That's what I'm leaning towards. But I still haven't entirely made up my mind. My current 5 is white -- which is obviously not an option with the 6. Sadly, since I sort of like the white.
That's what I'm leaning towards. But I still haven't entirely made up my mind. My current 5 is white -- which is obviously not an option with the 6. Sadly, since I sort of like the white.
In respect to your first responds:
H265 eventually. I was refering to acquisition benefits, not playback. Separate issues yes but true nevertheless.
And about the second thing I'm refering to the conversion from 4K 4:2:0 to 1080P 4:4:4, allowing for better grading. Check eoshd.com for articles related to this technique.
Further, 4K is happening whether you like it or not. 4K TVs are pushed like crazy and it's a matter of time before content providers will stream content in that format, depending on your cable speed. I have a 500 mbit up/down connection (fiber) for $60/m, which is exceptionally fast, but with just a fraction of that you can stream 4K.
Cool. Now if everyone can watch the production as it plays back from the camera we'll be in great shape. We'll just have several million people gather around the viewfinder to watch.
The capture device isn't the problem. Delivery is. How many Mb/s is 24-bit 4:2:2 4K? How do you wanna get that to people's TVs?
Separate issues. That's like arguing that better tires are a benefit of a bigger engine. Colour space isn't dependent on resolution. There's no reason one can't capture 4:4:4 at 1080.
Nope. The pixel people can keep their screwy world. I've got enough headaches with people getting pointlessly worked up over trivial issues like 192k sampling and 9.2 surround systems to have any time left for bringing sanity to the 4K front!
The listens I make are for attaching to the sees other people make. Some of their world inevitably rubs off in the process.
And about the second thing I'm refering to the conversion from 4K 4:2:0 to 1080P 4:4:4, allowing for better grading. Check eoshd.com for articles related to this technique.
*IF* it works, and doesn't just result in a longer word padded with zeroes, using the extra pixels to enhance cheap cameras would be the first good argument for 4K *sensors* I've seen. Of course, there is no need for the extra pixels if one uses a better camera to begin with.
Also, and most important, the net result is delivery at 1080, NOT 4K! The extra sensor elements are (according to the source in the article) used to simulate an increased range of luminance and colour sampling values, NOT to force a still-shitty-but-BIGGER image down a cable TV system that can't even do a decent job of delivering what we have now.
That's a critical distinction. What Newman is trying to accomplish is exactly in line with what I'm saying: other issues with image processing and delivery are much more important than adding more pixels. What he's doing isn't 4K at all. It's an attempt to improve the 1080 performance of affordable cameras.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacloo
Further, 4K is happening whether you like it or not. 4K TVs are pushed like crazy and it's a matter of time before content providers will stream content in that format
Well of course. That doesn't mean it's a good idea or that resolution is the part of the TV spec that most needs attention, though. It's the area that's easiest for manufacturers to SELL. 3D didn't motivate people to replace their existing TVs, so they gotta try something else.
My response to those who put increased resolution ahead of other, much more pressing considerations is to ask them to show me a delivery system with decent dynamic range and colour accuracy, without obvious compression artifacts, at 1080p and THEN talk to me about increasing the number of pixels. Obviously that isn't gonna happen.
TUAW has posted a run-down of the rumors leading up to this years iPhone announcements, as well as whether they were correct or not. Of special interest was the "well-connected" Ming-Chi Kuo's accuracy as he tabulated it. Better than other analysts but still only about 50-50. Not certain that he included all of Kuo's predictions and their updates as the launch got closer as I thought I remembered others such as the first prediction of an Apple "phablet" this year. But no matter really as there's plenty enough incorrect in there to cast doubt on his sources.
