Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: 4K...  (Read 25634 times)

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Re: 4K...
« Reply #60 on: January 22, 2012, 08:59:50 pm »

I find the old viewing distance recommendations for TVs and screens to produce too small a field of view. I like a good sized field of view, but as IMAX DP's know, you've got to really shoot with the larger screen in mind. But when you get it right, it's superb in a way that a "normal" sized field of view just can't compete with.

Incidentally I just came back from watching the latest Mission: Impossible at an IMAX theater. Sitting near the middle of the theater does produce quite a large image (duh) - but it can be replicated today with home theater projection. I could do it today with my screen, although I'd have to sit probably two meters away from it, though. I haven't done the math on how big the screen would have to be to get a benefit from 4k, but I'm sure it would be there.

Nevertheless, while it is technically possible even today, it is highly questionable whether such viewing is feasible in a living room environment, ever. Families would have to clear up an entire wall for a TV or projection screen, and they'd have to be very close to the floor due to the height of the screen, which causes further problems with placement of coffee tables and couches.

4k projection will be great for those of us who are big enough movie buffs to have a home theater, but for the vast majority it won't bring any benefit due to screen sizes, viewing distances, and living room layout.

Graeme Nattress

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
    • http://www.nattress.com
Re: 4K...
« Reply #61 on: January 22, 2012, 09:53:30 pm »

If people like the effect they'll adapt their homes, just as they did when stereo replaced mono and flat screen TVs replaced tubes. Even if that doesn't happen, there's more than enough movie buffs to make it worthwhile.

Graeme
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: 4K...
« Reply #62 on: January 22, 2012, 11:29:08 pm »

Hi,

I have an 1.7 m wide projection screen and look at 2m distance. At that distance 1080P is lacking, especially for stills. Motion is much less demanding.

The problem with 4K is in my view distribution media. Perhaps it could fit somehow on Bluray?!

Best regards
Erik

If people like the effect they'll adapt their homes, just as they did when stereo replaced mono and flat screen TVs replaced tubes. Even if that doesn't happen, there's more than enough movie buffs to make it worthwhile.

Graeme
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1578
Re: 4K...
« Reply #63 on: January 23, 2012, 01:45:51 am »

Well, Canon C300 does use a Bayer CFA - they just don't demosaic it traditionally.

And given the output of the C300 that's been presented on the Internet thus far, this appears to be working very well for them.
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: 4K...
« Reply #64 on: January 23, 2012, 03:15:34 am »

At that distance 1080P is lacking, especially for stills. Motion is much less demanding.
I find that motion is "different". More foregiving wrgt blurryness or lack of resolution, more demanding wrgt aliasing. Having aliases move slowly in the opposite direction of movement is really annoying.
Quote
The problem with 4K is in my view distribution media. Perhaps it could fit somehow on Bluray?!
If they can fit 1080p60 (for 3D?), then 4k@p15 should put similar demands on everything. p24 is less than double that, meaning that computation specs probably would have to be bumped, bandwidth increased or quality per pixel decreased and/or a new, more efficient codec introduced.

-h
Logged

Graeme Nattress

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
    • http://www.nattress.com
Re: 4K...
« Reply #65 on: January 23, 2012, 07:28:28 am »

And given the output of the C300 that's been presented on the Internet thus far, this appears to be working very well for them.

It works very well indeed in comparison to what they've done before. Compared to what can be achieved through a traditional Bayer approach it's lacking. The averaging of the greens "takes the edge" off the image - literally!

Graeme
Logged

Graeme Nattress

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
    • http://www.nattress.com
Re: 4K...
« Reply #66 on: January 23, 2012, 07:32:50 am »

Hi,

I have an 1.7 m wide projection screen and look at 2m distance. At that distance 1080P is lacking, especially for stills. Motion is much less demanding.

The problem with 4K is in my view distribution media. Perhaps it could fit somehow on Bluray?!

Best regards
Erik


Or perhaps the technology to deliver 4k at very reasonable bit-rates has already been demonstrated, even if it's not quite yet into a product you can buy. 2 years ago I was able to show people 4k at 10mbit/s at NAB on a large projection screen. The audience was a room of video professionals and they were stunned - and kept being amazed even on repeat presentations of the RED Ray codec. Since that presentation we've shown a working RED Ray prototype to many people in a more private environment, and with a slightly relaxed bit-rate to allow for automated encoding.

