I haven't seen any 4K demos because there's no point, because that's not what broadcast UHD-1 phase 1 broadcasts will look like. If we ever get any phase 1 broadcasts, that is (nobody's yet said they'll do any, have they?).
4K sets based on UHD-1 phase 1 specs (or less!) really are a pointless exercise and pointless purchase for nearly everyone and I wish they'd just pull them - until the phase 2 specs are agreed, they can build that into the sets, and broadcasters have said they'll actually do it (and when).
So everyone should wait because you think it's pointless and wish they'd pull them from sale - the problem I have with that is, you've not seen any current 4k, youk have no idea what a future standard will look or what it will look like in comparison or even if phase 1 standard will even be broadcast, there's also no certainty that phase 2 will offer higher frame rates/bit depth - in the meantime, those interested in 4k can be enjoying it now, though content is limited, but that will soon increase, those not interested need not partake.
Other countries are not hanging around for OTA broadcasting. The cable companies are leading the charge in Korea and Japan.
I would think that streamed and cable content will be well under way before OTA gets off the ground. Makes more sense for early adopters to look to those sources first.
I would have said 4k bluray would be here before 4k OTA, but that looks less likely now, I'm wondering if it'll ever become a reality at all. I think services that are cloud based stand a better chance now, something similar to Sony's video unlimited 4k service.
Amazon Prime are gearing up for 4k, they are shooting all original content in 4k and plan to launch it's service by the end if the year.
My local Selfridges has a 79 inch Sony on display (only £7999 to you sir) today. At about 3 meters HD was not good enough (BBC2 HD athletics then later a film both via a Sky Box). The pictures looked very good on a 40 inch at the same distance and close inspection revealed no difference in resolution between the two sets its just that at that size imperfections were quite noticeable. Later in the day they were using a Sony 4K demo which looked very good.
Where you would put this monster in a normal house is another problem, I assume that SD would be unwatchable at any practical distance.
Where you would put this monster in a normal house is another problem, I assume that SD would be unwatchable at any practical distance.
Not seen a 79 (and don't want to! ).
But I've fitted a 55 on a wall last week, and a 65 today - both looked perfectly fine on SD at suitable SD viewing distances. If you try and watch SD at 4K viewing distances it's obviously going to look pretty crap, just as watching SD at HD viewing distances looks crap (just more so).
Only having access to store demos of 4K footage at the moment it's fairly difficult for me to get grasp of what it will be like for home viewing.
There's lots of incredibly pretty time-lapse stuff and slo-mo football, but not a lot that you'd watch on a regular basis.
One thing I did see was a selection of clips from the Transformers movies (not exactly the pinnacle of film-making, but seemingly good enough to be chosen to showcase the technology) but I really didn't like what I saw. There were scenes that were a mix of live action and CGI, but the 4K image seemed to the highlight difference between the two, with the CGI appearing much sharper than the live action shots. It shattered the illusion making any suspension of disbelief difficult.
This might be a flaw in this particular showreel, or even the result of over-sharpened store settings on the TV, but first impressions just weren't as positive as I'd hoped. I need to see more.
Only having access to store demos of 4K footage at the moment it's fairly difficult for me to get grasp of what it will be like for home viewing.
Pretty much like viewing full HD I'd assume. Unless (if and when UHD 1 Phase 1 material ever starts to be broadcast) you will be sitting curled up on the floor 3 or 4 feet away from your 65 inch screen...
But rolling forward to the 2020s, UHD 1 Phase 2 or UHD 2, now that should look significantly better, at any normal home viewing distance and on normal sized sets.
But rolling forward to the 2020s, UHD 1 Phase 2 or UHD 2, now that should look significantly better, at any normal home viewing distance and on normal sized sets.
Perhaps you would care to enlighten us all as to how those sets will 'sidestep' the laws of physics?.
Perhaps you would care to enlighten us all as to how those sets will 'sidestep' the laws of physics?.
The laws of physics don't prevent you seeing more colour Nigel.
Also, there's some argument over what the eye can resolve.
However, to help settle this argument, I'd add that I recently viewed a 65" Samsung curved 4K tv in person.
