4K...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi

I am most enthusiastic for 4K. Projection is in my view the best way to present pictures. With 1080P, which is all we have right now,  that medium is essentially 2 megapixels. So we have 24 MP cameras and 36 MP coming, but presentation is still 2MP video or if we need any more - print.

4K is essentially 8 MP, so it may catch up with the simplest Ixus, eventually. But if we get 4K video we also get a media that can present 8MP in projection.

Naturally, I would prefer 8K, but I guess we need wait more for that.

Best regards
Erik

[BernardLanguillier]

I am lucky enough to own one of the best 46 inch 1080p plasma screen available on the market today together with a good Bluray player (the also excellent Oppo BDP-93 selling for 600 US$).

The price of those combined is around 250,000 Yen (3000 US$) and wil be going down further in the coming months. These isnt better on the TV side whatever the amount of money you want to spend and the player is also very close to the top.

The quality is simply amazing. Zero ghosting, vibrant colors and an impression of sharpness on motion images that is very impressive even for someone used to very high quality large fine art prints. The reason why this breathtaking level of quality can be achieved at those reasonnable prices is mass production and standardization on an agreed standard for a sufficient amount of time.

On the capturing front, there are excellent devices at high prices, but most of the cheaper ones suffer from obvious limitations like rolling shutter. This shows that 1080p is still in its infantry. Solving those issues in order to fully reveal the potential of 1080p for a broad audience would IMHO deliver a lot more value than 4K.

As a result, to my eyes, 4K would have close to zero value for most consumers, just like resolutions above 12mp have close to zero value for most still photographers.

RED and JVC would be the main benefiter, not the consumers, not even those looking for high quality. The value/price ratio is simply very poor at the moment.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I'm projecting my images on a 1.6 m wide screen. Viewed at 2m the eye outresolves the projector, both visually and theoretically, with a pixel being 1.5 minute of arc. Eye can resolve around 1 minute of arc, but to be able to resolve something we need at least 3 pixels.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/24-how-many-megapixels-do-we-need

With still frames it matters a lot, with motion video far less, but I'm using my projector as much for slide shows as for motion.

When HD arrived, full HD projectors were very expensive but now days they are cheap, prices go down. I don't see the rapid fall of prices on 4K, tough, as it was HD video and Blueray that drove HD prices down.

Best regards
Erik

I am lucky enough to own one of the best 46 inch 1080p plasma screen available on the market today together with a good Bluray player (the also excellent Oppo BDP-93 selling for 600 US$).

The price of those combined is around 250,000 Yen (3000 US$) and wil be going down further in the coming months. These isnt better on the TV side whatever the amount of money you want to spend and the player is also very close to the top.

The quality is simply amazing. Zero ghosting, vibrant colors and an impression of sharpness on motion images that is very impressive even for someone used to very high quality large fine art prints. The reason why this breathtaking level of quality can be achieved at those reasonnable prices is mass production and standardization on an agreed standard for a sufficient amount of time.

On the capturing front, there are excellent devices at high prices, but most of the cheaper ones suffer from obvious limitations like rolling shutter. This shows that 1080p is still in its infantry. Solving those issues in order to fully reveal the potential of 1080p for a broad audience would IMHO deliver a lot more value than 4K.

As a result, to my eyes, 4K would have close to zero value for most consumers, just like resolutions above 12mp have close to zero value for most still photographers.

RED and JVC would be the main benefiter, not the consumers, not even those looking for high quality. The value/price ratio is simply very poor at the moment.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

In my view it's always better to have more resolution than is sometimes needed than less resolution than is sometimes needed, provided there is no downside to the greater resolution, such as greater noise. More resolution is also great for cropping.

The problem with HD, (that is full HD at 1080p), is that most sources are currently way below that standard.

I have a fairly recent plasma 65" HDTV model. The best video  image quality I've seen so far is from a Bluray at 1080p input, and the highest resolution stills are my own, downsampled to 2mp.