So such a bit-rate can more than fit on a BluRay disc, but I doubt that disc formats will be used in the future rather than some form of non-physical distribution.

Graeme
Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Re: 4K...
« Reply #67 on: January 23, 2012, 03:10:04 pm »

I find that motion is "different". More foregiving wrgt blurryness or lack of resolution, more demanding wrgt aliasing. Having aliases move slowly in the opposite direction of movement is really annoying.If they can fit 1080p60 (for 3D?), then 4k@p15 should put similar demands on everything. p24 is less than double that, meaning that computation specs probably would have to be bumped, bandwidth increased or quality per pixel decreased and/or a new, more efficient codec introduced.

Keeping bitrates constant while upping res by four times is not going to happen without drastic hit on image quality. BD compression is already very efficient, and even if there are improvements, they are nothing close to 50-100% required. Throwing more computational power at the problem doesn't change this. edit: Graeme's post above sounds promising (and surprising).

BD is a standard, and even if it was updated with 4k in mind, a 4k movie doesn't fit on one BD. Therefore we'd need a new physical media or more likely it will be digital distribution. Latter is something I'm not looking forward to. I haven't seen any online distributor offering decent bitrates with HD content and surround audio, let alone DTS HD MA audio. Then comes the licensing issues - I want to own my content, not license it.

Graeme Nattress

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
    • http://www.nattress.com
Re: 4K...
« Reply #68 on: January 23, 2012, 03:16:41 pm »

edit: Graeme's post above sounds promising (and surprising).

To add to the story of that event, they didn't even tell me they were doing the demo, and I thought they were showing the normal uncompressed demo reel off the server. It was only when the reel finished did I figure out I'd been tricked.... It had been the REDRay encoded demo all along. The original goal of the project was produce a great looking 4k file that would fit on a standard red laser DVD - hence the REDRay name. But then discs were heading out, but we couldn't think of a better name for the project. We also wanted a more relaxed attitude to encoding rather than a user-intensive control of settings so the bit-rate got relaxed, but still way within what BluRay is capable of.

There's certainly advanced in compression to be had, but at this stage, they rely upon serious horsepower being thrown at both the encode and decode.

Graeme
Logged

clkirksey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: 4K...
« Reply #69 on: January 26, 2012, 11:13:03 am »

Quite so.  But the people with the most disposable income for toys are the older generation, and they also stay home more. Bigger, sharper and better entertainment is important to that demographic.

Michael

Not so sure about that. My wife watches all her favorites via cable and HD when available. But the key is that cable bandwidth is limited. HD programs via cabled are typically severely compressed. But how would you know since there is nothing to compare to in a simple manner. In fact my wife has a hard time telling any difference when switching between say an HD broadcast program and the cable supplied SD one; the TV tends to upconvert also. BTW she has no interest in doing this but I do. As someone above stated: It's a man thing.
Logged
A bird in the viewfinder...

JonathanRimmel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
    • jonathanrimmel.com
Re: 4K...
« Reply #70 on: January 26, 2012, 12:52:26 pm »

Here is a problem. We barely have started using HD. They are also working on the Ultra High Definition standard (which is around 33 MP) and with that coming down the pipe, bothering with 4K is just illogical. Why don't we just allow HD to mature and then switch to UHD when it is ready? Then we can skip this whole 4K thing entirely.
Logged

Graeme Nattress

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
    • http://www.nattress.com
Re: 4K...
« Reply #71 on: January 26, 2012, 02:06:18 pm »

Have you seen the NHK UHD experiments? I try to see them often as they remind me that resolution is a necessary, but not sufficient factor for a good image. The aesthetic in their images is often so bad, it reminds me of what ultra-high-def VHS might look like.

The NHK camera that does 8k is not practical. There is no content other than demo material in the 8k format. I've not been able to measure it's resolution to verify it produces anywhere near 8k of resolution.

There are practical 4k+ cameras out there now that have been shooting a number of years producing a vast amount of content. 35mm film, if scanned and treated with care can be used to create an incredibly vast amount of 4k content.

That is why 4k is important for the home, and 8k is way off being useful in the home.

