4K...

[OldRoy]

Well, the format's new to me. In fact having retired from professional video before 1990 practically everything's new to me, apart from a few things that really bug me about current hardware. Like the ergonomics.

Every real current EFP/ENG camera I see still sits on the shoulder, as mine always did. But all these current pro-am (it'll have to do) devices are held out in front of the operator just as the crummy early consumer WobblyVision video cameras were. Why is this? I find it impossible to imagine that it's a comfortable way to operate. Of course I find the Heath Robinson jury rigs for shooting video with DSLRs, the lack of proper balanced audio facilities and the JelloVision pans pretty unacceptable too.

But there again I'm an old f@rt.
Roy

[Rob C]

Well, the format's new to me. In fact having retired from professional video before 1990 practically everything's new to me, apart from a few things that really bug me about current hardware. Like the ergonomics.

Every real current EFP/ENG camera I see still sits on the shoulder, as mine always did. But all these current pro-am (it'll have to do) devices are held out in front of the operator just as the crummy early consumer WobblyVision video cameras were. Why is this? I find it impossible to imagine that it's a comfortable way to operate. Of course I find the Heath Robinson jury rigs for shooting video with DSLRs, the lack of proper balanced audio facilities and the JelloVision pans pretty unacceptable too.

But there again I'm an old f@rt.Roy

That's the best kind!

Rob C

[BJL]

Sony has a white paper promoting its 4K projection systems
[Sony 4K propaganda](http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/files/mkt/digitalcinema/Why_4K_WP_Final.pdf)

The claim is roughly that customers sitting at a distance from the screen less than about twice the picture height will see the difference between 4K and the current 2K (or 1920x1080 HD) systems. Which for typical cinematic aspect ratios means sitting closer than the width of the screen. That document talso indicates that with current stadium-style seating, the front row seats might reach their limits at about 4K or 5K, thog that is not said directly, just implied by the fact that the front rows are a it less than one picture height from the screen.

My cynical guess: Sony will
- promote 4K for cinemas to attract customers because it looks better than their 1080p HD at home (from the front few rows),
- then promote 4K for home theater systems to attract customers who want the full 4K theatrical image quality,
- then try with 8K.

I suspect that screen flatness will become a major limitation ... which Sony or Samsung or such will happily address with something like jumbo OLED screens.

[dreed]

The claim is roughly that customers sitting at a distance from the screen less than about twice the picture height will see the difference between 4K and the current 2K (or 1920x1080 HD) systems. Which for typical cinematic aspect ratios means sitting closer than the width of the screen. That document also indicates that with current stadium-style seating, the front row seats might reach their limits at about 4K or 5K, tho that is not said directly, just implied by the fact that the front rows are a it less than one picture height from the screen.

The recommended viewing distance for "home theatre" from THX is such that you have a 30 degree field of vision filled by the TV.

That is substantially more than twice the picture height.

[BernardLanguillier]

The recommended viewing distance for "home theatre" from THX is such that you have a 30 degree field of vision filled by the TV.

That is substantially more than twice the picture height.

I would also say that most people sit at 3x the distance from the size of their TV or more.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

http://www.bythom.com/

Thom has been in pro video for many years, his points seem relevant.

Cheers,
Bernard

[barryfitzgerald]

There is one other problem I can see (well a few really)
As far as shooting on 4k equipment well that's not an issue (I'm sure digital production is already shot at this) Even film stock could do 4k without a problem. So it's not the production that is the issue here.

I see a big problem ahead and it's called "good enough"
When DVD came along most folks were pretty happy to give up the chewed tapes and VCR (though the recording ability lacking was a downer) but DVD was embraced by just about everyone. It's taken quite some time for folks to go from SD (standard def) TV's up to HD ones most have. Do we really think folks are now going to update to 4k type tv's in the same time-scale? I doubt it much longer I would think.

Enter Blu-ray and real HD (let's not forget DVD was a bit better than standard def and looks ok on higher def TV's not as good but decent) Blu-ray has not displaced DVD's for a few reasons. I'm sure most can't be bothered to update their collection to Blu-ray so there is a cost factor here too. Blu-ray will take longer to establish itself in the market and I would bet it probably won't be as popular as DVD (which will be around for a long time) Heck even the old compact disc is still in use they failed to kill that.

Remember the much touted DVD-Audio? Does it sound good? Yes it does and I know because I've DVD Audio capable equipment (well a good pc sound card) sounds fab cannot be denied. What happened? Complete flop? Why..well because everyone can play a CD almost nobody could play a DVD audio disc. Audio CD "good enough" for most.

