4K (and 8K) won't be a success?

grahamlthompson · 03-01-2014, 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by solenoid

I just upscaled a photo I took in 1997 (with a 640 x 480 digitial camera) to 4k!
Cool eh?

Proving what ?

It will look crap.

grahamlthompson · 03-01-2014, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by zx50

Ha! Ha! I'm surprised anyone would be able to see what was in the picture.

I could hardly upload the originals to a image sharing site could I ?

The original camera raw is 24.7MB

If you knew anything you would know they are far too large. Good luck in finding something to view them completely at one time in a 1:1 pixel relationship (unless of course you have a 4K TV/Monitor

)

Original images converted to jpeg

https://www.adrive.com/public/TCSHdp/Original24MP.jpg

https://www.adrive.com/public/U3guEB/Original12MP.jpg

https://www.adrive.com/public/k9B7Y4/A4_300ppi.jpg

White-Knight · 03-01-2014, 17:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by technologist

If The displays actually implemented BT 2020 there would be a great improvements in what you see..
But as the video I have referred to earlier states -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrNh...re=c4-overview

there is I need for Higher Frame rate ( at the moment only perhaps60 Hz -it need to be at least 100++) Higher dynamic Range this may be 12 bit (rather than current 8 bit which runs out all too easily), and a Colour Gamut which is wide ( NOT BT 709 which HD uses) .....let alone how many pixels!

SO UHD has the possibility - But the current TV display (or HDMI) do not have this.....and there is not the production equipment and workflows there to routinely support it (YET)....

Hi technologist, pleased to see you joining this debate.

I don't disagree but as I said elsewhere this is where in my opinion the SMPTE need to get something agreed so things can move forward. At the moment, we have Chinese firms apparently intending to flood the market next year with 25fps 4K panels with similar properties to the current HD panels in terms of contrast and colour, at least according to some internet reports. To prevent these specs becoming the future of TV, in my opinion the SMPTE need to act NOW.

I don't believe the problem is the manufacturers here, agree a spec and they will come. The issue as I see it is they can't manufacturer products to a high spec when that spec hasn't been agreed. Instead we risk seeing products manufactured to existing lower standards taking control of the market and becoming established and then making the adoption of a higher standard impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by call100

Back on Topic...
The problem is the cost of equipment. 8K is so close behind 4K that it would mean updating all the equipment in too short a time frame. Broadcasters will be wary of the 4K upgrade and obsoleting the equipment before end of life. If that decision is made then there will be a longer delay in broadcast UHD.

But again what I said earlier, why would it be obsoleted? 4K should exist alongside 8K, so its 4k and 8K, not 8K and HD. If what we're actually talking about here is everything eventually being shot in 8K then being downscaled for 4K simulcast, then yes I take your point although there are already some 8K test cameras out there at NHK Japan. As I said above to Technologist, agree a standard and the products will follow and even if the spec did get changed at the camera end, given that the BBC's adoption of 8K / 4K at this stage would be limited anyway, no doubt to 1 channel of 4k content, I doubt they'd be changing a whole lot of equipment if specs did vary a little.

The obvious people to use 4k / 8k are the Natural History Unit as their material is most suited to his resolution and I believe from memory they were pretty much at the forefront of HD programming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthony david

If you look at the IMDb website you will see that most films are still being made in 2k format,

Not quite sure where you got your stats from there Anthony - I wonder if you're looking at the DVD resolution?

35mm film which up until the digital age was used to shoot practically all films post 1950ish, has a resolution of around 6K - source Kodak: http://www.slashfilm.com/film-interv...isconceptions/

Before 1950ish, I believe the film stock was 40mm and so higher resolution still.

In the same article, you'll find that Imax is shot on 65mm film stock which has a resolution of around 18K.

I can't comment on films shot on Digital Cameras in the last few years but certainly RED cameras use resolutions of at least 4K although the current cameras only support frame rates of 60 FPS I believe.

In fact I think the limiting factor is likely to be dynamic range and frame rate not resolution. Now whether or not for older films that could be altered in post processing, is another matter.

Orbitalzone · 03-01-2014, 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by call100

I think you are a little out....People are already importing 39" 4K TV's that are selling for just over £300 (+ shipping + Tax), on Amazon. This is what happened with decent large ips monitors, as soon as the imports began and started to take off, the main manufacturers jumped in to compete. I'm guessing that during 2014 we will see prices drop to very affordable levels as production ramps up.
The predicted prices are already tumbling ready for CES later next week. Polaroid have already announced a sub $1,000 50" TV.
Japan display have developed a 12.1" tablet screen that will be unleashed on the market during 2014, opening up the tech to many TP manufacturers...
So, I doubt you will have to wait until 2017...