Edit: Oh, so overall how reliable are "sources"? -Digitimes' accuracy record was 0%. Shocker. -Analysts other than Ming-Chi Kuo scored 30%. This was way higher than I expected, but still nowhere near high enough to justify the amount of attention they're given. -"Accurate" Ming-Chi Kuo's record was 44%. And that was after being generous. -Rumors with Chinese websites as the source were accurate 47% of the time. -Rumors with Taiwanese websites as the source were accurate 31% of the time. -Bloggers reading way too much into things ended up being accurate 30% of the time. -[B]83% of all rumors sourced from leaked photos of identifiable parts (not ribbon cables, in other words) turned out to be accurate.[/B] There were a staggeringly high number of these leaks - almost 30 in total - and this one category considerably bumped up the overall rumor accuracy percentage. -[B]All leaks sourced from within Foxconn were accurate.[/B] -[B]August was by far the month with the most accurate rumors; 70% of rumors during this month turned out to be true.[/B] -9to5 Mac's well of rumors sourced from Apple employees appears to have run dry since July. "I am convinced" Apple has fired someone because of the leaks.
Not true. All recent 4K cameras have a much better compression rate to compensate for more data. The real benefit of 4K is the ability to crop-stabilize, scale down to 2K for a very crisp image without aliasing (and a 4:4:4 color space).
While what you said their is absolutely true, it's kind of like extolling 1080p as it made for better NTSC 640x480 video. 4K is a great format watched at 4k! I look forward to 8K.
What's next, you're gonna say NTSC is 30fps? NTSC is 4:3, and 486/3*4=648. Besides, it wasn't always like that; initially it was 525 lines (vacuum tube), before they standardised on it.
But since this is your field of expertise I could very well be wrong (as usual often shown to me). My best guess is you made a typo: 486 480
No no no, I would never say that. Everyone knows it's 29.97!
But to the actual point, the fact that it's interleaved rather than progressive doesn't change the fact that it's still 30 fps (29.97). It just takes two passes of half-a-frame each to display it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
NTSC is 4:3, and 486/3*4=648.
That's assuming square pixels. TV pixels were not.
That bent a lot of heads for a while when folks first started using Photoshop to create on-air graphics (which, as you point out, needed to be produced at 640x480 to display correctly on TV).
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Besides, it wasn't always like that; initially it was 525 lines (vacuum tube), before they standardised on it.
Yeah, you're right. How the heck did we get from 525 lines to whatever it is we have now? Some of the lines are not visible (they occur in the vertical interval and carry the equivalent of "metadata" like time code and captioning, but not enough to make the arithmetic work. I honestly don't know. Do you? Is it a case of "lines" referring to something different than pixels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
But since this is your field of expertise I could very well be wrong (as usual often shown to me).
I talk a good game, but I ain't no expert on the picture side. I've picked up a lot over the years, but unlike sound, a subject on which I'd feel comfortable testifying in court, my knowledge of video is all practical application with huge gaps in the underlying theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
My best guess is you made a typo: 486 480
No, according to the graphics supervisor in our plant the actual spec was 486. Maybe he was wrong or maybe I misunderstood, but I remember seeing spec sheets for deliverables indicating a resolution of 720x486 regularly back in the day. At the time I thought the "extra" six lines were vertical interval data that are not visible, but now I'm doubting myself. If I remember I'll ask one of the engineers at work.
No, according to the graphics supervisor in our plant the actual spec was 486. Maybe he was wrong or maybe I misunderstood, but I remember seeing spec sheets for deliverables indicating a resolution of 720x486 regularly back in the day. At the time I thought the "extra" six lines were vertical interval data that are not visible, but now I'm doubting myself. If I remember I'll ask one of the engineers at work.
No no no, I would never say that. Everyone knows it's 29.97!
But to the actual point, the fact that it's interleaved rather than progressive doesn't change the fact that it's still 30 fps (29.97). It just takes two passes of half-a-frame each to display it.
Kind of you not to have taken it as a jerkish comment. I was trying to see if others would refute it, but you fortunately know how this stuff works.
That's assuming square pixels. TV pixels were not.
That bent a lot of heads for a while when folks first started using Photoshop to create on-air graphics (which, as you point out, needed to be produced at 640x480 to display correctly on TV).
Boy am I glad to finally see someone understanding the difference in TV & computer pixels. This is so often overlooked/ignored... I think once even had it in my sig.