Whilst the realism wasn't as good as on some of the development sets we've seen with the wider colour space, (as Technologist will no doubt comment, it's that feature that makes the real difference), the visible detail was certainly a lot higher than on Full HD and the picture was a lot sharper.
So you definitely could see the difference between HD and 4K.
So, I was impressed with the detail and sharpness, if not exactly jumping up and down at the realism, although it has to be said it was better again than HD and the current retail sets don't have the expanded colour space or even Phase 1 so far as I'm aware.
This is the picture I viewed, albeit you can't see the sharpness differences here:
Definately, if I didn't know that the colour space was restricted.
I was especially impressed with the energy efficiency as well. At least one of the 65" sets I viewed only used 83 watts of electricity!!!!
That's about 1/4 of my current 42"!!!
I also have to say the frame less design and possibly the curve make the sets seem much smaller than they are. The set appeared much more like a 50" than 65" and if I had 65" money, then having seen it, I would definitely buy one.
The laws of physics don't prevent you seeing more colour Nigel.
Nothing to stop 1080 been upgraded to 'more colours', assuming increasing the number of colours above what is currently used would actually make any noticeable improvement. Personally I'm EXTREMELY dubious about the supposed advantage of it, if you can't see the transitions between colours (like you can on old Plasma's) then I don't see as increasing the number is going to help much?.
So no need to increase resolution to improve the 'number of colours'.
But for improved pictures, why not simply increase the bandwidth used currently, no new sets required, no greatly reduced viewing distance required, just using a decent amount of bandwidth (which will still be much smaller than that required for 4K anyway).
I suspect the entire thing (4K, more colours etc.) is simply people thinking bigger numbers are better.
No physics sidestepping is required. Better colours, faster frame rates.
None of which applies to UHD-1 phase 1, let alone the 4K sets currently being sold.
And none of which is going to make any wonderful improvements - the BIG difference is the increased resolution which requires viewing from much closer (or a much larger set ).
And none of which is going to make any wonderful improvements - the BIG difference is the increased resolution which requires viewing from much closer (or a much larger set ).
I'll wager that most people ain't gonna be viewing from 4 feet away, nor are they gonna be buying 100-120 inch screens. So the biggest improvements will come from the phase 2 better colour and frame rates. But UHD broadcasting when it starts should improve compatible/downscaled full HD pictures too. 4K sets not required to get that (at typical viewing distances using sets most people are likely to own).
However, I do agree that 4K sets showing 4K broadcasts will look better at normal HD viewing distances than current-generation HD sets, which do not show the highest HD quality that is possible. But that's because of inadequacies in the current HD broadcast chain/specs/sets rather than the intrinsic resolution differences. As you said earlier, HD could be improved to look as good at normal viewing distances and on practicably sized sets as 4K (but it won't happen).
4K BD discs are available. Where did I get that from? I overheard it being said by a salesman at John Lewis Cheadle Royal Cheshire to an elderly customer who was showing an interest in a 4K curved screen TV at 2.30 pm this afternoon. The customer was impressed by the picture, a slow moving 4K promo, but less so when the salesman went to get further information and I told him he had just been told a pack of lies. JL have good warranties but some of their salesmen are as bent as those at Curry's.
4K BD discs are available. Where did I get that from? I overheard it being said by a salesman at John Lewis Cheadle Royal Cheshire to an elderly customer who was showing an interest in a 4K curved screen TV at 2.30 pm this afternoon. The customer was impressed by the picture, a slow moving 4K promo, but less so when the salesman went to get further information and I told him he had just been told a pack of lies. JL have good warranties but some of their salesmen are as bent as those at Curry's.
I am guessing he was talking about the mastered in 4K blu-rays that Sony are pushing ...
And none of which is going to make any wonderful improvements - the BIG difference is the increased resolution which requires viewing from much closer (or a much larger set ).
But it is not ............
HDR HFR are both things that give the picture a wow factor ... Incidentally from far further away than more pixels .....
Last year at IBC the BBC showed some if their work in HFR (done In 2008 btw)
And everyone said that because it was detailed it was 4k ...
There is clarity ......
HDR makes the picture look more lifelike and punchy....