Now there is an argument that things are changing and internet delivered content will "replace" discs and physical media. I'll agree that will increase a lot over time though I disagree physical discs are doomed they will still be around even if they're not as widely used. The chances of replacing Blu-ray with yet another format almost 0 for years if not longer. If you want to downstream 4k that's going to use a lot more bandwidth than most people have, heck I'd struggle to stream smoothly HD video let alone 4k.

So I see the problem pretty much similar to Blu-ray v DVD. DVD is good enough for most. HD is good enough for most people as well I can't see the consumer latching onto this it's too much, too soon and it took ages to go from SD to HD, making another step so soon is bubble fantasy at least as far as the end consumer is concerned regardless of how you intend to deliver it (via disc or internet) MP3 is still the most popular compressed audio format yet it's not the "best" one by far, it's "good enough"

Good enough is a killer for commercial companies they hate it, but it happens to be the consumer who decides on that one.

[BJL]

The recommended viewing distance for "home theatre" from THX is such that you have a 30 degree field of vision filled by the TV.

That is substantially more than twice the picture height.

Indeed, 30 degrees is about 3.45 picture heights. Once upon a time that was a design goal for TV, before HD and BluRay, but now for cinemas that is about what is used for the back rows, and I suspect that home theater will move towards larger viewing angles if and when 4K arrives in the living room, to better match the viewing angle in the front to middle rows of a cinema.

[Edit: rewritten from here; I had misread some of the Sony document.]

Sony's own evidence suggests that about the front half of the rows of a stadium seating cinema will get some benefit from going beyond 2K.

As to video cameras though: Sony's calculations are for full RGB at every pixel, so for Bayer CFA cameras like Red's, matching full 2K projection needs 3K to 4K recording, so dazzling even the front row customers might push even a bit beyond 4K projection, and maybe to 6K or 8K Bayer CFA capture.

[John Camp]

I really hate to get sweaty and dirty, so I've found that an HDTV and a cable subscription to Animal Planet have worked wonders for my wildlife photography. One problem, however, is the moire that can crop up when using a D3x on an HDTV picture; less resolution cures the moire problem, but make the wildlife shots, mmm, less *life-like.* I think 4K cameras and projection might well be the answer for us wildlife couchers; though I will say that the blur from low resolution screens has been of some benefit for the war couchers.

JC

[Alan Goldhammer]

http://www.bythom.com/

Thom has been in pro video for many years, his points seem relevant.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yes, and I think the big one is the lack of streaming capacity in the US for this format.  With more consumers going to streaming video, this is a huge barrier to overcome.

[michael]

Thom makes a lot of valid points. But, I can't say that agree with the idea that the limitation will be delivery.

Over the air broadcast will not be how we get 4K. Cable and fiber have the bandwidth needed. At first it will be a premium service, but it will happen.

Future proofing, as Thom puts it, is what it's all about. 4K won't be mainstream for a while, but I'll put money on its future 5 years from now over 3D.

[michael]

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

[feppe]

4k proponents are disconnected from reality if they think 4k will be useful at home, outside of movie theaters and conventions. This chart (main site down for SOPA protest) shows that 1080p is perfectly fine for standard viewing distances, which are around 3 meters (10 feet) for most people.

I have an 86" 1080p screen * viewed at 3 meters, and that's pretty damn big by home standards, and right at the sweet spot as defined by THX. Meaning that going for a significantly bigger screen at this distance would make it uncomfortable to watch. Even at that size I wouldn't get a benefit from anything larger than 1080p. Therefore 4k is overkill for anyone who doesn't have their own dedicated home theater room, or have some ginormous living room.

4k is a welcome move for movie theaters and I welcome it wholeheartedly, but home viewing will not be a driver of its adoption. In any case I hope that 4k (and 48/60fps) will be the future instead of 3d gimmickry.

* Rob, you can get a good 1080p projector for around 1000 EUR, and can go to 120" or even 150" if you so desire, as long as your viewing room is light controlled (heavy curtains and shades).

[hjulenissen]

I have an 86" 1080p screen * viewed at 3 meters, and that's pretty damn big by home standards, and right at the sweet spot as defined by THX. Meaning that going for a significantly bigger screen at this distance would make it uncomfortable to watch. Even at that size I wouldn't get a benefit from anything larger than 1080p. Therefore 4k is overkill for anyone who doesn't have their own dedicated home theater room, or have some ginormous living room.

4k could be equally warranted or not warranted in an iPad or at the cinema. The question is not about screen size, but screen size related to viewing distance. I.e. how many degrees of our field of vision is covered, or how large an angle does one pixel amount to (1 arcminute seems to be the accepted limit).