Yeah, you're right. How the heck did we get from 525 lines to whatever it is we have now? Some of the lines are not visible (they occur in the vertical interval and carry the equivalent of "metadata" like time code and captioning, but not enough to make the arithmetic work. I honestly don't know. Do you? Is it a case of "lines" referring to something different than pixels?
It is my understanding that at some point they settled on a standard and left 525 behind. The path taken to come to this standard? I don't know. I can't find it...
No, according to the graphics supervisor in our plant the actual spec was 486. Maybe he was wrong or maybe I misunderstood, but I remember seeing spec sheets for deliverables indicating a resolution of 720x486 regularly back in the day. At the time I thought the "extra" six lines were vertical interval data that are not visible, but now I'm doubting myself. If I remember I'll ask one of the engineers at work.
From the link [@]Gatorguy[/@] provided on the next page here I understand that DV is 480 and broadcast (digital) is 486 .
I think, in general, this topic is to remain here for years to come. The world isn't going to move to 4k (or 5k for that matter) all of a sudden simply because they can; there really is no 'incentive' to do so due to the problem of delivery. Something you already pointed out a few times.
The world isn't going to move to 4k (or 5k for that matter) all of a sudden simply because they can; there really is no 'incentive' to do so due to the problem of delivery. Something you already pointed out a few times.
Right. It's possible to deliver hi-res to the home, but the cable carriers won't want to unless there's enormous demand. They would MUCH rather cram as many channels as they can into the pipe than use up limited bandwidth on higher resolution. Just look at how brutally they compress what we have already.
Our cable company still delivers many channels in SD. I don't see them going 4K when they aren't yet even completely committed to 1080.
Right. It's possible to deliver hi-res to the home, but the cable carriers won't want to unless there's enormous demand. They would MUCH rather cram as many channels as they can into the pipe than use up limited bandwidth on higher resolution. Just look at how brutally they compress what we have already.
Our cable company still delivers many channels in SD. I don't see them going 4K when they aren't yet even completely committed to 1080.
QFT. This cannot be repeated enough. There may be many videos available on YouTube in 4K or even 5K, the carriers are simply not going to deliver this massive data to your home, period. My country only has, I don't know, something like 8 channels in 1080 and 30+ in lower res. Get a premium account and you'll get many more channels in HD, but forget about anything higher. Ok, small country here, so YMMV, but we're a long way off from 4K. I don't even think the next generation will have it; it'll be widely available to grandchildren.
QFT. This cannot be repeated enough. There may be many videos available on YouTube in 4K or even 5K, the carriers are simply not going to deliver this massive data to your home, period. My country only has, I don't know, something like 8 channels in 1080 and 30+ in lower res. Get a premium account and you'll get many more channels in HD, but forget about anything higher. Ok, small country here, so YMMV, but we're a long way off from 4K. I don't even think the next generation will have it; it'll be widely available to grandchildren.
As an aside Vizio is getting ready to release a 4K 50" HDTV for just $999. The segment is just getting started and the prices are already aggressive.
QFT. This cannot be repeated enough. There may be many videos available on YouTube in 4K or even 5K, the carriers are simply not going to deliver this massive data to your home, period. My country only has, I don't know, something like 8 channels in 1080 and 30+ in lower res. Get a premium account and you'll get many more channels in HD, but forget about anything higher. Ok, small country here, so YMMV, but we're a long way off from 4K. I don't even think the next generation will have it; it'll be widely available to grandchildren.
Like with HD adoption will start slow but the content providers, CE makers and carriers all seem interested in providing a premium 4K service...probably for a premium 4K price.
Folks that think it won't happen for two generations is smoking something given some folks are watching Breaking Bad and House of Cards 2 in UHD today.
You're putting it correct, "as an aside", since this is the opposite of what need to be happening: delivery of 4K. Once we have that the TV's will follow their way to the store themselves. As good as it is to see these prices drop I'll be on my third set before I get that signal into my home.
Like with HD adoption will start slow but the content providers, CE makers and carriers all seem interested in providing a premium 4K service...probably for a premium 4K price.
Folks that think it won't happen for two generations is smoking something given some folks are watching Breaking Bad and House of Cards 2 in UHD today.