Also at the moment there is a lot if quality HD which is shot at greater than HD static resolution ... And also at a higher dynamic range ....
So we are seeing the byproduct of this in our 25(29.97) pictures a second 8 bit HD.
But it is not ............
HDR HFR are both things that give the picture a wow factor ... Incidentally from far further away than more pixels .....
Last year at IBC the BBC showed some if their work in HFR (done In 2008 btw)
And everyone said that because it was detailed it was 4k ...
There is clarity ......
HDR makes the picture look more lifelike and punchy....
I would suggest, as always, the BBC demo looked great because it was 'filmed' in very high quality, and then not compressed to death like broadcasts are
I'd be more impressed to see identical demos side by side
I am guessing he was talking about the mastered in 4K blu-rays that Sony are pushing ...
It didn't sound like that, I haven't seem him before and he seemed desperate to make a sale. We spend a lot at JL and most of their staff are very decent but you always get one don't you.
The only thing that will let 4K in the UK down is the rubbish BB speeds. OTA broadcasts to the masses are further off than iptv, which is where most early adopters will be heading.
I would suggest, as always, the BBC demo looked great because it was 'filmed' in very high quality, and then not compressed to death like broadcasts are
I'd be more impressed to see identical demos side by side
Without doing down the folks who shot the material at kingswood warren ....
It was not the best kit even 8 years ago ....
There is little code /decode kit working at HDR HFR but having seen demos are roughly the same coding impairment by jnd .... ( nit PSNR .. But is jnd as good for HEVC)
It is still very clear That the HDR HFR is a different viewing experience and nit that many more data rate .
If you think about it any DCT based coding does not really touch HFR or HDR .
At the typical 9-11 foot domestic living room viewing distance you'd probably need eagle-eyes to see that improvement. ;-)
An understandable view for anyone who has not seen any 4k demos/comparisons.
At a 9-11 ft distance 4k would be distinguishable from HD on the 65" screen the op demoed, no need for superior eyesight. Of course the closer you get the bigger the difference, but the typical viewer does not care about screen size vs distance, they will happily sit there just knowing it has a higher resolution than HD, those who do care will know how to get the best out of 4k equipment.
4k can even be picked out from smaller screens at 9ft.
An understandable view for anyone who has not seen any 4k demos/comparisons.
At a 9-11 ft distance 4k would be distinguishable from HD on the 65" screen the op demoed, no need for superior eyesight. Of course the closer you get the bigger the difference, but the typical viewer does not care about screen size vs distance, they will happily sit there just knowing it has a higher resolution than HD, those who do care will know how to get the best out of 4k equipment.
4k can even be picked out from smaller screens at 9ft.
From my experience 4k gives greater depth and you don't have to sit with your nose inches from the screen to appreciate it.
'Picked out'
Side by side screens.
£3,100 4K set versus £1950 HD set.
"although most attendees succeeded in identifying the 4K Ultra HD TV, we have no idea of how they arrived at their conclusion. For all we know, it could have just been a fleeting shot which looked marginally sharper that clued them in, out of 30-odd minutes of video playback time per loop."
etc. etc.
A/B and side by side comparisons are irrelevant to domestic viewings, I'd be surprised after reading that link if most people would reliably know which of the sets they had installed if only one was installed - and they didn't go closer than that to find out. Not to mention all the people who watch from beyond 9 feet (like me) and those who would watch from screens below 55 inches.
UHD 1 Phase 1 should be dropped and the industry should get on with UHD 1 phase 2. Maybe that's what broadcasters will do anyway... can you name one UK broadcaster who has said they'll broadcast UHD 1 phase 1?
The question posed by the OP is whether of not 4K will be a commercial failure/success, not whether a few videophiles cannot/can detect minute improvements in their (SD, HD or UHD) TV picture. The commercial purpose of 4K is, like 3D and Smart TV before it, to stimulate flagging sales by convincing folk who are content with their present TV to go out and buy another one before theirs dies a natural death.
3D is technically fine but flopped on the above definition because the novelty and availability of material soon ran out. Smart seems popular but can be obtained quite cheaply (often with other features) by adding a small box, PVR, Bluray, etc to the present TV. We are now certain to see many 4K TVs on sale but I suspect that, like their predecessors, they will fail to stimulate the vast increase in sales the manufacturers hope for. So another "flop" is probably on the way.