Standards seems to be "3 display heights" or "4 display heights", but it is unclear if this is only due to viewing strain from having too large an image, or viewing strain from having too low resolution.

In the extreme, I can imagine content producers making a "movie" that in practice is 50" diagonally at 1080p to be viewed at 2.5m, but the display is 200" or 500". The remaining screen estate (and resolution/bandwidth estate) could be used for supplementary visual cues, out-of-focus visual "environment" etc. Something similar is done with audio, I think.

-h

[Rob C]

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

Yes, Michael; but we're dying out. If today's young don't have the same tastes, why will they revert to our dreams later?

Rob C

[BJL]

I have an 86" 1080p screen * viewed at 3 meters, and that's pretty damn big by home standards, and right at the sweet spot as defined by THX. Meaning that going for a significantly bigger screen at this distance would make it uncomfortable to watch.

[Edit: what that calculator calls "recommended THX viewing distance" is in fact the recommended _maximum_ for the _back row_ of a cinema, not at all an optimum viewing distance recommendation.]

THX also recommends, for cinemas, a minimum viewing angle of 36 degrees in the back rows and so clearly a far larger angle for the front rows. So I doubt that the 30 degree recommendation for home theater systems is based on comfort -- it is more likely based on the fact that with current video resolutions 1920x1080 or lower, things get ugly (screen door/jaggies) if you get any closer than about 30 degrees, which is about twice screen width.

Still, I agree that 4K is, at least for now, for cinemas, and in the forseeable future will at most enter the home through high end home theater systems aimed at older, richer, less mobile customers. Maybe with advance downloading (as with iTunes movies) rather than live streaming or yet another physical delivery medium format.

Meanwhile, the next big thing for younger viewers is small things. The movie industry might have to start thinking specifically about how to enhance the movie experience on an iPad or jumbo Android phone, and how to make the legally purchased small screen experience better than the pirated alternatives.

[BernardLanguillier]

The movie industry might have to start thinking specifically about how to enhance the movie experience on an iPad or jumbo Android phone, and how to make the legally purchased small screen experience better than the pirated alternatives.

My view is that the best avenue of growth for the movie industry is... to make better movies.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dreed]

Future proofing, as Thom puts it, is what it's all about. 4K won't be mainstream for a while, but I'll put money on its future 5 years from now over 3D.

I agree completely.

In the last 12 months I was more or less forced to buy a 3D-capable TV because lesser models were missing features that I did want. I've no plans to ever watch 3D at home because it is completely at odds with how I watch the TV at home. I doubt that I'm the only one faced with that issue but yet my sale is counted as contributing towards the growth of the 3D market at home. Go figure.

[Rob C]

“My view is that the best avenue of growth for the movie industry is... to make better movies.

Cheers,
Bernard”


Better movies, but from whose point of view – who goes to them today, whose bums on seats?



“In the last 12 months I was more or less forced to buy a 3D-capable TV because lesser models were missing features that I did want. I've no plans to ever watch 3D at home because it is completely at odds with how I watch the TV at home. I doubt that I'm the only one faced with that issue but yet my sale is counted as contributing towards the growth of the 3D market at home. Go figure.”

   
Well, my new tv offers 3D, but though I would buy the specs, there’s what on offer without paying for yet more channels? I already have hundreds of the mothers and end up watching a maximum selection of around five, mainly BBC 4 and BBC HD, with Aljazeera for the news. The vast horde of ‘product’ is shit, and that’s the killer, not format choices.

Regarding the viewing statistics based on seating position: when I went to the movies, invariably only to the back seats, the movies were the last things I and anyone else in those seats were looking at. Yet another example of basing research figures on flawed data.

Rob C

[BJL]

Regarding the viewing statistics based on seating position: when I went to the movies, invariably only to the back seats, the movies were the last things I and anyone else in those seats were looking at. Yet another example of basing research figures on flawed data.

At the risk of taking a joke too seriously, the point obout those minimum viewing angles for the back row is that the viewing angle for those of us who actually watch the movie is _higher_ than 30 or 36 degrees. It is about 50 degrees in the middle of a modern "stadium seating" cinema, 60 degrees or more at the front. Which very roughly matches the concept of normal viewing distance for still images, being a distance about equal to image width. So for those of us who accept about 3000 to 4000 pixels on the long side being the threshhold of "good enough for almost everyone" with normal viewing of still images, 4K cinematic projection should likewise be comfortably "good enough", while current HD or 2K (in pixel counts, about 2MP) is not quite there yet --- for those of us who go to the cinema in order to watch the movie and choose our seats accordingly.