As great as these links are, they also show its meaningless: most require the delvers over the Internet, needing 15-20Mib/s is far exceeds the average of 3.8Mib/s:
Then there's the content, or lack of. Shooting in 4K isn't exactly the golden standard, it's picking up. So what do they do? They scan original film negatives, which is a good thing. But renting it for $7.99 or buying for $29.99...I just don't see many people doing this.
QFT. This cannot be repeated enough. There may be many videos available on YouTube in 4K or even 5K, the carriers are simply not going to deliver this massive data to your home, period. My country only has, I don't know, something like 8 channels in 1080 and 30+ in lower res. Get a premium account and you'll get many more channels in HD, but forget about anything higher. Ok, small country here, so YMMV, but we're a long way off from 4K. I don't even think the next generation will have it; it'll be widely available to grandchildren.
This larger country right next door to you (Germany) has roughly the same number of HD:Standard Def as well as needing to pay someone to receive HD from any channel other than the state owned ones, ARD, ZDF, and ARD Dritte (-30 regional state owned channels).
I personally think that 4k will come here, but only over the Internet from other countries and websites, and if your connection can handle it. I seriously doubt wide-spread upgrades for 4K TV's or local channels to make use of them any time soon here. Also the preferred TV size of under 50" is much smaller than in the US due to smaller houses and living rooms.
I personally don't see 4K making a big difference over HD for most TV viewers in the long run. However, I myself am interested in 4K or 5K monitors for editing, and 4K for shooting and having the ability to crop to HD. The same reason I like full-frame and high quality mega pixel cameras. While composing in camera is great and efficient, pulling a close-up out of a group photo is a nice luxury to have some times... actually more often than you would think.
Comments
There are folks here with an opposite worldview....
Quote:
That's what I'm leaning towards. But I still haven't entirely made up my mind. My current 5 is white -- which is obviously not an option with the 6. Sadly, since I sort of like the white.
Looks pretty white to me. Happy now?
That's what I'm leaning towards. But I still haven't entirely made up my mind. My current 5 is white -- which is obviously not an option with the 6. Sadly, since I sort of like the white.
?
They come in white.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/
H265 eventually. I was refering to acquisition benefits, not playback. Separate issues yes but true nevertheless.
And about the second thing I'm refering to the conversion from 4K 4:2:0 to 1080P 4:4:4, allowing for better grading. Check eoshd.com for articles related to this technique.
Further, 4K is happening whether you like it or not. 4K TVs are pushed like crazy and it's a matter of time before content providers will stream content in that format, depending on your cable speed. I have a 500 mbit up/down connection (fiber) for $60/m, which is exceptionally fast, but with just a fraction of that you can stream 4K.
And about the second thing I'm refering to the conversion from 4K 4:2:0 to 1080P 4:4:4, allowing for better grading. Check eoshd.com for articles related to this technique.
*IF* it works, and doesn't just result in a longer word padded with zeroes, using the extra pixels to enhance cheap cameras would be the first good argument for 4K *sensors* I've seen. Of course, there is no need for the extra pixels if one uses a better camera to begin with.
Also, and most important, the net result is delivery at 1080, NOT 4K! The extra sensor elements are (according to the source in the article) used to simulate an increased range of luminance and colour sampling values, NOT to force a still-shitty-but-BIGGER image down a cable TV system that can't even do a decent job of delivering what we have now.
That's a critical distinction. What Newman is trying to accomplish is exactly in line with what I'm saying: other issues with image processing and delivery are much more important than adding more pixels. What he's doing isn't 4K at all. It's an attempt to improve the 1080 performance of affordable cameras.
Further, 4K is happening whether you like it or not. 4K TVs are pushed like crazy and it's a matter of time before content providers will stream content in that format
Well of course. That doesn't mean it's a good idea or that resolution is the part of the TV spec that most needs attention, though. It's the area that's easiest for manufacturers to SELL. 3D didn't motivate people to replace their existing TVs, so they gotta try something else.
My response to those who put increased resolution ahead of other, much more pressing considerations is to ask them to show me a delivery system with decent dynamic range and colour accuracy, without obvious compression artifacts, at 1080p and THEN talk to me about increasing the number of pixels. Obviously that isn't gonna happen.