Entirely possible, the way manufacturers rush forward to out do their competitors just gets faster and faster. We'll probably be discussing how UHD/16k or whatever the 8K replacement is in a couple of years

call100 · 03-01-2014, 19:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthony david

If you look at the IMDb website you will see that most films are still being made in 2k format, including some shown in IMAX Digital, due to the very high cost of 4/8k post production. There will be no market for anything better than HD unless content, that people want to watch, becomes commonly and inexpensively available.
As for shop demos, my local JL showed an up-scaled Sony HD promo disc on a 4k TV until the genuine 4k material arrived, it looked surprisingly good much better than normal HD but I bet the data rate was the maximum possible. The same is true of 4k demos that will have been mastered on a TV identical to the one you are watching to ensure any problems are covered up.

They haven't spoken to Sony then...?
Hollywood 4K.
There is plenty of content on it's way and it will continue to grow.
The problem, for Cinema goers, is whether the Cinema has 4K or 2K digital theatres . Many of the main ones now have 4K digital theatres.

zx50 · 03-01-2014, 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

I could hardly upload the originals to a image sharing site could I ?

The original camera raw is 24.7MB

If you knew anything you would know they are far too large. Good luck in finding something to view them completely at one time in a 1:1 pixel relationship (unless of course you have a 4K TV/Monitor

)

Original images converted to jpeg

https://www.adrive.com/public/TCSHdp/Original24MP.jpg

https://www.adrive.com/public/U3guEB/Original12MP.jpg

https://www.adrive.com/public/k9B7Y4/A4_300ppi.jpg

I wasn't talking about you when making the post you quoted. You even quoted the post I replied to in post 101. So, all that aggressiveness for nothing.

Deacon1972 · 03-01-2014, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by White-Knight

I can't comment on films shot on Digital Cameras in the last few years but certainly RED cameras use resolutions of at least 4K although the current cameras only support frame rates of 60 FPS I believe.

List of movies shot digitally...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...hot_in_digital

Notice the Sony F900 was capable of shooting 4k back in 2002

There are also 4k masters of all the Bond movies, guessing these were taken from the analogue prints (35mm), which has a higher res than 4k.There's even an 8k scan/master of Lawrence of Arabia.

I don't think content will be as sparse as some might think.....

zx50 · 03-01-2014, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orbitalzone

Entirely possible, the way manufacturers rush forward to out do their competitors just gets faster and faster. We'll probably be discussing how UHD/16k or whatever the 8K replacement is in a couple of years

Not so sure technology is advancing that fast. New technology has to be milked for all it's worth before the replacement gets released. I think it'll be about 10-14 years before we start seeing 16K TVs. It's taken over 7 years for 4K to be released to the public since HD first got released. If this advance carries on at the same rate, it should be about 14 years before 16K makes an appearance in stores.

webbie · 03-01-2014, 19:59

Skyfall was shot on arri alexa cameras at less than 4k resolution.
http://www.daveonfilm.com/how-the-im...l-was-created/

Deacon1972 · 03-01-2014, 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by webbie

Skyfall was shot on arri alexa cameras at less than 4k resolution.
http://www.daveonfilm.com/how-the-im...l-was-created/

I believe it was shot in 2.8 and upscaled to 4k, the world premiere was shown on a Sony digital cinema 4k projector, but there is a 4k finish.

d'@ve · 03-01-2014, 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deacon1972

List of movies shot digitally...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...hot_in_digital

Notice the Sony F900 was capable of shooting 4k back in 2002

There are also 4k masters of all the Bond movies, guessing these were taken from the analogue prints (35mm), which has a higher res than 4k.There's even an 8k scan/master of Lawrence of Arabia.

I don't think content will be as sparse as some might think.....

It's not just content and better quality that's needed though, to go mainstream in the short or even medium term. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, new technology also needs to add something completely new and "cool for kids", or to be be more convenient than what it wants to replace. 4K/8K TV are neither of these, at least in the foreseeable future, and so will struggle for a long time. People won't just dump their shiny relatively new HD sets for 4K/8K sets like they did for DVD players and large flatscreen TVs, both of which offered something extra, way beyond quality improvements.

It'll be more like Blu-Ray once that launched nearly 8 years ago, well slower I reckon because Blu-Ray has had the advantage of a rapid growth in HD set ownership and yet it's still a slow burner. That's still a minority interest - as are HD viewing figures (likely way below the proportion of HD sets out there) and the 4K TV specs aren't even agreed yet! Also, what about 4K players for non-TV entertainment? I have no idea what's happening on that front at all, does anyone know?

call100 · 03-01-2014, 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by d'@ve

It's not just content and better quality that's needed though, to go mainstream in the short or even medium term. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, new technology also needs to add something completely new and "cool for kids", or to be be more convenient than what it wants to replace. 4K/8K TV are neither of these, at least in the foreseeable future, and so will struggle for a long time. People won't just dump their shiny relatively new HD sets for 4K/8K sets like they did for DVD players and large flatscreen TVs, both of which offered something extra, way beyond quality improvements.