Nothing to stop 1080 been upgraded to 'more colours', assuming increasing the number of colours above what is currently used would actually make any noticeable improvement. Personally I'm EXTREMELY dubious about the supposed advantage of it, if you can't see the transitions between colours (like you can on old Plasma's) then I don't see as increasing the number is going to help much?.
The answer is Nigel that the current colour space is only a fraction of what the human eye can perceive.
The expanded colour space takes tv much closer to the colours the eye can see in the natural world, hence the difference in realism.
So no need to increase resolution to improve the 'number of colours'.
There's a definite improvement from the increased resolution Nigel. As I said above, I've seen 4K in person and even from 10 or 12 feet you can quite easily see the increased detail / sharpness.
At the typical 9-11 foot domestic living room viewing distance you'd probably need eagle-eyes to see that improvement. ;-)
I wear contacts and from, 10-12 feet I can see a difference in sharpness and detail between HD and 4K. OK you're probably not going to orgasm at 4K with the current non compliant colour space etc. But there is a visible difference in sharpness / detail even from distance when compared to HD (the sets I viewed were side by side with large screen HD Sets).
The question posed by the OP is whether of not 4K will be a commercial failure/success, not whether a few videophiles cannot/can detect minute improvements in their (SD, HD or UHD) TV picture. The commercial purpose of 4K is, like 3D and Smart TV before it, to stimulate flagging sales by convincing folk who are content with their present TV to go out and buy another one before theirs dies a natural death.
3D is technically fine but flopped on the above definition because the novelty and availability of material soon ran out. Smart seems popular but can be obtained quite cheaply (often with other features) by adding a small box, PVR, Bluray, etc to the present TV. We are now certain to see many 4K TVs on sale but I suspect that, like their predecessors, they will fail to stimulate the vast increase in sales the manufacturers hope for. So another "flop" is probably on the way.
If there is a flop, it will be the BBC's / European Broadcasters fault in my opinion for not getting ahead of the technology and getting together with the hardware manufacturers to get the expanded colour space out at launch.
There's nothing wrong with 4k, you can see a difference even with the existing colour space. The difference though is an increase in sharpness / detail rather than mind blowing realism. It looks like we're going to have wait for that one.
However, 4K is a step forward, just not mind blowing atm.
As to whether it's worth it atm, that's another question. I'd buy 4K if it wasn't for the fact that I know there's more to come.
Comments
I would have said 4k bluray would be here before 4k OTA, but that looks less likely now, I'm wondering if it'll ever become a reality at all. I think services that are cloud based stand a better chance now, something similar to Sony's video unlimited 4k service.
Amazon Prime are gearing up for 4k, they are shooting all original content in 4k and plan to launch it's service by the end if the year.
Where you would put this monster in a normal house is another problem, I assume that SD would be unwatchable at any practical distance.
Not seen a 79 (and don't want to!
But I've fitted a 55 on a wall last week, and a 65 today - both looked perfectly fine on SD at suitable SD viewing distances. If you try and watch SD at 4K viewing distances it's obviously going to look pretty crap, just as watching SD at HD viewing distances looks crap (just more so).
TV manufacturers want to get us to replace perfectly good equipment, and they will struggle.
for exactly the same reason, people do not HAVE to buy Blu Ray, when they are happy with good enough DVD.
It must be giving TV makers real headaches.
There's lots of incredibly pretty time-lapse stuff and slo-mo football, but not a lot that you'd watch on a regular basis.
One thing I did see was a selection of clips from the Transformers movies (not exactly the pinnacle of film-making, but seemingly good enough to be chosen to showcase the technology) but I really didn't like what I saw. There were scenes that were a mix of live action and CGI, but the 4K image seemed to the highlight difference between the two, with the CGI appearing much sharper than the live action shots. It shattered the illusion making any suspension of disbelief difficult.
This might be a flaw in this particular showreel, or even the result of over-sharpened store settings on the TV, but first impressions just weren't as positive as I'd hoped. I need to see more.