Graeme
Logged

Stefan.Steib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
    • HCam - Hartblei Pro Photography solutions
Re: 4K...
« Reply #72 on: January 28, 2012, 04:10:20 pm »

I predict: 2012 will be the year of the commercially available 4k for broader public.

does somebody remember "Total recall" with Arnold Schwarzenegger, there is a scene in the beginning of the movie where he sits with his (believed to be) wife Sharon Stone in front
of a huge projection, which actually covers the whole wall of the room ?

I think scenes like this DO have influence further than many think, as well as Startrekīs communicator has got Motorolas engineers design mobile phones.

Resolution does matter, I am using 30 " computer monitors now for some years with 2560x1680 and this is definitely an advantage even at a viewing distance of one meter or less.
I also own a quite good Full HD Pana Plasma with 50 " now but for running internet on this its not sharp enough at least not when I compare this with my 30 " experience.

Now looking scaled up full HD on the 30" is definitely better than the full hd with native resolution on the 50 " (whereas the plasma may have the better color space I think)

I am hundred percent sure that 4k once itīs available will be supported by cheaper monitors (I read the actual price tag is now about 7/8 k $ for a 60 ") all bigger display companies work on such displays and show them on the fairs now. They are even working on 8K monitors, but these are still prototypes maybe 3-5 years away from market launch.

Eizo has now a 36" 4K desktop monitor (25k€) and if I had the money Iīd sure buy that one.

The distribution technology is also developed, maybe not in Europe or in USA but take a look at South Korea or Japan where people have fibreglass Internet access with more than 100 Mbit - now there are experiments with speeds of 1 Gigabit per second.

The connection is also there, we have thunderbolt with 10 Gigabit/sec.

It all falls into place - and it all makes sense , I want it and for 3-5k I would buy it.
I want to output my photos on it, zoom in and have the freedom of electronic softproofing, image manipulation on the fly and also timelapses in this resolution.

Who will need a large print after this technology is available mainstream ? If I were Epson or Canon Iīd be afraid.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 04:15:04 pm by Stefan.Steib »
Logged
Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done it before".

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: 4K...
« Reply #73 on: January 28, 2012, 04:24:44 pm »

Hi,

I hope that you are right, but in my view things may take longer time. I have just spent some hours in front of my 1080p screen wanting some more.

Epson are making projectors, too, by the way ;-)

Best regards
Erik


I predict: 2012 will be the year of the commercially available 4k for broader public.

does somebody remember "Total recall" with Arnold Schwarzenegger, there is a scene in the beginning of the movie where he sits with his (believed to be) wife Sharon Stone in front
of a huge projection, which actually covers the whole wall of the room ?

I think scenes like this DO have influence further than many think, as well as Startrekīs communicator has got Motorolas engineers design mobile phones.

Resolution does matter, I am using 30 " computer monitors now for some years with 2560x1680 and this is definitely an advantage even at a viewing distance of one meter or less.
I also own a quite good Full HD Pana Plasma with 50 " now but for running internet on this its not sharp enough at least not when I compare this with my 30 " experience.

Now looking scaled up full HD on the 30" is definitely better than the full hd with native resolution on the 50 " (whereas the plasma may have the better color space I think)

I am hundred percent sure that 4k once itīs available will be supported by cheaper monitors (I read the actual price tag is now about 7/8 k $ for a 60 ") all bigger display companies work on such displays and show them on the fairs now. They are even working on 8K monitors, but these are still prototypes maybe 3-5 years away from market launch.

Eizo has now a 36" 4K desktop monitor (25k€) and if I had the money Iīd sure buy that one.

The distribution technology is also developed, maybe not in Europe or in USA but take a look at South Korea or Japan where people have fibreglass Internet access with more than 100 Mbit - now there are experiments with speeds of 1 Gigabit per second.

The connection is also there, we have thunderbolt with 10 Gigabit/sec.

It all falls into place - and it all makes sense , I want it and for 3-5k I would buy it.
I want to output my photos on it, zoom in and have the freedom of electronic softproofing, image manipulation on the fly and also timelapses in this resolution.