It'll be more like Blu-Ray once that launched nearly 8 years ago, well slower I reckon because Blu-Ray has had the advantage of a rapid growth in HD set ownership and yet it's still a slow burner. That's still a minority interest - as are HD viewing figures (likely way below the proportion of HD sets out there) and the 4K TV specs aren't even agreed yet! Also, what about 4K players for non-TV entertainment? I have no idea what's happening on that front at all, does anyone know?

Stream TV, the company behind glasses free 3D TV, are set to launch the 'seeCube-4K box' at CES next week that will upscale most signals from most sources to 4K. The PS4 does not do 4K gaming but does do 4K photos and video.
I think CES will produce some nice stuff this year, Only a few days left to wait. It'll save a lot of speculation...

zx50 · 04-01-2014, 08:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by call100

Stream TV, the company behind glasses free 3D TV, are set to launch the 'seeCube-4K box' at CES next week that will upscale most signals from most sources to 4K. The PS4 does not do 4K gaming but does do 4K photos and video.
I think CES will produce some nice stuff this year, Only a few days left to wait. It'll save a lot of speculation...

According to the link below, the PS4 has a maximum resolution of 1920x1080.

http://uk.ign.com/wikis/playstation-...Hardware_Specs

alanwarwic · 04-01-2014, 10:42

"Support for high-resolution 4K output for still images and movie content is in consideration, but there are no further details to share at this time. PS4 does not currently support 4K output for games."

Maybe CES will change things. There is no 4K about so obviously they do not support what is not there.
Yet arguably they might not say a definite no in case it jeopardizes sales.
Maybe they will announce something at CES? That would also depend on distribution deals but it makes sense to announce something well hatched.

And it seems that last year they did say they would have the worlds first 4K streaming service. So there maybe is/was a problem getting the deals done. That is meant to compliment their 4K TVs.

call100 · 04-01-2014, 11:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

"Support for high-resolution 4K output for still images and movie content is in consideration, but there are no further details to share at this time. PS4 does not currently support 4K output for games."

Maybe CES will change things. There is no 4K about so obviously they do not support what is not there.
Yet arguably they might not say a definite no in case it jeopardizes sales.
Maybe they will announce something at CES? That would also depend on distribution deals but it makes sense to announce something well hatched.

And it seems that last year they did say they would have the worlds first 4K streaming service. So there maybe is/was a problem getting the deals done. That is meant to compliment their 4K TVs.

Yes that is the situation at present. It even shipped without DLNA support or even MP3 support. Both being sorted via a software update. Which is all it needs for the 4K support, all the hardware is in there.
With Netflix launching 4K in the spring the money is on Sony releasing the software update just before this.
It is thought that gaming however will remain in 1080p.
As you say, more will undoubtedly come from CES this week...

I suspect the delay is due to the fact they have a dedicated media player with 4K streaming..Maybe they want sales of that to kickstart first...

Deacon1972 · 04-01-2014, 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by zx50

According to the link below, the PS4 has a maximum resolution of 1920x1080.

http://uk.ign.com/wikis/playstation-...Hardware_Specs

At launch the PS4 was only 4k compatible for stills/video, not games, Sony have stated that will come in a future update, I doubt they will leave output at 2k knowing the Xbox one is already 4k ready.

http://uk.ign.com/wikis/playstation-..._4K_Resolution

Deacon1972 · 04-01-2014, 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by d'@ve

It's not just content and better quality that's needed though, to go mainstream in the short or even medium term. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, new technology also needs to add something completely new and "cool for kids", or to be be more convenient than what it wants to replace. 4K/8K TV are neither of these, at least in the foreseeable future, and so will struggle for a long time. People won't just dump their shiny relatively new HD sets for 4K/8K sets like they did for DVD players and large flatscreen TVs, both of which offered something extra, way beyond quality improvements.

It'll be more like Blu-Ray once that launched nearly 8 years ago, well slower I reckon because Blu-Ray has had the advantage of a rapid growth in HD set ownership and yet it's still a slow burner. That's still a minority interest - as are HD viewing figures (likely way below the proportion of HD sets out there) and the 4K TV specs aren't even agreed yet! Also, what about 4K players for non-TV entertainment? I have no idea what's happening on that front at all, does anyone know?

There's only a couple of things I can think of where the youngsters would regard 4k as cool, gaming and portable screens, but they normally come as a progression as the technology takes hold, which was the same scenario we had when HD came along.

I agree convenience plays a part, but I'd say picture quality was the main aim, it is for me.

I upgraded my audio equipment for better quality, stereo to DPL to DD to HD audio, my TVs have been the same, SD to HD, now I'm looking at 4k, surely those who pride themselves on having the best possible quality would look at this way, that's why I think there will be a market for higher resolutions, it won't take over just as HD hasn't, but it will sit happily with HD and SD we have now.

Sony and Panasonic have teamed up to develop the next optical disc which will have storage capabilities of around 300Gb by 2015.