Anyway it's a nice reflection on this year's rumor-mil, tho the objectivity of the author has been and still is a little suspect IMHO.
http://www.tuaw.com/2014/09/11/rumor-roundup-iphone-6-and-iwatch-retrospective/
Edit: Oh, so overall how reliable are "sources"?
-Digitimes' accuracy record was 0%. Shocker.
-Analysts other than Ming-Chi Kuo scored 30%. This was way higher than I expected, but still nowhere near high enough to justify the amount of attention they're given.
-"Accurate" Ming-Chi Kuo's record was 44%. And that was after being generous.
-Rumors with Chinese websites as the source were accurate 47% of the time.
-Rumors with Taiwanese websites as the source were accurate 31% of the time.
-Bloggers reading way too much into things ended up being accurate 30% of the time.
-[B]83% of all rumors sourced from leaked photos of identifiable parts (not ribbon cables, in other words) turned out to be accurate.[/B] There were a staggeringly high number of these leaks - almost 30 in total - and this one category considerably bumped up the overall rumor accuracy percentage.
-[B]All leaks sourced from within Foxconn were accurate.[/B]
-[B]August was by far the month with the most accurate rumors; 70% of rumors during this month turned out to be true.[/B]
-9to5 Mac's well of rumors sourced from Apple employees appears to have run dry since July. "I am convinced" Apple has fired someone because of the leaks.
Funny. I would’ve been… less so.
This makes a lot of sense. Even with 3D printers becoming more prevalent, it’s still difficult to machine parts in the first place.
While what you said their is absolutely true, it's kind of like extolling 1080p as it made for better NTSC 640x480 video. 4K is a great format watched at 4k! I look forward to 8K.
NTSC 640x480 video
There's no such thing. NTSC is 720x486.
While you roll your eyes, I'll just sit over here picking nits.
What's next, you're gonna say NTSC is 30fps? NTSC is 4:3, and 486/3*4=648. Besides, it wasn't always like that; initially it was 525 lines (vacuum tube), before they standardised on it.
But since this is your field of expertise I could very well be wrong (as
usualoften shown to me). My best guess is you made a typo:486480What's next, you're gonna say NTSC is 30fps?
No no no, I would never say that. Everyone knows it's 29.97!
But to the actual point, the fact that it's interleaved rather than progressive doesn't change the fact that it's still 30 fps (29.97). It just takes two passes of half-a-frame each to display it.
NTSC is 4:3, and 486/3*4=648.
That's assuming square pixels. TV pixels were not.
Besides, it wasn't always like that; initially it was 525 lines (vacuum tube), before they standardised on it.
Yeah, you're right. How the heck did we get from 525 lines to whatever it is we have now? Some of the lines are not visible (they occur in the vertical interval and carry the equivalent of "metadata" like time code and captioning, but not enough to make the arithmetic work. I honestly don't know. Do you? Is it a case of "lines" referring to something different than pixels?
But since this is your field of expertise I could very well be wrong (as usual often shown to me).
I talk a good game, but I ain't no expert on the picture side. I've picked up a lot over the years, but unlike sound, a subject on which I'd feel comfortable testifying in court, my knowledge of video is all practical application with huge gaps in the underlying theory.
My best guess is you made a typo: 486 480
No, according to the graphics supervisor in our plant the actual spec was 486. Maybe he was wrong or maybe I misunderstood, but I remember seeing spec sheets for deliverables indicating a resolution of 720x486 regularly back in the day. At the time I thought the "extra" six lines were vertical interval data that are not visible, but now I'm doubting myself. If I remember I'll ask one of the engineers at work.
Discussion of that issue right here:
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/8/1093119
Kind of you not to have taken it as a jerkish comment. I was trying to see if others would refute it, but you fortunately know how this stuff works.
Boy am I glad to finally see someone understanding the difference in TV & computer pixels. This is so often overlooked/ignored... I think once even had it in my sig.
It is my understanding that at some point they settled on a standard and left 525 behind. The path taken to come to this standard? I don't know. I can't find it...