Who will need a large print after this technology is available mainstream ? If I were Epson or Canon Iīd be afraid.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Stefan.Steib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
    • HCam - Hartblei Pro Photography solutions
Re: 4K...
« Reply #74 on: January 28, 2012, 04:45:49 pm »

Erik

there is even more: The announced Canon 4k Videodevices  and if you think of it - 8K video has about 33 Mpix.
This may be pretty exactly what will come out of the new chips from Sony and Canon in the "Full Format" 24x36 range with over 30 Mpix.
The Japanese (and Koreans) make plans longer and more strategically than western companies.
They have built a potential platform support and infrastructure during the last years, HD is a done Business in Asia, they need something new to secure their revenues.
We should not believe only because the US and Europe are a bit late compared to the Hightech Asian countries we are the main target of their business plan.
We are massmarket and will fill their RD costs on the volume, but their center markets are Korea and Japan (and maybe now China) where the competition for Hightech is
hard and very much giving these companies their positioning against their competitors.

This is how Asia ticks today. And the japanese/korean Public is technology crazy like nobody here in Europe or the US. They pull development not us here in the "old and shrink to dying" countries. I know this will give many "western" people hickups, but thatīs the reality like it or not.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 04:51:04 pm by Stefan.Steib »
Logged
Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done it before".

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: 4K...
« Reply #75 on: February 03, 2012, 05:17:20 am »

This is how Asia ticks today. And the japanese/korean Public is technology crazy like nobody here in Europe or the US. They pull development not us here in the "old and shrink to dying" countries. I know this will give many "western" people hickups, but thatīs the reality like it or not.
Looking at todays technology, I am sometimes frustrated that customers (and thereby manufacturers) are so occupied with easily measured/specced parts of technology, and so little interested in the aspects that are harder to quantify (but may be more important to users in the long run).

"4k" is easily coined, PR-people can relate to it etc. But "real end-to-end resolution that is good enough to be transparent to a given user in a given setting" is a lot more complex. For the actual viewer it is hopefully more relevant, though.

-h
Logged

Graeme Nattress

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
    • http://www.nattress.com
Re: 4K...
« Reply #76 on: February 03, 2012, 07:40:51 am »

Yes, end to end 4k is going to be the key. Up-sampling 1080p doesn't cut it. And so much 1080p actually measured sup-1080p to begin with...

Graeme
Logged

PierreVandevenne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 512
    • http://www.datarescue.com/life
Re: 4K...
« Reply #77 on: February 03, 2012, 09:00:49 am »

I have a relatively large setup in my fitness room: a 300 cm diagonal screen (a motorized decent business screen though, not a cinema grade one), and a Sony HD projector hooked to a BluRay player. At this point, I feel this is enough in terms of resolution. Maybe I'll be blown by 4K when I see it though. One never knows. I'd rather have more light out of the projector rather than more pixels. Have a smaller 240 screen at home, and it does work quite well. In both cases, you are usually able to see individual hairs on the heads of actors, or very minor make up defects. For full wall screens, there is also the paint solution (for example http://www.paintonscreen.com/) which a friend uses and which gives nice results. It could indeed be that in the near future a lot of people will have a full wall painted that way, and will learn to appreciate 4K, but for me, that would be on 300cm+ screens.

It could also be that when this is reality, people will compare aliasing in individual hairs of actors...
.
Logged

JonathanRimmel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
    • jonathanrimmel.com
Re: 4K...
« Reply #78 on: February 03, 2012, 10:59:23 am »

Perhaps when they come out with "real" definition or the same resolution as our eyes see, then I'll be happy.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
4K is probably overkill at home; 8K smells like a spec.-driven gimmick
« Reply #79 on: February 03, 2012, 11:25:32 am »

They are also working on the Ultra High Definition standard (which is around 33 MP) and with that coming down the pipe, bothering with 4K is just illogical. Why don't we just allow HD to mature and then switch to UHD when it is ready?
There is plenty of evidence in this thread that even 4K will barely be of benefit in the home, and it is almost certain that the next step from 4K to 8K will be a completely useless bandwidth hog for home viewing (even with 1984-style full wall displays.) Even in cinemas, Sony's data in arguing for 4K over 2K suggest that very few seats if any will be close enough to get a benefit from 8K over 4K: 8K smells like a spec.-driven gimmick, like 16MP sensors in tiny-sensor compacts with maximum apertures so small that diffraction overwhelms sensor resolution.

P. S. Waiting for the even better technology that will come some day is a great way to save money, because if done consistency, we would never upgrade. But it does not make sense for people who want to see an improvement in the short to medium term, not just in some technological afterlife.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up