White-Knight · 04-01-2014, 14:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by d'@ve

It's not just content and better quality that's needed though, to go mainstream in the short or even medium term. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, new technology also needs to add something completely new and "cool for kids", or to be be more convenient than what it wants to replace. 4K/8K TV are neither of these, at least in the foreseeable future, and so will struggle for a long time. People won't just dump their shiny relatively new HD sets for 4K/8K sets like they did for DVD players and large flatscreen TVs, both of which offered something extra, way beyond quality improvements.

4K / 8K is something new and shiny though. The picture difference is amazing with a good source and the right equipment specs. Often is likened to looking out of a window.

Also, there are plenty of people out there who can afford the latest gadget and plenty more who's current HD or SD tv is now getting old and ready for replacement, so I don't see any shortage of potential customers.

I've been contemplating changing my HD set for a while now but I'm waiting for 4K before doing so.

alanwarwic · 04-01-2014, 14:34

That renowned TV brand, Polaroid are launching a 4K set too.
Definitely sub £1000 I would say. Just maybe not even worth that.

edit - and it seems they are at CES. (starts next Tuesday)
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tech/new...-ces-2014.html

webbie · 04-01-2014, 14:36

I'll wait for a 4k oled. Don't like lcds for a variety of reasons. I'll stick with my plasma until it breaks and/or 50"+ 4k oleds are about £2k.

zx50 · 04-01-2014, 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deacon1972

At launch the PS4 was only 4k compatible for stills/video, not games, Sony have stated that will come in a future update, I doubt they will leave output at 2k knowing the Xbox one is already 4k ready.

http://uk.ign.com/wikis/playstation-..._4K_Resolution

Yeah, that would be a bit daft I suppose.

zx50 · 04-01-2014, 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by webbie

I'll wait for a 4k oled. Don't like lcds for a variety of reasons. I'll stick with my plasma until it breaks and/or 50"+ 4k oleds are about £2k.

I don't know why a lot of the 4K screens have to be 40+ inches for. What's the screen size going to be for 8K? 100 inches? They should keep the screen size at a sensible size and concentrate on decreasing the size of the pixels so more detail can fit into a screen size of about 32 inches. From the videos I've seen on YouTube, the designers/companies are trying to give the impression that a 50+ inch screen showing a 4K resolution means that it's very impressive.

Edit: I wouldn't exactly say £2,000 is a reasonable price either. That price tag is still just for the well off.

webbie · 04-01-2014, 15:34

From where I sit from my tv (about 2.5m), any replacement would have to be at least the same size (50") and I doubt I would get the benefit of 4k unless the screen was bigger. Don't want to sit really close to a 32" tv when I watch a movie!
As I said, I'm waiting for oled as I really don't like LCDs/LEDs and as I paid £2k for my existing tv, £2k in a couple of years for an oled seems about right to me.

Deacon1972 · 04-01-2014, 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by webbie

I'll wait for a 4k oled. Don't like lcds for a variety of reasons. I'll stick with my plasma until it breaks and/or 50"+ 4k oleds are about £2k.

Prices have already been slashed for LG's 55" OLED, WAS £7999, now £4999.

In another 12 months prices will be even cheaper, you could well get your wish.

d'@ve · 04-01-2014, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by White-Knight

4K / 8K is something new and shiny though. The picture difference is amazing with a good source and the right equipment specs. Often is likened to looking out of a window.

That may be true, at least for high bitrate demos and test specifications based on professional use but just you wait until the bean counters get their hands on it, they'll soon squeeze half of the "wow" factor out just as they did for DAB radio, digital SD TV and to a significant extent HD TV as well. But either way, I don't think 90% of the great British public could give two hoots about TV "wow" factors, they just want to watch Corrie or IACGMOOH and don't really care how they watch it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deacon1972

I agree convenience plays a part, but I'd say picture quality was the main aim, it is for me.

I upgraded my audio equipment for better quality, stereo to DPL to DD to HD audio, my TVs have been the same, SD to HD, now I'm looking at 4k, surely those who pride themselves on having the best possible quality would look at this way, that's why I think there will be a market for higher resolutions, it won't take over just as HD hasn't, but it will sit happily with HD and SD we have now.

Sony and Panasonic have teamed up to develop the next optical disc which will have storage capabilities of around 300Gb by 2015.

I do agree that there will be a place for 4K and beyond, just as there is a place for the kind of high end audio you describe. But again, that's very much a minority thing and for similar reasons, 4K/8K TV and video will remain as a rich man's toy or videophile's delight for the foreseeable future (very much longer than Blu-Ray's already been around, IMO). But it will of course become (more) established for professional and commercial (such as cinema) uses.

03-01-2014, 16:52	#101
grahamlthompson Forum Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Redditch Worcs Posts: 17,293	Quote: Originally Posted by solenoid I just upscaled a photo I took in 1997 (with a 640 x 480 digitial camera) to 4k! Cool eh? Proving what ? It will look crap.