From the link [@]Gatorguy[/@] provided on the next page here I understand that DV is 480 and broadcast (digital) is 486 .
I think, in general, this topic is to remain here for years to come. The world isn't going to move to 4k (or 5k for that matter) all of a sudden simply because they can; there really is no 'incentive' to do so due to the problem of delivery. Something you already pointed out a few times.
Right. It's possible to deliver hi-res to the home, but the cable carriers won't want to unless there's enormous demand. They would MUCH rather cram as many channels as they can into the pipe than use up limited bandwidth on higher resolution. Just look at how brutally they compress what we have already.
Our cable company still delivers many channels in SD. I don't see them going 4K when they aren't yet even completely committed to 1080.
QFT. This cannot be repeated enough. There may be many videos available on YouTube in 4K or even 5K, the carriers are simply not going to deliver this massive data to your home, period. My country only has, I don't know, something like 8 channels in 1080 and 30+ in lower res. Get a premium account and you'll get many more channels in HD, but forget about anything higher. Ok, small country here, so YMMV, but we're a long way off from 4K. I don't even think the next generation will have it; it'll be widely available to grandchildren.
As an aside Vizio is getting ready to release a 4K 50" HDTV for just $999. The segment is just getting started and the prices are already aggressive.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcochiappetta/2014/09/29/4k-utlra-hd-inches-closer-to-mainstream-adoption/
http://www.vizio.com/news/most-anticipated-tech-of-2014-vizio-4k-tv-for-1k/?SID=1sja8ukhob7d2bf32se1ku79g0
QFT. This cannot be repeated enough. There may be many videos available on YouTube in 4K or even 5K, the carriers are simply not going to deliver this massive data to your home, period. My country only has, I don't know, something like 8 channels in 1080 and 30+ in lower res. Get a premium account and you'll get many more channels in HD, but forget about anything higher. Ok, small country here, so YMMV, but we're a long way off from 4K. I don't even think the next generation will have it; it'll be widely available to grandchildren.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/04/sony-video-ulimited-4k-video-download-service/
http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/cablelabs-boots-4k-video-sharing-website/383154
http://www.multichannel.com/news/content/ces-comcast-working-more-4k-tv-deals/356561
http://techblog.netflix.com/2014/06/delivering-netflix-in-ultra-hd-4k.html
http://gizmodo.com/amazon-4k-streaming-is-coming-in-october-on-samsung-1628344525
Like with HD adoption will start slow but the content providers, CE makers and carriers all seem interested in providing a premium 4K service...probably for a premium 4K price.
Folks that think it won't happen for two generations is smoking something given some folks are watching Breaking Bad and House of Cards 2 in UHD today.
You're putting it correct, "as an aside", since this is the opposite of what need to be happening: delivery of 4K. Once we have that the TV's will follow their way to the store themselves. As good as it is to see these prices drop I'll be on my third set before I get that signal into my home.
As great as these links are, they also show its meaningless: most require the delvers over the Internet, needing 15-20Mib/s is far exceeds the average of 3.8Mib/s:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds
Then there's the content, or lack of. Shooting in 4K isn't exactly the golden standard, it's picking up. So what do they do? They scan original film negatives, which is a good thing. But renting it for $7.99 or buying for $29.99...I just don't see many people doing this.
This larger country right next door to you (Germany) has roughly the same number of HD:Standard Def as well as needing to pay someone to receive HD from any channel other than the state owned ones, ARD, ZDF, and ARD Dritte (-30 regional state owned channels).
I personally think that 4k will come here, but only over the Internet from other countries and websites, and if your connection can handle it. I seriously doubt wide-spread upgrades for 4K TV's or local channels to make use of them any time soon here. Also the preferred TV size of under 50" is much smaller than in the US due to smaller houses and living rooms.
I personally don't see 4K making a big difference over HD for most TV viewers in the long run. However, I myself am interested in 4K or 5K monitors for editing, and 4K for shooting and having the ability to crop to HD. The same reason I like full-frame and high quality mega pixel cameras. While composing in camera is great and efficient, pulling a close-up out of a group photo is a nice luxury to have some times... actually more often than you would think.