Clearly 8mp, or double the resolution, would be a huge improvement, but what is perhaps not clearly understood is that such increase in resolution and detail would be discernible only from a proportionally closer viewing distance.

Having done some experimentation regarding optimum viewing distances from a 65" screen, I've found that in order to see all the detail provided by a good quality image of a mere 2mp (or 6MB), one should not sit further away than 3 metres, or even 2.5 metres.

For the usual crap-quality HDTV transmissions, viewing from a 6 metre distance is better. To appreciate the extra resolution of an 8mp image on a 65" screen, one would have to sit considerably closer than 3 metres, which is neither practical or desirable.

I once had the experience of viewing an opera in the cinema, recorded in HD and projected with equipment which was possibly 4k, but maybe just 2k. The only seats available were near the front row. The image quality was crap. After the intermission, we discovered some spare chairs and took them behind the back row where there was a walkway. From that distance the image quality was perfectly acceptable.

The advantage of a 4k projection of a 4k source, I guess, would be an acceptable image quality from or near the front row of a cinema theatre, or from a seat positioned just 1.5 metres or closer from a 65" TV in one's living room.

To really appreciate that extra resolution from a 4k source in one's home, one would need a 4k digital projector and a 120" screen.

[Rob C]

Well, I don't know what 4K is, but I do know what I can see.

Some months ago I had to replace a dead Sony tv we'd had for about 15 years, and whilst in the shop looking at the various displays being touted, my eye fell upon the huge Samsung LEDTV they had. I saw the quality to be in a class of its own and asked the price. The thing was over €3000! I asked if they came in smaller models, and did they have one that would just fit my 82cms wide tv table/cabinet. They could get one, which they did, and I parted with €1030 for 32" of it.

So what's the experience? Quite unlike anything I've seen before, but with poor sound, which came as a great surprise. The previous tv system could play through my existing stereo system, but the Samsung comes with a built-in digibox, and so makes an external one redundant, thus robbing me of direct satellite access through box to stereo system. The work-around is to plug the tv's earphone wire into its socket and get the signal into the stereo system through that. It isn't particularly good.

As far as vision goes, I've found myself, at times, sitting on an uncomfortable upright chair, about a yard away from the set during some HD programmes where the detail in tiny areas is spectacular: particularly attractive this sitting penance for travel documentaries.

Would I buy larger if table and room suited? Probably not. Why not? Because in my opinion, the majority of tv programmes are simply unwatchable garbage. If one can't control the input, what's the point: isn't crisper crap still crap?

Rob C

[EduPerez]

Well, I don't know what 4K is, but I do know what I can see.

Some months ago I had to replace a dead Sony tv we'd had for about 15 years, and whilst in the shop looking at the various displays being touted, my eye fell upon the huge Samsung LEDTV they had. I saw the quality to be in a class of its own and asked the price. The thing was over €3000! I asked if they came in smaller models, and did they have one that would just fit my 82cms wide tv table/cabinet. They could get one, which they did, and I parted with €1030 for 32" of it.

So what's the experience? Quite unlike anything I've seen before, but with poor sound, which came as a great surprise. The previous tv system could play through my existing stereo system, but the Samsung comes with a built-in digibox, and so makes an external one redundant, thus robbing me of direct satellite access through box to stereo system. The work-around is to plug the tv's earphone wire into its socket and get the signal into the stereo system through that. It isn't particularly good.

As far as vision goes, I've found myself, at times, sitting on an uncomfortable upright chair, about a yard away from the set during some HD programmes where the detail in tiny areas is spectacular: particularly attractive this sitting penance for travel documentaries.

Would I buy larger if table and room suited? Probably not. Why not? Because in my opinion, the majority of tv programmes are simply unwatchable garbage. If one can't control the input, what's the point: isn't crisper crap still crap?

Rob C

Did you hear the TV at the shop? Probably not, nobody does nowadays; and a shop is usually a noisy environment, anyway. That, and the race to make them slimmer, is why the quality of the speakers in TVs have been going down. You spend hundreds on TV with an extraordinary image quality, only to find back at home that the sound sucks.