03-01-2014, 17:09	#102
grahamlthompson Forum Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Redditch Worcs Posts: 17,293	Quote: Originally Posted by zx50 Ha! Ha! I'm surprised anyone would be able to see what was in the picture. I could hardly upload the originals to a image sharing site could I ? The original camera raw is 24.7MB If you knew anything you would know they are far too large. Good luck in finding something to view them completely at one time in a 1:1 pixel relationship (unless of course you have a 4K TV/Monitor ) Original images converted to jpeg https://www.adrive.com/public/TCSHdp/Original24MP.jpg https://www.adrive.com/public/U3guEB/Original12MP.jpg https://www.adrive.com/public/k9B7Y4/A4_300ppi.jpg

03-01-2014, 17:17	#103
White-Knight Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,494	Quote: Originally Posted by technologist If The displays actually implemented BT 2020 there would be a great improvements in what you see.. But as the video I have referred to earlier states - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrNh...re=c4-overview there is I need for Higher Frame rate ( at the moment only perhaps60 Hz -it need to be at least 100++) Higher dynamic Range this may be 12 bit (rather than current 8 bit which runs out all too easily), and a Colour Gamut which is wide ( NOT BT 709 which HD uses) .....let alone how many pixels! SO UHD has the possibility - But the current TV display (or HDMI) do not have this.....and there is not the production equipment and workflows there to routinely support it (YET).... Hi technologist, pleased to see you joining this debate. I don't disagree but as I said elsewhere this is where in my opinion the SMPTE need to get something agreed so things can move forward. At the moment, we have Chinese firms apparently intending to flood the market next year with 25fps 4K panels with similar properties to the current HD panels in terms of contrast and colour, at least according to some internet reports. To prevent these specs becoming the future of TV, in my opinion the SMPTE need to act NOW. I don't believe the problem is the manufacturers here, agree a spec and they will come. The issue as I see it is they can't manufacturer products to a high spec when that spec hasn't been agreed. Instead we risk seeing products manufactured to existing lower standards taking control of the market and becoming established and then making the adoption of a higher standard impossible. Quote: Originally Posted by call100 Back on Topic... The problem is the cost of equipment. 8K is so close behind 4K that it would mean updating all the equipment in too short a time frame. Broadcasters will be wary of the 4K upgrade and obsoleting the equipment before end of life. If that decision is made then there will be a longer delay in broadcast UHD. But again what I said earlier, why would it be obsoleted? 4K should exist alongside 8K, so its 4k and 8K, not 8K and HD. If what we're actually talking about here is everything eventually being shot in 8K then being downscaled for 4K simulcast, then yes I take your point although there are already some 8K test cameras out there at NHK Japan. As I said above to Technologist, agree a standard and the products will follow and even if the spec did get changed at the camera end, given that the BBC's adoption of 8K / 4K at this stage would be limited anyway, no doubt to 1 channel of 4k content, I doubt they'd be changing a whole lot of equipment if specs did vary a little. The obvious people to use 4k / 8k are the Natural History Unit as their material is most suited to his resolution and I believe from memory they were pretty much at the forefront of HD programming. Quote: Originally Posted by anthony david If you look at the IMDb website you will see that most films are still being made in 2k format, Not quite sure where you got your stats from there Anthony - I wonder if you're looking at the DVD resolution? 35mm film which up until the digital age was used to shoot practically all films post 1950ish, has a resolution of around 6K - source Kodak: http://www.slashfilm.com/film-interv...isconceptions/ Before 1950ish, I believe the film stock was 40mm and so higher resolution still. In the same article, you'll find that Imax is shot on 65mm film stock which has a resolution of around 18K. I can't comment on films shot on Digital Cameras in the last few years but certainly RED cameras use resolutions of at least 4K although the current cameras only support frame rates of 60 FPS I believe. In fact I think the limiting factor is likely to be dynamic range and frame rate not resolution. Now whether or not for older films that could be altered in post processing, is another matter.

03-01-2014, 18:57	#104
Orbitalzone Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Sussex Posts: 12,173	Quote: Originally Posted by call100 I think you are a little out....People are already importing 39" 4K TV's that are selling for just over £300 (+ shipping + Tax), on Amazon. This is what happened with decent large ips monitors, as soon as the imports began and started to take off, the main manufacturers jumped in to compete. I'm guessing that during 2014 we will see prices drop to very affordable levels as production ramps up. The predicted prices are already tumbling ready for CES later next week. Polaroid have already announced a sub $1,000 50" TV. Japan display have developed a 12.1" tablet screen that will be unleashed on the market during 2014, opening up the tech to many TP manufacturers... So, I doubt you will have to wait until 2017... Entirely possible, the way manufacturers rush forward to out do their competitors just gets faster and faster. We'll probably be discussing how UHD/16k or whatever the 8K replacement is in a couple of years

03-01-2014, 19:19	#105
call100 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,572	Quote: Originally Posted by anthony david If you look at the IMDb website you will see that most films are still being made in 2k format, including some shown in IMAX Digital, due to the very high cost of 4/8k post production. There will be no market for anything better than HD unless content, that people want to watch, becomes commonly and inexpensively available. As for shop demos, my local JL showed an up-scaled Sony HD promo disc on a 4k TV until the genuine 4k material arrived, it looked surprisingly good much better than normal HD but I bet the data rate was the maximum possible. The same is true of 4k demos that will have been mastered on a TV identical to the one you are watching to ensure any problems are covered up. They haven't spoken to Sony then...? Hollywood 4K. There is plenty of content on it's way and it will continue to grow. The problem, for Cinema goers, is whether the Cinema has 4K or 2K digital theatres . Many of the main ones now have 4K digital theatres.