Pretty much like viewing full HD I'd assume. Unless (if and when UHD 1 Phase 1 material ever starts to be broadcast) you will be sitting curled up on the floor 3 or 4 feet away from your 65 inch screen...
But rolling forward to the 2020s, UHD 1 Phase 2 or UHD 2, now that should look significantly better, at any normal home viewing distance and on normal sized sets.
Perhaps you would care to enlighten us all as to how those sets will 'sidestep' the laws of physics?.
The laws of physics don't prevent you seeing more colour Nigel.
Also, there's some argument over what the eye can resolve.
However, to help settle this argument, I'd add that I recently viewed a 65" Samsung curved 4K tv in person.
Whilst the realism wasn't as good as on some of the development sets we've seen with the wider colour space, (as Technologist will no doubt comment, it's that feature that makes the real difference), the visible detail was certainly a lot higher than on Full HD and the picture was a lot sharper.
So you definitely could see the difference between HD and 4K.
So, I was impressed with the detail and sharpness, if not exactly jumping up and down at the realism, although it has to be said it was better again than HD and the current retail sets don't have the expanded colour space or even Phase 1 so far as I'm aware.
This is the picture I viewed, albeit you can't see the sharpness differences here:
http://rack.0.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDEzLzAxLzE4LzM4L29sZWQ0ay4zMjNiMC5qcGcKcAl0aHVtYgkxMjAweDYyNyMKZQlqcGc/8290ed77/4d6/oled-4k.jpg
Would I have bought one of those 4K sets?
Definately, if I didn't know that the colour space was restricted.
I was especially impressed with the energy efficiency as well. At least one of the 65" sets I viewed only used 83 watts of electricity!!!!
That's about 1/4 of my current 42"!!!
I also have to say the frame less design and possibly the curve make the sets seem much smaller than they are. The set appeared much more like a 50" than 65" and if I had 65" money, then having seen it, I would definitely buy one.
Nothing to stop 1080 been upgraded to 'more colours', assuming increasing the number of colours above what is currently used would actually make any noticeable improvement. Personally I'm EXTREMELY dubious about the supposed advantage of it, if you can't see the transitions between colours (like you can on old Plasma's) then I don't see as increasing the number is going to help much?.
So no need to increase resolution to improve the 'number of colours'.
But for improved pictures, why not simply increase the bandwidth used currently, no new sets required, no greatly reduced viewing distance required, just using a decent amount of bandwidth (which will still be much smaller than that required for 4K anyway).
I suspect the entire thing (4K, more colours etc.) is simply people thinking bigger numbers are better.
No physics sidestepping is required. Better colours, faster frame rates.
None of which applies to UHD-1 phase 1, let alone the 4K sets currently being sold.
At the typical 9-11 foot domestic living room viewing distance you'd probably need eagle-eyes to see that improvement. ;-)
Of course, once UHD broadcasts commence, in years to come, they will improve picture quality on compatible HD sets too - downscaling can do that.
And none of which is going to make any wonderful improvements - the BIG difference is the increased resolution which requires viewing from much closer (or a much larger set
I'll wager that most people ain't gonna be viewing from 4 feet away, nor are they gonna be buying 100-120 inch screens. So the biggest improvements will come from the phase 2 better colour and frame rates. But UHD broadcasting when it starts should improve compatible/downscaled full HD pictures too. 4K sets not required to get that (at typical viewing distances using sets most people are likely to own).
However, I do agree that 4K sets showing 4K broadcasts will look better at normal HD viewing distances than current-generation HD sets, which do not show the highest HD quality that is possible. But that's because of inadequacies in the current HD broadcast chain/specs/sets rather than the intrinsic resolution differences. As you said earlier, HD could be improved to look as good at normal viewing distances and on practicably sized sets as 4K (but it won't happen).
I am guessing he was talking about the mastered in 4K blu-rays that Sony are pushing ...
But it is not ............
HDR HFR are both things that give the picture a wow factor ... Incidentally from far further away than more pixels .....
Last year at IBC the BBC showed some if their work in HFR (done In 2008 btw)
And everyone said that because it was detailed it was 4k ...
There is clarity ......