[Rob C]

Did you hear the TV at the shop? Probably not, nobody does nowadays; and a shop is usually a noisy environment, anyway. That, and the race to make them slimmer, is why the quality of the speakers in TVs have been going down. You spend hundreds on TV with an extraordinary image quality, only to find back at home that the sound sucks.

No, I didn't hear it, and I'd expected to be able to play it through my existing sound system; as annoying, the built-in digibox doesn't show any tv programme lists - I have to go onto the Internet to find out what's coming on during the evening!

;-(

Rob C

[hjulenissen]

You spend hundreds on TV with an extraordinary image quality, only to find back at home that the sound sucks.

I think that is ok, I would prefer tvs without any sound at all.

As long as there is a working spdif/hdmi output, almost any stereo will have better components and placement than a general tv. Why pay lots of money to get tv sound that is mediocre at best?

-h

[Robert Roaldi]

The quality of the content of most television programming has not kept up with the visual or sound qualities of the source material. I had hoped that with the arrival of many more broadcast outlets, there would be more intelligent programs available, but as often happens with corporate propaganda, they actually don't want to provide more consumer choice. Thankfully, places like "vimeo.com" are filling the gap, although at the moment it's time-consuming to find programming I like.

The fact that the televisions themselves have mediocre on-board sound systems is not surprising. The need to sell Home Theatre Systems after all. I have been annoyed at the voice reproduction of many programs, I think they mix the sound expecting that most viewers have a HTS. I got an HTS for next-to-free recently from a friend who was upgrading, and now I can hear what they're saying on TV. It's a big improvement, so long as I don't watch anything too dumb.

I know a few people who don't like the transition to HD, so they'll freak at 4K. I hang around some people who record their participation in amateur motor sports for display online. They fail to understand why they need new camcorders, and a much more powerful computer (or more time) to edit short snippets that will only be viewed on small screens a few times by a few friends. I am sure that 4K will matter to Hollywood and other serious film makers, but I hope it stays away from home consumer use for a few years, at least until I get my money's worth out of my HD camcorder. For a lot of purposes, cheap SD camcorders would be fine, but there are fewer and fewer of them around, so nowadays you pretty much have to buy HD even if you don't need it. (I know, I sound like an old curmudgeon.) I see the value in 4K, but I have a hard time believing that your average consumer will buy into the technology. Editing and packaging HD programming for home use is already not trivial or cheap, and the visual quality of HD for those purposes is just fine. We must be approaching the limits of maximum television screen size, the rooms in most peoples' homes are only so big.

[BernardLanguillier]

You spend hundreds on TV with an extraordinary image quality, only to find back at home that the sound sucks.

Actually I don't mind. It is good enough for generic TVs programs and, like many people, I already own the amp/speakers the TV would have no chance to equal anyway.

You just need to buy a TV with a digital out (optical typically) so that you can connect it with your dac without any loss. For blueray/DVD it is in fact better to connect directly the player to the amp.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JohnBrew]

I'm on a satellite system and the picture quality has actually gone down since HD was fully implemented. The satellite people I asked for an explanation mentioned something about bandwidth.
For example I get Italian tv through satellite. With the old analog system I got a reasonable picture of the soccer games. When the satellite  company fully integrated HD the picture from RAI went to pieces and became a fuzzy mess. For my second tv I bought an external antenna designed for the HD signal. Amazing. Now I at least get the local channels the way HD was intended. Someone mentioned the travel channels - yes, they are one of the few programs which manage to come in with full HD. I have never received the HD definition over the air that is available on a DVD. It's nice that a new system can come in and have everyone rave about the output, but if the public can't receive even the current definition with present systems then who cares?

[Gary Brown]

Editing and packaging HD programming for home use is already not trivial or cheap, and the visual quality of HD for those purposes is just fine. We must be approaching the limits of maximum television screen size, the rooms in most peoples' homes are only so big.

Also, some are of the opinion that younger viewers prefer smaller, not bigger, screens.