03-01-2014, 19:20	#106
zx50 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: County Durham Posts: 78,630	Quote: Originally Posted by grahamlthompson I could hardly upload the originals to a image sharing site could I ? The original camera raw is 24.7MB If you knew anything you would know they are far too large. Good luck in finding something to view them completely at one time in a 1:1 pixel relationship (unless of course you have a 4K TV/Monitor ) Original images converted to jpeg https://www.adrive.com/public/TCSHdp/Original24MP.jpg https://www.adrive.com/public/U3guEB/Original12MP.jpg https://www.adrive.com/public/k9B7Y4/A4_300ppi.jpg I wasn't talking about you when making the post you quoted. You even quoted the post I replied to in post 101. So, all that aggressiveness for nothing.

03-01-2014, 19:30	#107
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by White-Knight I can't comment on films shot on Digital Cameras in the last few years but certainly RED cameras use resolutions of at least 4K although the current cameras only support frame rates of 60 FPS I believe. List of movies shot digitally... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...hot_in_digital Notice the Sony F900 was capable of shooting 4k back in 2002 There are also 4k masters of all the Bond movies, guessing these were taken from the analogue prints (35mm), which has a higher res than 4k.There's even an 8k scan/master of Lawrence of Arabia. I don't think content will be as sparse as some might think.....

03-01-2014, 19:38	#108
zx50 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: County Durham Posts: 78,630	Quote: Originally Posted by Orbitalzone Entirely possible, the way manufacturers rush forward to out do their competitors just gets faster and faster. We'll probably be discussing how UHD/16k or whatever the 8K replacement is in a couple of years Not so sure technology is advancing that fast. New technology has to be milked for all it's worth before the replacement gets released. I think it'll be about 10-14 years before we start seeing 16K TVs. It's taken over 7 years for 4K to be released to the public since HD first got released. If this advance carries on at the same rate, it should be about 14 years before 16K makes an appearance in stores.

03-01-2014, 19:59	#109
webbie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: North Devon Posts: 1,568	Skyfall was shot on arri alexa cameras at less than 4k resolution. http://www.daveonfilm.com/how-the-im...l-was-created/

03-01-2014, 20:22	#110
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by webbie Skyfall was shot on arri alexa cameras at less than 4k resolution. http://www.daveonfilm.com/how-the-im...l-was-created/ I believe it was shot in 2.8 and upscaled to 4k, the world premiere was shown on a Sony digital cinema 4k projector, but there is a 4k finish.

03-01-2014, 21:34	#111
d'@ve Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Darn Sarf Posts: 28,743	Quote: Originally Posted by Deacon1972 List of movies shot digitally... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...hot_in_digital Notice the Sony F900 was capable of shooting 4k back in 2002 There are also 4k masters of all the Bond movies, guessing these were taken from the analogue prints (35mm), which has a higher res than 4k.There's even an 8k scan/master of Lawrence of Arabia. I don't think content will be as sparse as some might think..... It's not just content and better quality that's needed though, to go mainstream in the short or even medium term. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, new technology also needs to add something completely new and "cool for kids", or to be be more convenient than what it wants to replace. 4K/8K TV are neither of these, at least in the foreseeable future, and so will struggle for a long time. People won't just dump their shiny relatively new HD sets for 4K/8K sets like they did for DVD players and large flatscreen TVs, both of which offered something extra, way beyond quality improvements. It'll be more like Blu-Ray once that launched nearly 8 years ago, well slower I reckon because Blu-Ray has had the advantage of a rapid growth in HD set ownership and yet it's still a slow burner. That's still a minority interest - as are HD viewing figures (likely way below the proportion of HD sets out there) and the 4K TV specs aren't even agreed yet! Also, what about 4K players for non-TV entertainment? I have no idea what's happening on that front at all, does anyone know?

