Sorry but I disagree. 4K originated footage looks far batter even scaled down to 27" and sampled down to1080p than 1080p on the same screen natively. Any one shooting video now who isn't using 4K is nuts.
There's a lot more to looking good than resolution, crappy 4K is still crappy....
You normally want to shoot the best shot, not the one with the highest resolution.
That's the same argument for people pushing Megapixels in photography.
Why not 100Mpx on a smart phone... 100 is obviously better than 12....
You are going to need a lot larger screen than 65" to see the difference between 2K and 4K even at 12' much less the other side of a living room.
The advantage of shooting video at 4K is that you have room to zoom, reframe or raise detail in editing (assuming delivery at 1080) 4K isn't going to be a reality in the living room (or bedroom) until 80"(and really more like -100"-150") screens are affordable. (and I estimate that at 2-3 years)
You could (currently) get a high resolution projector and a 150" screen and yes you will appreciate the "cinema experience" of 4k video but those kind of systems just aren't mainstream http://www.projectorpeople.com/resources/4k-projectors.asp http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
But you need to be closer than 5' from the 55" screen to even begin see any difference in 2K and 4k. That is not a legitimate solution. We need 100" sets that are not too expensive before 4K is going to gain any traction. Until then it's just marketing.
Come on, please, give me the science behind what the hell you just said. I bet you can't
Is the typical sofa 6-7 foot from the TV? I'm going to say NO, just from my limited samplin of hundreds of living rooms.
Most 4K tv on the market are utter garbage BTW, a 3 years plasma would crap them out in just about all metrics.
You'd have to go way up market for comparing 4K and a 1080P to even make even sense (so you wouldn't compare all other types of factors).
Also, what is that 4K source you talk about by the way? Native ones? Where did you get those, because otherwise your talking upsampled 1080P or ridiculously compressed net streams which allows me to see clear as day compression artifacts and contrast reduction on my computer screen (which is 4K, I do sit 2 feet away from it...).
There's no question that a clear 1080P OTA signal or a reference Blue Ray native 1080P disk (most recent animation The Blue Planet) beats a netflix 4K (because of compression) even if you have a decent 4K TV to watch it on and are at a distance where it matters.
It takes a minimum of 65 inch with your sofa 6 feet and closer (head at 8 feet and closer) from the TV to see the difference for 20/20 vision on something static, on something that moves, visual acuity is even harder to gauge considering how horrible LCD/LEDs are with movement in general.
Most people are used to watching crappy compressed 720P over cableand so for them, maybe 4K over the net is better. That's an indictment of cable more than proves they need 4K in their current setup. If I show them 1080P OTA, they're as amazed.
Agree with that, also want to add: People are constantly comparing 4mbps 1080 content to 8 or even 10 mbps 4K. That is just nonsense. It's the same pipe (and same provider bandwidth issues) coming into your house so they need to be compared at similar bandwidth. If you have 6 or 8 mbps to compress 1080, the image can be stunning (which is why iTunes content looks better than amazon or netflix, Apple typically encodes 720p just under 5mbps and 1080 (typically) at 6 or 8mbps))
I would wager that a 1080 picture @ 8mbps will look "better" than at 4k @ the same 8mbps (particularly on current 4k consumer screens)
Actually here's a good compareo- Watch iTunes content at 720 (you can specify 720 D/L's in prefs) and then watch the same thing in netflix at 1080, I'll bet the iTunes looks "better" despite being "half the pixels". (and both are at similar bitstream rates (4.5-5mbps))
Comments
Sorry but I disagree. 4K originated footage looks far batter even scaled down to 27" and sampled down to1080p than 1080p on the same screen natively. Any one shooting video now who isn't using 4K is nuts.
There's a lot more to looking good than resolution, crappy 4K is still crappy....
You normally want to shoot the best shot, not the one with the highest resolution.
That's the same argument for people pushing Megapixels in photography.
Why not 100Mpx on a smart phone... 100 is obviously better than 12....
55" 4K sets are not too expensive: http://m.costco.com/CatalogSearch?keyword=4K+tv
55" 4K sets are not too expensive: http://m.costco.com/CatalogSearch?keyword=4K+tv
But you need to be closer than 5' from the 55" screen to even begin see any difference in 2K and 4k. That is not a legitimate solution. We need 100" sets that are not too expensive before 4K is going to gain any traction. Until then it's just marketing.
Come on, please, give me the science behind what the hell you just said. I bet you can't
Is the typical sofa 6-7 foot from the TV? I'm going to say NO, just from my limited samplin of hundreds of living rooms.
Most 4K tv on the market are utter garbage BTW, a 3 years plasma would crap them out in just about all metrics.
You'd have to go way up market for comparing 4K and a 1080P to even make even sense (so you wouldn't compare all other types of factors).
Also, what is that 4K source you talk about by the way? Native ones? Where did you get those, because otherwise your talking upsampled 1080P or ridiculously compressed net streams which allows me to see clear as day compression artifacts and contrast reduction on my computer screen (which is 4K, I do sit 2 feet away from it...).
There's no question that a clear 1080P OTA signal or a reference Blue Ray native 1080P disk (most recent animation The Blue Planet) beats a netflix 4K (because of compression) even if you have a decent 4K TV to watch it on and are at a distance where it matters.
It takes a minimum of 65 inch with your sofa 6 feet and closer (head at 8 feet and closer) from the TV to see the difference for 20/20 vision on something static, on something that moves, visual acuity is even harder to gauge considering how horrible LCD/LEDs are with movement in general.
Most people are used to watching crappy compressed 720P over cableand so for them, maybe 4K over the net is better. That's an indictment of cable more than proves they need 4K in their current setup. If I show them 1080P OTA, they're as amazed.
Agree with that, also want to add: People are constantly comparing 4mbps 1080 content to 8 or even 10 mbps 4K. That is just nonsense. It's the same pipe (and same provider bandwidth issues) coming into your house so they need to be compared at similar bandwidth. If you have 6 or 8 mbps to compress 1080, the image can be stunning (which is why iTunes content looks better than amazon or netflix, Apple typically encodes 720p just under 5mbps and 1080 (typically) at 6 or 8mbps))
I would wager that a 1080 picture @ 8mbps will look "better" than at 4k @ the same 8mbps (particularly on current 4k consumer screens)
Actually here's a good compareo- Watch iTunes content at 720 (you can specify 720 D/L's in prefs) and then watch the same thing in netflix at 1080, I'll bet the iTunes looks "better" despite being "half the pixels". (and both are at similar bitstream rates (4.5-5mbps))