E.g., quoting from this article: “TV makers also face what Credit Suisse called a ‘generational culture shift surrounding video consumption.’ Teens live in an Internet-based video culture that doesn’t depend on cable and satellite broadcasts, and they are satisfied with ‘small-screen experiences’ and lower picture quality, the analysts led by New York-based Stefan Anninger said in the Nov. 28 report.”

[dreed]

I am most enthusiastic for 4K. Projection is in my view the best way to present pictures.

Maybe.

The problem for projection is that you want a flat surface to project onto, which generally means setting aside a chunk of your wall.  One of the catches with projection (usually done from a ceiling mounted device) is that you need to run cables up through the wall/ceiling. This will be difficult for anyone that doesn't own the place that they live in.

The difference between standard definition TV and HDTV is very obvious to anyone with a good pair of eyes. However I'm not sure what 4K video will add on the consumer side. (I've been in a "home cinema" that's equipped with Meridian gear and watched a movie that was projected onto the wall with a 4K projector...)

For home consumption, there are other factors...
(1) how far away from the TV can you sit? The distance between chair and TV has a big impact on TV size...
(2) at what distance does the difference between 1080p and 4K video disappear?

I buy the argument that shooting in 4K will give us better 1080p video when it is scaled down but I'm not sure that we need 4K delivered to the home.

There are other problems for 4K that need to be solved:
- how does 4K video get delivered to the home?
  - is another new media format to replace BluRay is required?
  - are the current digital TV channels sufficient?
  - what about satellite/cable TV?
  - if you're streaming 4K video over the internet, can you get an internet connection fast enough for real time viewing? (I suspect that this will be a more of a problem for "middle America" than anywhere else in the 1st world.)

The time lag from DVD to BluRay was large enough that people didn't mind the upgrade too much. If 4K arrives too quickly, it may fail to appeal because nobody is in a rush to spend more thousands on their home entertainment. (Factor in a new TV/projector and a new AVR.)

[dreed]

Also, some are of the opinion that younger viewers prefer smaller, not bigger, screens.

E.g., quoting from this article: “TV makers also face what Credit Suisse called a ‘generational culture shift surrounding video consumption.’ Teens live in an Internet-based video culture that doesn’t depend on cable and satellite broadcasts, and they are satisfied with ‘small-screen experiences’ and lower picture quality, the analysts led by New York-based Stefan Anninger said in the Nov. 28 report.”

And it's not a problem just for video - some are so used to MP3 audio "quality" that even CD quality music sounds wrong to them. Sigh.

Recently I had some video on my TV - DVD resolution video but the upscaling worked very nicely. The difference brought a "wow, BluRay looks nice" from someone that is used to Internet resolution everything.

I'm hoping that today's "internet teens" grow out of their "low quality" lifestyle as their purchasing power grows.

[NikoJorj]

It's a big improvement, so long as I don't watch anything too dumb.

Reminds me of an old joke : "I bought a TV with 0% interest, and... that was almost true" (freely translated from Belgian, with due credits to www.geluck.com).

To get back to the OT, the advent of 4k could mean affordable prices for 4K displays, and that could be very nice from a still image point of view.
For movies, I still have difficulties to see that a difference between 720 and 1080 on a 1080 screen at normal viewing distance... Hey, perhaps I'm still on the young side. 

[billh]

About 3:20 into this they show the prototype of a 4K interchangeable (Nikon) lend camera with a larger sensor. I think they said it would list around $10,000.

[barryfitzgerald]

Do we have the processing power to edit 4k on most computers?
On the move well it's obvious it won't stop there, we do live in a consumer society (rightly or wrongly) the next best thing is already around the corner 

[dreed]

Do we have the processing power to edit 4k on most computers?

What about play 4K?

[EduPerez]

4K? Forget about 4K! It will never succeed in the home environment...
Porn producers are already up in arms about HiDef: it is way too detailed!

[Rob C]

4K? Forget about 4K! It will never succeed in the home environment...
Porn producers are already up in arms about HiDef: it is way too detailed!

That's a point. (?)

;-)

Rob C