03-01-2014, 22:54	#112
call100 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,572	Quote: Originally Posted by d'@ve It's not just content and better quality that's needed though, to go mainstream in the short or even medium term. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, new technology also needs to add something completely new and "cool for kids", or to be be more convenient than what it wants to replace. 4K/8K TV are neither of these, at least in the foreseeable future, and so will struggle for a long time. People won't just dump their shiny relatively new HD sets for 4K/8K sets like they did for DVD players and large flatscreen TVs, both of which offered something extra, way beyond quality improvements. It'll be more like Blu-Ray once that launched nearly 8 years ago, well slower I reckon because Blu-Ray has had the advantage of a rapid growth in HD set ownership and yet it's still a slow burner. That's still a minority interest - as are HD viewing figures (likely way below the proportion of HD sets out there) and the 4K TV specs aren't even agreed yet! Also, what about 4K players for non-TV entertainment? I have no idea what's happening on that front at all, does anyone know? Stream TV, the company behind glasses free 3D TV, are set to launch the 'seeCube-4K box' at CES next week that will upscale most signals from most sources to 4K. The PS4 does not do 4K gaming but does do 4K photos and video. I think CES will produce some nice stuff this year, Only a few days left to wait. It'll save a lot of speculation...

04-01-2014, 08:39	#113
zx50 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: County Durham Posts: 78,630	Quote: Originally Posted by call100 Stream TV, the company behind glasses free 3D TV, are set to launch the 'seeCube-4K box' at CES next week that will upscale most signals from most sources to 4K. The PS4 does not do 4K gaming but does do 4K photos and video. I think CES will produce some nice stuff this year, Only a few days left to wait. It'll save a lot of speculation... According to the link below, the PS4 has a maximum resolution of 1920x1080. http://uk.ign.com/wikis/playstation-...Hardware_Specs

04-01-2014, 10:42	#114
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	"Support for high-resolution 4K output for still images and movie content is in consideration, but there are no further details to share at this time. PS4 does not currently support 4K output for games." Maybe CES will change things. There is no 4K about so obviously they do not support what is not there. Yet arguably they might not say a definite no in case it jeopardizes sales. Maybe they will announce something at CES? That would also depend on distribution deals but it makes sense to announce something well hatched. And it seems that last year they did say they would have the worlds first 4K streaming service. So there maybe is/was a problem getting the deals done. That is meant to compliment their 4K TVs.

04-01-2014, 11:17	#115
call100 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,572	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic "Support for high-resolution 4K output for still images and movie content is in consideration, but there are no further details to share at this time. PS4 does not currently support 4K output for games." Maybe CES will change things. There is no 4K about so obviously they do not support what is not there. Yet arguably they might not say a definite no in case it jeopardizes sales. Maybe they will announce something at CES? That would also depend on distribution deals but it makes sense to announce something well hatched. And it seems that last year they did say they would have the worlds first 4K streaming service. So there maybe is/was a problem getting the deals done. That is meant to compliment their 4K TVs. Yes that is the situation at present. It even shipped without DLNA support or even MP3 support. Both being sorted via a software update. Which is all it needs for the 4K support, all the hardware is in there. With Netflix launching 4K in the spring the money is on Sony releasing the software update just before this. It is thought that gaming however will remain in 1080p. As you say, more will undoubtedly come from CES this week... I suspect the delay is due to the fact they have a dedicated media player with 4K streaming..Maybe they want sales of that to kickstart first...

04-01-2014, 12:51	#116
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by zx50 According to the link below, the PS4 has a maximum resolution of 1920x1080. http://uk.ign.com/wikis/playstation-...Hardware_Specs At launch the PS4 was only 4k compatible for stills/video, not games, Sony have stated that will come in a future update, I doubt they will leave output at 2k knowing the Xbox one is already 4k ready. http://uk.ign.com/wikis/playstation-..._4K_Resolution

04-01-2014, 13:26	#117
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by d'@ve It's not just content and better quality that's needed though, to go mainstream in the short or even medium term. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, new technology also needs to add something completely new and "cool for kids", or to be be more convenient than what it wants to replace. 4K/8K TV are neither of these, at least in the foreseeable future, and so will struggle for a long time. People won't just dump their shiny relatively new HD sets for 4K/8K sets like they did for DVD players and large flatscreen TVs, both of which offered something extra, way beyond quality improvements. It'll be more like Blu-Ray once that launched nearly 8 years ago, well slower I reckon because Blu-Ray has had the advantage of a rapid growth in HD set ownership and yet it's still a slow burner. That's still a minority interest - as are HD viewing figures (likely way below the proportion of HD sets out there) and the 4K TV specs aren't even agreed yet! Also, what about 4K players for non-TV entertainment? I have no idea what's happening on that front at all, does anyone know? There's only a couple of things I can think of where the youngsters would regard 4k as cool, gaming and portable screens, but they normally come as a progression as the technology takes hold, which was the same scenario we had when HD came along. I agree convenience plays a part, but I'd say picture quality was the main aim, it is for me. I upgraded my audio equipment for better quality, stereo to DPL to DD to HD audio, my TVs have been the same, SD to HD, now I'm looking at 4k, surely those who pride themselves on having the best possible quality would look at this way, that's why I think there will be a market for higher resolutions, it won't take over just as HD hasn't, but it will sit happily with HD and SD we have now. Sony and Panasonic have teamed up to develop the next optical disc which will have storage capabilities of around 300Gb by 2015.