HDR makes the picture look more lifelike and punchy....
Also at the moment there is a lot if quality HD which is shot at greater than HD static resolution ... And also at a higher dynamic range ....
So we are seeing the byproduct of this in our 25(29.97) pictures a second 8 bit HD.
I would suggest, as always, the BBC demo looked great because it was 'filmed' in very high quality, and then not compressed to death like broadcasts are
I'd be more impressed to see identical demos side by side
It didn't sound like that, I haven't seem him before and he seemed desperate to make a sale. We spend a lot at JL and most of their staff are very decent but you always get one don't you.
Without doing down the folks who shot the material at kingswood warren ....
It was not the best kit even 8 years ago ....
There is little code /decode kit working at HDR HFR but having seen demos are roughly the same coding impairment by jnd .... ( nit PSNR .. But is jnd as good for HEVC)
It is still very clear That the HDR HFR is a different viewing experience and nit that many more data rate .
If you think about it any DCT based coding does not really touch HFR or HDR .
An understandable view for anyone who has not seen any 4k demos/comparisons.
At a 9-11 ft distance 4k would be distinguishable from HD on the 65" screen the op demoed, no need for superior eyesight. Of course the closer you get the bigger the difference, but the typical viewer does not care about screen size vs distance, they will happily sit there just knowing it has a higher resolution than HD, those who do care will know how to get the best out of 4k equipment.
4k can even be picked out from smaller screens at 9ft.
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-201312153517.htm
From my experience 4k gives greater depth and you don't have to sit with your nose inches from the screen to appreciate it.
'Picked out'
Side by side screens.
£3,100 4K set versus £1950 HD set.
"although most attendees succeeded in identifying the 4K Ultra HD TV, we have no idea of how they arrived at their conclusion. For all we know, it could have just been a fleeting shot which looked marginally sharper that clued them in, out of 30-odd minutes of video playback time per loop."
etc. etc.
A/B and side by side comparisons are irrelevant to domestic viewings, I'd be surprised after reading that link if most people would reliably know which of the sets they had installed if only one was installed - and they didn't go closer than that to find out. Not to mention all the people who watch from beyond 9 feet (like me) and those who would watch from screens below 55 inches.
UHD 1 Phase 1 should be dropped and the industry should get on with UHD 1 phase 2. Maybe that's what broadcasters will do anyway... can you name one UK broadcaster who has said they'll broadcast UHD 1 phase 1?
3D is technically fine but flopped on the above definition because the novelty and availability of material soon ran out. Smart seems popular but can be obtained quite cheaply (often with other features) by adding a small box, PVR, Bluray, etc to the present TV. We are now certain to see many 4K TVs on sale but I suspect that, like their predecessors, they will fail to stimulate the vast increase in sales the manufacturers hope for. So another "flop" is probably on the way.
The answer is Nigel that the current colour space is only a fraction of what the human eye can perceive.
The expanded colour space takes tv much closer to the colours the eye can see in the natural world, hence the difference in realism.
http://nofilmschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/itu-r-rec-709-2020-hdtv-4k-uhd-ultra-high-definition-2.jpg
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/07/4k-uhd-color-space-gamut-frame-rate/
There's a definite improvement from the increased resolution Nigel. As I said above, I've seen 4K in person and even from 10 or 12 feet you can quite easily see the increased detail / sharpness.
See my comment immediately above.
I wear contacts and from, 10-12 feet I can see a difference in sharpness and detail between HD and 4K. OK you're probably not going to orgasm at 4K with the current non compliant colour space etc. But there is a visible difference in sharpness / detail even from distance when compared to HD (the sets I viewed were side by side with large screen HD Sets).
If there is a flop, it will be the BBC's / European Broadcasters fault in my opinion for not getting ahead of the technology and getting together with the hardware manufacturers to get the expanded colour space out at launch.
There's nothing wrong with 4k, you can see a difference even with the existing colour space. The difference though is an increase in sharpness / detail rather than mind blowing realism. It looks like we're going to have wait for that one.
However, 4K is a step forward, just not mind blowing atm.
As to whether it's worth it atm, that's another question. I'd buy 4K if it wasn't for the fact that I know there's more to come.