factor. Size was important but plasmas were as thing but things didn't take off until LCDs drove the flat panel price below $1000. With 4K displays costing not much more than HDTVs folks will buy since there's little downside.
In the US large screens are sold most just before the Super Bowl. 10% of sales during the two weeks leading up to the game.
The costs in your particular country are immaterial to the uptake of any given technology anywhere else where the cost structure is different.
The "Jones-ing" aspect occurs when everyone comes to your house for the big game whether that's the Super Bowl or the final game of the World Cup. If that sort of thing is important to you.
And infrastructure improvements are occurring anyway because it's just bandwidth they can sell as either more internet (which is dominated by streaming anyway) or as more HD channels or as UHD channels.
Which is why the 2014 World Cup was the 4K testbed for the 2018 World Cup (and Olympic) UHD coverage. Japan and NHK is pushing hard in this area. The 2014 games were filmed in 4K and FIFA with Sony is going to make a documentary out of it.
The 2018 World Cup will likely have 4K coverage and I would bet that many in Europe will have access.
How big of you.
Going beyond 4K, I feel a bit of a slow down in consumer and professional spending for new tech gadgets, and more people realizing that what they have already is not being utilized to it's fullest.*** Whether it's cameras, smart phones, tablets, game consoles, TVs, laptops and desktops, audio gear... plus all of the inexpensive apps and software... it's really amazing what a number of us have accumulated in just the last 5 years, and what capabilities we have that were not even conceivable 10 years ago. And to be honest... what we're NOT getting out of that equipment what we should be doing with it, which is being more creative and enjoying it.
Good lord, old (in spirit if not in body) people have been writing this stupid paragraph since time immemorial. Whether it's Blu-Ray or Internet or VHS or Cable TV or MTV or 35mm film or OMG SOUND IN MOVIES! it was always something about how amazing stuff today is and we should all just STOP with the technology madness and live.
I can imagine this written in 1974:
For a kid in HS or even prep school, to be able to go out, shoot and edit an Super 8 film (1965, sound added in 1973) of whatever turns them on from their home! Imagine what a Hitchcock, Lean, Kubrick, or Bergman (please... just pick your own favorite director) would have done with that ability and youthful energy 30 years ago?!
The fact is that every generation makes use of the latest technology to create. Whether it's Super 8 film, or VHS, or DV, or DSLR video, or iPhones or 4K.
And if people did that then iPhones, LCD TV or anything else you tout here would simply not exist.
Creatives create regardless of the medium or advances in the state of the art.
It has always been about the storytelling but more equipment and gadgets enable the NEXT generation to do what the prior could not do...or even imagine. Without computer controlled cameras Lucas could not have shot Star Wars. Without computer mo-cap and high quality rendering Cameron couldn't have made Avatar.
Oops!... sorry for the rant and tangent. Once again I must assess my own Forum Junky addiction and wonder WTF am I doing here?! I should be creating something!!!! Look in the mirror and ask what you're doing to change your life and the world around you... or something like that...
*** Personal wish and utopian dream I'm sure. Of late if I even see the word "consumer" my hair stands on the back of my neck and I want to slug the closest thing within reach. But yes... my cat forgives and still loves me... canned tuna or sardines does wonders.
Look in the mirror and likely you will see you've become that guy you rolled your eyes at when you were 20.
Good lord, old (in spirit if not in body) people have been writing this stupid paragraph since time immemorial. Whether it's Blu-Ray or Internet or VHS or Cable TV or MTV or 35mm film or OMG SOUND IN MOVIES! it was always something about how amazing stuff today is and we should all just STOP with the technology madness and live.
I want to add that it goes beyond what you can send to a viewing device. Higher resolution gives you significantly more freedom if you have to leave room for parts that are lost due to stabilization in post.
You know what nht, I think I have to agree with you here. After waking up and reading your reply... my post surely sounds like that from a geezer. You made some very good points in both of your replies and duly noted here.
However, without tooting my horn too loud, I work with a large swath of clients from millionaires to poor students. I also have worked rather close to the decision makers here and major providers of services. It's a good portion of my job to ask questions of all of them, to see how I can make all of their gadgets work for them and be worth the investment. Unfortunately, I see a lot of "meh" and push back against tech advancements of late. It of course causes me to take note and make sure my services and knowledge are going to be worthwhile for people in the future... or... start creating myself again rather than helping others do it.
As I've said, I'm all for the advances in 4K and tech in general. And will most likely invest in it myself. I'm questioning only how many other people will, and from the feedback I've been receiving of late... I'm not expecting people to be knicking my door down any time soon and saying, we gotta have that installed and running next week. I'm hoping I'm wrong, and thus is just Old Geezer Sceptisism Syndrome... a malady I'll get over. Thanks for the medicine...:smokey:
I want to add that it goes beyond what you can send to a viewing device. Higher resolution gives you significantly more freedom if you have to leave room for parts that are lost due to stabilization in post.
If your image is shaky enough that you need FOUR TIMES as many pixels to wind up with a complete picture after stabilizing it, I'd say you have bigger problems than sufficient resolution!
(It's also handy for zooming in when the shot is too wide, which isn't a problem with professional productions but might be for stuff shot with DSLR or cameras with no zoom like phones.)
If your image is shaky enough that you need FOUR TIMES as many pixels to wind up with a complete picture after stabilizing it, I'd say you have bigger problems than sufficient resolution!
That was just an example, and I didn't suggest you needed four times as many pixels for it. You are doubling the number of pixels in each direction, so that's 2x the vertical pixels. You may not need that, but they haven't standardized anything in between those two points.
or if you wanted to add the aforementioned zoom after the fact.
That was just an example
I know. I was making a joke, as indicated by the "winky" emoticon.
or if you wanted to add the aforementioned zoom after the fact.
That's what I meant. "After the fact" is the only option when "shot with cameras with no zoom."
I know. I was making a joke, as indicated by the "winky" emoticon.
I sometimes have weird loading issues with emoticons. I don't recall seeing it yesterday. Anyway...
That's what I meant. "After the fact" is the only option when "shot with cameras with no zoom."
I meant that some people may also change their mind after the fact. As this stuff trickles down, it's accessed by a very wide range of people, not all of which put meticulous planning into their shots, even if they are shooting with dslrs that do have zoom functionality. There are also things such as stock footage where it may be cropped in final usage.