04-01-2014, 14:27	#118
White-Knight Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,494	Quote: Originally Posted by d'@ve It's not just content and better quality that's needed though, to go mainstream in the short or even medium term. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, new technology also needs to add something completely new and "cool for kids", or to be be more convenient than what it wants to replace. 4K/8K TV are neither of these, at least in the foreseeable future, and so will struggle for a long time. People won't just dump their shiny relatively new HD sets for 4K/8K sets like they did for DVD players and large flatscreen TVs, both of which offered something extra, way beyond quality improvements. 4K / 8K is something new and shiny though. The picture difference is amazing with a good source and the right equipment specs. Often is likened to looking out of a window. Also, there are plenty of people out there who can afford the latest gadget and plenty more who's current HD or SD tv is now getting old and ready for replacement, so I don't see any shortage of potential customers. I've been contemplating changing my HD set for a while now but I'm waiting for 4K before doing so.

04-01-2014, 14:34	#119
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	That renowned TV brand, Polaroid are launching a 4K set too. Definitely sub £1000 I would say. Just maybe not even worth that. edit - and it seems they are at CES. (starts next Tuesday) http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tech/new...-ces-2014.html

04-01-2014, 14:36	#120
webbie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: North Devon Posts: 1,568	I'll wait for a 4k oled. Don't like lcds for a variety of reasons. I'll stick with my plasma until it breaks and/or 50"+ 4k oleds are about £2k.

DS Forums

4K (and 8K) won't be a success?

04-01-2014, 14:48	#121
zx50 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: County Durham Posts: 78,630	Quote: Originally Posted by Deacon1972 At launch the PS4 was only 4k compatible for stills/video, not games, Sony have stated that will come in a future update, I doubt they will leave output at 2k knowing the Xbox one is already 4k ready. http://uk.ign.com/wikis/playstation-..._4K_Resolution Yeah, that would be a bit daft I suppose.

04-01-2014, 15:02	#122
zx50 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: County Durham Posts: 78,630	Quote: Originally Posted by webbie I'll wait for a 4k oled. Don't like lcds for a variety of reasons. I'll stick with my plasma until it breaks and/or 50"+ 4k oleds are about £2k. I don't know why a lot of the 4K screens have to be 40+ inches for. What's the screen size going to be for 8K? 100 inches? They should keep the screen size at a sensible size and concentrate on decreasing the size of the pixels so more detail can fit into a screen size of about 32 inches. From the videos I've seen on YouTube, the designers/companies are trying to give the impression that a 50+ inch screen showing a 4K resolution means that it's very impressive. Edit: I wouldn't exactly say £2,000 is a reasonable price either. That price tag is still just for the well off.

04-01-2014, 15:34	#123
webbie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: North Devon Posts: 1,568	From where I sit from my tv (about 2.5m), any replacement would have to be at least the same size (50") and I doubt I would get the benefit of 4k unless the screen was bigger. Don't want to sit really close to a 32" tv when I watch a movie! As I said, I'm waiting for oled as I really don't like LCDs/LEDs and as I paid £2k for my existing tv, £2k in a couple of years for an oled seems about right to me.

04-01-2014, 15:46	#124
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by webbie I'll wait for a 4k oled. Don't like lcds for a variety of reasons. I'll stick with my plasma until it breaks and/or 50"+ 4k oleds are about £2k. Prices have already been slashed for LG's 55" OLED, WAS £7999, now £4999. In another 12 months prices will be even cheaper, you could well get your wish.

04-01-2014, 17:18	#125
d'@ve Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Darn Sarf Posts: 28,743	Quote: Originally Posted by White-Knight 4K / 8K is something new and shiny though. The picture difference is amazing with a good source and the right equipment specs. Often is likened to looking out of a window. That may be true, at least for high bitrate demos and test specifications based on professional use but just you wait until the bean counters get their hands on it, they'll soon squeeze half of the "wow" factor out just as they did for DAB radio, digital SD TV and to a significant extent HD TV as well. But either way, I don't think 90% of the great British public could give two hoots about TV "wow" factors, they just want to watch Corrie or IACGMOOH and don't really care how they watch it. Quote: Originally Posted by Deacon1972 I agree convenience plays a part, but I'd say picture quality was the main aim, it is for me. I upgraded my audio equipment for better quality, stereo to DPL to DD to HD audio, my TVs have been the same, SD to HD, now I'm looking at 4k, surely those who pride themselves on having the best possible quality would look at this way, that's why I think there will be a market for higher resolutions, it won't take over just as HD hasn't, but it will sit happily with HD and SD we have now. Sony and Panasonic have teamed up to develop the next optical disc which will have storage capabilities of around 300Gb by 2015. I do agree that there will be a place for 4K and beyond, just as there is a place for the kind of high end audio you describe. But again, that's very much a minority thing and for similar reasons, 4K/8K TV and video will remain as a rich man's toy or videophile's delight for the foreseeable future (very much longer than Blu-Ray's already been around, IMO). But it will of course become (more) established for professional and commercial (such as cinema) uses.